JUDGMENT

H.L. Gokhale, J.

1. These three Special Leave Petitions seek to challenge three orders passed by three different benches of Bombay High Court, on the proceedings initiated by the Appellant against the first Respondent Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to either as `first Respondent' or the `BCCI').

2. The first Respondent is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The Petitioner, herein, is a member of the first respondent representing one of its constituent associations. As a part of its activities, the first Respondent had organized a cricket competition under the banner `Indian Premier League' shortly known as (IPL), and the Petitioner was appointed as the incharge Chairman thereof. Considering the popularity of the game of cricket, these games were to be televised. Telecasting of these games was expected to fetch a good income to BCCI and the firm entrusted with the telecasting of these games, and therefore, the rights for telecasting were auctioned by first Respondent through a bidding process for an appropriate price.

3. In April 2010, the first Respondent received a complaint from a bidder alleging breach of confidentiality against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was therefore, suspended from his position on 25.4.2010.

(a) He was served with a show cause notice dated 25.4.2010 inter-alia alleging/accusing him of (i) accepting multi-million dollar kickback while assigning the telecasting rights for IPL matches; (ii) attempting to rig the bids for the two new IPL teams-that were auctioned the previous month; (iii) having proxy stakes in IPL teams; (iv) entering into transactions with rank strangers against the mandate of the Governing Council of the IPL; (v) helping family members in benefiting from the IPL contracts.

(b) Thereafter another show cause notice was issued to him on 6.5.2010 which alleged inter-alia that he was seeking to create a parallel cricket body at international level (particularly in England) and thereby subvert the present International Cricket structure. The Petitioner sought certain information and documents from the first Respondent in this behalf, but the same were not furnished.

4. The Petitioner sent his reply to the first show cause notice on 15.5.2010 denying the allegations therein. Thereafter, he wrote to Shri Shashank Manohar, the Honorary President of the first Respondent on 25.5.2010 requesting him that he should recuse himself from the decision making process in the interest of fairness. The Petitioner then sent his reply to the second show cause notice on 31.5.2010. The first Respondent served him the third show cause notice on the same day i.e. 31.5.2010 wherein they alleged amongst other things that the petitioner had committed irregularities and illegalities in the award of the IPL tenders for the Theatrical Rights. The Petitioner replied to this notice on 15.6.2010.

5. Consequent upon the objection raised by the Petitioner, Shri Shanshank Manohar recused himself from the Disciplinary Committee, which was to decide upon the show cause notices. The first Respondent has a disciplinary committee to deal with the misconducts of its members. It is constituted under rule 1 (q) of the rules governing the first Respondent society. This rule reads as follows:

(q) Disciplinary Committee: The Board shall at every Annual General Meeting appoint a Committee consisting of three persons of whom the President shall be one of them to inquire into and deal with the matter relating to any act of indiscipline or misconduct or violation of any of the Rules and Regulations by any player, Umpire, Team, Official, Administrator, Selector or any person appointed or employed by BCCI. The Committee shall have full power and authority to summon any person(s) and call for any evidence it may deem fit and necessary and make and publish its decision including imposing penalties if so required, as provided in the Memorandum and rules and Regulations.

6. On