Writ is maintainable against BCCI.

The Hon’ble Chief Justice:

These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2005 passed in W.P.No.4120 of 2005.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

3. W.A.No.636 of 2005 has been filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as “BCCI”) having its registered office at M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai. W.A.No.676 of 2005 has been filed against the same order of the learned single Judge by Zee Telefilms Limited (hereinafter referred to as Zee) which was the petitioner in W.P.No.4120 of 2005. W.A.No.638 of 2005 has been filed by Mr.Jagmohan Dalmiya, the Chairman of the BCCI.

4. W.P.No.4120 of 2005, in which the impugned order was delivered, was filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent – BCCI in its communication dated 21.09.2004 cancelling the tender process dated 07.08.2004, to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent (BCCI) to act in furtherance of the decision arrived at on 05.09.2004 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.

5. It is alleged in paragraph – 2 of the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No.4120 of 2005, wherein the impugned order was passed by the learned single Judge, that the petitioner (Zee) is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is inter alia one of the largest vertically integrated media entertainment groups in India. It is further alleged that the petitioner had been engaged in the business of production and broadcast of Television programmes including live events since 1992. It is also alleged that the petitioner had also telecast live cricket on various occasions.

6. The facts of the case as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.4120 of 2005 are that BCCI had invited bids/tenders for telecast of cricket matches in India for the period from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2008, by an Invitation to Tender (ITT) dated 07.08.2004, in response to which the petitioner had submitted its bid/tender on 14.08.2004.

7. When the tenders were opened on the same day i.e., 14.08.2004, it was found that the petitioner had emerged as the highest bidder having offered US $260 million, while the ESPN Star Sports (hereinafter referred to as “ESPN”) was the second highest bidder offering US $230 million. The details of the bid are as under:-

In paragraph – 11 of the petitioner’s affidavit it is stated that the previous contract for the last four years i.e., 2000 to 2004 had been for a price of US $55 million. It is further alleged that on 29.08.2004 a communication was addressed by the BCCI to the petitioner – Zee as well as ESPN by which both were invited to attend the meeting of the Television Rights Committee of the BCCI scheduled on 04.09.2004 at Chennai. It is further alleged that the petitioner was also informed that its representatives attending the meeting should be authorised to enter into negotiations with the BCCI if required. It is also alleged that the petitioner had replied to the said communication stating that its authorised representatives would attend the meeting of the Television Rights Committee of the BCCI scheduled on 04.09.2004, and shall also have the authority to negotiate and conclude appropriate arrangements.

9. However, it is alleged in paragraph – 14 of the petitioner’s affidavit that upon reaching the meeting on 04.09.2005, the representatives of the petitioner to their surprise found that another bidder namely, ESPN (whose bid was admittedly lower than that of the petitioner) was also attending the meeting. It is alleged that this act of inviting ESPN which was a lower bidder, was clearly impermissible in terms of the instructions issued by the Central Vigilance Committee’s Circular issued with respect to the practices and procedures to be followed by aut