Shillong, Ju/y 1: High Court of Meghalaya has stayed the Special General Meeting of the Meghalaya Cricket Association( MCA) called by the rebel group for July 3.
In an interim and exparte order issued on Wednesday (July 1) , the high court of Meghalaya directed that ’till the next date, the notice dated 27.06.2026 calling for a Special General Meeting on 03.07.2026, shall stand suspended as also the resolutions and consequent action arising out of the Emergent Apex Council Meeting held on 09.05.2026.
The ombudsman shall continue to discharge his functions, as per the MCA constitution and in accordance with law till the next date, said the single bench of the high court headed by Justice H. S. Thangkhiew,.
The petition was filed by president of the MCA James Sangma against Rayanold Kharkamni and six others.
While James was represented by senior advocates RS Rao, Dr. N. Mozika and advocate M. Myrchiang.
Nobody represented Kharkamni and others.
“As this interim order has been passed ex-parte, the respondents are at liberty to file for vacation, modification or alteration before the next date”, the court said.
The matter will come up for hearing on July 21.
The application for interim orders was filed by the writ petitioner seeking the stay of notice dated 27.06.2026, convening the special general meeting proposed to be held on 03.07.2026, stay of the resolutions and consequent action arising out of the Emergent Apex Council Meeting held on 09.05.2026, and for further directions to restrain the respondent No. 1 ( Rayanold) from acting on behalf of the Meghalaya Cricket Association and further for orders protecting the authority and
independence of the respondent No. 7, as the Ombudsman of the
Meghalaya Cricket Association.
The court observed that the petitioner applicant who is stated to be the president of the Meghalaya Cricket Association is before th court challenging the action of the respondents no. 1 to 5, which it is alleged has undermined the
constitutional governance of the Association, and the authority of the duly
appointed Ombudsman.
The senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner has been compelled to approach this court in view of the
continued illegal action of the respondent no. 1, to subvert the dispute
redressal mechanism of the Association. It was submitted that the respondent
no. 1, convened an illegal emergent apex council meeting on 09.05.2026,
without the mandatory concurrence of the president and in defiance of a
stay order issued by the ombudsman, apart from the issuance of a
subsequent notice dated 27.06.2026, proposing for a special general
Meeting on 03.07.2026.
These actions it is submitted are without any authority, as the respondent No. 1, has been formally suspended from
office on 27.06.2026, pursuant to the findings of the Meghalaya State
Commission for Women (MSCW) regarding the active cover-up of sexual
harassment complaint, which has been lodged by female cricket players.
The senior counsel submitted that the Meghalaya Cricket Association is governed by its constitution which regulates its functions i.e. the Apex Council, the powers and responsibilities of office bearers and the grievance redressal mechanism within the Association. The management and administration of the Association he submits, vest in the Apex Council and the constitution also provides for the appointment of an ombudsman, as an independent grievance redressal mechanism vested with the authority to adjudicate complaints relating to the affairs and functions of the association. Coming to the sequence of events, it was submitted that the Apex Council in the 26th Meeting held on 07.03.2026, which was also attended by the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 had ratified the appointment of the respondent No. 7, as Ombudsman, for the Association, apart from considering and passing resolutions on various other matters. However, he submits, thereafter the respondent No. 1, in his capacity as Honorary Secretary issued notice on 06.05.2026, convening a meeting on 09.05.2026, which he contends is in violation of Rule 18(c)(iv) of the MCA constitution, for which the petitioner as president under rule 18(a) issued a suspension notice dated 07.05.2026, to all the members of the Apex Council. As the respondent No. 1, did not pay heed to the suspension notice, the petitioner then filed a representation before the ombudsman of the MCA under Rule 41(1)(a) of the MCA Constitution.
The ombudsman, he submits, then by order dated 08.05.2026, took
cognizance of the complaint and directed that further process pursuant
to the impugned notice dated 06.05.2026, shall remain suspended until
further orders. This order too it is submitted, was also violated by the
respondents No. 1 to 5, who proceeded to convene and conduct the
impugned meeting on 09.05.2026, with the sole objective to keep in
abeyance the decisions taken during the 26th Apex Council meeting dated
07.03.2026, which would also include the appointment of the ombudsman.
The senior counsel has submitted that the entire action of the
respondents No. 1 to 5 is without any authority particularly in view of the
fact that they were themselves present and had participated in the 26th Apex
Council meeting, wherein the appointment of the ombudsman was
approved.
Along with these events, it was submitted at the same time, serious
complaints had arisen concerning the function of the MCA administration
in relation to the MCA Under-23 Women’s Cricket Team, wherein 6
members of the team had submitted a complaint before the MSCW raising
allegations of sexual harassment, intimidation and institutional inaction
against the concerned officials and support staff of the team, whereafter,
notice were issued by the MSCW to the concerned officials including the
respondent No. 1. A detailed complaint, he submits, dated 08.05.2026, was also submitted by the members of the MCA Under-23 Women’s Cricket
Team before the ombudsman on 08.05.2026, on the same allegations,
which was taken due note of and appropriate steps were directed to be
taken. In the proceedings before the MSCW, he submits, on coming to a
finding of guilt against the Head Coach and Team Manager, orders were
passed which the petitioner in discharge of his duties as president by order
dated 27.06.2026, placed the respondent No. 1 under immediate
suspension, and further stripped him of all authority.
The senior counsel therefore submitted in the face of these
circumstances, wherein the respondent no. 1 has acted in violation of the
constitution and also has sought to nullify the appointment of the
ombudsman, in order to curtail his functions especially in the light of the
developments and serious allegations, the impugned notices, resolutions
especially the notice dated 27.06.2026, calling for a special general
Meeting on 03.07.2026, be suspended and stayed during the pendency of
the writ petition.
The court on hearing the senior counsel on behalf of the
petitioner and on perusal of the materials available noted that the 26th Apex
Council meeting, wherein the resolution to appoint the respondent No. 7 as ombudsman, had been arrived at in the presence and the participation of
the respondents No. 1, 3 and 5. The subsequent actions of the respondent No. 1 to undo the same due to the serious allegations by seeking to revisit the resolution and in the backdrop of the other accompanying facts, in the considered view of the court, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for interim orders at this stage, the court said.
