Telangana HC Orders SIT Probe Into Hyderabad Cricket Association Irregularities

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has ordered the constitution of a special investigation team (SIT) to probe into longstanding allegations of mismanagement and financial irregularities in the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA). The court directed that the functioning of the HCA be placed under the supervision of former judge P. Naveen Rao, who will continue as a single member committee (SMC).

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka passed the orders on a writ petition filed by the Safilguda Cricket Club, represented by its president Chilumula Sanjeev Reddy, which alleged “continuing, recurring and systemic failures” in the functioning of the association.

Refusing to hand over the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the court directed the state to constitute a SIT headed by the officer in the rank of additional commissioner of police of the IPS cadre.

The court directed the SIT to register an appropriate case and undertake investigation into the allegations relating to the administrative, managerial and financial affairs of HCA. The SIT shall be at liberty to examine the material already on record, including the reports submitted by Justice Anil R. Dave (retd), Justice G.V. Seethapathy (retd), Justice Nisar Ahmed Kakru, Justice L. Nageswara Rao (retd), and Justice P. Naveen Rao (retd), and to collect such evidence as may emerge during investigation, in accordance with law.

The court directed all the authorities in custody or in control of relevant records, including state agencies and HCA office-bearers and employees, to extend full cooperation to the SIT and ensure expeditious transmission of all material necessary for effective investigation.

With regard to a prayer seeking a direction to the BCCI to take over the administration of HCA, the court was of the view that once it had ordered an SIT probe, further displacement of the existing administrative structure was not warranted at this stage and could be considered in future. Petitioners could approach the court at the appropriate time, Justice Bheemapaka said.

The court, after perusing multiple reports submitted by Justice Naveen Rao, noted a “disturbing state of affairs” within the association, highlighting a non-cooperative approach by its apex council, disorganised administration, and repeated obstruction in the discharge of supervisory responsibilities. The reports underscored that key recommendations aimed at improving cricket infrastructure and governance were ignored.

Despite administrative hurdles, the court acknowledged tangible improvements in cricketing performance under the supervision of Justice Naveen Rao. Over 1,500 matches were conducted across various levels during the year, and state teams registered notable success, winning two major national-level tournaments. The court observed that these developments demonstrated the positive impact of judicial supervision.

However, Justice Bheemapaka expressed concern over the alleged interference by vested interests within the apex council, which it said hindered further progress. It held that continued oversight was necessary, particularly in view of an ongoing investigation by the CID.

Accordingly, the court directed that the Apex Council of the HCA shall function strictly under the supervision of the single member committee (SMC). Justice Naveen Rao has been vested with wide-ranging powers over cricketing affairs, administration, and financial matters. These include conducting leagues, streamlining player selection, appointing coaches and staff, improving infrastructure, and initiating structural reforms.

In a stern warning, the court stated that any obstruction or deviation from its directions would be viewed seriously. It clarified that decisions taken by the SMC would be final and binding on all stakeholders, including office bearers, affiliated clubs, and officials, and could only be challenged before the High Court.

Taking note of prima facie violations of its orders, the court also initiated suo motu proceedings against two office-bearers of the HCA — joint secretary Thamidisetty Basava Raju and treasurer DrKonda Anil Kumar — for allegedly overreaching judicial directives. Notices in Form-1 to appear before the court were ordered to be issued to the two officials.

The court directed that Justice Naveen Rao would continue in his supervisory role until completion of the criminal investigation and subsequent proceedings. His monthly honorarium has been fixed at `5 lakh, with the association directed to provide necessary infrastructure and logistical support.

The scope of authority of SMC included conducting of men’s and women’s league matches for all divisions and categories; to streamline the process for the selection of players for zonal, state, and other representative teams; complete discretion to appoint coaches, selectors, support staff, and technical personnel and so also that of legal counsels to represent the HCA in various courts.

The SMC can also fix remuneration and lay down guidelines for selection of players to represent the state; regulate and supervise cricketing activities in the best interest of the game; formation or appointment of team/s or committee/s to support the SMC in carrying out its functions and fix their remuneration; and take all measures to improve infrastructure in the districts of the state.

The court directed that the HCA apex council shall obtain approval to all decisions and seek guidance from the SMC in all matters, and extend full cooperation to ensure smooth functioning and implementation of the court directions. The court made it clear that any interference, obstruction or deviation in the functioning by the SMC would be viewed very seriously.

The court clarified that any decision taken by the SMC in discharge of its duties and in accordance with the directions of the court shall be final and binding on the office-bearers, apex council, all affiliated clubs, officials, staff and stakeholders of the HCA. The also stated that such decisions shall not be challenged or questioned before any authority other than the High Court, which has constituted and empowered the SMC.

Additionally, the court allowed Justice Suresh Kumar Kait to continue as ombudsman and Justice K.C. Bhanu as ethics officer until completion of their respective tenures.

Kaleshwaram Project: High Court Stays ₹64 Cr Tax Claim Against MEIL

The Telangana High Court has granted interim relief to Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL) in a tax claim of `64 crore concerning works executed under the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation oroject (KLIS) and contracts with the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWS&SB).

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin directed that no coercive action be taken against the company, subject to MEIL depositing 10 per cent of the disputed tax demand with state tax authorities. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing after three weeks.

The dispute arose from an assessment by the state tax department, which imposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) at 18 per cent on services provided by MEIL for the period April 2021 to March 2022. The company had earlier paid GST at a concessional rate of 12 per cent, claiming eligibility under existing notifications applicable to services rendered to “local authorities.”

Challenging the demand, MEIL argued that the assessment was carried out under directives issued by the commissioner of state tax in February 2024, rather than through an independent application of mind by the assessing officer. The company contended that the showcause notice reproduced these instructions extensively and failed to consider its detailed response.

Senior counsel K. Vivek Reddy, appearing for MEIL, submitted that both the Kaleshwaram project entity and HMWS&SB qualified as local authorities, thereby attracting the lower GST rate. He also pointed to a prior audit by Central tax authorities covering overlapping periods, where objections to the 12 per cent rate were dropped after review.

MEIL argued that there were procedural lapses, stating that despite being informed of parallel proceedings by Central tax authorities, the State tax officer failed to follow prescribed coordination procedures and proceeded with the higher tax assessment.

Million March: High Court Quashes 2011 Agitation Cases Against KCR, KTR, and Harish Rao

The Telangana High Court has quashed the FIRs registered against BRS president and former chief minister K. Chandrashekar Rao and former ministers K.T. Rama Rao and T. Harish Rao for participating in the Million March on Tank Bund in 2011 during the statehood agitation.

Cases were registered against the three petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 382, 324 of the IPC for alleged rioting, theft and causing hurt, at CCS, Hyderabad for the incidents during the Million March on March 10, 2011, which was taken up for creation of the separate Telangana.

In the FIRs, Chandrashekar Rao, Rama Rao and Harish Rao were shown as Accused 2, 3 and 4 out of the 23 accused who were booked during the protest at 3.30 pm.