1. The present Writ Petition is filed by Petitioner represented by his father and natural guardian. Petitioner, aged about 17 years, is aggrieved by the action of Respondents, more particularly Respondents 3 to 8, in arbitrarily and unilaterally excluding him from Hyderabad Under-19 Team selected for participation in the BCCI Men's U-19 Vinoo Mankad Knock-Out Tournament, 2025.

2. The grievance of Petitioner is that despite having been duly and validly selected by the Junior Selection Committee of the Hyderabad Cricket Association, and despite his name having been officially published on the Hyderabad Cricket Association's website on 22.10.2025 and in the Deccan Chronicle Newspaper dated 23.10.2025, petitioner was orally informed through a late-night Whats App call on 23.10.2025 that he had been excluded from the team, without issuance of any written order, notice, reasons or opportunity of hearing. It is contended that such exclusion is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the orders of this Court dated 25.07.2025 passed in IA. No. 1 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 21904 of 2025, under which Hyderabad Cricket Association and its Apex Council were directed to function only under the supervision and consultation of the Hon'ble One-Man Supervisory Committee.

               2.1. The case of petitioner is that he is a registered player of HCA and has been continuously associated with the said Association for a period of more than eight years. During this entire period, he has regularly and consistently participated in tournaments, league matches, and competitions conducted under the aegis of Hyderabad Cricket Association as well as the Board of Control for Cricket in India. From his young age, Petitioner pursued the sport with discipline, dedication and commitment and his conduct both on and off the field has remained impeccable, earning him recognition among selectors, coaches, and fellow players.

               2.2. It is asserted that Petitioner represented Hyderabad in several age-group categories purely on merit. During 2022-23 season, he captained Hyderabad Cricket Association Under-14 Team in Sri P. Krishna Murthy Trophy, a prestigious age-group tournament, where he demonstrated exceptional leadership qualities, composure and all-round cricketing ability. In the subsequent season, namely 2023-24, he was selected to represent Hyderabad Under-16 Team in Vijay Merchant Trophy, one of the premier BCCI age-group tournaments. Owing to these consistent performances, discipline and evident potential, he was selected in year 2024 by the National Cricket Academy, which functions under the supervision of the Board of Control for Cricket in India and admits only the most promising young cricketers across the country. Petitioner relies upon the fact that his son has been officially registered with the BCCI under Player ID No. 25290 and had participated in several BCCI-sanctioned tournaments after undergoing the prescribed verification and eligibility processes.

               2.3. It is further contended that on 04.11.2024, Petitioner received a communication conveying that a two-year ban had been imposed upon his son, purportedly by the Hyderabad Cricket Association and the Board of Control for Cricket in India, without issuance of any prior notice, explanation or opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by the said action, Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P. No. 34249 of 2024. By the interim order dated 23.12.2024, this Court directed that Petitioner undergo a second TW-3 bone age assessment. In compliance with the said order, Petitioner underwent the TW-3 test on 25.01.2025 in the presence of the BCCI observer, Mr. Vikas Pandit, and Hyderabad Cricket Association representative, Mr. Phani Kumar. According to petitioner, the said TW-3 test confirmed that he fell within the permissible age group. Thereafter, by final order dated 28.03.2025, this Court permitted him to submit a fresh representation along with all the supporting documents and directed Hyderabad Cricket Association to reconsider the matter strictly in accordance with the BCCI guidelines and the judicial precedents referred to therein.

               2.4. Petitioner asserts that pursuant to the said directions and upon consideration of the representation, the Association revoked the ban and permitted him to resume participation in tournaments conducted under the aegis of the said Association and the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Following such revocation, Petitioner actively participated in Hyderabad Cricket Association Two-Day League Matches during 2025 season, representing Sai Satya Cricket Club. In the match held on 29.07.2025 against Beema Club, he delivered an effective bowling spell and took three crucial wickets. In the subsequent match on 02.08.2025 against Imperial Club, he took two wickets and also scored 58 runs, stabilising his team's innings during a critical phase. In the match played on 06.08.2025 against Telangana Club, he again claimed two wickets while maintaining disciplined bowling. Thereafter, in the fixture held on 02.09.2025 against Hyderabad Blues, he delivered one of his best performances of the season by taking four wickets and emerging as the leading bowler for his team in that match. On account of his consistent all-round performances and leadership qualities, he was appointed as the Vice-Captain of Team Brown for the U-19 Vinoo Mankad Probables, 2025.

               2.5. Petitioner further places reliance on the fact that his performances were publicly acknowledged in Deccan Chronicle Newspaper dated 13.09.2025, which reported that he had taken six wickets and emerged as one of the top-performing players among U-19 Vinoo Mankad Probables. It is contended that thereafter, Petitioner's son was selected to represent the Hyderabad Cricket Association in BCCI Men's U-19 Vinoo Mankad Trophy Elite stage held at Dehradun in October 2025. In the match played on 09.10.2025 against Karnataka at Ayush Cricket Academy Ground-1, Dehradun, he scored 15 runs off 16 balls with two boundaries and bowled six overs conceding 50 runs while taking two wickets. In the match held on 11.10.2025 against Tripura Cricket Association at Abhimanyu Cricket Academy, he bowled five overs, conceded 26 runs, and took one wicket at an economy rate of 5.20. In the third match on 13.10.2025 against Chhattisgarh, he bowled eight overs, conceded 36 runs, and took one wicket with an economy rate of 4:50. In the match against Chandigarh on 15.10.2025, he contributed 5 runs with the bat and bowled six overs conceding 25 runs while taking two wickets at an economy rate of 4.17. In the final league match against Himachal Pradesh on 17.10.2025, he bowled two overs conceding 18 runs. The Petitioner asserts that his son participated in all league stage matches and that his performances were appreciated by the coaches, selectors, and team management.

               2.6. It is contended that in recognition of these performances, the Junior Selection Committee of the Hyderabad Cricket Association unanimously selected Petitioner for Hyderabad Under-19 Team for the Quarter-Final stage of the BCCI Men's U-19 Vinoo Mankad Knock-Out Tournament scheduled to be held at Rajkot, where the Hyderabad team was to play against Karnataka on 28.10.2025. The official team list confirming his selection was published on Hyderabad Cricket Association's website on 22.10.2025 and in the Deccan Chronicle dated 23.10.2025 and an official BCCI Player ID card for 2025-26 domestic season was also issued to him.

               2.7. Petitioner states that despite such official and public notification, on the night of 23.10.2025 at around 21:27 hours, his father received a Whats App call from the Team Manager, Mr. Rahul Srivastava, orally informing him that his son had been excluded from the team on the instructions of the Apex Council of the Hyderabad Cricket Association. No written order, notice or explanation was furnished. It is emphasized that boarding passes for travel to Rajkot were issued to all the other selected players in advance, whereas no boarding pass was issued to Petitioner even prior to the oral intimation, thereby indicating that the decision to exclude him had been taken in advance and implemented clandestinely.

               2.8. Petitioner further contends that under the Rules and Regulations of the Association and the governance framework mandated by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the Selection Committee is an independent body whose decisions cannot be interfered by the Apex Council. It is asserted that the Apex Council has no authority to unilaterally alter or nullify selections once made by the Selection Committee, and that any such interference amounts to violation of the established selection process. It is further contended that the impugned action was taken in direct violation of the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by this Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 21904 of 2025, whereby Hon'ble Sri Justice Naveen Rao (Retd.) was appointed to supervise the functioning of the Association and it was mandated that the Apex Council shall function only in consultation with the Supervisory Authority. Admittedly, no such consultation or approval was obtained prior to excluding Petitioner.

               2.9. Petitioner states that the impugned exclusion is arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and had caused grave and irreparable harm to career, reputation, and future prospects of his son, apart from inflicting severe mental distress and humiliation.

3. In the counter filed on behalf of the Hyderabad Cricket Association, the Interim Chief Executive Officer denied all the allegations made in the Writ Petition and contended that Writ Petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law. It is stated that Petitioner suppressed material facts and approached this Court on an incorrect and misleading factual matrix, thereby disentitling himself to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

               3.1. At the outset, it is contended that Petitioner was banned by the Board of Control for Cricket in India by order dated 13.11.2024, pursuant to a Police Enquiry Report dated 04.11.2024, which concluded that birth certificates submitted by Petitioner and five other players were fabricated and could not be relied upon for determining eligibility. The said ban was imposed for two years with effect from 04.11.2024 to 03.11.2026, restraining Petitioner from participating in all tournaments conducted by the BCCI as well as State Associations, including the Hyderabad Cricket Association. According to Respondents, the said ban continues to remain valid, subsisting, and operative as on date.

               3.2. It is also stated, Petitioner challenged the ban by filing Writ Petition No. 34249 of 2024. This Court, by order dated 28.03.2025, disposed of the said writ petition without entering into the merits of the controversy and merely permitted him to submit an Application to the Association seeking reconsideration of the ban, with a direction to the Association to consider the same in accordance with BCCI guidelines and judicial precedents. It is contended that the said order did not set aside, suspend or stay the ban imposed by the BCCI, and that the ban continued to operate until a final decision was taken on the reconsideration application.

               3.3. It is asserted that pursuant to the said order, petitioner submitted the Application dated 05.07.2025 to the Association seeking reconsideration of the ban, after a lapse of nearly three months. The said Application was pending consideration and that, in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court, the Association issued notice dated 28.10.2025 proposing to hear and decide the said application. According to Respondents, until such reconsideration was completed and a final decision was taken, Petitioner could not claim any right to participate in matches conducted by Respondent Associations.

               3.4. Respondents allege that during the pendency of reconsideration, Petitioner approached the Manager, Cricket Operations Team of the Hyderabad Cricket Association in October 2025, seeking permission to participate in matches by relying upon the order dated 28.03.2025. The Manager, Cricket Operations Team, under a bona fide but mistaken interpretation of the said order, assumed that ban had been lifted and erroneously permitted Petitioner to participate in certain matches during October 2025, after informing the BCCI. According to them, such permission was inadvertent, contrary to the subsisting ban, and based on a misreading of the Court's order. Upon realizing the error, the Association immediately rectified the mistake and informed Petitioner that the ban continued to remain in force and that he could not participate in any further matches, including representation of Hyderabad Under-19 Team in the BCCI Men's U-19 Vinoo Mankad Knock- Out Tournament, 2025.

               3.5. It is further contended that the Association is a constituent member of the BCCI and is bound to strictly comply with the orders, directives, and guidelines issued by the BCCI from time to time. The Association has no authority, jurisdiction or locus to rescind, modify, or disregard a ban imposed by the BCCI unless the same is withdrawn by the BCCI itself or set aside by a competent court of law. Any permission granted to Petitioner to participate in matches while the ban subsists would amount to a violation of BCCI regulations and the directions of this Court.

               3.6. With regard to the order dated 25.07.2025 in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in W.P. No. 21904 of 2025 appointing a One-Man Supervisory Committee, it is contended, the mandate of the Hon'ble Supervisory Authority is limited to ensuring that Hyderabad Cricket Association and its Apex Council function in accordance with the bye-laws of the Association and the guidelines issued by the BCCI. It is asserted that the said order does not empower the Supervisory Committee to interfere with or override administrative actions taken by the Association in compliance with binding BCCI orders, particularly in relation to enforcement of disciplinary bans. Petitioner did not approach or make any representation to the Hon'ble Supervisory Authority seeking intervention.

               3.7. These Respondents place strong reliance on the Preliminary Enquiry Report conducted pursuant to the instructions of the Apex Council under Rule 41(1)(c) of the Hyderabad Cricket Association Rules and Regulations. It is stated that Preliminary Enquiry was conducted on the Application dated 05.07.2025 and that the Enquiry Officer examined, inter alia, the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by this Court, writ petitions filed by Petitioner, instructions issued by the Apex Council, Application of Petitioner and the ban order issued by the BCCI on 13.11.2024.

               3.8. The Preliminary Enquiry Report records that the ban imposed on Petitioner was based on an internal verification conducted by the Association in November, 2024 and an independent enquiry conducted by the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, which culminated in a report dated 04.11.2024 concluding that the date of birth certificates submitted by Petitioner and other players were fabricated. The said findings were communicated to BCCI, which thereafter, imposed ban by order dated 13.11.2024. The Report further notes that while other similarly-placed players challenged the ban and obtained relief from this Court, Petitioner did not succeed in having the ban set aside and that the ban imposed upon him continues to remain in force. Participation of Petitioner's son in certain matches during October 2025 was solely attributable to an inadvertent misinterpretation of the Court's order by the Manager, Cricket Operations Team, and that such participation could not be construed as revocation or suspension of the ban.

               3.9. Respondents state that Preliminary Enquiry Report categorically concludes that Association has no legal authority to lift or modify the ban imposed by the BCCI and that the appropriate remedy available to Petitioner is to approach the BCCI or a competent court of law for redressal of his grievance. In view of these findings, exclusion of Petitioner's son from Hyderabad Under-19 Team was lawful, justified, and in compliance with binding BCCI directives.

4. Heard Sri Rajasripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. G. Anirutha Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri A.P. Suresh Ram, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Cricket Association, learned Government Pleader for Sports and Sri S. Sahil Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.10.

5. At the outset, certain foundational facts stand admitted and are not in dispute. It is an admitted position that Petitioner was selected by the duly constituted Junior Selection Committee of the Association for Hyderabad Under-19 Team to participate in BCCI Men's U-19 Vinoo Mankad Knock-Out Tournament, 2025. It is further not in dispute that such selection was officially published on the website of the Association on 22.10.2025 and was also reported in Deccan Chronicle Newspaper dated 23.10.2025. It is equally undisputed that no written order, notice or communication assigning reasons for exclusion was issued to Petitioner, and that exclusion was communicated orally on 23.10.2025, on the eve of the team's departure. The above factual matrix brings into focus two distinct aspects which require consideration, namely, the manner in which exclusion was effected, and the underlying basis on which such exclusion is sought to be justified by the Respondents.

6. Insofar as the manner of exclusion is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that any decision having civil consequences must conform to the minimum requirements of fairness, transparency, and adherence to the principles of natural justice. Once a player is selected by a competent Selection Committee and such selection is formally notified, the player acquires a legitimate expectation of participation, subject to any lawful disqualification imposed in accordance with due process. In the present case, Respondents have not placed on record any contemporaneous written decision, resolution, or proceedings evidencing the reasons for exclusion, nor is there any material to indicate that Petitioner was put on notice or afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to such exclusion. Absence of any formal decision-making record and the manner of oral communication, at a belated stage, does not conform with the standards of procedural fairness expected of a body discharging public functions.

7. However, the enquiry of this Court cannot end with the procedural infirmity alone. Respondents have consistently placed reliance upon the ban imposed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India vide order dated 13.11.2024, pursuant to a Police Enquiry Report dated 04.11.2024, and have contended that the said ban continues to remain in force. The material on record, including Preliminary Enquiry Report, indicates that the said ban has neither been set aside nor expressly revoked by a competent authority. The earlier order of this Court dated 28.03.2025 in Writ Petition No. 34249 of 2024, on a plain reading, did not adjudicate upon the validity of the ban but merely permitted Petitioner to submit a representation for reconsideration, with a corresponding direction to the Respondent Association to consider the same in accordance with the applicable guidelines.

8. The Preliminary Enquiry Report further records that the Application dated 05.07.2025 submitted by Petitioner seeking reconsideration of the ban was pending consideration and the Association, being a constituent unit of the BCCI, does not possess the authority to rescind or modify a ban imposed by the BCCI. The Report categorically states that any such relief can only be granted either by the BCCI itself or by a competent court of law. This position has also been reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by Respondents.

9. In that view of the matter, while this Court is not inclined to approve the manner in which exclusion of Petitioner was affected, it cannot lose sight of the fact that eligibility of Petitioner to participate in BCCI-sanctioned tournaments is intrinsically linked to the subsistence or otherwise of the ban imposed by the BCCI. So long as the said ban remains in force and is not set aside or suitably modified, Respondent Association, which is bound by the directions of the BCCI, cannot be compelled to act in derogation thereof.

10. At the same time, it is evident from the record that Petitioner has already availed the liberty granted by this Court earlier and submitted representation dated 05.07.2025 seeking reconsideration of the ban, and that the said representation has not culminated in a final reasoned decision by the competent authority. The ends of justice would, therefore, be sub-served by ensuring that Petitioner's grievance is examined and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law, within a time- bound framework.

11. In the considered view of this Court, the controversy in the present Writ Petition ultimately centres around the continuance of the ban imposed by the BCCI and the consequential rights of Petitioner. Therefore, instead of entering into an adjudication on the merits of the ban, which is not directly under challenge in the present proceedings, it would be appropriate to direct the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of Petitioner in accordance with law.

12. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

               (a) The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and/or the competent authority concerned shall consider the representation dated 05.07.2025 submitted on behalf of Petitioner seeking reconsideration of the ban imposed by order dated 13.11.2024;

               (b) Such consideration shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner's son:

               (c) A reasoned order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

               (d) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ban imposed on Petitioner, and all the contentions in that regard are left open to be considered by the competent authority. No costs.

13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.