Writ petition against BCCI can be maintained.

The petitioner, Zee Telefilms Limited, prays for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the first respondent in its communication dated 21.9.2004 cancelling the tender process dated 7.8.2004 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the first respondent to act in furtherance of the decision arrived at on 5.9.2004 in the matter of exclusive television rights for telecast of cricket matches in India under the aegis of the first respondent and the International Cricket Council.

2. In view of the urgency and by consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

3. I do not propose to extract the pleadings of both sides in detail in view of the scope of the points argued before me and in order to avoid the repetitive contentions raised by both sides in their respective pleadings. It is sufficient to briefly state the background in which this writ petition has been filed.

4. The petitioner is one of the vertically integrated media entertainment groups in India functioning since 1992. They claim that they have been telecasting live cricket on various occasions.

5. The Board of Control for Cricket in India, the first respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), had invited tenders for the telecast of cricket matches in India for a period of four years from 1.10.2004 to 30.9.2008 by an Invitation to Tender (I.T.T.) dated 7.8.2004. On 14.8.2004, the petitioner had submitted their bid. Five different establishments had submitted their bids and the details are as follows:

6. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder followed by the third respondent. By a communication dated 29.8.2004, the Board had called upon the petitioner to attend the meeting of Television Rights Committee (TRC) to be held on 4.9.2004 at Chennai. The meeting was attended to by the representatives of the petitioner as well as the third respondent being the second highest bidder. After the petitioner had agreed to raise their bid to 281 Million US$, the third respondent also appears to have raised their bid to 308 Million US$, provided, the contract was given for a period of five years instead of four years. During negotiations, the third respondent is stated to have agreed to give up its demand for the fifth year. The petitioner being the highest bidder, was asked to match the higher offer of the third respondent. According to the petitioner, though the action of the Board was not proper, yet, they agreed to increase their bid to 308 Million US$ and thus became acknowledged as the highest bidder entitled to the award of the contract. The petitioner alleges that from the beginning, the then President of the Board, the second respondent herein, was consistently hostile towards the petitioner and was doing everything to favour the third respondent and to eliminate the petitioner. The petitioner was required to discharge a very onerous condition of making a payment of 20 Million US$ within 48 hours as a pre-condition for issuing the Letter of Intent (LOI). However, this requirement was complied with by the petitioner, though such a condition was not contemplated under the Invitation to Tender.

7. In the said background, the third respondent filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, challenging the award of the tender to the writ petitioner herein. Even on the first hearing, the Board came forward with a suggestion that both parties, namely, the petitioner and the third respondent herein, may be allowed to bid competitively and the contract can be awarded to the highest bidder. The petitioner was not agreeable to the said proposal while the third respondent readily agreed. It is further stated by the petitioner that after the Bombay High Court had heard the matter for a few days, the Board had made a statement before the High Court that in view of the situation that Australia/India cricket series was to commence on 6.10.2004 and to avoid disputes in Court and in view of the refusal on the part