Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Niral R. Mehta, J
Pradeepsinh Chandrasinh Solanki – Appellant
Versus
Board of Control For Cricket In India – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1670 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mihir Joshi, Jal Soli Unwalla, Anuj K Trivedi, Vaidehi Parikh
For the Respondents: Sudhir Nanavati, Vandan Baxi, Shalin Mehta, Mrugen K Purohit, Devang Nanavati, S. P. Majmudar, Manan Pandya

A State-level sport association performing regulatory and governance functions akin to a national sport body exercises 'public functions' and is thus amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, regardless of its registration status or the availability of a non-statutory alternative remedy.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Whether a State Cricket Association is amenable to writ jurisdiction in election disputes - Held, Yes, as it performs public functions akin to the national governing body in cricket administration. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 23)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Ombudsman - Availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar - Intervention warranted where impugned action is arbitrary, violates natural justice, and disregards binding judicial directions. (Para 17.1)

(C) Natural Justice - Electoral process - Scrutiny of nominations - Obligation to pass reasoned orders on objections - Failure to decide objections leads to violation of principles of natural justice and democratic norms. (Paras 16, 16.1, 16.4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, members of an association, challenged the election nominations of certain candidates alleging disqualification due to exceeding tenure limits fixed by judicial mandate. Despite submitting written objections to the electoral officer, no hearing was granted and the objections remained undecided while the election process proceeded. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the association is not 'State' under Article 12 and that an alternative remedy before an Ombudsman existed.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the association may not be 'State' under Article 12, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 due to its regulatory monopoly and public functions in the field of cricket administration. The court rejected the plea of alternative remedy, noting the violation of natural justice by the electoral officer.

Issues: Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a State Cricket Association regarding election disputes involving tenure-based disqualification; and whether the court should intervene despite the availability of an ombudsman mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an entity exercises pervasive control over a sport of public importance, its activities constitute public functions, subjecting it to judicial review under Article 226 to ensure compliance with constitutional duties and prior judicial mandates.

Result: Petition held maintainable; ad-interim relief granted permitting election polling but staying declaration of results.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and relief sought in the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. summary of arguments regarding maintainability and alternative remedy. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's reasoning on the applicability of writ jurisdiction to sports bodies. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. rejection of preliminary objections and affirmation of jurisdiction. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. grant of ad-interim relief and procedural directions for the election. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

ORAL ORDER

1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to ensure compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly the judgment and order dated 14 September 2022 passed in IA No. 49930 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014, and consequently restrain Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 from contesting for the posts of President, Secretary, Treasurer, and/or Councilors of Respondent No. 2.

(B) Pending final hearing of this petition, stay the election process and declaration of results scheduled for 15 February 2026 for the posts of President, Secretary, and Treasurer of Respondent No. 2 for the term 2026–2029.

(C) Pending final hearing of this petition, restrain Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 from contesting, acting, functioning, or representing Respondent No. 2 as office bearers and/or councilors.

(D) Grant ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of the above interim prayers.”

2. At the outset, it is noted that Respondent Nos.2 to 7 appeared before this Court upon service of advance copy, either through advocates or in person.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sudhir Nanavati with Mr.Vandan Baxi appearing for Respondent No. 2, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr.Mrugen Purohit for Respondent No. 3, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Devang Nanavati with learned advocate Mr.S.P. Majmudar for Respondent Nos.4 and 5, and party-in-person Respondent Nos.6 and 7 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition and requested that the Court first decide that issue.

4. For deciding maintainability under Article 226, the contextual relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

4.1 Respondent No.2 is the State Cricket Association, namely Baroda Cricket Association (BCA). It is a member of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) – Respondent No.1 and is governed by its Memorandum of Association (MoA) and Rules and Regulations as amended from time to time. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are members of BCA and have filed nominations to contest the upcoming BCA elections scheduled on 15th February 2026.

4.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in proceedings relating to BCCI reforms, by judgment dated 14th September 2022, held that any person completing a cumulative tenure of 9 years in a State Cricket Association as office bearer and/or councilor would stand disqualified. It was also directed that after two consecutive terms, a cooling-off period of three years is mandatory. The Apex Court further directed that bye laws and MoA should incorporate provisions relating to tenure, qualifications, and disqualifications.

4.3 In view of the election notification dated 6th January 2026 for BCA elections (term 2026–2029), Respondent No.4 filed nomination for President, Respondent Nos.5 and 6 for Honorary Secretary, and Respondent No.7 for Honorary Treasurer.

4.4 The petitioners, being members of BCA, submitted written objections dated 20th January 2026 before Respondent No.3 (Electoral Officer) contending that Respondent Nos.4 to 7 were disqualified under the above Supreme Court judgment. The petitioners requested a hearing and rejection of their nominations.

4.5 It is admitted that the objections were not decided. No hearing was granted and no order was communicated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADNiral R. Mehta, JPradeepsinh Chandrasinh Solanki – AppellantVersusBoard of Control For Cricket In India – RespondentR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1670 of 2026

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Niral R. Mehta, J
Pradeepsinh Chandrasinh Solanki – Appellant
Versus
Board of Control For Cricket In India – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1670 of 2026