10 June 2024


High Court of Delhi

Nitendra Sharma vs. Union Of India & Ors.




A writ lies only when there is a right, and without a right, a writ is not maintainable

In present matter, aggrieved by the termination of the membership of the Petitioner by the Saket Sports Complex, the instant writ petition has been filed with the prayer for passing of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents No.1 and 2 to take corrosive action against the Respondent No. 3 and 4, for not following the guidelines of natural justice and providing the opportunity to the Petitioner for depositing the membership fees and restored the membership of the petitioner without any penalty charges. Further, to pass direction or order to the Respondent no. 3 and 4 for restoring the membership of petitioner without any penalty charges.

The Petitioner is a Member of the DDA Sports Complex, Saket, Delhi. All the Members of the Sports Complex had been duly informed about the non-payment/outstanding dues of subscription fee. It is apparent that, it was known to the Petitioner that he had not paid the subscription fees and his membership was liable to be terminated. It was the duty of the Petitioner to make payments of the subscription fees so as to ensure continuance of the same. There was no announcement from the Sports Complex for waiver of subscription fees owing to the closure of the facilities in light of the directions issued by the Government from time to time.

As laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur vs. Governing Body of Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif and Others, it is well settled that a writ lies only when there is a right, and without a right, a writ is not maintainable.

The termination of the membership to the Sports Complex of the Petitioner can only be attributed to the Petitioner's lackadaisical approach in clearing of subscription dues. It cannot be said that the Sports Complex has acted in an arbitrary manner in cancelling the membership of the Petitioner as the cancellation stems solely from the Petitioner's failure in paying of the subscription fees. The Petitioner has not been able to bring on record any material that can substantiate his contention that his membership has been terminated contrary to the Rules/By-laws of the Sports Complex. Further, there is no right vested in the Petitioner that could warrant him approaching this Court seeking a Mandamus to restore the same. If the Petitioner pays the subscription dues, the authorities will consider restoring the Petitioner's Membership to the Sports Complex. Petition dismissed.

Tags : Membership Termination Legality

Share :