1. The Miscellaneous Civil Application is to seek recall/review of the order 09.08.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 4440 of 2011. (Present respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'original petitioner' and present applicant as 'applicant' or 'VCA' or 'the Society' or 'original respondent').

2. The applicant contends, primarily, there are certain errors which would be apparent, for the order has been influenced and impressed and has been carried away by minority view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 649 overlooking the majority view of three judges which in terms segregates and separates the activities of the bodies like the applicant-original respondent holding not to be under any statutory or constitutional obligation or right and bodies like BCCI being not a State or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Since the majority view under its functional approach had considered, keeping in view the requisite relevant tests, present case being otherwise, writ petition No.4440/2011 deserves to be rejected.

3. The original petitioner - respondent herein had played Ranji Trophy cricket matches on behalf of the present applicant and had been its member during 1983 - 84. The present applicant had passed a resolution in August, 2010 about making payment of ex-gratia amount (referred to as "pension") to its past Ranji Trophy Players. The original petitioner had thereafter during the period from August, 2010 to December, 2010 received such amounts. However, since January, 2011 onwards, the amounts were not being credited to his account in the bank. Petitioner thereafter under correspondence queried as to why there has been cessation of such payment to him. The present applicant had informed that there was a decision to discontinue the pension being paid to the original petitioner. The petitioner has under the W.P.No.4440 of 2012 sought direction to the present applicant to pay to him pension regularly per month from January, 2011 onwards.

4. The present applicant has resisted the claim under the writ petition on various grounds inter alia that the present applicant is not the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The decision to make ex-gratia payment to former Ranji Trophy Players was a bounty and not under any statutory or constitutional obligation or as a right of ex-player and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

5. The resistance to maintain a writ petition before this Court has been overruled under order dated 09.08.2012 passed by this Court by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. (supra). By referring to paragraph no.31 and paragraphs no. 217 to 221, 225 to 227 and 229 to 235, it has been considered that powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of High Court and its jurisdiction are wide and there are no fetters on exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as some of the activities of BCCI have been considered to be akin to public duties, the VCA as its affiliate would be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. According to the applicant, there is apparent incompatibility in consideration of the matter as would be reflected from contents of paragraph nos. 9 and 21 of the order dated 09/08/2012. While in the former it has been considered that availability of alternate remedy is not an issue, in the latter one it has been referred to that, it has been kept open and thus it had been argued that the Court had misconstrued the facts constituting error apparent on the face of record and this situation, cal1s for a review of order dated dated 09/08/ 2012.

7. It is submitted that, it is an error apparent to hold that the VCA performs public duty or public function in making paym