Vinay Rao
Hyderabad: HCA’s position has been vindicated. On 26 September 2026, the BCCI Ombudsman dismissed Complaint No. 22 of 2026 against HCA on exactly the ground HCA raised from day one — that the complaint never belonged before the BCCI Ombudsman. Had that objection been decided when first raised, on 10 August, none of the High Court litigation since would have been necessary. Same outcome, six weeks later.
The complaint
Mr. Gourav Sharma alleged HCA’s bye-laws illegally grant Full Membership to Institutional Members like Secunderabad Club and Fateh Maidan Club, who under BCCI’s Rule 3(b) qualify only for Associate Membership — inactive since 1995, he claimed, yet voting and enjoying full benefits. He sought HCA’s disqualification and a replacement administration, or compliance forced under an observer.
The detour through the High Court
HCA’s objection from the start: this was a State Association matter for the State Ombudsman, not BCCI’s, with a Single Member Committee already supervising HCA under the Telangana High Court in PIL 16/2017. Instead, the Ombudsman fixed a final hearing for 17 August without ruling on maintainability. HCA secured an ex parte stay of the proceedings (W.P. 27009/2026, 14 August); the complainants appealed that stay (W.A. 945/2026). On 3 September, a Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice himself vacated HCA’s stay — read at the time as a setback — but directed, pointedly, that maintainability be decided before the merits. That single direction produced today’s vindication.
Today’s order
The Ombudsman has now dismissed the complaint on three grounds: the named clubs were never made parties; PIL 16/2017 and the SMC already cover HCA’s administration; and such disputes belong before the State Ombudsman, not BCCI’s. This is not a one-off: three earlier, near-identical complaints against HCA — in September 2025, October 2025, and as recently as August 2026 — were disposed of on the very same footing.
A precedent, not just a dismissal
The order goes beyond HCA. It settles, for every State Association, that internal membership and governance disputes must first go before the State Ombudsman — not straight to BCCI’s. That makes this a precedent, not just a dismissal.
Credit where it’s due
Credit to Justice (Retd.) P. Naveen Rao, whose steady guidance of the Single Member Committee kept HCA’s position consistent throughout, and to HCA’s legal team, who held that line through two rounds in the High Court without wavering.
