RAHUL MEHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed in public interest claiming various reliefs against, inter alia, the Board Of Control For Cricket In India (Respondent No.2)(hereinafter referred to as "BCCI") and the Delhi & District Cricket Association (Respondent No.3)(hereinafter referred to as "DDCA") which is a member association of the BCCI. As claimed in the first paragraph of the petition, it has been filed to ensure that organizations such as BCCI & DDCA which have been created for the purpose of promotion of cricket in the country and which have acquired a monopoly status by virtue of alleged Government recognition and patronage, perform their duties and obligations which is to promote and develop cricket in the country and that they do not function as private empires of some businessmen and traders who have allegedly come to control it and abuse it for their own interests and profits. The petitioners contend that BCCI & DCCA function as Government recognised monopolies and, as such, perform State functions of promoting cricket in the country. They further contend that BCCI & DDCA cannot be permitted to function as purely private organisations without any accountability or obligation to the people of this country. The petitioners further seek directions to the Government of India to ensure that BCCI & DDCA function in an accountable manner and for the objects for which they have been created and recognised by the Government, failing which the Government must withdraw its recognition and patronage from these organizations.

(2.) Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, a serious objection has been taken by the BCCI to the maintainability of this petition. They contend that they are not amenable to the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Arguments were, therefore, heard only on this preliminary issue. 2.1 On his part, the first petitioner (Mr Rahul Mehra), who appeared in person, relied heavily on the judgement dated 17.9.2001 delivered by a Single Judge of this Court in CW 867/2001 (Shri Ajay Jadeja v. Union of India & Ors: (2002) 95 DLT 14). He initially submitted that the issue was decided in that case that a writ petition could be entertained against the BCCI. However, as there was an objection raised by the learned counsel for the BCCI that the said judgement had been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner submitted that, though the Division Bench had not set aside the said judgement on merits but merely on the basis of a consent order, he was free to adopt the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the said judgement as his submissions before this court to contend that BCCI was amenable to the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Since there was some controversy with regard to the legal effect of the setting aside of the said judgement of the learned Single Judge in Ajay Jadeja's case (supra), it is best to deal with it straight away. The decision dated 17.9.2001 disposed of the preliminary objection to maintainability of the writ petition by holding that a writ petition against BCCI was maintainable as it performed a public duty or a public function. BCCI, being aggrieved by this decision filed a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA 531/2001. The writ petition (CW 867/2001- Ajay Jadeja v UOI & Ors) was, after it was held to be maintainable as aforesaid, placed before a Division Bench of this Court for hearing on merits. The LPA was also placed before the same Division Bench. In fact, even the present writ petition was heard together with these two matters by the same Division Bench. That Bench passed separate orders in these three matters on 30.10.2002.