High Court · 2025

passed by t he Om budsm an. Pet it ioner has challenged t he rem oval order in t his writ pet it ion.

3. Clause 40 of t he Rules and Regulat ions of Cricket Associat ion of Ut t arakhand provides appoint m ent of an Om budsm an and any act of indiscipline or m isconduct com m it t ed by a m em ber or adm inist rat or of t he Cricket Associat ion of Ut t arakhand can be referred for decision t o t he Om budsm an and t he Om budsm an can pass necessary orders.

4. Learned counsel for t he respondent s have raised obj ect ion as t o m aint ainabilit y of t he writ pet it ion. I t is cont ended t hat Cricket Associat ion of Ut t arakhand is neit her funded by t he Cent ral or St at e 2 Governm ent nor t he Governm ent has any am ount of adm inist rat ive cont rol over t he affairs of t he Associat ion. I t furt her subm it t ed t hat no public funct ion is being discharged by t he Cricket Associat ion of Ut t arakhand and disput e bet ween t wo office bearers or group of office bearers would not be am enable t o t he writ j urisdict ion of t his Court and t he only rem edy available t o t he pet it ioner is t o approach a Civil Court .

5. Learned counsel for t he respondent s nos. 1 & 2 subm it t ed t hat t he Cricket Associat ion of Ut t arakhand is regist ered under Societ ies Regist rat ion Act , 1860 and since it is a privat e societ y, t herefore, t he public law rem edy under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion would not be available t o t he pet it ioner. I n support of t his cont ent ion, learned counsel for t he respondent s have placed reliance upon t he j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Pet it ion No. 27180 of 2021. Paragraph No. 10 of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - “ 10. I ssue No.3: t he procedure cont em plat ed As t he im pugned order is passed exercising t he powers under Rule 43, 44 and 45 of Bye- laws of ACA follow ing t herein and Om budsm an is an independent int ernal disput e redressal m echanism creat ed as per t he direct ions of t he Apex Court in t he case of BCCI Vs Cricket Associat ion of Bihar and he is like t hat of an arbit rat or creat ed under t he cont ract s and any breach of Bye- laws as held by t his Court in t he case of Moham m ed Azharuddin Vs. K. John Manoj and ot hers, t he pet it ioner has t o approach t he Civil Court under t he provisions of Sect ion 23 of t he Andhra 3 t o t hat fair and full opport unit y Pradesh Societ ies Regist rat ion Act , as t he 1st respondent was regist ered as a Societ y under Societ ies Regist rat ion Act . This Court found t hat aft er receiving t he com plaint , pet it ioner was given count er and lead evidence, show cause not ice was also issued and considered explanat ion and Om budsm an elaborat ely dealt w it h all t he series of orders passed by it and it s com pliance before conduct ing elect ions and filing of count er and was given am ple opport unit y t o defend his case and t hereby not violat ed any pr inciples of nat ural j ust ice. Hence, cont ra cont ent ions of t he counsel for t he pet it ioner illegally t erm inat ed t he pet it ioner from t he elect ed office of t he Secret ary of 1st respondent in blat ant violat ion of Art icle 14 and 19 ( 1) ( g) of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia and also cont rary t o t he Bye- laws, Rules and Regulat ions of t he 1st respondent Associat ion, violat ive of principles of nat ural j ust ice and cont rary t o t he provisions of t he Cont em pt of Court s Act , 1971 are unt enable, as t he 2nd respondent has given full and fair opport unit y t o t he pet it ioner and it has power t o im pose penalt ies for t he violat ion of it s orders as it is creat ed as per t he orders of t he Apex Court . Accordingly, is not t hat im pugned m aint ainable before order. Accordingly, t he I ssue No.3 is answered.” t his Court against t he wr it pet it ion respondent had t he 2nd is held t he

6. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 have also placed reliance upon a j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble Gauhat i High Court in t he case of Manabedra Kum ar Sarm a v. Board of Cont rol for Cricket in I ndia and ot hers [ WP ( C) / 5220/ 2021] . Paragraph nos. 26, 27 & 35 of t he said j udgm ent are reproduced below: - furt her opined “26. The above quot ed paragraphs m ake it succinct ly clear t hat even if an inst it ut ion or body is im part ing public dut y, t he act com plained of m ust have a direct nexus wit h t he discharge of public dut y. I ndividual wrongs or breach of m ut ual cont ract s wit hout having any public elem ent as it s int egral part cannot be rect ified t hrough a writ pet it ion under Art icle 226. I t t hat while a body m ay be discharging a public funct ion or perform ing a public dut y and t hus it s act ions becom ing am enable t o it s j udicial em ployees would not have t he right t o invoke t he powers of t he High Court conferred by Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion in respect of m at t er relat ing t o service where t hey are not governed or cont rolled by t he st at ut ory provisions. I t was clar ified t hat an educat ional inst it ut ion m ay perform m yriad funct ions t ouching var ious facet s of public life and in t he review by a Const it ut ional Court , 4 societ al sphere and such funct ions would fall wit hin t he dom ain of a " public funct ion" or " public dut y" and t he t o challenge under Art icle 226 of Const it ut ion But , t he act ions or decisions t aken solely wit hin t he confines of an ordinary cont r act of service, having no st at ut or y force or backing, cannot be recognized as being am enable t o challenge under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion.

27. Therefore, from t he j udgm ent s w hich have been referred herein above, it would clearly show t hat privat e bodies which are not St at e wit hin t he m eaning of Art icle 12 of t he Const it ut ion, but discharging public dut y and public funct ions would be am enable t o t he j urisdict ion of t he Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion so far it relat es t o discharge of t he public dut y and public funct ions by t he said privat e body. However, if disput e arises relat ing t o individual wrongs or breach of m ut ual cont ract s not being an int egral part of t he public dut y and public funct ions perform ed by t he privat e body w ould not be am enable t o t he j ur isdict ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion.

35. This Court , however, is of t he opinion t hat dism issal of t he writ pet it ions on t he ground of m aint ainabilit y should not prej udice t he pet it ioners t o approach t he appr opriat e com pet ent Civil Court for redressal of t heir grievances if ot herwise perm issible in law. This Court is of t he opinion t hat t he period during which t he t hree writ pet it ions have been t o be t his Court are pending before excluded while com put ing t he lim it at ion in as m uch legal advice have been t heir rem edies bonafidely and diligent ly pursuing before t his Court . I t is however clarified t hat t his Court has not enlarged t he perm issible period of lim it at ion. This Court has only direct ed t hat t he period of t he pendency of t he writ pet it ions be excluded while com put at ion of t he lim it at ion. The period from t he dat e of filing of t he inst ant writ pet it ions t ill t he dat e of t he inst ant j udgm ent be excluded while com put ing t he period of lim it at ion.” t he pet it ioners on required

7. Mr. Aryan Dev Uniyal, learned counsel appearing for BCCI placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgm ent rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Pat na, in t he case of Kum ar Arvind v. Bihar Cricket Associat ion, t hrough it s President , Shail Raj Com plex 5 and ot hers, report ed as 2022 SCC OnLine Pat 1169. Paragraph nos. 22, 23, 24 & 25 of t he said j udgm ent are reproduced below: - t he present fact s and “ 2 2 . I n our opinion, circum st ances of t he case, considering t he nat ure of cont roversy, which is prim arily an out com e of int ernal disput e am ong t he office bearers of t he BCA, lying wit hin t he realm of privat e law, we decline t o ent ert ain t his writ pet it ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion. 2 3 . I n case of Board of Cont rol I ndia v. Net aj i Cricket Club, report ed in ( 2005) 4 SCC 741, t he Suprem e Court held in paragraphs 81 and 82 as under: — for Cricket t o regard “ 8 1 . I n law, t here cannot be any disput e t hat having t he enorm it y of power exercised by it , t he Board is bound t o follow t he doct rine of “ fairness” and “ good fait h” in all it s act ivit ies. Having regard t o t he fact t hat it has t o fulfill t he hopes and aspirat ions of m illions, it has a dut y t o act reasonably. I t cannot act arbit rarily , whim sically or capriciously. As t he Board cont rols t he profession of cricket ers, it s act ions are required t o be j udged and v iewed by higher st andards. 8 2 . An associat ion or a club which has fram ed st rict it s im plem ent at ion of such rules im perat ive. Necessarily, t he office- bearers in t erm s of t he Mem orandum and Art icles of Associat ion m ust not only act wit hin t he four corners t hereof but exercise t heir respect ive powers in an honest and fair m anner, keeping in view t he public good as also t he welfare of t he sport of cricket . I t is, t herefore, wholly undesirable t hat a body in charge of cont rolling t he sport of cricket should involve it self in lit igat ions com plet ely losing sight of t he obj ect ives of t he societ y. I t is furt herm ore unfort unat e t hat room for suspicion has been creat ed t hat all it s dealings are not fair. The Board has been accused of shady dealings and double st andards.” t hereby. The t hat t o not e is significant , however, 2 4 . I t t he Suprem e Court 's decision in case of Board of Cont rol for Cricket in I ndia v. Net aj i Cricket Club ( supra) had arisen out of a civil suit . t he Om budsm an under t he m em orandum of associat ion, rules and t o be a quasi j udicial forum creat ed by any st at ut ory aut horit y. Such cont roversies, as are being raised in regulat ions cannot be said I n our opinion, 6 t he present writ applicat ion, in our opinion, should norm ally not be ent ert ained in a proceeding under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia. t o 2 5 . I n such v iew of exercise our prerogat ive writ j urisdict ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion in t he present fact s and circum st ances of t his case.” t he m at t er, we decline

8. Anot her j udgm ent , on which respondent s’ counsel placed reliance is rendered by Hon’ble Bom bay High Court in Writ Pet it ion No. 3077 of 2019 ( Lalit Kum ar Modi v. Board of Cont rol for Cricket in I ndia and ot hers) . Paragraph No. 6 of t he said j udgm ent is reproduced below: - “ 6. Though t he above decision was delivered in 2005, t his pet it ion was inst it ut ed in 2018, pleading t hat t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court and t his Court have consist ent ly held t hat t he BCCI is am enable t o writ j urisdict ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia. I n m at t ers of alleged indem nificat ion of t he pet it ioner in t he cont ext of penalt ies im posed upon t he pet it ioner by t he ED, t here is no quest ion of discharge of any public funct ion, and t herefore, for t his purpose, no writ could be issued t o t he BCCI .”

9. Learned counsel for t he respondent s point s out t hat SLP filed against t he j udgm ent rendered by Bom bay High Court was dism issed as wit hdrawn wit h libert y t o approach t he appropriat e forum , including civil court .

10. Per cont ra, Mr. Raj endra Dobhal, learned senior counsel appearing t he pet it ioner placed reliance upon a j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Sant osh Karunakaran v. 7 Om budsm an Cum Et hics Officer, Kerala Cricket Associat ion and anot her, SLP ( Civil) No( s) . 12903 of

2021. I n t he said j udgm ent , t he order passed by Om budsm an and t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Single Judge and Division Bench of Hon’ble Kerala High Court was set aside.

11. Learned counsels for respondent s are right in subm it t ing t hat t he issue of m aint ainabilit y of writ pet it ion against a St at e Cricket Associat ion was not considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in t hat j udgm ent , t herefore, t he said j udgm ent cannot be t reat ed as aut horit y for deciding t he issue of m aint ainabilit y of t his pet it ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion.

12. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioners have also placed reliance upon t he j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in t he case of Boys and Girls Cricket Associat ion of Chit oor Dist rict v. Chit oor Dist rict Cricket Associat ion, report ed as 2024 SCC OnLine AP 2822. Paragraph Nos. 16 & 17 of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - “ 1 6 . The t he Et hics Officer/ Om budsm an 2 nd respondent is a quasi j udicial aut horit y which has int o exist ence by v irt ue of Just ice Lodha com e Com m it t ee reform s. The Hon'ble Suprem e Court in Board of Cont rol for Cricket in I ndia v. Cricket Associat ion of Bihar, appoint ed a seven Mem ber Com m it t ee headed by Just ice R.M. Lodha, form er 8 t o prevent appoint m ent recom m ended Chief Just ice of I ndia t o exam ine and m ake suit able recom m endat ions on several aspect s such as m aking of am endm ent s t o Mem orandum of Associat ion of Board of Cont rol for Cricket in I ndia, Rules and frauds, conflict of Regulat ions and int erest s and st ream line it s work. On 18.12.2015 t he Com m it t ee Om budsm an and Et hics Officer. The Hon'ble Suprem e Court accept ed t he recom m endat ions of t he Com m it t ee and dir ect ions were given t o Board of I ndia ( in short ‘BCCI ’) t o Cont rol for Cricket in im plem ent recom m endat ions. Accordingly, am endm ent s were m ade t o t he Mem orandum of Associat ion and Bye- laws of t he 2 nd respondent and r egulat ions and Bye- laws were t he regist ered. Therefore, as per Rule 49, any am endm ent t o t he bye- laws of t he 2 nd respondent t he Hon'ble Suprem e require prior approval of Court / High Court , as discussed above. rules and t he necessit at es

10.01.2023, t he considered opinion of 1 7 . Therefore, t his Court , t he learned Om budsm an has exercised his j urisdict ion t o grant such relief in Case No. 9 of 2021 dat ed t o am end/ repeal and alt er t he list of m em bers of t he wit h byelaws/ Regulat ions 3/ 4 t h m aj orit y in Special General Meet ing and any such am endm ent shall be done only wit h t he leave of t he Hon'ble Suprem e Court or High Court . Hence, t he order passed by am enable t o t he j urisdict ion of t his Hon'ble Court , in view of Rule 49 of t he Rules. Hence, I find t hat t he writ pet it ion is m aint ainable.” learned Om budsm an except ACA, t he

13. The said j udgm ent , however, do not help t he pet it ioners for t he sim ple reason t hat in t he said case, Rules and Regulat ions applicable t o Andhra Cricket Associat ion could be am ended wit h t he leave of Hon’ble Suprem e Court or t hat of t he High Court ; t he issue involved in t he writ pet it ion before Andhra Pradesh High Court was am endm ent of t he Rules, t herefore, t he quest ion whet her t he Cricket Associat ion of Andhra Pradesh is ‘St at e’ wit hin m eaning of Art icle 12 or not was not considered at all in t hat j udgm ent . 9

14. As per t he Rules and Regulat ions applicable t o Cricket Associat ion of Ut t arakhand, part icularly Clause 45 t hereof, am endm ent t o t he Rules can be m ade only wit h t he leave of Hon’ble Suprem e Court and High Court has not been conferred any power t o grant such relief.

15. Learned counsels t he pet it ioners t hen relied upon an order dat ed 23.12.2020 passed by t his Court in WPMS No. 112 of 2020. By t he said order, writ pet it ion filed by Direct or of a different Cricket Associat ion, form ed in Ut t arakhand, was disposed of wit h libert y t o pet it ioner t o approach t he Regist rar of Com panies. The said order also do not help t he case of t he pet it ioners, as pet it ioner in t hat case was aggrieved by inact ion on t he part of Regist rar of Com panies, who is a st at ut ory aut horit y. Here in t he present case, t he disput e is bet ween an office bearer, who was rem oved from office vis- à- vis t he ot her office bearers, who are st ill holding t he office.

16. Learned counsels for t he pet it ioners subm it s t hat in t he present case order passed by Om budsm an is under challenge, which is quasi j udicial aut horit y, t herefore, t he writ pet it ion is m aint ainable. 10

17. The provision for appoint m ent of Om budsm an is m ade t he Rules and Regulat ions of t he Associat ion. The Rules and Regulat ions do not have any st at ut ory force, as held by Apex Court in t he case of Co- op. Cent ral Bank Lt d. v. I ndust rial Tribunal, ( 1969) 2 SCC 43 and Babaj i Kondaj i Garad v. Nasik Merchant s Co- op. Bank, ( 1984) 2 SCC 50. Therefore, m erely because t he Om budsm an has t aken a decision will not ent it le t he pet it ioner t o challenge t he rem oval order by filing a writ pet it ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion. I n t he considered opinion of t his Court , t he appropriat e rem edy for t he pet it ioners would be t o approach a Civil Court .

18. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ions are dism issed as not m aint ainable. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) Dt : 09.10.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df 006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87 5643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 11