The Telangana High Court (HC), in its order dated June 15, 2026, rapped the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) officials for their ‘selective implementation of judicial orders’. It asked the cricket body to clear the pending development dues of its clubs within eight weeks from the receipt of the order.
“Respondents are directed to implement and comply with the Order dated 07.05.2025 in its true letter and spirit, and to pay the development fund of Rs 3,00,000/- per annum from the financial year 2017-18 onwards, amounting to a total of Rs 27,00,000/- for the period from the financial year 2017-18 to the financial year 2025-26 to each of the private clubs of Respondent No. 1, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order,” says the 25-page order.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka found fault with the officials in ignoring the orders of the HCA Ethics Officer and Ombudsman regarding the payment of development funds, while diligently implementing a court order regarding the payment to Visaka Industries.
“It is not in dispute that on 04.02.2026 and 07.02.2026, Respondent No. 1 caused six Demand Drafts to be issued through Canara Bank, Dilsukhnagar Branch, Hyderabad, aggregating to Rs. 68,73,19,584/-, in favour of M/s Visaka Industries Limited. Respondent No. 1 itself, in paragraph 11 of the counter, admits the said payment, while explaining it as having been made pursuant to the Order dated 24.11.2025 of the Principal Special Court in CEP No. 22 of 2025.
“Whether the said payment was made under court compulsion or otherwise is not material for the present purpose. The material fact is that Respondent No. 1 was, in February 2026, in a position to mobilise and disburse a sum in excess of Rs 68 crore in favour of a private commercial entity, while contemporaneously withholding the comparatively modest sum of Rs 3,00,000/- per annum payable to petitioner under the binding order of its own Ombudsman, which had remained unimplemented for over nine months as on that date. The plea of want of funds raised by Respondent No. 1 before this Court is therefore, hollow and is rejected.
“…Tested on this anvil, the conduct of Respondent No. 1 in promptly disbursing Rs 68 crores in favour of a commercial entity while withholding the development fund payable to petitioner under a binding Order of its own Ombudsman is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the order says.
Mahmood CC alleged HCA neglected payment of club funds
The case was filed by Imran Mahmood, secretary of Mahmood Cricket Club and was pleaded by Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood.
Imran said the HCA had resolved at its AGM in 2015 that a development fund of Rs 3 lakh would be paid to all the affiliated clubs. After paying the clubs for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons, the HCA had without any valid reason failed to pay the development fund to the club.
Imran said that aggrieved by the inaction of the HCA officials, they had filed Case No.41 of 2025 before the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman (additional charge) of the HCA, who by order dated 7.5.2025, had ruled that the clubs were entitled to the payment.
“Having met the General Body Resolution dated 13.09.2015 held regards facts and circumstances the respondent is directed to implement its 81 Annual General Body Meeting at Item No.4 (b) and pay the development fee of Rs.3 lakhs per year to each of the private Club from 2017-18 onwards as expeditiously as possible within a period of 8 weeks,” the order of the Ombudsman said.
Imran stated that despite the Ombudsman’s order, the HCA officials had failed to pay the clubs their due.
HC rules Mahmood CC petition was maintainable
After detailed arguments and hearing both the parties, the High Court said that the writ petition filed by Mahmood Cricket Club was maintainable. “The principle that emerges from a conspectus of the aforesaid judgments is that Respondent No. 1 – Association discharges public functions; its actions and inactions are amenable to scrutiny under Article 226 and existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to the maintainability of a Writ Petition where the conduct complained of is in breach of the Rules and Regulations of Respondent No. 1,” Justice Bheemapaka ruled.
Justice Bheemapaka overruled the objections raised by the HCA counsel. The court said that the HCA had not disputed the Ombudsman’s order and therefore are bound to implement it. “It is not in dispute that the said Order has not been challenged by Respondent No. 1 before any forum, and the same has attained finality. It is also not in dispute that the period of eight weeks prescribed in the Order expired on or about 02.07.2025, and no payment has been made to petitioner pursuant to the said Order till date. It is trite that an order which has attained finality binds the party against whom it operates, and it is not open to such party to sit in appeal over the said order or to defer compliance therewith indefinitely,” the order stated.
Ombudsman order has to be implemented: HC
The court also rapped the HCA for saying that the issue of payment to clubs will be placed before the AGM for further action. “The case set up by Respondent No. 1 in the counter, as appearing in paragraphs 6 and 8 thereof, is that the question of payment of development fund for 2017-18 to 2024-25 will be placed before the General Body Meeting consisting of all full members of Hyderabad Cricket Association to take appropriate action, and the decision in that regard primarily depends upon the funds available with Respondent No. 1 and the funds to be received from the Board of Control for Cricket in India. The contention does not commend itself to this Court for the following reasons.
“First, the entitlement of the Full Members of Respondent No. I including Petitioner to the development fund of Rs 3,00,000/- per annum from the financial year 2017-18 onwards is not in the realm of fresh consideration. It has been judicially determined by the Hon’ble Ethics Officer and Ombudsman of Respondent No. 1, who is the constituted grievance redressal authority of the Association, by Order dated 07.05.2025. The Order is final and binding. To remit a settled entitlement for fresh consideration by the General Body is, in substance, to permit a subordinate body to revisit, modify or set aside the Order of the Ombudsman, which is not contemplated under the Rules and Regulations of the Respondent No. 1, and is impermissible in law. It is settled law that once an order is passed by the competent grievance redressal authority and has attained finality, the only legitimate course open to the body bound by such order is to implement the same or challenge it in a forum of superior jurisdiction.
Club dues should be paid irrespective of available funds
“Secondly, the qualification of ‘availability of funds’ and ‘depending upon the funds received from the Board of Control for Cricket in India’ relied upon by Respondent No. 1 is a qualification appended to the resolution of the 76th Annual General Meeting held on 22.08.2010, which granted Rs 1,00,000/- per annum. The resolution of the 81st Annual General Meeting dated 13.09.2015 at Item No. 4 Clause (b), upon which the Order of the Ombudsman is founded, contains no such qualification. The said resolution records that ‘for the future, development fund of (Rs) 3 lakh will be paid to all the private clubs and cricket material to institutions’ and the same was acknowledged and approved by the members. The conduct of Respondent No. 1 in paying the said amount without demur for the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17 is the best exposition of its own understanding that the said resolution was unconditional,” the court said.
Justice Bheemapaka also upheld the contention of Mahmood CC that the HCA was due to pay them Rs 27 lakh. “The Order of the Ombudsman dated 07.05.2025 directs payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- per year from 2017-18 onwards in terms, without exception or modification. Petitioner’s calculation, being Rs 3,00,000/- per annum for nine financial years from 2017-18 to 2025-26, totalling Rs. 27,00,000/-, flows arithmetically from the said Order. The objection of Respondent No. 1 is accordingly overruled.
“Suffice it to state that Respondent No. 1, being a body that discharges public functions, is bound to implement the Order dated 07.05.2025 passed by its own Hon’ble Ethics Officer and Ombudsman in true letter and spirit. The continued inaction of Respondents in implementing the said Order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and warrants issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,” the court ruled.
