MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THESE three CRPs arise out of a common order dated 17-10-2001 passed in I. A. Nos. 1659, 2844 and 2845 of 2001 in O. S. No. 10 of 2001 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) SINCE these three revisions arise out of a common order, they are taken up together and are being decided by the following common order.

( 3 ) PETITIONER in these three revisions is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 10 of 2001 which is instituted under Section 26 Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC seeking the following relief s, viz. ,a) By declaring a portion of clause 38 (ii) of the Rules of BCCI after its severance to the extent which precludes, prohibits the plaintiff from calling into question the action taken by the committee as a result of an enquiry under the clause, in any court of law as bad, illegal, unconstitutional opposed to public policy; b) And by declaring the appointment of defendant No. 2 and report drawn up by him as null and void, contrary to the established procedure and ultra-vires. c) And by declaring the proceedings of the first defendant dated 05-12-2000 punishment and imposition of life ban there under duly communicated by the Secretary through his letter dated 11-12-2000 as being null and void contrary to rules and regulations of BCCI, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16, 19 (1) (e), (g), 20 (3) and 21 of the Constitution of India; d) It is also further just and necessary to declare that the plaintiff be permitted to play cricket during his life time for the Indian National Tem and such other teams during his life time and shall be entitled to all retirement benefits as an international cricketer in India and to permit him to hold any such position as may be available are may be considered in BCCI or ICC; e) It is further more just and necessary that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue a perpetual and permanent injunction restraining the defendants in any way either interfering or restricting the cricketing career of the plaintiff directly or indirectly; f) For the costs of the suit; g) such other relief or reliefs as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper to be passed in the circumstances of the case.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFF who is a former captain of Indian cricket team instituted the said suit against three defendants viz. , 1) The Board of Control for Cricket in India; 2) K. Madhavan, Commissioner appointed by the defendant No. 1; and 3) Dr. A. C. Muthaiah, the then President of the defendant No. 1.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF claimed that because of his excellent performance in cricket, he was selected to represent India in Cricket tests against England in India during 1984-85. As he is a prolific batsman and player of high caliber, he was selected as Captain of Indian Cricket Team. He represented Indian cricket team not only in this country but also outside the country and had brought laurels not only to the Indian cricket team but also to the nation in the field of cricket.

( 6 ) PLAINTIFF instituted the suit mainly questioning the order dated 5-12-2000 communicated to him on 11-12-2000 imposing a life ban on the cricketing career of the plaintiff by the first defendant - BCCI. In the pleadings set out in several paragraphs, the plaintiff has taken pains to narrate the instances of irregularities committed by the BCCI and the biased attitude of the third defendant against the plaintiff and also the manner in which the second defendant was appointed as enquiry officer by the third defendant and the manner in which the proceedings dated 5-12-2000 imposing a life ban on his cricketing career were issued.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to the principle averments in the plaint, the first defendant is a society registered under the provisions of Indian Societies Registration Act at Madras on 28-11-1940. The power and duties and control over the affairs and conduct of players, enquiry, working committee etc. , are all governed by the memorandum of rules and regulations of the first defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document