JUDGMENT : Sathish Ninan, J. 1. The writ petitions from which these writ appeals arise, relate to the election held to the administration of “Kerala Hockey”, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 2. The National Sports Code, 2011, provides for recognition of National Sports Federations. There will be only one such Federation in each sport, having the recognition of the Government of India. In the sport of Hockey, “Hockey India” is such Federation. State Associations from the various states in the country get affiliation from such Federation. Such State Associations can seek recognition from the State Sports Council. The National Federation recognises only such players send with the approval of the Sports Council. The State Association is comprised of nominees from the District Associations. “Hockey Kerala” is an association recognized by the Kerala Sports Council and affiliated to “Hockey India”. 3. Formerly there was a State Association named “Hockey Kerala”. It was recognized by the Sports Council and was affiliated to “Hockey India”. One Mr.V.SunilKumar was its President. In the year 2014 (with effect from 30.06.2014) its recognition was withdrawn by Hockey India and the Sports Council on allegations of misappropriation of funds. It is in the meanwhile that the present association, “Kerala Hockey”, came into existence somewhere in August, 2014. 4. In October 2016, the then President of “Kerala Hockey” resigned. On 02.10.2016 a General Body meeting of “Kerala Hockey” was held, in which substantial amendments are alleged to have been made to the bye-laws of the Association. There is an allegation that the General Body was not properly convened and that the amendments to the bye laws were effected without complying with the required mandates. 5. On 09.07.2017, there was a general body meeting of “Kerala Hockey”. In the said meeting, elections were held to its Committee. Therein, the earlier mentioned Sri.V.SunilKumar was elected as the President. There is an allegation that there was no valid meeting and no proper election. 6. On 15.05.2022, the next election to the Committee of “Kerala Hockey” was conducted and Sri.V.SunilKumar was elected as the President. There is allegation that the meeting was not properly held and that there was no proper election. 7. Raising complaints against the amendment to the bye-laws and election, there were complaints from hockey players of various districts. 6. On 15.05.2022, the next election to the Committee of “Kerala Hockey” was conducted and Sri.V.SunilKumar was elected as the President. There is allegation that the meeting was not properly held and that there was no proper election. 7. Raising complaints against the amendment to the bye-laws and election, there were complaints from hockey players of various districts. This Court as per judgment dated 04.07.2023 in Writ Petition(C) No.21601/2023 directed the Sports Council to look into the complaints. 8. In the meantime a suit was instituted as OS 120/2023 before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad, challenging the amendment of the bye-law. The suit was subsequently withdrawn with leave to file a fresh suit, and OS 665/2025 has been filed before the same court, which is pending. 9. With respect to the conduct of election on 15.05.2022 and regarding the selection of players by the association, Writ Petition (C) Nos.31063/2022, 34913/2023, 37508/2023 and 37582/2023 were filed before this Court by interested persons. As per common judgment dated 16.11.2023, the writ petitions were disposed of. The directions in the judgment were essentially two fold – (a) granting liberty to the Sports Council to enquire into the elections, under the statutory scheme; and (b) the teams selected by the “Kerala Hockey” was allowed to participate in the National Championship. 10. Pursuant to the directions of this Court as above, the Sports Council constituted a three member enquiry committee. The Committee submitted its report dated 20.12.2023. In the report, the majority upheld the election, with a dissent by one member. On 02.07.2024, the standing committee of the Sports Council, in the light of the report of the Enquiry Committee, resolved to recognise the election held on 15.05.2022. Based on the same the Secretary of the Sports Council issued order dated 06.07.2024, that the election held to the Kerala Hockey on 15.05.2022 is recognised. 11. On 08.07.2024, the Secretary forwarded a copy of the order to the Government. This was followed by the complaint dated 04.10.2024, challenging the acceptability of the report recognising the election held on 15.05.2022. As per order dated 18.10.2024, the Government directed constitution of a three member committee of the Sports Council to enquire into the matter. The Committee submitted a report dated 11.12.2024. The Committee came to the following conclusions:- (a) That the amendment to the bye-laws made on 02.10.2016 was not in accordance with law. As per order dated 18.10.2024, the Government directed constitution of a three member committee of the Sports Council to enquire into the matter. The Committee submitted a report dated 11.12.2024. The Committee came to the following conclusions:- (a) That the amendment to the bye-laws made on 02.10.2016 was not in accordance with law. (b) That the elections held on 09.07.2017 was based on the amended bye-law. (c) Sri.SunilKumar was the President of Hockey Kerala at the time when its affiliation was canceled in the year 2014. The cancellation of affiliation was on the ground of financial irregularities. Section 31A(3) of the Kerala Sports Act casts ineligibility on the office bearers of such organisation from becoming office bearers of any sports organisation. The Committee recommended: - (a) Dissolution of the hockey association of which Sri.Sunil Kumar is the President. (b) Conduct of fresh election to the Kerala Hockey within three months as per the bye-law approved by the Sports Council. (c) Appointment of an adhoc committee to conduct election. (d) A technical committee is to be formed to cater to the rights and needs of the players till an elected body assumes office of the Kerala Hockey. 12. The Government accepted the report and issued Order dated 02.05.2025, accepting the recommendations. The Sports Council was directed to take necessary action for its implementation. 13. In W.P.(C) No.13077/2024, from which W.A. No.3001/2025 arises, the challenge is against the report dated 20.12.2023, the resolution of the Standing Committee of the Sports Council dated 02.07.2024, and the order of the Secretary of the Sports Council dated 06.07.2024 recognising the election held on 15.05.2022. W.A. No.3015/2025 arises from W.P.(C) No.18044/2025 wherein also identical challenge is raised. W.A. No.3138/2025 arises from W.P. (C) No.40327/2024, wherein the Government order dated 18.10.2024 constituting a three member committee to look into the complaints against the report dated 20.12.2023 is under challenge. W.A. No.517/2026 arise from W.P.(C) No.17066/2024 seeking a direction to the Sports Council to conduct championship till the disputes with regard to “Kerala Hockey” are settled. 14. The learned single Judge considered all the writ petitions together and disposed of the same as per common judgment dated 25.11.2025. It was held that, (i) The directions by the Government to dissolve the association is beyond the powers of the Council under the Sports Act. 14. The learned single Judge considered all the writ petitions together and disposed of the same as per common judgment dated 25.11.2025. It was held that, (i) The directions by the Government to dissolve the association is beyond the powers of the Council under the Sports Act. (ii) The direction to conduct election is a matter of an internal affair of “Kerala Hockey” which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and that a Committee constituted under the Sports Council could not be entrusted with the said task. (iii) The Sports Council cannot intervene in the election process of “Kerala Hockey”, it being ultra vires of its powers. (iv) The Sports Council will constitute a technical committee, to protect the rights, necessities and interests of hockey players in Kerala, till the Kerala Hockey or any other state level Hockey Sports Association is recognised by it. 15. We have heard Sri. E.K.Nandakumar(Sr.), Dr.K.P.Satheesan(Sr.), Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayanan (Sr.), Smt.Latha Anand, Sri.Thomas Abraham, Sri.Dinesh R. Shenoy, Sri.R.Renjith, Sri.P.Mohandas, Sri.Sunil V. Mohammed, Sri.Santhan V. Nair and Smt.R.Ranjanie, the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 16. W.A. No.3138/2025 is filed by the General Secretary of Kerala Hockey, and the other appeals are by Kerala Hockey. It is argued that the Government could not have directed the constitution of a further committee to enquire into the very same issue which was already enquired into by the Sports Council. There could not have been two parallel enquiries resulting in contradictory findings. The second report is bad in law; the principles of res judicata applies. The present finding of the learned Single Judge that the validity of the election cannot be gone into by the Sports Council is contrary to the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31063/2022 and connected writ petitions. It is also contended that, as against the report dated 20.12.2023 and the consequent orders accepting the election held on 15.05.2022, the remedy of the aggrieved was, to challenge the same before the appropriate forum and not to resort to a fresh proceeding before the Government. Further, referring to the subsequent report of the Committee dated 11.12.2024 it is argued that the enquiry was held on dictation by the Minister and hence is vitiated. It is also argued that the said report suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice since, the affected parties were not heard. Further, referring to the subsequent report of the Committee dated 11.12.2024 it is argued that the enquiry was held on dictation by the Minister and hence is vitiated. It is also argued that the said report suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice since, the affected parties were not heard. It is also argued that there could not be any disqualification under Section 31 (A)(3) of the Sports Act since the de-affiliation of Hockey Kerala was not under the said provisions but was under Rule 55(1) of the Sports Rules; the very Section was brought into the statute book only in the year 2016 while the de-affiliation was in the year 2014. 17. The following are the points of dispute between the parties awaiting resolution: - (i) Validity of the General Body meeting held on 02.10.2016 and the amendments made to the bye-laws in that meeting; (ii) Validity of the General Body meeting held on 15.05.2022 and the elections held on that date; (iii) Acceptability of the report dated 20.12.2023, and the resolution of the Standing Committee of the Sports Council and the order of the Secretary of the Sports Council, recognising the election held on 15.05.2022; (iv) Validity of the action of the Government in having called for a fresh report on the face of the report of the enquiry committee dated 20.12.2023; (v) Sustainability of the directions issued by the Government in its G.O. dated 06.07.2024. 18. Challenging the validity of the amendments made in the bye-laws, a suit is pending as OS.665/2025 before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad. As already noticed, the earlier suit was withdrawn with leave and the present suit has been instituted. One of the grounds on which the amendment is challenged is that, subject regarding amendment of bye-law was not included in the agenda of the meeting, when inclusion was mandatory as per the bye-laws of the Society. The Sports Council in its proceedings dated 14.12.2023, as per which a three member enquiry committee was constituted, noted that, clause 7(1)(b) and clause 7 sub clause (ii) of the bye-laws of the Society specifically mandated inclusion of such item in the agenda and the notice of the meeting. The Sports Council in its proceedings dated 14.12.2023, as per which a three member enquiry committee was constituted, noted that, clause 7(1)(b) and clause 7 sub clause (ii) of the bye-laws of the Society specifically mandated inclusion of such item in the agenda and the notice of the meeting. Except for noticing that no material has been placed before us indicating that amendment of bye-law was an item in the agenda, we do not deem it appropriate to delve further into the issue, in the light of the pending civil suit. 19. Now we come to the powers of the Sports Council to enquire into disputes regarding election to the association/society. Section 31 of the Sports Act deals with registration of sports organizations. (1A) prescribes the qualifications and conditions to be satisfied for registration. Among other conditions, it provide for existence of written bye-laws providing for election of office bearers, introduction of no-confidence motion against office bearers, the term of office of the office bearers, holding of General Body meetings and meetings for election and the requirement of an observer from the Sports Council for such meeting, provision for completion of accounts on the close of every financial year etc. A(1) empowers the Sports Council to suspend the recognition of Sports Organisation pending a complete and comprehensive enquiry into the irregularities mentioned under A(1) (a) to (i). The irregularities enumerated includes failure to conduct election as prescribed in the bye-law or serious lapses in the election process. It also includes financial irregularities. A(2) enables the Sports Council to withdraw the recognition of a Sports Organisation on the grounds enumerated thereunder. One of the irregularities included therein is, the failure to conduct election as per the bye-laws or serious lapses in the election process. It also includes financial irregularities. A(2) enables the Sports Council to withdraw the recognition of a Sports Organisation on the grounds enumerated thereunder. One of the irregularities included therein is, the failure to conduct election as per the bye-laws or serious lapses in the election process. (A) reads thus: - “ 31 A. Withdrawal or suspension of recognition of Sports Organizations :— (1) The State Sports Council may, if any of the following irregularities are found out in the activities of a recognized Sports Organization, until a complete and comprehensive enquiry is made, suspend the recognition of that Sports Organization, as an interim measure namely:- (a) If the Registrar of Societies or any other authority has initiated legal proceedings on the basis of accusation of misappropriation of fund; (b) If it fails in conducting election as prescribed in the bye-law of the organization or if serious lapses occur in the election process; (c) if it fails in submitting the audited annual accounts as prescribed; (d) if the funds are misappropriated or unauthorizedly re-appropriated; (e) if it fails in furnishing correct informations as and when demanded; (f) if continuous lapses occur in complying with the provisions stipulated in accepting the general funds including Governmental assistance; (g) if report of a statutory authority, alleging grave irregularities on the internal affairs of the organization is received; (h) in a situation in which any other grave irregularities are found out, in public interest; (i) if the affiliation of a State Organization is suspended by the National Association or Federation concerned; (2) The State Sports Council may, after giving the Sports Organization an opportunity of being heard, withdraw its recognition on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) Violation of the terms and conditions for recognition or of its bye-law; (b) if an irregularity under clauses (a),(b)(d),(f) and (g) specified in sub-section (1) regarding the functioning of the organization is confirmed on enquiry; (c) if the concerned National Association or Federation concerned has perpetually canceled the recognition or nullified the affiliation of the State Organization; (3) The office bearer of an organization, the recognition of which has been cancelled as per this section, shall not be eligible for becoming the office bearer of any other Sports Organization. (4) If the recognition of any organization is cancelled under the section, the State Sports Council may organize District Level and State Level competitions of athletic items concerned, in consultation with the Central Federation of such organization in the manner as may prescribed.” 20. From the above it is evident that, though the functioning of a Society is as per its bye-laws and election is its internal affair, the Sports Council has authority to enquire into the failure to conduct election as prescribed in the bye- laws or as to whether any serious lapses have occurred in the election process. Of course, the scope of such enquiry is limited for the purpose of withdrawal of recognition of such association by the Sports Council. Further, Section 31 A(1) gives the power to suspend the recognition of the Society and A(2) provides for withdrawal of recognition under various situations. 21. The enquiry conducted in the case at hand could only be one enabled under Section 31 A(1), which would lead to a proceeding for withdrawal of recognition under A(2) of the Sports Act. 22. Section 8(3) of the Sports Act empowers the Government to call for the records and resolutions from the State Sports Council. Section 8(2) requires the Sports Council to forward a copy of every resolution to the Government. It is accordingly that the resolution of the Sports Council, accepting the enquiry report was placed before the Government. It is pertinent to note that, at that time, complaints regarding the subject were before the Government, and it was accordingly that the matter gained a further consideration. Section 8(4) enables cancellation or modification of the resolutions, after hearing the Sports Council. The second report obtained by the Government can only be considered as continuation of the enquiry contemplated under Section 31 A(1) above, which would lead to a proceeding for withdrawal of recognition under A(2). 23. The appellants contended that the report submitted before the Government by the enquiry committee violated the principles of natural justice since they were not heard. We find that the said contention has no force. The report is only one obtained in an enquiry under Section 31 A(1). In terms of A(2), the affected has an opportunity of hearing as against the report as and when steps are taken based on the report, for withdrawal of recognition. We find that the said contention has no force. The report is only one obtained in an enquiry under Section 31 A(1). In terms of A(2), the affected has an opportunity of hearing as against the report as and when steps are taken based on the report, for withdrawal of recognition. Therefore the issue of violation of natural justice does not arise. 24. A contention is raised that the second enquiry report was obtained on dictation by the Minister for Sports, and hence is vitiated. However, we find no merit in the contention. While the report mentions that the Committee was formed as per the direction of the Minister, which is referred to as item (2) therein, evidently, item (2) is a Government Order dated 18.10.2024. The mentioning of it in the report as, ‘direction from the Minister’, is obviously a mistake. 25. In the case at hand there are allegations of serious irregularities in the selection process and in the conduct of election held on 15.05.2022. Even the report of the three member committee constituted by the Sports Council, which accepted the election with 2:1 majority, had noted that the General Body Meeting held on 02.12.2016, did not contain an agenda with regard to amendment of bye-laws. It was also noticed that clause 7(1)(b) and clause 7 sub clause (ii) of the bye-laws of the Society specifically mandated such item to be included in the agenda and the notice of the meeting, and that the meeting did not comply with these stipulations. 26. With regard to the ineligibility of Sri.SunilKumar under Section 31 A(3) of the Sports Act, while the committee reported that the withdrawal of affiliation was under Rule 55(1) of the Sports Rules and not under A and therefore the ineligibility under A(3) is not attracted, the second report held otherwise. It is not disputed that the withdrawal of affiliation of Hockey Kerala by Hockey India, upon which occurred derecognition by the Sports Council, was on the ground of financial irregularities. Though A(3) was brought in only in the year 2015, notably, financial irregularity is one of the grounds upon which ineligibility occurs under A(3). The second report finds him disqualified. 27. With regard to the meeting dated 15.05.2022, in which the election was held, the committee reported that approximately 40 persons participated but the observer was unable to ascertain whether they were district representatives. The second report finds him disqualified. 27. With regard to the meeting dated 15.05.2022, in which the election was held, the committee reported that approximately 40 persons participated but the observer was unable to ascertain whether they were district representatives. The Committee observed that the observer had given contradictory reports with regard to the validity of the election. The second enquiry committee held that the meeting was not properly held. 28. As noted earlier, the appellants would get a right to challenge the second enquiry report in the proceeding under Section 31 A(2). At that stage, all their contentions can be agitated. The order of the Government, dated 02.05.2025, in so far as it directed dissolution of the Society and to conduct election through an ad-hoc committee, were set aside by the learned Single Judge. There cannot be a direction for dissolution of the Society. The finding does not warrant any interference. Reckoning the directions by the Government, those contained in the impugned judgment and also the discussions made supra, the recognition of Kerala Hockey will stand suspended till culmination of a proceeding under A(2). The Sports Council is to initiate steps under A(2) without delay. 29. With regard to the constitution of an ad-hoc committee for conduct of election, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, it is not a matter falling within the purview of the Sports Council but, within the exclusive domain of the society. 30. The direction in the impugned judgment to appoint a technical committee is only a step to cater the needs of sports persons/students. The direction to the Sports Council to constitute a Technical Committee is justified in the light of the powers conferred on the Sports Council under the Sports Act, as hereunder: - “S. 5. Duties, powers and functions of the State Sports Council. The direction to the Sports Council to constitute a Technical Committee is justified in the light of the powers conferred on the Sports Council under the Sports Act, as hereunder: - “S. 5. Duties, powers and functions of the State Sports Council. — (1)xxxx (2)Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the State Sports Council shall have the following powers and functions, namely:- (a) to organize, co-ordinate, regulate and promote all types of sports in the State; xxxxx (d) to conduct or organize by the council itself or through District Sports council, Corporation Sports Council, Municipal Sports Council, or Village Sports Council or to ensure their participation, in tournaments, competitions, training courses, seminars, coaching centres, exhibitions, tours and other items which help in the promotion of sports and games in the State; xxxxx (i) to arrange or otherwise make provisions for conducting competitions in sports in the State at national, international, inter-state or local level and to arrange sports tours; xxxxx (q) to do any other act that may be conductive to the furtherance of the objects of this Act. S. 31 A(4). If the recognition of any organization is cancelled under the section, the State Sports Council may organize District level and State Level competitions of athletic items concerned, in consultation with the Central Federation of such organization in the manner as may be prescribed.” 31. The issues in the Writ Appeals are answered as above. The Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly, with the directions at paragraph 28 of the judgment. No costs.