Court allows Hyderabad to compete in Quaid Trophy

Hyderabad, Oct 14: The Hyderabad Division team would leave here for Gujranwala by Khyber Mail late on Thursday night to meet Gujranwala on Oct 16 in the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy after Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Circuit Bench, allowed it to participate in championship.

This fresh development followed an order, passed by a Division Bench of Sindh High Court comprising Mr Justice Syed Saeed Ashhad and Mr Justice Abdul Ghani Sheikh on Thursday withdrawing its Sept 15 order by virtue of which team of sub-committee for Hyderabad and was restrained from participating in any tournament.

The court withdrew that order when HDCA's counsel Allah Bachayo Soomro said his client had no objection to the team, selected by Sub-committee. Before passing the said order the court allotted 15-minutes to the two sides to arrive at a consensus on selection of the team but it could not take place as HDCA wanted captain of sub-committee's team Sajid Asghar, to be replaced with Abdul Waheed Rashid.

The bench heard the arguments of both the counsels in detail on Thursday. HDCA's counsel Allah Bachayo Soomro claimed that so far all the associations which were suspended, have moved the court while relying upon press clippings therefore the HDCA also relied on Press-clippings as to-date no order of suspension was served upon HDCA.

He said that things have been changed now and those who had suspended the HDCA were themselves not available now. He said that his client was a member of Pakistan Cricket Board and he had been attending meetings, called by the PCB in the past. He showed the card, issued to Yar Muhammad Solangi by the PCB and said that he had filed this petition because the president of HDCA was ailing. The court asked the counsel that how can the court grant him relief by passing an order of interim injunctions.

He contested the locus standi of Javed Nisar Channa, member sub-committee as he was himself a contemner in contempt application of HDCA adding neither he was a representative of PCB AD Hoc committee nor was he authorised to represent Ad-Hoc committee. He was of the view that the contemner has filed counter affidavits on behalf of all the other contemners though he had no right to file objections on the HDCA's main petition.

Mr Jhematmal Jethnanad, counsel for PCB's Ad-Hoc committee, said the HDCA is being looked after since long by an acting president and that it was not a registered body which is a necessary must for an association. He contended that the HDCA should have availed the remedy available to it under article 39 by filing an appeal against its suspension.

Defending locus standi of Javed Channa, he said that he was a nominee of PCB's Ad-Hoc committee as he had been appointed a member sub-committee for Hyderabad on August 5, 1999.

He asserted that as a result of high court's order, passed on sept 15, 5 cricketers of Hyderabad were deprived of playing different tournaments. He conceded before the court that a cricket association in the name of Hyderabad Division Cricket Association existed but some people have occupied it and were running its affairs in a haphazard way.

He drew the attention of the court to Paras 5, 6, 7 of HDCA's petition in which the petitioner itself admitted that its accounts had been frozen, it had been suspended and a sub-committee had been appointed to run cricket affairs. He informed the court that those who claimed to represent HDCA have not held elections so far and that the case of Karachi City Cricket Association was entirely different from that of HDCA's.

The court after hearing arguments maintained that in view of statement made by Allah Bachayo Soomro the order dated Sept 15, 1999 restraining the team selected by ad-hoc committee of respondents from participating in various tournaments stands withdrawn. The court, on sept 15, passed an order on the stay application (MA 1946/99) under Section 151 CPC.

Mr Jhematmal also drew the attention of the court to an order dated August 25 whereby respondents were directed not to take any further adverse action against petitioner. Upon which the court observed that restraining order/interim injunctions would not in any manner effect the respondents from sending the team selected by their sub-committee. The court also issued notice to HDCA on an application filed by lawyer Munir Chandio on behalf of one Shakeel Qureshi, praying the court to allow him to become intervener in the case.

The hearing on the contempt of court application M.A. 1948/99 filed by HDCA against six officials, including two sub-committee members, Javed Nisar Channa, Abdul Aziz, SDM City Suhail Rajput, match referee Naeem Ahmed and umpires, Islam Khan and Saleem Badar. This application pertains to a violation of court's order of August 25, 1999 when HDCA's team was not allowed, as per HDCA's claim, to play match against Mirpurkhas U-19 on September 7. On Wednesday HDCA's counsel had submitted three rejoinders to counter affidavits which were earlier filed by Javed Nisar Channa in response to the main petition and contempt of court application of HDCA.

In these rejoinders, the acting president had also disputed the locus standi of Javed Nisar Channa and had termed the allegations, levelled by Channa in counter affidavits as baseless. The HDCA officials said that HDCA was working in accordance with its constitution and was keeping proper accounts.