IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, J.
Manabedra Kumar Sarma – Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Control For Cricket In India Represented By Its Chairman And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/5220/2021, WP(C)/3891 & 4834 of 2020
Decided On : 15-02-2024
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A. C. Borbora, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. P. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.4834/2020 and WP(C) No.3891/2020 and Mr. N. K. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No.5220/2021. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Assam Cricket Association (ACA) and Mr. S. Khound, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (‘BCCI’)
2. Briefly stated, all the three writ petitions are filed claiming a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to pay their contractual dues. For the purpose of deciding the dispute, this Court would like to state briefly the facts involved in each of the writ petition.
WP(C) No.3891/2020
3. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner which is a proprietorship firm claiming an amount of Rs.3,67,15,187.30p along with interest for the works done in the interior section of Barsapara Cricket Stadium pursuant to work orders issued by the ACA. It is the case of the petitioner that three work orders were issued by the Secretary of the ACA on 28.11.2013, 17.01.2014 and 04.09.2017 respectively. The said work orders have been enclosed as Annexure Nos. A, B and C to the writ petition. From a perusal of the writ petition, it reveals that the ACA had awarded a contract work for construction of the North and South Stand of Barsapara Stadium-Interior Work of a value of Rs.6,37,38,782/-. In terms with Annexure-B, the Secretary of the ACA informed the petitioner that the petitioner was awarded the work for construction of the North Stand and South Stand finishing work for President Lounge, Commentator Room/Lounge, Police Control Room, TV Control Room, Media work Station etc. at Barsapara Stadium of the ACA for an amount of Rs.5,77,21,945/-. In terms with Annexure-C, the Secretary of the ACA had issued another work order for construction of the Anti-doping Room, Umpire Entry to Ground Corridor, RC Box, ACA Box, Acoustical Room at Broadcast Rook, fittings with toughened class, frosted films and carpet for T20 Cricket Match between India vs. Australia on 10th of October, 2017 at ACA Stadium, Barsapara of an approximate value of Rs.75,52,500/-. It has been claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner duly completed the various works and out of the total amount due of Rs.12,34,65,187/- against the three work orders, an amount of Rs.8,67,50,000/- was paid and an amount of Rs.3,67,15,187.30p remain pending. It was also stated that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the security deposit to the tune of Rs.17,50,809/-against the three work orders. It is the case of the petitioner that various representations were submitted and the last one being on 29.08.2020, buts no payments were made for which the instant writ petition was filed on 03.09.2020.
4. This Court vide an order dated 06.10.2020 issued notice. The record reveals that an affidavit was filed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 stating inter-alia that only copies of the work orders were found and there were no relevant documents relating to calling of tenders as well as documents justifying the work done or completed were found. It was also stated that there was no sufficient documents or materials available to justify the purported work claimed to have been executed by the petitioner. Further to that it was mentioned that an FIR was lodged by the ACA alleging misappropriation of funds during the period from 2016 to 2018 which was registered and numbered as Fatasi Ambari PS Case No. 817/2021, under Sections 120B/406/409/420/469/34 of the IPC. Further to that, the documents of the ACA were seized by the Assam Police on 26.07.2015 in connection with PIL No.47/2015, and accordingly, as per the Seizure Memo received from the Assam Police, the File bearing Sl. No.234 in the name of “Banka Constructions, interim work of North Stand of 2013”
ABL International Ltd. & Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Others
Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Others
Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Others
Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Others
Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Others
Gas Authority of India Ltd. vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. & Others
Popatrao Viyankatrao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Others
Ramakrishna Mission & Another vs. Kago Kunya & Others
St. Mary’s Education Society and Another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others
Writ petitions for private contractual disputes are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, as they do not involve public law elements.
Point of law : Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be available against an authority or a person only when twin tests are satisfied. The authority or the person should not onl....
A writ under Article 226 is maintainable against the BCCI, and internal disputes within the BCA should be addressed by the BCCI Ombudsman.
A private body must be found to be discharging a public function closely related to functions performed by the State in its sovereign capacity to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court und....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.