The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, and the effect of the repeal of the U.P.Sports Act on the appellant's ability to continue the suit.

R. BANUMATHI,J

1. The appeals in O.S.A.Nos.221 to 223 of 2007 are filed against the order dated 5.6.2007 revoking the leave to sue granted (A.No.2726 of 2006) and allowing the application - A.No.2450 of 2007 filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, and consequently rejecting the plaint in C.S.No.590 of 2006 by allowing the application - A.No.2894 of 2006.

2. Case of appellant/plaintiff is that the Legislature of Uttar Pradesh enacted Uttar Pradesh Sports, Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Association Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P.Sports Act’). In the said Act, it was mandatory for the Sports bodies to be registered under the said enactment in order to gain recognition in the field of Sports. The appellant is an Association registered under U.P.Sports Act having its registered office at Lucknow. The appellant/plaintiff has been issued a Certificate on 18.11.2005 by Directorate of Sports, Uttar Pradesh recognising the appellant as a Central Body for Control of Cricket in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The 1st respondent - Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) is responsible for the control of game of Cricket in India and regulate its affiliate units. The main objects of BCCI is to control and promote the game of Cricket in each and every State in India and promote throughout the territories of India. The appellant/plaintiff having obtained registration under U.P.Sports Act made various representations/correspondence to the 1st respondent requesting it to recognise the appellant as the rightful representative for the control of Cricket in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The grievance of appellant/plaintiff is that inspite of various correspondence, no reply was sent by the 1st respondent.

3. In view of the questionable tactics allegedly used by the erstwhile President of BCCI acting as Ex.Officio Chairman of 75th A.G.M, objections were filed by Cricket Clubs before High Court, Madras and High Court at Kolkata for appointment of independent observer for 76th A.G.M of BCCI. Special Leave Petitions were also preferred before the Supreme Court against the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.2005 passed by the Division Bench of Kolkata High Court. The Honourable Supreme Court directed appointment of a single observer. Mr.T.S.Krishnamurthy, former Chief Election Commissioner of India was appointed as the Observer for 76th A.G.M of BCCI to be held at Kolkata. Case of appellant is that appellant, being registered under the U.P.Sports Act and being representative of 50 out of 70 districts in the State of U.P. is a rightful member to represent the State before BCCI and therefore appellant should be allowed to vote in the A.G.M of BCCI slated for 29th-30th November 2005. The appellant made application for its recognition in Chennai on 23.11.2005 before the Ld.Observer and also participated in the proceedings of the Ld.Observer at Kolkata. The Ld.Observer has submitted his report on 5.12.2005 before the Supreme Court. On 12.12.2005, the Honourable Supreme Court directed the appellant/plaintiff and others to seek remedies before the appropriate forum. The appellant did not receive any reply to its request made to BCCI by subsequent correspondence to recognise the appellant/plaintiff as Full Member as the Central Body for control and regulation of the game of Cricket in Uttar Pradesh. Alleging that BCCI performs public function and has a duty to perform the same in a non-arbitrary, neutral and reasonable manner, appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit - C.S.No.590 of 2006 on the Original Side of this Court inter alia praying:-

(i) a permanent mandatory injunction directing the 1st respondent/ 1st defendant/BCCI, its members and agents, to recognise the appellant/plaintiff as a Full Member of the 1st respondent/1st defendant and thereby removing the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant from the membership of BCCI;

(ii) a permanent injunction restraining BCCI and its