Through: None v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

1. There is no appearance on behalf of the applicant in this application, though it has been called out twice. Yesterday, too, this matter was called out twice and there was no appearance on behalf of the applicant.

2. We have perused the application and find that it is ex facie not maintainable.

3. The application has been filed by Petitioner 2 in WP (C) 4601/2013. The writ petition, in its turn, challenged elections to the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India[1] conducted in 2013. By judgment dated 3 August 2018, this Court held that the elections were invalid and appointed an Administrator to administer the affairs of the AKFI after removing Respondent 5 from the position of President of the AKFI.

4. The provocation for filing the present application is reflected in paras 4 to 6 of the application, which read thus:

5. Following these assertions, the applicant has sought clarification from this Court on various aspects which are enumerated in para 7 which reads, thus: “7. That the applicant, seeks permission from this Hon’ble Court to clarify the following: “AKFI” hereinafter a. Whether the contracts, agreements or arrangements entered into or made by Respondent No. 5 during her tenure as President of the AKFI are legally valid; b. Whether such contracts will continue to be enforced given that the position of Respondent No. 5 was declared invalid by this Hon’ble Court and; c. Whether AKFI is legally bound by the obligations and liabilities arising from these contracts.”

6. According to para 8 of the application, the aforesaid clarifications are required in order to avoid future legal complications and financial liabilities of the AKFI.

7. The application, as we have already observed, is, in fact, not maintainable in the writ petition.

8. The writ petition has already ruled on the challenge which was raised before the Court and appointed an Administrator to administer the affairs of the AKFI.

9. With the passing of the said order, this Court is rendered functus officio except if it is moved in review jurisdiction or for some clarification or modification emanating out of its judgment.

10. The Court cannot revive the proceedings and provide clarifications to avoid future legal complications. The issues highlighted in paras 4 to 6 of the present application are aspects which are outside the scope of the writ petition and may, without expressing any opinion thereon, constitute a fresh cause of action, should the applicant desire to pursue them.

11. We, therefore, decline to answer the queries raised in para 7 of the present application as, to our mind, they cannot be answered once the writ petition already stands disposed of.

12. This would not, however, preclude the applicant from ventilating the issues raised in this application by means of appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law.

13. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J