Published: September 27, 2026 at 11:03 am
In a big boost to the beleaguered Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), BCCI Ombudsman and Ethics Officer Justice (retd) Arun Mishra dismissed the case filed against the HCA by Gourav Sharma seeking ‘disqualification’ of the state cricket body. The order also makes it clear that any complaint against a state cricket association should appropriately be “raised before the state Ombudsman or such other competent authority/forum as may be available in accordance with law”.
While dismissing the complaint, Justice Mishra, who is a former Supreme Court judge, said in his order dated September 26, 2026: “The grievances raised in the present complaint are of a similar character. We see no reason to adopt a different course in the present matter. The present complaint is disposed of.”
He, however, said the complainants could raise the matter before the HCA Ombudsman. “Accordingly, the complainants may pursue their grievances before the state Ombudsman of HCA and/or such other appropriate authority/form as may be available to them in accordance with law. All questions of all concerned are left open to be considered by the appropriate forum on their own merits and in accordance with law,” the BCCI Ombudsman noted.
Justice Mishra relied on the previous orders passed by the BCCI Ombudsman in cases of similar nature. “In this regard, it is pertinent to note that we have previously considered grievances of a similar nature concerning HCA and the administration and development of cricket within the state,” the order said.
Previous pleas too were dismissed by Ombudsman
The order highlighted the complaints previously raised by Agam Rao, Allipuram Venkateshwar Reddy and D Guruva Reddy and which were dismissed by the office of the Ombudsman.
Agam Rao had alleged inaction by the BCCI in respect to HCA’s failure to comply with BCCI directions, orders and recommendations. “It was held that compliance with BCCI directions concerning coaching, tournaments and infrastructure development was a matter for the concerned authorities of BCCI and, without commenting on the merits of the complaint, granted liberty to the complainant to approach the concerned authorities of BCCI,” the order noted.
BCCI announces Muthoot FinCorp Limited as title sponsor for India home cricket
In the Venkateswar Reddy case, the order said: “It was held that the issues raised were essentially policy issues which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, while granting liberty to approach the appropriate concerned authorities for redressal.”
Regarding the Guruva Reddy complaint, the order stated: “The complainant was consequently relegated to seek remedy before the state cricket association Ombudsman and to avail such other appropriate remedy before the Single Member Committee appointed by the High Court or the concerned administrative authorities as may be advised.”
Gourav had sought disqualification of HCA on grounds of non-compliance with BCCI
In the present case, Gourav Sharma had alleged ‘non-compliance by HCA with the Constitution of the BCCI’ and had sought, ‘among other reliefs, disqualification of HCA under Rule 3(b) and 3(c), compliance by HCA with the BCCI Constitution, and appointment of an observer to oversee such compliance’.
HCA’s CEO Imtiaz Khan questioned the maintainability of the complaint. It was submitted, inter alia, that the grievances raised pertain essentially to the internal administration, membership and functioning of the HCA and ought appropriately to be agitated before the state ombudsman or other competent authority.
HCA’s CEO Imtiaz Khan questioned the maintainability of the complaint. The HCA also stated that ‘substantially overlapping issues concerning the affairs and administration of HCA are already the subject matter of proceedings before the High Court for the state of Telangana in PIL 16 of 2017 and that a Single Member Committee is presently functioning pursuant to orders of the High Court’
The HCA also stated that ‘substantially overlapping issues concerning the affairs and administration of HCA are already the subject matter of proceedings before the High Court for the state of Telangana in PIL 16 of 2017 and that a Single Member Committee is presently functioning pursuant to orders of the High Court’.
Full membership to institutions and recreational clubs
The principal contention urged by the complainants was that HCA, being a full member of the BCCI, is required to comply with the BCCI Constitution. Particular reliance was placed upon paragraph 4 of the complaint which pleads: “We submit that under Rule 3(b) of the BCCI Constitution, institutional members are eligible for associate membership and are expressly disqualified for full membership. Despite this, the HCA has illegally granted full membership to institutional members and recreational clubs like Secunderabad Club and Fateh Maidan Club in direct violation of the BCCI Constitution.”
On this issue, the Ombudsman said: “It is, however, apparent that the allegations in paragraph 4 are directed, amongst others, against identified institutional and recreational clubs and question their entitlement to full membership and voting rights. None of the clubs or institutions whose membership and voting rights are questioned have been impleaded as parties to the present proceedings. No determination affecting their existing rights can appropriately be undertaken in their absence.”
Justice Mishra also noted: “It is also not in dispute that a state Ombudsman is presently functioning for HCA. Having regard to the nature of the grievances raised, particularly those concerning the membership, voting rights, internal administration and functioning of the state association, it is opined that such grievances may appropriately be raised before the state Ombudsman or such other competent authority/forum as may be available in accordance with law.
