Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Mr. A. C. Borbora, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners replying to the question of maintainability submitted that though the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Another vs. union of India & Others , reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649 held that the BCCI is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution but at the same time opined that when a private entity exercises public Page No.# 12/31 functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has remedies not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners referred to paragraph Nos.31 to 34 of the said judgment. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Others , reported in (2015) 3 SCC 251 and submitted that it was opined that though the BCCI may not be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, but certainly it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the BCCI clearly was discharges public functions and in that regard referred to paragraph Nos.33 to 35 of the said judgment. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further drew the attention of this Court to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Others, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 624 wherein also it was duly accepted that the BCCI discharges public functions and was amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that as the BCCI as well as the ACA, both discharge public functions, they would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction and accordingly, the instant writ petition is maintainable.

18. From the pleadings as well as the above submissions, the following points for determination arises for consideration:

(i) Whether the writ petitions would be maintainable against the respondents in the present facts?

(ii) Whether this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can adjudicate the dispute?

(iii) What relief or reliefs, the parties are entitled to?

19. For deciding the first point for determination, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgments referred to by the learned counsels for the parties. The judgment in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Another (supra) is a judgment of the Constitution Bench wherein the facts in brief were that a notice inviting tender was issued for grant of exclusive television rights for a period of 4 years by the BCCI. Various entertainment groups submitted their offers. The petitioner therein, i.e. Zee Telefilms Ltd. and the 5th respondent, i.e. ESPN Star Sports were found eligible. The BCCI had carried out Page No.# 14/31 negotiations with the petitioner and the private respondent therein and decided to accept the offer of the petitioner and pursuant to which a sum of Rs.92.50 crores was deposited by the petitioner in the State Bank of Travancore and the petitioner agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the offer subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The private respondent therein filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the grant of the rights to the petitioner therein. While the hearing was going on before the Bombay High Court, on 21.09.2004 the BCCI submitted before the Bombay High Court that the entire tender process was cancelled on the ground that no concluded contract reached between the parties as no letter of intent was issued till then. In view of the said submission made by the BCCI, the writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court was withdrawn and on 21.09.2004 itself, the BCCI terminated the contract with the petitioner therein informing that the entire process of tender was cancelled and the security in the form of bank guarantee and the money deposited would be returned. This termination of the contract was put to challenge by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. When the matter was taken up by a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, a reference was made to the Constitution Bench vide an order dated 27.09.2004. In the backdrop of those facts, the majority opinion of the Constitution Bench observed that the BCCI does discharge some duties like selection of the 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 of State functions and if there is any violation of Constitutional and statutory obligations or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved parties may not have a relief by way of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was further observed that the said did not mean that the violation of such rights would go scot-free merely because the Board is not a State. It was observed that 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. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that a private body exercises public functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person Page No.# 15/31 has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article 226. Further to that it was also observed that merely because a non-governmental body exercises some public duty that by itself would not suffice to make such a body or State for the purpose of Article 12. In paragraph No.34 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court opined that why the BCCI is not a State for the purpose of Article 12. Paragraph Nos.31, 32, 33 & 34 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:-

20. Before moving forward to the next judgment, this Court finds it very pertinent to observe that the majority opinion rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court categorically opined that though BCCI is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, but a private body while exercising public functions even if it is not a State would be amenable under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the case of the first judgment, i.e. Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Others, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 251, the Supreme Court observed that in paragraph Nos.22 to 35 after taking note of the judgment in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Another (supra) and opined that though BCCI may not be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, the BCCI certainly was amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The rationale behind the said opinion is that the functions of the BCCI are clearly public functions. Paragraph Nos.33 to 35 of the said judgment are quoted herein under:-

22. The second case of the Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Others, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 624 is a continuation of the first case wherein the Supreme Court passed consequential direction pursuant to the Lodha Committee report.

23. In the backdrop of the aforesaid judgments which were placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, one aspect is very clear that the BCCI though not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution but when the BCCI exercises Page No.# 20/31 public functions it would be amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution.