Our Special Correspondent
He signed it. It was addressed to him. He took it to court. But did the clubs ever agree to that?
A letter seeking a Special General Meeting (SGM) of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), signed by several affiliated clubs in June, has now raised disturbing questions about the conduct of the association’s office-bearers, particularly the club secretaries who collected and submitted signatures. What began as a request for a meeting to discuss bye-law amendments has apparently travelled much further — into the High Court, in the name of the very person to whom the original letter was addressed.
The Acting President, Sardar Daljeet Singh, signed the June 17 letter as signatory No. 8. He was also its addressee as President/Secretary. Yet, when the request was not acted upon, the matter eventually reached the High Court in his own name. Did the clubs authorise this legal course? Were the signatories consulted? Or were their signatures simply treated as a convenient instrument to pursue a course they had never approved?
Club secretaries must answer these questions. They are elected or authorised representatives, not proprietors of their clubs. Their first responsibility is to protect the interests of their members, not blindly endorse the decisions of HCA power centres.
Five months of silence
The chronology is revealing. The letter was dated June 17, seeking an SGM “at the earliest”. Nine clubs challenged the April judgment on the same day. The letter surfaced at HCA only in October, nearly four months later. On October 18, the Acting President proposed an SGM on ten days’ notice. On October 21, the Apex Council’s three-year term ended. On October 29, the High Court allowed the existing council to continue only as an interim arrangement under the Supervising Committee (SMC). By November, the SGM issue was before the High Court in the Acting President’s name.
Who kept the letter pending for four months? Why was an urgent request allowed to gather dust? More importantly, why did the President, who had signed it and was its addressee, not simply exercise the authority available to him under the bye-laws to direct the Secretary to convene the meeting?
What exactly did the clubs authorise?
The letter speaks of a single-point agenda: discussing and passing bye-law amendments. Yet not a single proposed amendment is attached. What were the club representatives expected to approve without knowing what was being proposed?
The discrepancies are equally troubling. The letter carries a June 17 date, but one signature is dated October 17. Signatures appear on separate sheets without a heading, date or accompanying text. The same club appears twice, two entries are struck out, one signature is qualified “for SGM only”, and one individual has signed on behalf of two different clubs.
Did every secretary show the complete letter to the club’s governing body before signing? Did members know what they were endorsing? Did anyone explain that the request could eventually become part of a court proceeding?
If not, this is not merely administrative carelessness. It raises serious questions about the basic responsibility of those entrusted with representing affiliated clubs.
Disqualified yesterday, signatories today!
Perhaps the most serious contradiction concerns the 57 clubs disqualified in 2025. Minutes of the Apex Council meeting chaired by Daljeet Singh on July 18, 2025, record that these clubs were not permitted to attend the adjourned AGM, based on legal advice. The minutes bear the signatures of Singh, Joint Secretary T. Basava Raju and Councillor Sunil Kumar Agarwal.
Yet, less than a year later, the same three names appear on the SGM letter, alongside 32 of those 57 disqualified clubs.
The restriction — one term of office-bearers or three years, whichever is higher — was still operative when the letter was dated, when it reached HCA and when it was forwarded to the SMC. No order lifting that restriction has been shown.
What changed? Was fresh legal advice obtained? Who gave it? Why has it not been disclosed to the members? And did the other signatory clubs know that 32 disqualified clubs were being counted alongside them?
Our examination of the list against the 2026 voters’ list suggests that fewer than half of the 106 entries satisfy every verification check. Without the disputed entries, does the request even meet the one-third membership requirement under the bye-laws?
These are not minor technicalities that club secretaries can conveniently brush aside.
Bye-laws are not optional
HCA’s Rule 9 provides a clear procedure. The Secretary convenes an SGM with the President’s concurrence. The business must be specifically stated, 21 days’ notice is mandatory, and if the Secretary fails to act within 30 days, members themselves can convene the meeting under Rule 9(2).
Rule 44 specifies that HCA sues and is sued in the Secretary’s name, while disputes between members and HCA are covered by the Ombudsman mechanism under Rule 41.
Were these procedures exhausted? Was the Secretary formally directed to act? Were the proposed amendments circulated? Was the Ombudsman approached? Why was a ten-day notice proposed when the bye-laws stipulate 21 days?
Those who demand transparency and democratic functioning cannot selectively ignore the very rules that guarantee them.
Secretaries cannot escape accountability
The bigger issue is the conduct of club secretaries. Some appear to have signed without ensuring that their clubs understood the implications. Others must explain whether they had proper authorisation from their respective governing bodies. If signatures were collected casually, without adequate documentation or disclosure, the secretaries cannot wash their hands of responsibility.
A club’s name is not a personal calling card. Its signature is not private property. Nor can an office-bearer convert a request for an internal meeting into authorisation for litigation without the knowledge and consent of the members concerned.
The 2023 Supreme Court-mandated restrictions also carry serious consequences, including possible expulsion where the rule against one family controlling multiple clubs is breached. Should innocent members bear the consequences of decisions made by their representatives?
Seven questions demand answers
Who authorised the use of the signatures in the court proceedings? Who held the letter for four months? Why did the President not direct the Secretary to convene the SGM? Why was an October signature added to a June letter? What amendments were clubs asked to pass? Who collected signatures from disqualified clubs? And what changed between the July 2025 legal opinion and the June 2026 exercise?
HCA needs comprehensive bye-law reform. But reform cannot be pursued through questionable procedures, selective interpretations or the convenient use of club signatures.
The Acting President should explain the entire exercise to every signatory. Club secretaries should disclose the authorisations they obtained and clarify whether their members were informed of the subsequent legal action. The court-ordered membership verification must be completed before any properly constituted SGM is convened, with proposed amendments circulated in advance and the mandatory 21-day notice respected.
The message to club secretaries is simple: Stop treating your clubs as personal fiefdoms. You hold their mandate in trust; you do not own it.
The clubs signed a request for a meeting. They did not necessarily sign up for a court battle. And if their trust has been misused, those responsible must answer — not hide behind the signatures of the very clubs they were supposed to represent.
These questions are based on the SGM letter, available HCA records and bye-law provisions. They are not findings of wrongdoing. The matter is before the High Court, and nothing herein anticipates its decision.
