GYMNASTICS FEDERATION OF INDIA vs PADMAJA GARIKIPATI AND ANOTHER & ANR.

$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07.05.2024

+ LPA 723/2023
GYMNASTICS FEDERATION OF INDIA ….. Appellant
Through: Mr Arvind Nayar, Sr Adv. with Mr
Mr Parth Goswami and Mr Akshay Kumar, Mr Akshay Joshi and Ms Mehreen Garg, Advs.
versus

PADMAJA GARIKIPATI AND ANOTHER & ANR….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.A. Iyer and Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. R. Balasubramanium, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC, Ms Akanksha Kumari, Mr. Kamal Digpaul and Ms. Ishita Pathak,
Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
CM Appl.55310, 55312/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
LPA 723/2023 & CM Appls.55311, 55313/2023
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in an interlocutory application numbered CM Appl. 49545/2023.
3. Mr Arvind Nayar, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, informs us that, via the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has stayed the notice dated 07.07.2022 concerning elections of the office bearers and members of the executive committee of the appellant i.e., Gymnastics Federation of India (GFI).
4. What is not in dispute is that the writ petition is coming up for hearing on 17.05.2024.
5. Mr Nayar states that the term of the executive committee ended on 04.11.2023 and that due to a resolution passed by the general body, the term has been extended till fresh elections are held.
5.1 In support of his statement, Mr Nayar has placed a hard copy of the affidavit dated 29.02.2024 before us, which has been filed in the writ petition.
6. On the other hand, Mr Rahul Mehra, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent no.1, says that the learned Single Judge has passed an interim order having accounted for the submissions forming part of the affidavit.
7. As far as we are concerned, we have no doubt that the learned Single Judge will look into this aspect of the matter while deciding the writ petition.
8. At this stage, Mr Nayar says that liberty be given to move an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for seeking variation of the order, in case the writ petition is not heard.
9. According to us, no such liberty is required.
10. If and when such an application is moved, the learned Single Judge will pass an appropriate order, albeit, in accordance with the law.
11. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
12. Consequently, the pending applications shall stand closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

AMIT BANSAL, J
MAY 7, 2024/PMC

LPA No.723/2023 Page 3 of 3