( 1 ) THIS is an application in a pending writ petition where the respondents2and3seekadedsion on the preliminary question of maintainability of this writ petition against them. This writ petition by a national cricket player, Shri ajay Jadeja, inter alia, challenges the 5 year long ban imposed on him by Board of control for Cricket in India (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as BCCI), respondent No. 2. Apart from respondent No. 2, the petitioner has filed the petition against Union of india, respondent No. 1 through Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs and sports, Shri A. C. Muthiah, President BCCI, respondent No. 3, Shri Kamal Murarka, respondent No. 4, Shri Ram Pershad, Member Disciplinary Committee, BCCI, respondent No. 5, Shri K. Madhavan, respondent No. 6 and Secretary, Ministry of personnel, respondent No. 7 and CBI, respondent No. 8. The writ petition also challenges the show cause notice dated 22/12/2000 issued by respondent no. 1, seeking to withdraw the Arjuna Award conferred on the petitioner.

( 2 ) IN 1989 in dealing with a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution of India challenging the banning of certain current cricketers as a punitive measure by BCCI, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"the word cricket is a synonym for gentlemanliness which means discipline, fair play, modesty and high standard of morality. "

( 3 ) THE present writ petition arises from the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 imposing a five year ban on the petitioner pursuant to the alleged departure by the petitioner from such high standards, eloquently summed up by the Hon ble supreme Court. The petitioner s case set out in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a professional cricket player and has represented India regularly in cricket since 1992. He has also captained India in One Day Internationals in 1999 and has played upto date in 196 One Day Internationals at a batting average of 37. 44. Justice Y. V. Chandrachad in an Enquiry concluded in 1999 at the behest of BCCI examined the allegations of betting and match-fixing in cricket and found that there was no match-fixing though possibility of players laying bets was not ruled out. Pursuant to a registration of an FIR on 5. 4. 2000 against some bookies and Hansie Cronje, the then cricket captain of South Africa, and the admissions made by him about match fixing, a public outcry arose in the country and the Parliament, and consequently at the behest of Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs and Sports, an enquiry was conducted by CBI into the allegations of match-fixing and related malpractices connected with the game of cricket. The petitioner co-operated and participated in the said CBI enquiry. The CBI submitted its report to the Government of India. Thereafter the Board appointed Shri K. Madhavan, respondent No. 6, as the enquiry Officer, who summoned the petitioner, who appeared before him and submitted a representation refuting allegations in the CBI report, implicating the petitioner for fraternizing with bookies. Thereafter after a semblance of a hearing by the Disciplinary Committee of the Board, the petitioner was banned for five years by the order dated 5. 12. 2000 leading to the present writ petition. The order banning the petitioner has been challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, procedural unfairness as well as on merits.

( 4 ) MR. Sibal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has submitted as a preliminary objection that the BCCI is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction because:

(A) It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act.

(B) It is affiliated to International Cricket Council whose Member can only be a corporation, individual nominated by a cricket playing country and Governmental representation on ICC is not recognised.

(C) BCCI is not an authority or instrumentality of the State within Article 12 of the Constitution because it does not perform any public duty and ha