(Mohit S. Shah, C.J.)

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 11th August, 2010 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short, 'BCCI'), rejecting the petitioner's request for recusal of certain members of the Disciplinary Committee.

2. Initially, the Disciplinary Committee constituted under Article 32(iv) of the Memorandum, Rules and Regulations of BCCI comprised the following honorary members:-

(1) President of BCCI, Mr. Shashank Manohar,

(2) Vice President of BCCI, Mr. Chirayu Amin (respondent No.2), and

(3) Mr. Arun Jaitley (respondent No.3), a member of Governing Council of BCCI.,

3. The Honorary Secretary of BCCI issued notices dated 26th April, 6th May and 31st May, 2010 to the petitioner in respect of the petitioner's conduct as the Commissioner of the Indian Premier League (IPL). The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notices. The petitioner, by his letter dated 26th May, 2010 to the President, BCCI, Mr. Shashank Manohar, made the following requests:-

"(a) The Hon'ble President of BCCI may consider excluding / recusing himself from the decision making process relating to the Show Cause Notice dated 26.4.2010.

(b) The Hon'ble Honorary Secretary, Mr. N. Srinivasan may also be excluded from any further proceedings in relation to the notice dated 26.4.2010."

In the said letter, the petitioner also requested for appointment of a body comprising of independent persons for adjudicating as well as determining whether the cause shown by him is sufficient or not. His case for comprising the Disciplinary Committee of 'independent persons' was that several decisions taken by him were approved by the Governing Council of IPL and BCCI and, therefore, persons representing affiliated members of BCCI may not be associated with the adjudication of the said Show Cause Notices.

4. The President, BCCI, decided to recuse himself from the Disciplinary Committee, and thereupon, the Governing Council re-constituted the Disciplinary Committee as under:-

(1) Mr. Arun Jaitley, Vice President, BCCI, and President, Delhi Cricket Association (respondent No.3 herein);

(2) Mr. Chirayu Amin, Vice President of BCCI and President, Baroda Cricket Association (respondent No.2 herein); and

(3) Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, President, Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association (respondent No. 4 herein).

5. Thereafter, the petitioner served another letter on BCCI and members of the newly constituted Disciplinary Committee on 6th July, 2010, in which he raised objections with regard to some members of the Disciplinary Committee, particularly with regard to respondent No.2, Mr. Chirayu Amin. The petitioner also filed a Writ Petition in this Court against BCCI, its President, Secretary and Members of the Disciplinary Committee for various reliefs. In this Writ Petition, his allegations against respondent No.2, Mr. Chirayu Amin, were reiterated. With regard to present respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Mr. Arun Jaitley and Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia), who were respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the said Writ Petition, the petitioner stated that he was not making any personal allegations of personal bias or malice against them and the other respondents. The Division Bench, which heard the said Writ Petition, referred to various allegations in the show-cause notices issued to the petitioner and also the petitioner's plea of bias. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Division Bench made the following observations:-

"In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a host of reliefs have been prayed for, but having regard to the petitioner's representation dated 6/7/2010, we confined the arguments of the respective parties only on the prayer for reconstitution of the Disciplinary Committee and we made it clear that we are not inclined to consider the other reliefs as prayed for in the petition at such interlocutory stage."

6.