N CHANDRASEKAR Vs. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. MISRA, J. These three writ petitions have been filed in public interest espousing the cause of cricket fans for issuing appropriate writ directing the respondents to refund the amount collected towards the price of the tickets issued for the one day International Cricket Match between India and South Africa which could not be held on 22. 11. 2005 on account of inclement weather.

(2.) THE basic facts in all these three writ petitions, which were heard together, lie within a very narrow compass. Undisputedly the third one day International cricket match between Indian team and the visiting South African team was scheduled to be held at M. A. Chidambaram Stadium at Chepauk (Chennai) on 22. 11. 2005. Such cricket match was to be held as per the tour programme fixed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, in short BCCI. The contesting respondent, namely, the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, in short TNCA, has been entrusted with the responsibility to hold the cricket match. The basic assertion in the various writ petitions is to the effect that TNCA and BCCI should not have scheduled the match in Chennai during the month of November which is considered to be the rainy season. The averment is to the effect that since the organisers were aware of the risk of rain threatening the match, it was improper on their part to hold the match on 22. 11. 2005 and at any rate since the match was abandoned without even a single ball being bowled, the organisers should have refunded the money to the thousands of disappointed spectators who had patiently assembled in the stadium for witnessing the day and night match. It is also asserted in the various writ petitions that keeping in view the nature of duties performed by the BCCI and TNCA, such respondents should be considered as "other authorities" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is further asserted that at any rate keeping in view the nature of duties performed by such respondents, appropriate writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing refund of the amount to the various ticket-holders.

(3.) A common counter has been filed on behalf of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association in W. P. Nos. 38173 and 38314 of 2005. Even though no separate counter has been filed on behalf of BCCI, the stand of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association has been adopted by the BCCI. In such counter affidavit it has been contended that the three petitioners, who were ticket-holders, have claimed personal reliefs for themselves and it cannot be said that they are expousing the cause of general public and in the absence of any relevant pleading indicating that they have filed the writ petitions in the interest of and on behalf of general public, such writ petitions should not be entertained. It is further contended that it has been now decided by the Supreme Court that BCCI is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It has taken the stand that since the match was abandoned on account of incessant rain and not for any fault of TNCA, there is no negligence on the part of the TNCA nor there is any requirement to refund the amount collected through sale of tickets.