Madras High Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Challenging Handing Over of Sceptre to Widow  ||  Mad. HC: Merely Smelling Alcohol in Breath Not Sufficient Ground to Attribute Contributory Negligence  ||  Del. HC: Central Govt.’s Circular Banning Sale and Breeding of 'Dangerous & Ferocious Dogs' Quashed  ||  Calcutta High Court: Notice Preventing Forest Dwellers from Entering Forest Lands Set Aside  ||  Del. HC: Proceed. Under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act Can Continue Parallelly as They are Complimentary  ||  Ori. HC: Proper Infrastructure and Manpower Must be Provided by State to Forensic Labs  ||  Bom. HC: Trampoline Park in Lonavla Restrained from Using Trademark or Character of Mr. Bean  ||  Allahabad HC: In Execution Proceedings, Challenge Cannot be Made to Arbitral Award u/s 47 of CPC  ||  Mad. HC: Basic Structure of Consti. & Democracy Demolishes When Electors Gratified During Election  ||  Cal. HC: WB Government Directed to Finalise Minimum Wage of Tea Plantation Workers Within Six Weeks    

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.



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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved