JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J

A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649, has conclusively held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (‘BCCI’ for short) is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has, however, held in paragraph 31 in the said case as under:-

“31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved in the game of cricket. These activities can be said to be akin to public duties or State functions and if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a petition under Article 32. But that does not mean that the violator of such right would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a State. Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for the violation of a right of a citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not available, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is much wider than Article 32.”

2. The said decision has been followed subsequently in case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar (1), reported in (2015) 3 SCC 251 [BCCI vs. CAB (1) for short], dated 22.01.2015. It is noteworthy that in case of Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar (2), reported in (2016) 8 SCC 535 [BCCI vs. CAB (2) for short], dated 18.07.2016, the Supreme Court broadly accepted the reforms in the administration of cricket as proposed by a Committee chaired by Justice R.M.Lodha. The decision in case of BCCI vs. CAB (1) was rendered in the wake of allegation of sporting fraud, conflict of interest leveled against the functionaries of BCCI and in such situation the jurisdiction of a writ court to intervene and issue directions. The Supreme Court has conclusively held in BCCI vs. CAB (1) that even when BCCI was not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, it was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it was discharging an important public functions. While accepting the report and the recommendations made by the report of Justice R.M.Lodha, the Supreme Court in case of BCCI vs. CAB (2) had recorded importance of due implementation of the said recommendations by the Committee presided over by Justice R.M.Lodha and observed that in the event any impediment arose, the Committee would be free to seek appropriate directions from this Court by filing status report in that regard. Accordingly, in the light of the aforesaid direction, subsequent orders have been passed by the Supreme Court based on the status report submitted by the Committee, one of which is the order dated 09.08.2018 reported in BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 624 [BCCI vs. CAB (3) for short].

3. The above narration has been made since the petitioner in the present writ application claims to be a Joint Secretary-cum-Acting Secretary of Bihar Cricket Association registered under the Societies Act, 1860, with its Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations (Rules and Regulations for short) said to have been framed in accordance with the said judgment and order dated 09.08.2018 in case of BCCI vs. CAB (3) and directions dated 21.08.2018 and 04.11.2018 of the Committee of Administrators appointed by the Supreme Court. It was decided by the Supreme Court that a Committee of Administrators (CoA) would supervise the administration of BCCI through its Chief Executive Officer in its order in case of BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 333 (see Para 27.5). The CoA was subsequently constit