2026:HHC:20016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1853 of 2024 Decided on: 26th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cycling Association of Himachal Pradesh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kotla Harshwardhan, Mr. Saurabh Ahluwalia and Ms. Gayatri Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondent No.2. Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That the writ petition may kindly be allowed and an appropriate writ, order, or direction, in the nature of mandamus, may kindly be issued, directing Respondent No.3/CFI to de-recognize both Respondent 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 2026:HHC:20016 No.4/HPCA and Respondent No.5/Him Cycling Association forthwith and with immediate effect as a state cycling association from Himachal Pradesh. (b) That an appropriate writ, order, or direction, in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing Respondent No.3/CFI to recognize the Petitioner as the state association for the sport of cycling from Himachal Pradesh in a reasonable, fair and unbiased manner. (c) That an appropriate writ, order, or direction may kindly be issued for the strict implementation of the Sports Code 2011 in the entire State of Himachal Pradesh across all sporting bodies.” 2. On 12.03.2024, while issuing notice in the writ petition, following interim directions were also issued:- “CWP No.1853 of 2024 Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Rajinder Thakur, learned CGC and Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and respondents No.4 and 5 respectively. They pray for and are granted two weeks’ time to file reply. Copy of the petition, if not already supplied, be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents, enabling them to file reply. List on 27.3.2024. CMP No.2617 of 2024 Notice in the aforesaid terms. Reply, if any, be filed on or before the next date of hearing. In the interim, it is ordered that trials scheduled to be held on 17th March 2024(Sunday) shall be held under the direct supervision of respondent No.3 Further to eliminate the element of bias, some official from Ministry of sports, Government of India, is also directed to remain present and in that regard communication to the Ministry shall be sent by Sh. Rajinder Thakur, learned CGC, so that on 17.03.2024 besides representative of Cycling Federation, one representative of the Ministry also remains present.” A preliminary objection taken by the respondents was noticed in the order dated 25.04.2025 3 2026:HHC:20016 passed in this writ petition to the effect that the petitioner had previously moved a writ petition on the same cause of action, but had withdrawn the same without taking any leave for filing a fresh petition on the same cause. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting attention to the decisions rendered in Cycling Association Himachal Pradesh (CAHP) Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 as also Cycling Association of H.P. Versus State of H.P. and ors.3, submitted that Cycling Association of H.P.3 was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as available to it in accordance with law. Pursuant to the liberty granted to the petitioner, it preferred a representation on 25.07.2023 (pages 621-627 of the paper book) to respondent No.3, inter alia, seeking consideration of its two prayers, viz. (i) Affiliation of petitioner with respondent No.3; and (ii) De-affiliation of respondent No.5-Him Cycling Association with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 vide its office communication dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure P-31) informed the petitioner of its representation having been turned down on the ground that respondent No.5 is an affiliated unit of 2 CWP No.605 of 2021, decided on 14.03.2022 3 CWP No.1226 of 2023, decided on 17.03.2023 4 2026:HHC:20016 respondent No.3 and continues to be the affiliated unit, therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered for affiliation with respondent No.3 as there can be only one affiliation of the eligible entity in terms of the applicable laws. Essentially, in the aforesaid background, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the stand taken by respondent No.3 as communicated in its office communication dated 17.08.2023, there is necessity for the petitioner to seek de-affiliation of respondent No.5 with respondent No.3. That the petitioner had raised several issues and grounds before respondent No.3 in its representation dated 25.07.2023 for de-affiliating respondent No.5 with respondent No.3, however, these grounds were not considered. That these issues were not delved into by respondent No.3 while rejecting petitioner’s representation under office communication dated 17.08.2023. That though in the aforesaid office communication, petitioner’s prayer for affiliation has been turned down by respondent No.3 on the ground of one body already being affiliated with respondent No.3, i.e. respondent No.5, but respondent No.5’s eligibility questioned by the petitioner has not been looked into. 5 2026:HHC:20016 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing in case it is permitted to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.3 once again, questioning the eligibility/entitlement of respondent No.5’s affiliation with respondent No.3, with further directions to respondent No.3/competent authority to consider and decide the same in accordance with law in a time bound schedule. The above prayer has not been opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 5. Having regard to above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter as also keeping in view the representation already made by the petitioner and the response of respondent No.3 dated 17.08.2023, it is deemed appropriate and in the interest of justice to dispose of this writ petition in light of above submissions. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.3 on the subject as noticed above within a period of six weeks, as prayed for by it. In case such a representation is so received by respondent No.3, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within eight weeks thereafter, after 6 2026:HHC:20016 affording an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders including the petitioner and respondent No.5. Copy of the order so passed, be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 26, 2026 Judge Mukesh