Bombay High Court
Cricket Association Of Bihar vs The Board Of Control For Cricket In India ... on 11 November, 2014
Author: Anoop V. Mohta
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
ssm 1 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 107 OF 2013
Cricket Association of Bihar,
A society duly registered under the
provisions of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 through its Secretary
Mr. Aditya Verma; having their
office its registered office at B-607,
Lotus Apartment, New Patliputra Colony,
Patna-800 013. ....Petitioner.
Vs.
1 The Board of Control for Cricket
in India, through its Secretary, a
Society registered under the Tamil
Nadu Societies Registration Act,
having its Administrative office at
"CRICKET CENTRE", Wankhede
Stadium, "D" Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020.
2 Mr. N. Srinivasan,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant, having his
address at No. 6, Arch Bishop
Mathias Avenue, R. A. Puram,
Chennai-600 028. ....Respondents.
Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Birendra Saraf
with Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Vaibhav Bhure, Chandrashekhar Verma i/by
Naik Naik & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. Iqbal Chagla, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.N. Subramanian, Senior
Advocate with Mr. P.R. Raman, Ms. Akhila Kavshik, Ms. S.P. Arthi, Mr.
Rahul Mascarenhas, Mr. Indrank Deshmukh, Mr. Aditya Mehta, Mr.
Adarsha Saxena, Ms. Prabhjyot Chhabra, Mr. Rohan Bhammar i/by
1/50
::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:12 :::
ssm 2 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
Amarchand Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co. for Respondent
No.1.
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani,
Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Mr. Prashant Beri, Mr.
Nitesh Girisan, Ms. Chaitra Pawar i/by M/s. Beri & Co. for Respondent
No.2.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.
DATE : 11 NOVEMBER 2014.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.):-
Rule, returnable forthwith.
Heard finally, by consent of the parties.
2 The cricket game, as stated to be of the classes now, becoming the game of masses, therefore, involved "public interest".
Now, the additional avenue for the generation, apart from an entertainment, to earn money, name and fame.
3 The Petitioner, who is not a member of Respondent No.1- the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short, "the BCCI") has challenged amended (part) Regulation 6.2.4 (dated 5 September 2008) of the Regulations for Players, Team Officials, Managers, Umpires and Administrators and amended (part) (on 15 September 2/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:12 ::: ssm 3 pil107.13-fnl.sxw 2012, but effective from year 2014) Clause 15 of the Memorandum and Rules and Regulation of BCCI, (The rules/regulations), in this Public Interest Litigation (for short, "PIL").
4 The basic prayers of the Petition are as under:-
a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare and issue an appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the expression "excluding events like IPL or Champions League Twenty20" added to regulation 6.2.4 of the REGULATIONS FOR PLAYERS, TEAM OFFICIALS, MANAGERS, UMPIRES and ADMINISTRATORS introduced by the Respondent No.1 in the AGM conducted on 27-09-2008 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified, malafide, opposed to public policy, abuse of the power of amendment, null and void and consequently to please set aside the said amendment so that justice may be done;
b) That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Clause 15 of the Memorandum and Rules and Regulations as amended w.e.f. from 15.09.2012 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, null and void and consequently be pleased to set aside the said amendment;
c) That, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition:
i. this Hon'ble Court be please to stay the effect and/or implementation and suspend the 3/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:12 ::: ssm 4 pil107.13-fnl.sxw operation of the amendment to Clause 6.2.4 of the REGULATIONS FOR PLAYERS, TEAM OFFICIALS, MANAGERS, UMPIRES and ADMINISTRATORS to the extent that it add words "excluding events like IPL or Champions League Twenty20" by the Respondent No.1 in the AGM conducted on 27- 09-2008;
ii. this Hon'ble Court be please to stay the effect and/or implementation and suspend the operation of the amendment to Clause 15 of the Memorandum and Rules and Regulation made w.e.f. from 15.09.2012;
d) That ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) above;
e) For costs;
f) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
Rules/regulations in question-
5 The relevant Rules (in full) are as under:-
"6 REGULATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATORS-
6.2.4 No Administrators shall have, directly or
indirectly any commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the Board excluding events like IPL or Champions League Twenty20.
Regulation 6.2.4 has been amended by including the words "excluding events like IPL or Champions League Twenty20".
4/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:12 ::: ssm 5 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
"15 ELECTION OF OFFICE BEARERS AND VICE-
PRESIDENTS.
i. The election of the Office Bearers and the Vice Presidents shall be held at the Annual General Meeting of the Board. The Office Bearers and Vice Presidents elected in the AGM in 2011 will hold office for period of two years shall hold the office initially for a period of two years which may be further renewed by election for a period of one year by the General Body. Successful candidates at the selection held in 2013 shall hold office for period of one year.
The office bearers and the Vice-Presidents elected from AGM's from 2014 shall hold the office for period of three years.
ii.
i.
The following persons shall be eligible to be considered for the post of Office Bearers or Vice Presidents excepting for the President:
(c ) Past or present Office Bearers or Vice Presidents of the Board.
OR
(d) Any person who has represented a full member in at least two Annual General Meetings of the Board as a representative of such member.
iii.
(a) The candidate for the post of President shall be nominated on the elected on the Principle of Zonal rotation. The Zonal term will be for a period of three years. This right of nomination of Presidential Candidate or candidates shall be with a zone for period of three years.
The Zonal Rotation would be:
1 West Zone 5/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 6 pil107.13-fnl.sxw 2 Central Zone 3 South Zone 4 East Zone 5 North Zone
(b) The candidate or candidates for the office of President shall be nominated by at least two Full Members from the Zone whose turn it is as per the zonal rotation.
The election to the office of the President from the next zone shall be held one year prior to the end of the three year term of the existing zone and person so elected would be designated as President elect for one year. The procedure as contained in Clause 23 "Procedure of Elections" to be followed for the election to the post of President elect and for the candidate contesting for the remaining term within the zone, if any.
iv.
The following persons shall be eligible to contest for the post of President/President elect.
(a) past or present Office Bearer or Vice President of the Board nominated by at least two full members from the zone whose turn is current as per the principle of zonal rotation AND
(a) who must have represented a Full Member from the same Zone at attended two Annual General Meetings representing a full member of the Board as a representative of the said member.
(b) It is clarified that such candidate or candidates need not be from the same zone that is exercising its right of nomination by rotation.
(iv) The candidate for the office of President and the Vice 6/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 7 pil107.13-fnl.sxw Presidents shall be proposed by at least one other representative of a full member from the same zone from which he is seeking election.
(v) In case of vacancy occurring in the office of President by reason of death or by him being adjudged insolvent or by him being convicted in a criminal case by a competent court or by resignation or otherwise. The Hon'ble Secretary shall within fifteen days convene a Special General Body Meeting to elect the President who shall be nominated by at least one full member from the same Zone which proposed the name of the President whose term was cut short prematurely. and he Such person who is so elected shall hold the office till the next elections. However in case vacancy arises in the last year of the term of a zone, no fresh elections for the office of President from that zone will take place instead the Vice President of the same zone shall act as President for the remaining term of that zone and will exercise all powers of the President as described in the Clause 13 (a).
(vi) No Office Bearer shall be eligible for a re-election for an additional term for the same office. After they complete their term/extended term. However, the Office bearers/ Vice Presidents may be re-elected for one more term of three years.
6 Another relevant rule is 35, which reads as under:-
"35 ALTERNATION OF RULES:
These Rules and Regulations of the Board shall not be repealed, added to, amended or altered except when passed and adopted by 3/4th majority of the members present and entitled to vote at a Special General Meeting convened for the purpose or at the Annual 7/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 8 pil107.13-fnl.sxw General Meeting".
7 Clause 27 in respect of the Standing Committee, reads as under:-
"27 THE STANDING COMMITTEES:
The following shall be the Standing Committee and their powers:-
"M) Indian Premier League The Committee shall be appointed by the General Body of the Board and the term of the members of the committee shall be for a period of 5 years.
The Committee shall comprise of the following :
1) Chairman
2) Four members appointed by the Board
3) Three Ex-Cricketers of repute
The Office Bearers of the Board during their tenure would be ex-officio members of the Committee.
All decisions relating to the League would be taken by the Committee by majority and in case of equality of votes the Chairman shall have a casting vote.
The Committee shall maintain a separate Bank Account which shall be operated by the Treasurer, BCCI.
The Committee shall submit a report of its annual activities and decisions along with the audited statement of accounts every year for the approval of the General Body at the Annual General Meeting."
8/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 9 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
Basic backgrounds/events-
8 The challenge from the point of view of Petitioner/third
person, who is not a member of the BCCI, needs to be tested in the following background/averments:-
Respondent No.1, the BCCI is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Regulation Act, 1975 (for short, "TNSR Act"). In the year 2000, the Regulation for Players, Team Officials, Managers, Umpires and Administrators was framed and was approved by the Working Committee of the BCCI. Regulation 6.2.4 says that -
No Administrators shall have, directly or indirectly any commercial interest in the matches or events conducted by the Board.
9 On 13 September 2007, the BCCI in its Working Committee meeting approved the launch of Indian Premier League (for short, "IPL"). It was decided that the IPL was to be run by a Committee by the General Body of the BCCI and will be called IPL Governing Council. The Members were to hold office for a period of five years. These are two different body/committee.9/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 :::
ssm 10 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
10 In December 2007, IPL Governing Council issued
invitation to tender for franchised IPL rights for ownership of 8 Teams.
The invitation to tender states that, the IPL is not a separate legal entity, but forms a separate part of the BCCI. Only corporate bodies were permitted to participate in the auction. On 16 December 2007, BCCI's Rules and Regulations revised and clause 15 of the said Rules and Regulations incorporated zonal representation for the post of President rotation-wise for each Zone. On 29 December 2007, vide its letter, India Cements Limited (for short, "ICL") sought clarification from the BCCI as to whether it could participate in the IPL auction, since Respondent No.2, Mr. N. Srinivasan was the Managing Director of ICL and also an elected office bearer of the BCCI. Mr. Sharad Pawar was the then President of the BCCI.
11 On 5 January 2008, letter dated 29 December 2007 was replied by the then President of the BCCI, stating that there was no embargo on ICL to participate in the IPL auction. In January 2008, ICL of which Respondent No.2 Mr. N. Srinivasan was the Vice Chairman and Managing Director was successful in bidding for the Chennai Super Kings franchise. Respondent No.2 while addressing a 10/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 11 pil107.13-fnl.sxw investor conference conducted by ICL in January 2008, stated that, "India Cements Ltd. is in IPL, solely with the view to build our brand name move extensively in Tamil Nadu and that Cricket ultimately will make tons of money for the company."
12 On 22 June 2008, a two members Committee had already been constituted by the working Committee in the meeting held on 22 June 2008 to look into the existing Regulations and to deal with the issues relating to penalties for anti racism, anti doping, use of abusive language etc. as done in the ICC Code of Conduct.
13 On 5 September 2008, Mr. A.C. Muthiah, former President of Respondent No.1 raised the issue of conflict of interest against Respondent No.2 by writing a letter to the then President of Respondent No.1 and sought initiation of appropriate proceedings against Respondent No. 2. However, the then President did not respond to the said letter.
14 On 12 September 2008, a two member committee appointed by the BCCI recommended amendments inter alia to 11/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 12 pil107.13-fnl.sxw Regulation 6.2.4. The basic for such recommendations was that the existing rules and regulations were framed by the Working Committee in 2000 and that there had been a lot of changes in the matters concerning the game of Cricket since then.
15 On 24 September 2008, Mr. A.C. Muthiah filed a suit, being C.S. No. 930 of 2008, in the Madras High Court for reliefs against Respondent No.1-BCCI and Respondent No.2-N. Srinivasan.
16 On 27 September 2008, an Annual General Meeting (for short, "AGM") was held, whereby Rule 6.2.4 of the Rules and Regulations were amended, as stated with an object to take the IPL matches out of Regulation 6.2.4, just to have defence in the Suit filed by Mr. Muthiah. In the AGM, Mr. Shashank Manohar was elected as the President and Respondent No. 2, Mr. N. Srinivasan was elected as Hon'ble Secretary. The restrictions contained in regulation 6.2.4 cannot be intended to apply to T20 matches played in IPL and CLT20 as the concept of T20 matches of this nature was even not conceived and/or contemplated at the time of framing of original regulation 6.2.4. The present amendments as stated to apply for the benefits of 12/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 13 pil107.13-fnl.sxw all administrators of Respondents who are associated with the IPL teams in various capacities as coaches, mentors etc. The IPL and CLT20 are not officially organized like official test matches and/or ODI. The national team selection process and the committee is also different.
17 On 28 September 2008, an Article titled "Srikkanth is Chairman of senior selection committee" was published in the newspaper Hindu, which reported important decisions being decided in 79 AGM held in Mumbai of BCCI. The Article reported that the BCCI had also amended Rules and Regulations with regards to players, umpires and administrators. "When rules and regulations were framed Twenty20 cricket was not in existence. The rules did not take its ambit Twenty20 cricket. The particular clause was amended to extend the rules to Twenty20 cricket. There was a provision which said "if a person has direct or indirect interest in any of the tournaments conducted by the board, it would be misconduct." Now the IPL is a tournaments conducted by the board. We have amended suitably in order to explain that this clause will not apply to IPL and Champions T20 leagues,"
13/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 14 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
explained Mr. Manohar.
18 On or about October 2008, Civil Suit No. 1167 of 2008
filed by Mr. Muthiah in the Madras High Court inter alia for (i) a declaration that Regulation 6.2.4 insofar as it excludes the IPL and Champions League Twenty20 (for short, "CLT20") is illegal and opposed to public policy; (ii) a permanent injunction restraining Mr. Srinivasan from functioning as Secretary of the BCCI; and (iii) a mandatory injunction directing the BCCI not to permit Mr. Srinivasan from contesting any of the posts of the office bearers. Mr. Muthiah filed O.A. No. 1299 of 2008 in the said Civil Suit with a prayer to suspend operation of the amendment made in Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations. O.A. No. 1300 of 2008 was also filed in the said suit claiming temporary injunction to restrain Mr. Srinivasan from functioning as Secretary of the BCCI along with O.A. No. 5740 of 2008 seeking mandatory temporary injunction directing the BCCI to not permit Mr. Srinivasan to contest for any posts of office bearers in future, for a reasonable number of years as the Court though fit.
There was no interim order passed by any Court against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
14/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 15 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
19 On 12 December 2008, the meeting of CLT20 General
Council took place wherein, Respondent No.2 participated as a Member of the Governing Council and approved payment to the Two Indian franchisee, which included Chennai Super Kings for Rs. 10.40 crores each.
20 On or about the end of 2008, the Secretary of the Petitioner, the Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) claiming to be the Secretary of Saran District Cricket Association filed CWJC No. 7491 of 2008 before the Patna High Court, challenging the report of a second three member committee of the BCCI, which in substance assails the registration of Jharkhand State Cricket Association under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and sought a revival of the Bihar Cricket Association as on 14 November 2000. The said Secretary has filed a transfer Petition, seeking a transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court, which is also pending.
21 In year 2009, Mr. A.C. Muthiah filed Second Suit being C.S. No. 1167 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, 15/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 16 pil107.13-fnl.sxw challenging the amendment to Regulation 6.2.4 subsequently, Mr. A.C. Muthiah withdrew both the Suits in the year 2013.
22 On 5th February 2009, Governing Council Meeting of IPL was held, wherein item No.4 related to payment of compensation to two IPL teams, which included Chennai Super Kings, for cancellation of the matches was discussed. The compensation payment was unanimously approved. Respondent No.2 notwithstanding being the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of ICL, which was the owner of Chennai Super Kings participated in the meeting as Secretary of Respondent No.1 and approved the payment of compensation to Chennai Super King, even though providing compensation was neither an obligation of Respondent No.1 nor a legal right of the franchisees as per the agreement with the franchisees.
23 On 13 July 2009, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court refused to grant any interim relief to Mr. Muthiah whilst dismissing the interim applications filed in Civil Suit Nos. 930 and 1167 of 2008.
16/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 17 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
24 In or about August 2009, Appeal being OSA Nos. 226 to
229 of 2009 filed by Mr. Muthiah before the Madras High Court against order dated 13 July 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court.
25 On 3 October 2009, Writ Petition No. 2550 of 2009 filed by the CAB before this Court seeking grant of full membership of the BCCI to CAB from the State of Bihar. In or about 2009, the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, cancelled the registration of the Bihar Cricket Association, which is an associate member of the BCCI, under the Bihar Societies Registration Act. Bihar Cricket Association filed a revision against the said order. CAB's Secretary again claiming to be the Secretary of Saran District Cricket Association filed CWJC No. 2012 of 2009 before the Patna High Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the Member, Board of Revenue to hear the said revision. CWJC No. 7117 of 2009 filed by the Secretary of the Petitioner (claiming to be secretary of the Saran District Cricket Association) before the Hon'ble Patna High Court challenging the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenge whereby, the order passed by the Inspector General, Registration was set aside.
17/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 18 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
26 On 24 March 2010, the Madras High Court upheld order
dated 13 July 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. On 13 December 2010, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 2550 of 2009 filed by CAB.
27 In or about 2011, Civil Appeal No. 7645 of 2011 filed by CAB before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging order dated 13 December 2010 passed by this Court. The said SLP is pending.
28 In or about 2011, CAB's Secretary, claiming to be the Secretary of Saran District Cricket Association, filed MJC No. 4809 of 2011 before the Patna High Court under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for issuance of appropriate directions for institution of a criminal case against the BCCI for having allegedly made a false statement in an affidavit filed in CWJC No. 2012 of 2009.
29 In or about 2011, Civil Appeal Nos. 3573 along with 3754- 3756 of 2011 were filed by Mr. Muthiah against order dated 24 March 2010 passed by the Madras High Court.
18/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 19 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
30 On 28 April 2011, order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3573 along with 3754-3756 of 2011. In view of the fact that the said order recorded a dissenting opinion of one of the Hon'ble Judges, the matter was referred to a larger Bench.
31 On 29 September 2011, AGM of the BCCI was held, whereby N. Srinivasan was made the President of the BCCI, for a period of 2 years, ending in September 2013.
32 On 12 September 2012, the Patna High Court dismissed CWJC No. 2012 of 2009 filed by CAB's Secretary for default. Vide the said order, the Patna High Court also dismissed MJC No. 4809 of 2011 filed by the Secretary, CAB and observed that:- "....Before parting with this order I may observe that Petitioner is not interested to pursue the main writ petition which has already been dismissed for default but is pressing the per jury application only with a view to malign the highest Cricket Controlling Body in the country and having appreciated such design, I am not inclined to proceed with the per jury petition, which is dismissed."
19/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 20 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
33 On 15 September 2012, Clause-15 of BCCI's -Rules and
Regulations were revised wherein, the existing principle of giving each zone a chance to have a President once in 3 years by zonal rotation, was amended taking way the essence of principle of zonal rotation and public policy in order to advance personal interest of Respondent No.2.
34In or about 2012, SLP (Cri.) No. 7989 of 2012 filed by the CAB Secretary before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order dated 12 September 2012 passed by the Patna High Court.
35 In the month of April 2013, Respondent No. 1 having Respondent No.2 as its President, entered into a contract with Star India for media rights, as stated. This happened at the same time when ICL had appointed Star India as the sponsors for their franchise, Chennai Super Kings.
36 On 14 June 2013, the Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation No. 55 of 2013, before this Court, wherein the Petitioner 20/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 21 pil107.13-fnl.sxw had raised various contentions, inter alia, as regards the functioning of Respondent No.1 and its committees and seeking an independent enquiry into the issue of match fixing in IPL Matches. In the said Petition, Respondent No.1 and various other Respondents challenged the locus of the Petitioner as a public interest Petition, inter alia, on the ground that there were disputes between the parties and on the ground that the Petitioner was motivated.
37On 30 July 2013, this Court by a judgment whilst acknowledging the Petitioner's concern and its interest to promote and protect the game of cricket in India, rejected the said objections, entertained the public interest litigation and granted relief by declaring the constitution of the probe panel as illegal against the rules and regulations of Respondent No.1-BCCI. This Court observed that prima facie role of Respondent No.2 in appointing the two members probe panel cannot be ruled out.
38 On 7 August 2013, Respondent No.1 filed SLP No. 25027 of 2013 and challenged judgment dated 30 July 2013 of this Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to grant the prayer of Respondent 21/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 22 pil107.13-fnl.sxw No.1 for the stay of the said judgment of this Court. The said SLP is pending hearing. In the month of August 2013, a separate SLP was filed by the Petitioner being SLP No. 26633 of 2013 against the said order of this Court to the limited extent, in so far as this Court permitted Respondent No.1 to constitute the probe panel even after holding that the probe commission was not constituted in accordance with its rules. It was the case of the Petitioner that this Court ought to have constituted the fresh probe panel to function under the monitoring of the Court. On 7 August 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 25027 of 2013 issued notices to the Respondents.
39 On 6 October 2013, in the AGM of Respondent No.1, Respondent No. 2 got elected for another term of one year wherein not a single member raised any objection despite adverse comments by this Court on the role of Respondent No.2 in constituting the probe panel to enquire into allegations of betting in IPL 7 matches against his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan. On 8 October 2013, in the SLP filed by the Petitioner, the Supreme Court by its order constituted a fresh probe panel comprising of 3 members headed by Justice Mukul Madgal (Retd.), Former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High 22/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 23 pil107.13-fnl.sxw Court to go into the complaints against Mr. Gurunath Miyappan pertaining to betting and spot fixing, amongst others, and requested the panel to submit its report.
40 In the months of September/October 2013, Gurunath Meyeippan, son-in-law of Respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted by Mumbai Police under Maharashtra Gambling Act for accusation of match fixing and spot betting in IPL 6 matches.
41 In or about October 2013, Suits filed by Mr. Muthiah in the Madras High Court (Civil Suit No. 930 of 2008 and Civil Suit No. 1167 of 2008) were withdrawn.
42 On 20 November 2013, the Petitioner filed the present PIL in public interest challenging the rules and regulation of BCCI which were amended arbitrarily against the public policy, thus raising serious concern against Mr. N. Srinivasan acting in conflict of interest. The Petitioner challenges the amendment to the following rules and regulation of Respondent No.1, which as stated is a complete malafide exercise of power to sub-serve the personal interest of Respondent No.2 and vitally, materially and prejudicially effects the functioning of 23/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 24 pil107.13-fnl.sxw Respondent No.1 in a fair, independent and democratic manner. The amendment to Regulation 6.2.4 has been done only because Respondent No.2 is the Managing Director of ICL, which was awarded the Chennai Franchise named as Chennai Super Kings and thus had a clear and direct commercial interest in the IPL League. Clause 15 of the BCCI Rules and Regulations were revised by extending the maximum tenure of the President and requiring the appointment of the President on a zonal representation basis. In order to sub-serve the personal interest of Respondent No.2, Regulation 15 which was a vital provision to ensure the functioning of Respondent No.1 in a democratic manner and to ensure that all parts of the country with a fair and equal opportunity, has been amended.
43 On 12 December 2013, vide email, Secretary of CAB issued a notice to almost 160 newspaper reporters and news channels, both in India and abroad informing them about the listing of the present proceedings before this Court on 13 December 2013. On 13 December 2013, order passed by the Division Bench of this Court stating that interim reliefs, if any, will be considered not before the next occasion.
24/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 25 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
44 PIL No. 30 of 2014 filed by CAB against the BCCI and Mr.
Srinivasan, inter alia seeking the appointment of an Independent Governance Review Committee to review the Rules and Regulations of the BCCI.
45 On 10 November 2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order in SLP Nos. 25027 of 2013 and 26633 of 2013 directing that this Court should confine the hearing in the present Petition to determine the validity of amendments made to Regulations 6.2.4 and Regulation 15.
46 On 19 November 2014, nominations to be filed for the post of President in respect of the elections for the posts of President, Vice President, Hon'ble Secretary, Hon'ble Joint Secretary, Hon'ble Treasurer. On 20 November 2014, scheduled date for holding the AGM of the BCCI for electing the President of the BCCI.
Preliminary objection of maintainability of PIL against sports body and scope to interfere with the unanimous decisions at the 25/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 26 pil107.13-fnl.sxw instance of third person:-
47 The preliminary objection raised by the BCCI with regard to the maintainability of the present PIL, in our view, cannot be the only reason not to consider the challenge so raised in the present petition, specifically in view of order dated 10 November 2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No(s). 4235/2014, whereby it is observed as under:-
"Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel however in reply concluded that the scope of the petition filed before the Bombay High Court is totally different inasmuch as the said petition is concerned only with the validity of Rules 6.2.4 and 15 of the Rules and Regulations of BCCI. She urged that the proceedings before the Bombay High Court shall not spill beyond the consideration of the validity of the said provisions and that the apprehension expressed by the BCCI that the issues arising for consideration before this Court may also be agitated before the Bombay High Court is misplaced.
In the light of the statement made by Ms. Chidambaram, we have no difficulty in saying that the petition pending before the Bombay High Court shall remain confined to the examination of the validity of the Rules mentioned above. Issues that fall for consideration in these proceedings need not therefore be brought within the sweep of the proceedings before the Bombay High Court."26/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 :::
ssm 27 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
48 The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties
have read and referred the following Supreme Court judgments including Division Bench judgment of this Court dealing with the issue of maintainability of such Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically against Respondent No.1, in support of their respective contentions. Though the facts and circumstances are different and distinguishable, the principle with regard to entertain such PIL against BCCI and/or such body need to be tested on the foundation of present averments and/or prayers so raised in the Petition.
49 We are inclined to conclude the maintainability issue by referring to paragraphs 30 and 31 of Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 1 but, to what extent the scope and power of Article 226 can be invoked at the instance of Petitioner in the present facts and circumstances, is still the issue. Paragraphs 30 and 31 read as under:-
"30. However, it is true that the Union of India has been exercising certain control over the activities of the Board in regard to organising cricket matches and travel of the Indian team abroad as also granting of permission to allow the foreign teams to come to India. But this control 1 (2005) 4 SCC 649 27/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 28 pil107.13-fnl.sxw over the activities of the Board cannot be construed as an administrative control. At best this is purely regulatory in nature and the same according to this Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case ([2002] 5 SCC 111) is not a factor indicating a pervasive State control of the Board."
"31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved in the game of cricket. These activities can be said to be akin to public duties or State functions and if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a petition under Article
32. But that does not mean that the violator of such right would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a State.
Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for violation of a right of a citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not available, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which is much wider than Article
32."
50 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, we are inclined to entertain the present PIL. The question still remains, the scope and purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though by nature of Public Interest Litigation, to interfere with the power, function and related administration of BCCI which is nothing but a private body constituted and registered and governed by the respective rules and regulations for all the activities of the members under TNSR Act.
28/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 29 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
51 We have gone through the facts and grounds of challenges
so raised by the Petitioner and also the other main rules and regulations of BCCI as read and referred by both the counsel.
52 The allegations made by the Petitioner, so also the submissions, that the amendments intended to sub-serve the commercial interest of Respondent No.2. He was President of the BCCI and the owner of IPL franchise. He awarded compensation of franchisees and contracts for media rights. The amendments caused prejudice to the functioning of Respondent No.1. He acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of Respondent No.1 and the game of cricket. Respondent No.2 was an office bearer and ex-officio member of governing council of IPL and standing committee member, he awarded franchisees of Chennai Super Kings to ICL, where he was the Managing Director. Respondent No.1 ought to have disqualified him from any office. This was with regard to Regulation 6.2.4 in question. For Regulation 15, the challenge was again referring to Respondent No. 2 that he would obtain consent from two members of East Zone for contesting the post of President of BCCI by using his influence and thereby on second time, he would enjoy the post of 29/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 30 pil107.13-fnl.sxw President, though he was past-President of South Zone. This would affect the principle of Zonal rotation for the post of President.
53 Admittedly, the amendments in question have been passed unanimously by following due procedure, as per the regulations, firstly in the year 2008 and lastly in the year 2012. No specific challenge/objection was raised by the concerned members of the Association (BCCI) which, in the present facts and circumstances, are nothing but more than 30 members of association, as referred and read in the regulations. These members have been independently forming team for the regions and conducting their cricket matches of all sorts. The regulation permits them to have their own team and encourage games by all possible mode and mechanism. To permit such "multiple interest" acceptable mode and mechanism, there is no bar. On the contrary, it is the practice of the club. The respective members of BCCI are State Cricket Associations and Cricket Clubs having their own rules, governing their own principles. It is settled that these regulations are contractual in nature and do not have force of law. These are for internal functioning, management and administration of private club/society/association.
30/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 31 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
54 If we consider even otherwise, the involvement and
participation of people at large, specifically when we are dealing with the BCCI which is nothing but a private body having the objects to control/maintain and to take steps related to Cricket at National and International level.
55 The BCCI is a "private body"/ "Association of members". It is not a "statutory body" and/or "public body" by any statute, even for their administration, working and management is concerned. Merely because, writ with above background is maintainable, that itself cannot be the reason to interfere with the unanimous decision taken by the BCCI. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, conceded the statement that amended rules have been passed unanimously by following due procedure of law. No challenge is raised on that count also. This in our view, further restrict the scope of writ jurisdiction to entertain the resolutions so passed and the decision so taken at the instance of the third person/party, like the Petitioner, specifically when there was no such challenge as recorded above, as raised by any members of the BCCI. There is no challenge to the resolution passed in the AGM as well.
31/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 :::ssm 32 pil107.13-fnl.sxw Allegations are made but all the relevant members of BCCI were not made party-
56 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner read and referred the averments of the Petition, basically revolving around the allegations/counter-allegations against Respondent No.2.
The Petitioners allegations are not only against Respondent No.2, but it also affect directly against all the BCCI members, who have resolved to revised the rules unanimously. All these members are not made party. Respondent No.2 is only former Governor/President but there were others also, who were in-charge of helm of affairs of BCCI at the relevant time. All will be benefited if members desired to select and/or appoint for second term, any such leader/President, so also the aspect of "multiple interest".
No personal knowledge of important event/facts except unsupported allegations-
57 The Petitioner was not involved anywhere in the BCCI and/or not even the member of the BCCI at the relevant time. The 32/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 33 pil107.13-fnl.sxw collection of information/averments so raised and read mentioned in the Petition, therefore, must have been on the basis of various sources, known-unknown, but certainly have no personal knowledge of each and every alleged averments so made. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents have also read and referred the earlier petition filed by the Petitioner (Cricket Association of Bihar Vs. Board of Control For Cricket in India & Ors.-PIL No. 55 of 2013, Judgment dated 30 July 2013) and pointed out that though the similar averments are raised, but ultimately not pressed other reliefs. The Petitioner had knowledge about the amended rules, but not challenged the validity of the same at that time.
58 We cannot overlook, though it is a Public Interest Litigation, the verification clause of the present Petition and various allegations and averments are made against the Respondents without personal knowledge of the relevant facts. The Petition appears to be based upon the information collected. The basic facts/averments so made against the Respondents referring to and challenge to regulation 6.2.4 and also referring to clause 15 including prayers, from para 7 to 21 is stated to be on information and belief. Para 1 to 6 so recorded 33/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 34 pil107.13-fnl.sxw above, which we have perused, are based upon the information collected by the Petitioner on his record. There is nothing mentioned with regard to his personal knowledge and/or information received from particular person, on which point/issue/facts except the vague allegations so made against the Respondents. Both the Respondents have not accepted these allegations in their reply. We are also not dealing with these aspects of betting and or gambling, as the matters are pending in the Supreme Court, referring to the allegations, as well as, the inquiry so initiated. However, as the specific challenges are raised, we are dealing with the same independently, considering the scope and power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the internal management and/or unanimous decision taken by Respondent No.1, in accordance with law.
59 One Mr. Muthiah had filed Suits which now, ultimately are withdrawn in October 2013. The Petitioner has filed this Petition on 20 November 2013. The conduct of the Petitioner and the timing of such challenge, inspite of knowledge of amended rules, cannot be overlooked.
34/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 :::ssm 35 pil107.13-fnl.sxw There is no declared policy and bar for such "multiple interest"
which is in the interest of the game of cricket-
60 It is difficult to dissect and accept the challenge only of these amended regulations, so sought to be contended by the Petitioner independently and/or separately. The other rules and regulations are valid for all the purposes to achieve the object. The unanimous decision so taken, to bring in amended rules to handle the developing situation like IPL/CLT20, which is nothing but a commercial project recognized by the BCCI and its members. There is no such policy or statutory rules and regulations to deal with and to govern such private League matches. Being a body concerned and connected with the cricket in every aspect, therefore, considering the situation, decided to amend the rules to control and/or regulate such commercial aspect of IPL/CLT20, no fault can be found with it, basically at the instance of the Petitioner in the year 2014, based upon the stated allegations to favour Respondent No.2. We are declined to accept this submission, as the unanimous decision so taken by the Association members, which is in the interest of people at large and necessary for the proper and to control commercial aspects of the Cricket to avoid conflicts, basically the cricket for domestic and/or for 35/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 36 pil107.13-fnl.sxw international level, considering the globalization of sports events at all levels. It cannot be only for and/or in the interest of Respondent No.2. It is in the interest of game. Therefore, the unanimous decision so taken, in our view, cannot be side-tracked merely because there are certain litigations and/or allegations are raised against Respondent No.2 or others. As already recorded, we are not dealing with and/or concerned with those allegations. Even otherwise, such allegations by and/or against one person just cannot be the reason to interfere with the majority decision so taken by the BCCI.
61 Bare allegations by and/or against one person, even if any, which are not admitted and/or as the matters are pending, just cannot be the reason to raise doubt and/or raise objection against the amended rules by the BCCI and its members. The factual and actual allegations and/or pending inquiry, even if any, in no way can be the reason to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the unanimous decision so taken. Those resolutions are not even challenged. The revised rules have been incorporated and acted upon by all the concerned since 2008/2012 without any interruption.36/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 :::
ssm 37 pil107.13-fnl.sxw The approved "multiple interest" and alleged "conflict of interest"-
62 The issue with regard to the conflict of interest need to be tested again in the background of events, as well as, the object and purpose of BCCI to deal with and control the game of cricket in India.
The BCCI regulations as incorporated and considering the objects, it is clear that it is intended for the Indian Players, Team Managers, Umpires and Administrators and all related officials for the respective test ODI and/or to CLT20 matches. The commercial concept of ODI and/or CLT20 came into picture recently. One cannot overlook the aspect that Respondent No.1 is a society registered under TNSR Act with intent to serve and develop the cricket and related aspects in India. The registration of such society has its own requirements. The commercial interest so incorporated because of change of scenario need to be taken care of independently and as taken care of, in our view, by excluding events like IPL and CLT20, by Respondent No.1 just cannot be faulted with, basically when the amendments have been carried out by following due procedure of law.37/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 :::
ssm 38 pil107.13-fnl.sxw
63 Use, abuse and misuse of such rules, prior or after
amendment even if any, are the matters which required to be dealt with separately based upon the factual aspect of allegations against individual members and/or person involved in it. That in our view, the subsequent events and/or alleged events and/or background, that itself is not sufficient to accept the submission of "conflict of interest"
so stated in the present facts and circumstances of the case. We see, except the averments so raised, there is no illegality in incorporating such amendments, basically when there is no material placed to justify the reason, for the challenge raised only against Respondents, so late without joining all the members of BCCI as party.
64 There is no bar expressed or implied in the Rules and/or declared policy by the BCCI that such members cannot participate and/or encourage the game of cricket to entertain the cricket fans by playing matches among the members team. Having once accepted to distinct the purpose and object of BCCI and IPL Committee, to say that the President and/or selected bodies/members should not participate and be part of committee is also unacceptable. The role is different and so also the purpose. The concept "conflict of interest" is also not 38/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 39 pil107.13-fnl.sxw defined under the rules and regulations, earlier and/or at present.
Therefore, unless rules and regulations are framed even for such League matches, the amendment cannot be stated to be unjust and/or contrary to the law. We are not deciding the individual subsequent action and inaction of any office bearers. That has to be dealt with separately. That itself cannot be the reason to declare the amended rules illegal and bad in law as sought to be contended.
65The law/amended rules cannot be declared illegal merely because it may lead to "conflict of interest" or protect some one from future individual conflicts or complications. It must be contrary to law, specific provisions, rule/regulation and/or any "public policy". In the year 2008, there were others also, in the helm of the affairs of BCCI and IPL, CLT20, national and international commercial matches.
Such amendment benefits or its utilizations was intended only for Respondent No.2 and not for the BCCI or its other members/officers, is unacceptable. The presence of "conflict of interest" is based upon the actual proved contra material for and against the named person and/or association. Impropriety or amended rules gives rise to "conflict of interest", and is again a matter of future events and 39/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 40 pil107.13-fnl.sxw evidence for or against the individuals, how that leads to a conclusion that the amended rules are illegal, per-se specially when no material to show that such amendments are contrary to any specific provisions of law and/or any declared public policy. The usefulness of such amendments also need to be considered from the point of view of members/the BCCI. The private body's affairs/management is also for their members to decide and act accordingly. No third person can be permitted to interfere in "internal management" through such PIL.
66 All the players, apart from the BCCI, umpires, franchise owners are involved in this type of game of cricket. The control and management of the BCCI, taking note of the object and purpose of their regulation and registration of the private body/society under Registration Act, is also relevant factor for them to restrict their commercial activities, but the developing interest in cricket in view of such game also needs to be encouraged by and through the Committee so constituted. This itself necessitates that the BCCI body/officers should also be involved and supervise the affairs of such Committee (IPL). There is no illegality in framing such (amended) rules. It is well within the framework of law and the record, apart 40/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 41 pil107.13-fnl.sxw from requirement to handle the commercial aspect of the game, so also the obligations and responsibility of the BCCI for the cricket. We have to take into consideration broader prospective related aspects and not the restrictive vision based upon the vague and uncleared material from the points of some individuals.
Long practice and permissible mode to allow the members to have their own team for their region/area:-
67 From the rules and regulations of BCCI, it is clear that the official work and the commercial aspects of such club/body are separate, but within permissible mode. There is nothing foreign that the members have their respective teams to play games/sports and participate accordingly for their respective players/regional teams and compete accordingly by self financing and/or through the sponsorer, apart from club activities being members of the sports club. It is permissible. There are so many incidents, where the members by spending their own money, time sponsored the team and play the matches in the interest of game and charity. This commercial format is also permissible. There is no bar. Two or more, but distinct and not in conflict with the object of the club, such related separate 41/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 42 pil107.13-fnl.sxw activity, cannot be treated or held to be bad in law, so also the related consequential amended rules to implement it. The disclosed and known private interest of members was well within the knowledge of the BCCI. They, in fact permitted the members to go ahead in the interest of the game. The financial help and/or sponsorship by members and/or others are known phenomenon of any sports activities. All these aspects are requirement of the time and separated accordingly, but under the supervision of the main sports body, is well within the framework of law. Nothing wrong in such insightful amendments, based upon the developing interest of all sorts and the events, which took place even prior to October 2008, when other leaders/stake holders were in-charge of the BCCI and the IPL Committee.
68 The amended rules have potential as contended for personal, ethical and moral breaches cannot be the reason to declare it illegal, specifically when it is within the provisions of law and regulations of the sports club. The personal interest was known to all.
Any "multiple interest" itself cannot be treated as "conflict of interest".
The permissible use of such situation cannot be the reason to declare 42/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 43 pil107.13-fnl.sxw the source of such "multiple interest" as illegal and bad in law, specifically when there is no bar. No loss to the BCCI recorded. It may benefit all other members/players/umpires of the BCCI also.
69 We have to deal with the aspects of legality of rules and not the individual member's action or inaction. The relevant club/ body, at the most, may take action after due inquiry if so advised if the case of "conflict of interest" is made out, in accordance with law, but to declare such amended rules bad in law in such circumstances, is unacceptable submission. The personal benefits must be adverse to the official body, interest and action must be contrary to the declared regulations and policy. Here everything is otherwise and permissible.
All the persons/points/interests have been disclosed and known to all.
70 So far as rule 15 is concerned, unless two members of the zone in question permit, no person/past president can contest the election from any of the other Zones in question. The amendments so brought in on face of record, just cannot be tested at the instance of the Petitioner, on the basis of assumption and presumption as if Respondent No. 2 is the only past president. All members are aware 43/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 44 pil107.13-fnl.sxw of their rights and entitlements. As we have already recorded in the given facts and circumstances, the respective members and/or concerned person may take action and/or challenge after the event is recorded and/or completed. At this stage, we see no illegality, basically when no material placed on record except the averments so made to challenge the amended rule 15 as recorded above.
71 There are other former President of respective zone also, who may be nominated/selected to lead the other zone, subject to rules. The choice so given cannot be overlooked to appoint former President/Governor, for one more time. There may be various other positive sides of such amendments.
The restricted right of third person and the internal management of sports body-
72 In Supreme Court Bar Association and Ors. Vs. B.D. Kaushik 2 , the Apex Court has observed that:-
"52. In matters of internal management of an association, the courts normally do not interfere, leaving it open to the association and its members to frame a particular bye-law, rule or Regulation which 2 (2011) 13 SCC 774 44/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 45 pil107.13-fnl.sxw may provide for eligibility and or qualification for the membership and/or providing for limitations/restrictions on the exercise of any right by and as a member of the said association. It is well settled legal proposition that once a person becomes a member of the association, such a person looses his individuality qua the association and he has no individual rights except those given to him by the rules and Regulations and/or bye-laws of the association."
"55.............The said Association is entitled to have its own Rules and Regulations. In fact, it is contemplated in the Act that a Committee of management can be constituted to manage the affairs of the Society as specified in the Rules and Regulations. The Memorandum of Association is a contract amongst the members of the Society, which though required to be registered under the Statute, does not acquire any statutory character. These are rules which govern internal control and management of the Society. The authority to frame, amend, vary and rescind such rules, undoubtedly, vests in the General Body of the Members of the Society. The power to amend the rules is implicit in the power to frame rules".
73 Above judgment even restricts the rights of members to challenge the decision taken by the majority. We are in the present case, its a unanimous decision and challenge is raised by the third person who though may have interest in the cricket, no case is made out to interfere with the unanimous decision as all the members think that the amendment is in the interest of cricket and for people at 45/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 46 pil107.13-fnl.sxw large. BCCI is the best authority and body, as empowered to take decision in the interest of cricket is definitely includes the commercial interest of cricket also. All are governed by the rules and regulations and the amendments so carried out in accordance with law, no fault can be founded at the instance of the Petitioner.
74 We are not dealing with the aspects of violation of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and/or constitutionality, as no such case is made out.
The Petitioner based upon the averments so made, which in our view, cannot itself be the reason to enlarge the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the permitted and permissible in-house management and/or administration of private body, like BCCI, with regard to the challenge to the amendments in question.
No such case is made out, in our view, to interfere with the amendments.
75 The Respondents submissions that the PIL endorsement and non-compliances of formality, even if any, also cannot be the reason to dismiss the matter and so also the submission that it is proxy litigation, we are not inclined to go into that detail, as not necessary 46/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 47 pil107.13-fnl.sxw for the above events and the reasons so recorded. The submission of exemplary costs is also rejected.
76 Conclusion:-
(a) The scope of challenge raised in this petition is circumscribed by two factors. First, the order of the Apex Court dated 10 November 2014. Second, the basic principle of non-interference by the Courts in the internal affairs of a private body. In view of the order passed by the Apex Court, we have looked at the challenge to the rules without being coloured by the allegations made against Respondent No.2.
b) The challenge to the rules is on the ground that such rules are unfair and not in public interest. We have not shown any fundamental principle of law or a statutory provision is violated. In spite of repeated calling upon the petitioners to show any such fundamental principle or a statutory provision, the petitioners failed to do so. No such principle or a statutory bar, on the basis of which the rule can be held to be invalid, was shown No material was produced to show 47/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 48 pil107.13-fnl.sxw how the rules are against a public policy and how it affects the game of Cricket so fundamentally that the Court must intervene and set aside the rule. To set aside a rule framed by a private body,without reference to any facts, a prohibition must be found within the enactment governing the private body. It is not possible, of a vague perception of a public policy to set aside a rule unanimously passed. In the case of Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & anr. v/s District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Urban) & ors. 3 , the Apex Court has emphasized that such criteria have to be introduced by legislative intervention and not by the Courts ,coining theory that what appears to be not consistent with the general fairness ,would be declared as opposed to the public policy.
c) The belated PIL at the instance of third person, based upon vague/frivolous averments pleaded, cannot be used and utilized to interfere with the unanimous decision taken by the private sports body (the BCCI), specifically when not 3 (2005) 5 SCC 632 48/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 49 pil107.13-fnl.sxw joined, all the members of the club who have taken unanimous decision and approved the amended rules in question in the years 2008 and 2012. The official body of the BCCI and the officials of the IPL Committee, worked on the basis of respective declared regulations, separately.
Who will be benefited out of such amendments and/or who will use or misuse, is not Court's concern. We have to see whether it is within the framework of law and regulation or not. The commercial format of cricket and/or such sports activities definitely attracts attention of all concerned, therefore, required appropriate policy/guidelines to check and control the same.
d) We need to see the positive side of the amendment so made and as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondents. The unanimous decision so taken having experience of taking control of such situation and as there is no specific rules and regulations, and considering the interest of BCCI aims and object of Indian team, as well as, the international and national CLT20 49/50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 ::: ssm 50 pil107.13-fnl.sxw commercial aspect, and to avoid conflicts even if any, decided to revise the rules, to say that the decision so taken by the BCCI, performing the alleged public duties/functions, cannot be stated to be contrary to the aims and object of the body or any law or public policy. They are under obligation to control to promote, control and encourage such game for the people at large and do the necessary things to avoid conflicts and complications.
77 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter we are inclined to pass the following order:-
ORDER
a) The Public Interest Litigation/Petition is dismissed.
b) Rule is accordingly discharged.
c) There shall be no order as to costs.
(N.M. JAMDAR, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
50/50
::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2014 23:47:13 :::