Hon’ble Shiva Kirti Singh, A.C.J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by a Cricketer mainly against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as well as against its Disciplinary Committee and some of its officers and appointees with the following prayers :

“(a) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.6.2012 (Annexure 1) passed by the BCCI and the finding dated 30.6.2012 (Annexure 2) of the Disciplinary Committee;

(b) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the order dated 30.6.2012 (Annexure 1) passed by the BCCI and the finding dated 30.6.2012 (Annexure 2) of the Disciplinary Committee;

(c) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 to allow the petitioner to participate in all forms of cricket matches conducted by the BCCI;

(d) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be passed; and

(e) to allow the writ petition with costs.”

2. Petitioner is, thus, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the findings of the Disciplinary Committee dated 30.6.2012 which also include penalty imposed upon him, as contained in Annexure-2 which has merely been forwarded to him by the Honorary Secretary of BCCI by a letter of even date contained in Annexure-1.

3. Before noticing the relevant facts necessary for deciding this writ petition on merits, it is pertinent to note a spirited argument advanced on behalf of the BCCI that the writ petitioner should have approached a Civil Court because he is seeking a relief for himself on the basis of the Rules and Regulations of the BCCI which can, at best, be treated as terms of contract between the petitioner as a player and the BCCI and does not have any statutory flavour. In fairness to learned counsel for the BCCI, it is noted that he has not challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it is not a State in view of judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others, (1989) 2 SCC 691 and Zee Telefilms Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, (2005) 4 SCC 649 but has relied upon paragraph 31 of the judgment in the case of Zee Telefilms (supra) to submit that remedy through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be claimed only if the petitioner can demonstrate that in performing public duties, BCCI has violated any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of the petitioner.

4. On behalf of petitioner, lengthy arguments were advanced in support of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as per settled law, the High Court can issue appropriate writs or directions even against persons or bodies who are not State. For this, reliance was placed upon the two judgments of the Supreme Court noted above as well as upon two judgments of Delhi High Court - Ajay Jadeja v. Union of India and others, 95 (2002) DLT 14 and Rahul Mehra and another v. Union of India and others, (2005) 4 Comp LJ 268 (Del).

5. Both the above judgments of Delhi High Court contain elaborate discussion on relevant case laws pursuant to which preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition against the BCCI was rejected. This view is also supported by judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Zee Telefilms (supra) and hence the issue of maintainability of this writ petition is no longer res integra and as noted earlier, the very argument advanced on behalf of the BCCI does not call for throwing the writ petition at the threshold but requires further consideration as to whether the writ petitioner has succeeded in demonstrating that th