Vinay Rao
On 15th June 2026, the Telangana High Court passed an order that every affiliated club of the Hyderabad Cricket Association should read carefully — and that HCA’s administration should reflect on with some humility. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, in Writ Petition No. 7163 of 2026, directed HCA to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum as development fund to each of its affiliated private clubs from 2017-18 onwards — Rs. 27 lakhs per club for nine years — within eight weeks. The order is welcome. The journey that made it necessary is instructive.
How It Came to This
HCA’s own General Body, at its 81st Annual General Meeting on 13th September 2015, unanimously resolved to pay Rs. 3 lakhs annually as the Cricket Development Fund to all private clubs. The money was paid for 2015-16 and 2016-17. Then it stopped. No explanation. No communication. No reversal. Just silence — for nine years.
Mahmood Cricket Club’s Secretary Imran Mahmood pursued the matter through every available channel. At the 86th Annual General Body Meeting in February 2024, he personally requested release of funds. The Chairperson assured cricket equipment would be provided. Nothing came. He approached HCA’s own Ombudsman, who passed a clear order on 7th May 2025 directing payment of Rs. 3 lakhs per year to each private club from 2017-18 onwards within eight weeks.
The order was not challenged. It was not complied with. Eight weeks became ten months.
Meanwhile, in February 2026, HCA issued six demand drafts aggregating to Rs. 68,73,19,584/- in favour of M/s Visaka Industries Limited pursuant to a commercial court order. The High Court noted this contrast pointedly — an association that could mobilise sixty-eight crores for a private commercial entity had not found three lakhs for its own clubs under a binding order of its own Ombudsman. The plea of want of funds was, in the Court’s own words, “hollow” and rejected. The Writ Petition was allowed.
Why Shouldn’t Imran Mahmood Be in the Apex Council?
It is worth pausing to appreciate what Imran Mahmood did. Pursuing a matter through the Ombudsman and then the High Court — against an association his own club depends on for affiliation and recognition — requires both conviction and patience. He did not agitate. He used the institutional mechanisms available, pursued them with persistence, and prevailed.
These are precisely the qualities the Apex Council needs. An administrator who understands affiliated clubs’ rights from lived experience, who knows the processes available to members, and who has demonstrated the ability to work within the system to achieve legitimate outcomes — that is a valuable perspective for any governance body.
The question is worth asking genuinely: why shouldn’t someone like Imran Mahmood be in the Apex Council? If he chooses to contest the next elections, the cricket community in Hyderabad would do well to consider his candidature seriously.
Private Clubs Only — What About Institutions and Districts?
The court order, the Ombudsman order, and the 81st AGM resolution all refer specifically to “private clubs.” The same resolution records that institutions receive “cricket material” — not cash. District associations find no mention at all.
This distinction deserves a direct question at the next General Body Meeting. Are institutions actually receiving their cricket material? Are district associations receiving any support? If the underlying rationale is cricket development across Telangana, the basis for differential treatment across affiliated categories is worth examining and addressing transparently.
Clubs That Changed Hands — Who Really Deserves the Arrears?
Here is a concern the court order does not address, but HCA must consider carefully.
Several affiliated clubs have seen their membership and management change multiple times over the nine years in question. In some cases, those running these clubs today bear no connection to those who were active in cricket during 2017-18. A lump sum payment for nine years flowing to current management — regardless of what happened during those years — raises a legitimate question of fairness.
This is not a reason to withhold funds the court has ordered. But before releasing nine years of arrears, should HCA not satisfy itself that the club as currently constituted bears reasonable continuity with the club that was affiliated and active during the relevant period? Clubs that have genuinely maintained cricket activity throughout deserve every rupee. Clubs that changed hands entirely or remained dormant present a different case — and HCA would be within its rights to examine this carefully before releasing the funds.
Development Fund or Dole? The Accountability Question
This is the most important question the court order leaves open — and it must be asked respectfully but clearly.
The 2015 resolution attached no conditions to the Rs. 3 lakh payment. No utilisation certificate. No framework for deployment. The result is a fixed annual entitlement to every affiliated private club regardless of whether it conducted tournaments, trained players, maintained a ground, or engaged in any cricket activity during the year. Over 200 clubs, Rs. 6 crores per year in current payments alone — with no accountability attached.
Shouldn’t clubs be required to produce records of the development activity they undertook — tournaments organised, players trained, equipment purchased, grounds maintained — to establish genuine eligibility? The court said pay. But can HCA, while fully complying with the order, prescribe a utilisation framework for future disbursements that ensures this money actually develops cricket?
There is another dimension worth raising. HCA’s tournament structure distinguishes between three-day, two-day, and one-day matches — formats that carry significantly different costs for participating clubs. A club conducting three-day cricket incurs far greater expense in ground preparation, player payments, and administration than one playing only one-day matches. Yet the development fund makes no such distinction — Rs. 3 lakhs flows equally to every private club regardless of the level or volume of cricket conducted. Should development support not reflect cricket activity? A tiered framework — higher support for clubs active in longer formats, proportionately less for limited-overs only — would be fairer, more effective, and would create a genuine incentive for clubs to invest in higher formats of the game.
And more directly, can a portion of this fund be directed toward the players within these clubs? Coaching, kit, tournament entry, junior development. At Rs. 3 lakhs per annum, the quantum is modest. Deployed deliberately toward players, it can make a real difference at the grassroots. Deployed with no accountability, it makes no difference to cricket at all.
Clubs that can demonstrate their players benefited from this fund deserve it without question. That demonstration should not be difficult for any club genuinely engaged in cricket. HCA should build that expectation into every future disbursement.
The Larger Reflection
The system worked. A club secretary pursued his rights through the proper channels, the Ombudsman upheld those rights, and when compliance was not forthcoming, the High Court stepped in and delivered. That is how institutional mechanisms are supposed to function — and it is to the credit of the process that they did.
HCA now has eight weeks and an opportunity. Not just to comply with the order — but to use this moment to build the accountability framework around the development fund that should have existed since 2015. To ensure the money reaches cricket. To examine the position of institutions and district associations. To ask whether clubs that changed hands or remained dormant during this period present a different case. And to establish, going forward, that a development fund must demonstrate development.
Imran Mahmood showed what is possible when a club knows its rights and pursues them with patience and integrity. That is a lesson worth more than twenty-seven lakhs.
