The matter is coming up for Admission. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue had taken notice on behalf of 2nd respondent and Sri Adinarayana Rao had taken notice on behalf of 3rd respondent on 30.10.2009 and requested time to get instructions.

2. Sri Arun Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that inasmuch as the 3rd respondent is a lessee under the Government and inasmuch as the 3rd respondent is discharging certain public functions, the writ petition is maintainable.

3. Sri Adinarayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the 3rd respondent, however, had taken a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable and even if the petitioner is aggrieved of any such action since this may fall under dispute regarding management, the remedy if any may be under Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001 and the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

4. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not calling for short tender for stadia rights in connection with the one day international day and night cricket match to be played on 5th November 2009 between India and Australia at Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001 and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to call for short term tender for stadia rights (inside stadium for advertisements) as respondents 1 and 2 failed to discharge their duties by being mere onlookers to what is happening and to pass such other suitable orders.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Member of the Hyderabad Cricket Association and Secretary of Sagar Cricket Club, Hyderabad and he is having vast experience in' contract field. It is also stated that Sagar Cricket Club is affiliated to Hyderabad Cricket Association. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent-Association had been registered under A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act 1350 F (Act 1 of 1350 F) bearing Registration No.207 of 1961 and the said Association is functioning as per the Societies Registration Act. The Hyderabad Cricket Association is affiliated to B.C.C.I. and the 3rd respondent looks after the day-to-day affairs of the Rajiv Gandhi Cricket Stadium at Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. Several further facts had been narrated in Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The allotment of stadia rights without calling for public tender had been made the principal ground of attack.

6. The decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Zee Tele Films Ltd and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 2005 SC 2677, had been relied upon. No doubt, minority view had been strongly relied upon by the Counsel representing the writ petitioner Sri Arun Kumar and equally Sri Adinarayana Rao representing the 3rd respondent also relied upon the said decision. The majority opinion while following the decision in Pradeep Kumar Biswas and others v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, 2003 (1) ALD 40 (SC) = 2002 (5) SCC 111, was as follows (at Paras 24 and 25):

'To these facts if we apply the principles laid down by seven-Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), it would be clear that the facts established do not cumulatively show that the Board is financially, functionally or administratively dominated by or is under the control of the Government. Thus the little control that the Government may be said to have on the Board is not pervasive in nature. Such limited control is purely regulatory control and nothing more.

Assuming for argument sake that some of the functions do partake the nat