← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/6575/2020

Paras Mathur v. Badminton Association Of India

2020-09-17Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla2 pages

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6575/2020 PARAS MATHUR ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Paranjay Chopra, Adv.

versus BADMINTON ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sushil Dutt Salwan, Adv. with Mr.Arjun Garg, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 17.09.2020 This hearing has been held by video conferencing. CM 22985/2020(Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) 6575/2020 1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent to activate the account of the petitioner. 2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the account of the petitioner has been deactivated on the basis of a Report dated 19.09.2018 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), wherein it was observed that though one of the birth certificates of the petitioner is not genuine, there is no change in the date of birth as recorded therein. The petitioner has further relied upon the Medical Examination Report as also the Report of the Executive Magistrate, confirming the date of birth of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact, in the case of another sportsperson, where allegations were even of a false birth certificate

and misdeclaration of age, the respondent re-activated the account of such sportsperson.

3.

The learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on an advance notice, submits that the contents of the present petition shall be considered as a representation of the petitioner and a decision thereon shall be taken. 4.

The petition is disposed of directing the respondent to act in terms of its statement recorded hereinabove. It shall take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of two weeks. The same shall be communicated to the petitioner as well. The order passed by the respondent shall be without prejudice to the investigation that has been carried out by the CBI.

5.

In case the petitioner is aggrieved of the decision taken by the respondent, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 RN