Disputes Over Disaffiliation Of State Golf Associations Can Be Referred To Arbitration Under Clause 66 Of IGU Rules: Meghalaya High Court

Facts

The present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner to challenge the letter dated 28.04.2025 issued by the IGU, whereby the affiliation accorded to the Petitioner society was withdrawn.

The ground for seeking invocation of writ jurisdiction is that firstly, IGU despite being an autonomous body, discharges public functions and is thus amenable to writ jurisdiction and secondly, the action in withdrawing the affiliation was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Issues

On the grounds raised by the parties, the Court first took up the issue of maintainability on four basic considerations –

i) Whether the Indian Golf Union is a public authority and performs public functions and is thus amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court

ii) Whether the impugned withdrawal of affiliation is a public function of the Golf Union

iii) Whether there exists any arbitrable dispute and

iv) Whether the impugned letter of dis-affiliation is arbitrary, illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Contentions

The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that IGU is the governing body for golf in India and is recognized as a National Sport Federation by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and performs State like functions in the absence of a legislative regime in the field of golf. It was further submitted that dis-affiliation by IGU impacts the governance and regulation of sports which is public function for all practical purposes.

It was further submitted that the action of disaffiliation is a regulatory and public function and not contractual, therefore though Rule 66 of the Memorandum of Association of the IGU provides for un resolved disputes be settled by an Arbitration Commission of the Indian Olympic Association, wherein all affiliated members of the IGU shall voluntarily surrender their rights of seeking redress in any court of law, the same shall not apply in the instant case.

It was argued that Rule 66 applies to unresolved disputes within an existing membership framework and the Petitioner already being dis-affiliated there was no live or subsisting dispute for the same to be arbitrable. It was further submitted that a dispute essentially arises when there is a claim and denial, whereas, the same does not exist in the present case as IGU unilaterally carried out the disaffiliation and the Petitioner was completely shunted out without any opportunity to repudiate the same.

The action of IGU in disaffiliating the Petitioner society was totally arbitrary and illegal the same being an exercise of the public functions of the IGU, thus calling for exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

The Counsel for the Respondents submitted that State Golf Associations who are affiliated to it and that any member of IGU is in a contractual relationship with the IGU with its byelaws being the contract. It was contended that the grant of affiliation and disaffiliation of a member, was purely contractual in nature and that in the instant case the Petitioner's society stood disaffiliated upon investigation and the report by the Governing Council of the IGU dated 26.04.2025.

The Counsel also stressed upon the availability of alternative remedy in terms of clause 66 of the byelaws of the IGU, and even if the dispute is not arbitrable as per the Petitioner, it would nonetheless have to pursue civil remedy by way of civil suit and not to seek relief by way of a writ petition.

Observations

The Court referred to various provisions of the IGU Rules and Regulations and observed that IGU had been vested with powers to grant affiliation and also to cancel such affiliation. Therefore, IGU exercised powers to control and regulate the sport as a National Body and thus performs public functions and will be amenable to writ jurisdiction.

On the aspect of whether there existed any arbitrable dispute, the Court referred to Clause 66 of the IGU Rules and Regulations which provides an alternative dispute resolution mechanism which binds the affiliated members of IGU. As to the Petitioner's contention that Regulation 66 refers to unresolved disputes, is contractual in nature and is limited to disputes that IGU has with its affiliates, the Court observed that recourse to arbitration is available and what needed to assessed was whether the dispute is arbitrable or not.

The Court referred to the case of N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Limited & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 379 whereby the Apex Court highlighted that between the parties there exist two contracts – the main contract containing the rights and obligations and the arbitration agreement which creates a binding obligation of the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration. In the instant case the arbitration clause would survive for determining the claims and counter-claims of the parties notwithstanding the fact that the affiliation has since been cancelled. The Court observed that the Petitioner would be bound by Regulation 66, IGU Rules and Regulations and the arbitral tribunal can rule on the question whether there exists an arbitrable dispute or not.

On the issue of the disaffiliation being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, from the perusal of the materials on record the Court concluded that all facts and circumstances clearly pointed to the violation of principles of natural justice by IGU in discharge of its public function and therefore even when the alternative remedy of arbitration is available to the Petitioners, relegating the parties to arbitration at this stage would defeat the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the Court admitted the writ petition and held that the parties would be heard afresh on merits.

Case Title – Meghalaya Golf Promoters Society v. Union of India

Case No. – WP(C) No. 154 of 2025

Appearance-

For Petitioner - Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv., Ms. K. Decruse, Adv., Ms. S. Khatun, Adv.

For Respondent - Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI, Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv. (For R 1), Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv., Ms. M. Hajong, Adv., Mr. H.R. Phalpher, Adv. (For R 2&3), Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Adv. (For R 4)

Date – 05.08.2025