Set back for HCA, Telangana HC sets aside crucial appointments

In yet another serious setback to the top brass of Hyderabad Cricket Association, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of Telangana High Court has set
aside the appointments including that of former India cricketer B.K. Venkatesh Prasad as Consultant for Cricket Operations and Game Development (HCA)

Hyderabad: In yet another serious setback to the top brass of Hyderabad Cricket Association, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of Telangana High Court has set
aside the appointments including that of former India cricketer B.K. Venkatesh Prasad as Consultant for Cricket Operations and Game Development (HCA).

This order was passed by the Justice after petitioners who included HCA vice-president Sardar Daljeet Singh, joint secretary T. Basava Raju, R.A. Swaroop and Vanka Roma Singh, ICA male and female representatives on HCA Apex Council , contended in a writ petition that the appointments were in violation of the rules and regulations
of the HCA.

And more importantly, the Order stated since the Respondent 2 (HCA) is discharging public functions and public funds are used and involved in day to day administration, amounts paid towards honorarium of Respondent No. 7 to 16 (who included which included Venkatesh Prasad, Himani Yadav, Mamata Kanojia, Arjun Hoysala, Sabyasaachi, Rajshekar Shanbal, Hyderabad Ranji coach Vineet Saxena, Shravanti Naidu, B.R. Suvarna Laxmi) shall be recovered from Respondents

No. 3 to 6 (HCA President, Secretary, Treasurer and the CEO), from their personal accounts and not from the account of the HCA (Respondent 2).

“On 30.08.2024, an agreement was entered into between HCA and Venkatesh Prasad appointing him as a consultant for cricket operations and game development, with a remuneration of Rs.75,00,000/- per annum, without consultation with the Apex Council,” the petitioners contended.

“This unilateral action violates the provisions of HCA Memorandum and amounts to breach of fiduciary duty by respondents, as they are illegally executing appointment contracts without consulting or obtaining approval from the Apex Council,” the petitioners argued.

Justice Nagesh in his Order (dated May 2, 2025) stated that the Court is not finding fault with the respondents including Venkatesh Prasad in accepting their respective appointments on behalf of the HCA but that the fact remains that the said appointments made on behalf of the HCA are not in accordance with the rules and regulations.

“Thus, though this Court is sympathetic towards the respondents but cannot allow their respective appointments to continue having considered the Rules and Regulations of the HCA which is discharging public functions,” the Order stated.

“The appointments of respondents Respondents 7 to 16, are made unilaterally more so without any power and authority under the Rules and are made without consulting the Apex Council Members and are in direct contravention of the Rules and Regulations of Respondent HCA which mandate to ensure collective governance, strategic oversight and distribution of authority,” the Order stated.

“Other issues that are raised in writ affidavit and in the counter affidavit are not necessary to be dealt with more specifically with regard to appointment of Ombudsman.

The Writ Petition is allowed and appointments of Respondents 7 to 16 are set aside,” the Order stated.

“The Respondents 7 to 16 are entitled for their respective honorarium as per their entitlements till this day only for the services rendered. From today, Respondents 7 to 16 are not entitled for any honorarium nor the Respondents including HCA President, Secretary, Treasurer, the Chief Executive Officer are entitled to avail their respective services,” the Order mentioned.