IN THE COURT OF Smt.

SHAILENDRA KAUR, ADJ,

TIS HAZARI COURT
SUIT NO.46/2003
Court No.-27

IN THE MATTER OF:

Wg. Cdr. I.S. Lamba …Petitioner

Versus
Maj Gen. R.K.R. Balasubramanian and Ors …Respondent

AFFIDAVIT BY WAY OF EVIDENCE OF MAJ GEN.

R.K.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN

I, Maj. Gen. R.K.R. Balasubramanian, Aged yrs , R/o C-396,

Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:

1. That I am the Defendant No.1 in the aforesaid case and

hence, competent to swear this affidavit.

2. I say that the present suit is vexatious and frivolous and the

same has been filed with the malafide intentions of dragging the

Deponent into frivolous litigation.

3. I say that the present suit is only a ploy of the Plaintiff to malign

the reputation of the Deponent, as I hold a respectable and trusted

position in the Equestrian Federation of India and thereby create

distrust among the members of the riding community towards his

commitment for the promotion of the Equestrian sports in India.

Claiming to be far superior to those selected in the team.

4. I say that the present suit is nothing but his sheer retaliation on

not being selected. I further say that only those talented, qualified
and meritorious riders who prove their ability and strictly meet the

selection criteria had been selected.

5. I say that the Selection Committee in selecting the team members

acted strictly according to the selection criteria prescribed for the

same; the guiding criteria in selecting the team members being fair-

play and merit keeping in mind the broad objective of earning laurels

for the country in such international sport events.

6. I say that that the decision of selection is not that of an individual

but is a unanimous decision taken by the Selection Committee

consisting of members of the EFI, elected by the General Assembly

and presided over by President of the EFI, an officer of the rank of

Lt. General.

7. I say that the Plaintiff has grossly concealed several material

and relevant facts from this Hon’ble Court and has created a false

impression that he has been adversely affected due to the actions of

the Defendants including Deponent without any conclusive proof.

8. I say that the Plaintiff was a serving Officer of the Indian Air

Force and it is mandatory for him to take permission from the

Competent Authority in accordance with Law before embarking upon

any litigation which permission in the instant case is glaringly absent.

9. I say that the candidates to the selection process do not have

any accrued right to be selected and have only a legitimate

expectation that their claims will be considered.

10. I say that the decision of selection was taken on 22nd October ,

1998 and on that date the Government observer failed to attend the

most important meeting as on that date the issue of selection of the

team was discussed and deliberated upon at length and based

thereon the significant decision regarding the selection of the team

was arrived at and from the minutes of the minutes of the said

Meeting, it is clear that Wg. Cdr IS Lamba was selected on horse

Tipsy.

11. I say that the Deponent at no stage was aware of the

recommendations of the Government Observer as can be

understood from the fact mentioned hereinabove in this regard that

the Government Observor was not present at the meeting held on

22.10.1998.

12. I say that the so called recommendations of the said

Government Observor seems to have been sent directly to the

Government by the Observer without any reference to the Selection

Committee constituted for the purpose of selection.

13. I say that It is not understood as to how he could have

recommended/make observations, without having attended the most

important meeting dated 22 October 1998. Similarly, the

recommendations of SAI and IOA in this regard are not known being

an independent authority would have taken a proper decision on the

merits of the case.

14. I say that however, the final decision in this regard is that of

the Government. The Government guided by the interest of the

country in such international sport events and, as the record shows,

did not think it expedient to select Wg. Cdr IS Lamba, having not

found him deserving enough for the selection in question

15. I say that the deponent never addressed any personal

communication regarding the Plaintiff’s performance as a Rider

except the forwarding of the minutes of the meeting held on 22 nd

October, 1998. All decisions regarding selection of the team/riders

was arrived at unanimously by the Selection Committee and the

Defendant No.1 did not have any individual role to play

16. I say that though the Plaintiff managed to clear all tests till

selection dated 22nd October 1998 ,however the Plaintiff’s horse

‘TIPSY’ was not recommend by the Veterinary Commission as it

broke down after every trial. This becomes clear from the Final

Report on Health Protocol of Asiad Probable Horses dated 9 th

November, 1998 of Veterinary Commission which shows that the

Horse ‘TIPSY’ is not suitable for 3 day event as it is not likely to

withstand the stress of a 3 day event and also from the Animal

Treatment Car, 32 Military Veterinary Hospital of the Horse ‘TIPSY’

dated 5th October, 1998. The Final Report on Health Protocol of

Asiad Probable Horses dated 9th November 1998 alognwith the

Animal treatment card of 32 Millitary Veterinary Hospital dated

5.10.1998 is marked and exhibited herewith as Exhibit DW1/1

(Colly).
17. I say that the Deponent never exerted any undue influence or

any coercion to create unfavourable reports against the Plaintiff or

his Horse.

18. I say that the Deponent had no role to play in the preparation

of the final report on the health protocol of the Asiad probable horses

or any of the Veterinary proceedings in this regard as he is not a

member of the Vetenerary Committee.

19. I further say that the Deponent is Delhi based and visited

Meerut only on the day of the competition, whereas the said horse

was under continuous treatment under the Veterinary Commission

at meerut.

20. I say that the Regarding the decision for the teams to be

selected for participation in National and International events (after

Asian Games Bangkok) the decision was to be taken/taken as per

Selection Committee formed for the specific purpose of selection

and the Selection Committee meetings were held under the

chairmanship of Lt Gen Ms Bhullar, PVSM, AVSM, the President of

EFI..

21. I say that there is a specific criteria for selection of the team to

represent the country in the games – Asian Games Bangkok),

December, 1998, no individual decision is taken into consideration

while selecting the teams for international events. And the final team

which played 0n 8th December 1998 was also selected unanimously.

22. I say that there are routine guide lines laid down for the

selection of horses for the Asiad Games, with the aim to narrow

down the number of probables for the final selection. In this regard,

reference is made to letter No.048/EFI dated 27.05.98 and EFI letter

No. RKR Eqtn/EFI/98 dated 11.03.98.

23. I say that Vide letter No. 048/EFI dated 07.05.1998, it was made

amply clear that final selection of the Riders & horses to be ridden

will be as per decision of Selection Committee and Respective

Coaches and that previous weightage earned by the riders prior to

final short listing are null & void and performance of riders & fitness

of horses thereafter will be the criteria. The letter dated 7.05.1998 is

marked and exhibited herewith as Exhibit DW1/2.

24. I say that It is clear from the letter No. 048/EFI dated 22.4.98,

that more than the required number of riders were short listed: Show

Jumping -8 Riders, 3 day Event -9 Riders, Dressage-5 Riders. Out

of the short listed, the Government. only cleared a total of 5 Riders,

4 including one NRI for 3 day even and one NRI for Dressage. The

letter dated 22.4.1998 is marked and exhibited herewith as Exhibit

DW1/3.

25. I say that the Plaintiff herein has made it a habit to indulge in

frivolous litigation as can be seen from his own admission of filing

various writ petitions in the Delhi High Court where he had

challenged the selection of the Equestrian Sports team for

participating in the Asian Games. One of the said writ petition

because of its very nature was dismissed in limine

26. I say that in past also the Plaintiff had filed Civil Writ Petition

No.5847 of 1998, before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was

dismissed on 16th November, 1998 on the same grond. The Hon’ble

Court, while dismissing the said Writ Petition, observed that

“from the records we do not find any case having been made out for

interference with the impugned selection in the exercise of Writ

Jurisdiction of this Court. It is settled that while examining the

administrative decisions we are concerned with the decision making

process and not with the merits of the decision. Of course

interference is also permissible when a clear case of perversity or

malafides is made out”.

27. I say that the Plaintiff’s statement that Horse “TIPSY’ was

neither admitted in Veterinary Hospital at Meerut nor treated is totally

false and is contrary to the report on Health Protocol of Asiad

Probable (Horses) dated 9th November, 1998 and the animal

treatment card of the relevant period. From this record it can be

seen that the horse ‘TIPSY’ was actually admitted in Military

Veterinary Hospital, Meerut.

28. I say that after the competition on 22nd October, 1998, the

Plaintiffs horse TYPSY went lame as can be seen in the entry for

23rd October, 1998, and continued to be so till 9th November, 1998,

when the final report dated 9th November, 1998 was made.
29. I say that 3 out of 4 Riders rode their own horses in the 3 day

main competition at Bangkok. However horse ‘SHERATON’ of the

NRI rider Mr. Imitiaz Anees was rejected by the Bangkok Asian

Games Veterinary Commission being detected lame just 2 days

before the competition and, therefore, both the coaches for the event

decided to mount him on Reserve horse ‘MIRZA’ which was taken

only for this specific eventuality. This move paid of rich dividends as

the team representing India was able to win a Bronze Medal for the

country.

30. I say that the Deponent was an Official at the Asian Games,

as a member of the Appeal Committee appointed by the Asian

Games Organizing Committee and he had no role or powers to

interfere with any team let alone the Indian team. The Rules of the

Asian Games strictly prohibited any interaction of any Games official

with any of the teams. They were also required to live separately

and were not permitted to enter the Asian Games Village.

31. I say that the allegations of trying to influence the Veterinary

board or its decision is, therefore, out of question and baseless. The

decision to mount rider Imitiaz on horse ‘MIRZA’ instead of his horse

‘SHERATION’ which became lame was purely the decision of both

the coaches and senior Members of Indian Team and the Deponent

had no role whatsoever in taking these decisions since it is the

responsibility of the Indian Team Management at Bangkok.

32. I say that it is false that the Deponent exerted undue influence

or any coercion to create unfavorable reports against the Plaintiff or

his Horse on the contrary the Deponent had no role to play in the

preparation of the final report on the health protocol of the Asiad

probable horses or any of the Veterinary proceedings in this regard.

33. I say that the team for the Asian Games, Bangkok, was

selected strictly according to the criteria laid down for the purpose by

a unanimous decision of the Selection Committee leaving no role for

any personal interest of any person/member to influence/vitiate the

selection process to enable any personal favourite to be selected.

As regards the NRI riders both were included by the Selection

Committee purely based on their performance on their own foreign

brought horses after completion of all necessary verification

required.

34. I say that in the above stated facts and circumstances the suit as

filed deserves to be dismissed against the Plaintiff along with heavy costs

for filling a frivolous suit against the Deponent and the rest of the

Defendants.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on this th day of August, 2007 that the contents
of my above Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.

DEPONENT