Ker. HC: No Member of Hindu Public Can Claim to Perform Services That Only Archakas Can Perform  ||  Bom HC: Emp. to Ensure That Minor Mistakes Due to Candidate’s Disability Shouldn’t Lead to Job Loss  ||  SC Criticises Centre For Not Specifying Range of Rates For Treatment in Pvt. Hospitals & Clinics  ||  Supreme Court: Stay Orders of High Court on Trials Not to Get Vacated Automatically  ||  Supreme Court: Can’t Apply TDS to Business Undertakings Where Assessee Not Paying Income  ||  Kerala HC: Can’t File HC Petition For Same Detention Order Even on Raising New Grounds  ||  Del HC: No Restraint in Grant of Bail Under S. 37 of NDPS Act For Undue Delay in Completion of Trial  ||  Gau. HC: Conviction Under Section 489B of Indian Penal Code Set Aside For Lack of Mens Rea  ||  Mad. HC: Jail is The Rule And Bail an Exception Under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act  ||  Mad. HC: Jail is The Rule And Bail an Exception Under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act    

Prasanta Karmarkar vs Paralympic Committee of India through Its Chairman & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:8337) - (High Court of Delhi) (20 Nov 2023)

Writ Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution can interfere in the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee, only if, the same are contrary to law.

MANU/DE/7737/2023

Constitution

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order passed by Paralympic Committee suspending the Petitioner from participating and him being sponsored in any sports event organized by the Paralympic Committee for a period of three years. The committee further recommended Haryana Sports Department to initiate strict disciplinary actions against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner was a coach in the XVI Para Swimming Championship and allegations were made against him that he asked one of his associates to take pictures of female swimmers during the event and continued to do so, even after, objection by the parents. The Petitioner also misbehaved with the Chairman of the Paralympic Committee when he was called for explanation of his act. A show cause notice was issued against the Petitioner to which he replied by denying all the allegations and was further called for personal hearing by the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee passed the impugned order.

It is well settled that when a statute/bye-law/law gives discretion of administration to any authority to take a decision then the scope of interference by writ courts remains limited. Writ Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee, if such, decisions are contrary to law or the decision has been taken without proper consideration of relevant facts.

The Court found that not only did the Petitioner took pictures of the female swimmers but also misbehaved and abused the Chairman and officials of the Paralympic Committee and gave interviews that brought down the interests of the Committee. Therefore, the Court refused to interfere with the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and stated that such decision cannot be said to be unfair or unreasonable. Petition Dismissed.

Tags : WRIT JURISDICTION   WRIT COURT   PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE   ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved