These batch of writ petitions are filed by the office bearers of the Kerala Cricket Association (hereinafter referred to as the "KCA") challenging registration of First Information Reports and investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In one of the writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2(v) and 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, the "PC Act"). Since common issues are to be decided in all these writ petitions, these cases are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The facts involved in each case, for the purpose of understanding the issues, are narrated separately.

3. W.P.(C).No.11822/2013 is filed by one Karthikeya Varma, an office bearer of KCA. KCA has decided to construct a stadium of International standard and purchased a land in Edakochi at Ernakulam. A complaint was filed before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thrissur by one Joy Kaitharath, alleging corruption in the purchase of the land, against the petitioner and a few others. The court vide order dated 7/7/2011 forwarded the complaint to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram for enquiry and report. Thereafter, an FIR was registered on 18/3/2013. The FIR is produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).No.11822/2013.

4. W.P.(C).No.20071/2013 is filed by one T.N.Anantha Narayanan, an office bearer of KCA, challenging the same proceedings which are under challenge in W.P.(C).No.11822/2013.

5. W.P.(C).No.1383/2014 is filed by one T.C.Mathew, who was the Honorary Secretary of KCA. He is also the present President of KCA. The party respondent one Harish.V. filed a private complaint before the Vigilance Court, Kottayam alleging corrupt practice in purchasing land in Manakkad Village, Thodupuzha Taluk for constructing a stadium. The Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam ordered vigilance enquiry against the petitioner-T.C.Mathew. The complaints against other accused, namely, the Chief Minister and the Minister for Water resources have been dismissed.

6. W.P.(C).No.15389/2014 is filed by one Jayesh George, Joint Secretary of KCA, challenging the same proceedings which are under challenge in W.P.(C).No.11822/2013.

7. The common question in all these writ petitions is whether the office bearers of KCA discharge any public duty and whether they can be treated as a public servant for the purpose of PC Act?

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Shri Dushyant A.Dave (Sr.), Shri M.K. Damodaran (Sr.), Shri M. Revikrishnan and Shri K.N. Abhilash, the learned counsel Shri S. Sreekumar (Sr.) for the party respondent-Harish.V, learned counsel Shri John K.George for the party respondent-Joy Kaitharath and the learned Senior Government Pleader Shri C.S. Manilal for the State.

9. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Dushyant A.Dave drew my attention to the definition of 'public duty' and 'public servant' under Section 2 of the PC Act. The learned Senior Counsel submits that KCA is a registered Society formed under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. KCA has affiliation with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short, "BCCI"). It is further submitted that the entire financial requirement of KCA is met by BCCI and no assistance is received from the State Government or the Central Government for the activities of KCA. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others [(2005) 4 SCC 649] and submitted that majority view was that BCCI is not an instrumentality of the State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and in view of the above, no Governmental function is being discharged by KCA and therefore, the duty discharged by the officers of KCA cannot be considered as a public duty and no official of KCA can be treated as a public servant. The learned Counsel als