1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5174/2016

Dr. Subramanian Swamy

…Petitioner

Vs.

Board of Control for Cricket in India and Ors. .....Respondents

O R D E R

1.

This petition challenges the decision of the Division Bench of the

High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 20.01.2016 in Writ Petition

No. 29617/2015. By that order the High Court dismissed the Writ

Petition filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

“1.

Dispense with the production of the original of the

order dated 14.07.2015 of the Committee headed by Mr.

Justice R.M. Lodha, for and on behalf of the 1^st respondent;

2.

grant an order of interim stay of the order dated

14.07.2015 of the Committee headed by Mr. Justice R.M.

Lodha, for and on behalf of the 1^st respondent pending disposal

of the Writ Petition;

3.

issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or order or

direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the

records comprised in the order dated 14.07.2015 of the

Committee headed by Mr. Justice Lodha for an on behalf of the

first respondent, from the first respondent and quash the

same; and

4.

pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case and thus render justice.”

2.

The relief claimed by the petitioner to quash the order dated

14.07.2015 passed by the Committee headed by Mr. Justice R.M.

Lodha (Former Chief Justice of India) was also prayed by Chennai

Super Kings Limited (herein referred to as CSK) by way of Writ Petition

Digitally signed by

SHASHI SAREEN

Date: 2016.10.08

11:44:53 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

No.26777/2015. That writ petition, however, was dismissed by the

High Court on 20.01.2016. A Special Leave Petition filed in this Court

against the said decision by CSK being SLP(C)No. 3758 of 2016, was

withdrawn on 29.07.2016. The said order reads thus:

“Taken on Board.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to

withdraw the special leave petition which is hereby dismissed

as withdrawn.

Application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

3.

The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was taken up by the

High Court for preliminary hearing on 20.01.2016. The same was

summarily dismissed by a speaking order which reads thus:

“In view of our findings in W.P. No.26777 of 2015 (Chennai

Super Kings Chennai Ltd., vs. Board of Control for Cricket

in India and two others) dated 20.01.2016 qua as to who can

raise the issue before this Court within the window granted

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22^nd

January, 2015 to an aggrieved party, the present petition

filed by the petitioner in person, as a third party, ostensibly

in public interest, cannot be maintained before this Court.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

4.

According to the petitioner, the High Court committed manifest

error in dismissing the Writ Petition without hearing the petitioner.

Further, the High Court erroneously held that the petitioner had no

locus to challenge the order of the Committee headed by Mr. Justice

Lodha dated 14.07.2015. In that, the petitioner had raised issues on

the basis of documentary evidence in his possession referred to in the

Writ Petition, which would show that Mr. Lalit Modi had influenced

3

the course of events which culminated with the suspension of CSK.

The High Court ought to have analyzed those documents in public

interest. The petitioner relied on the observations inter alia on

paragraph 70 and 72 of the decision of this Court in the case of Board

of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar

and others¹, which has expounded that the Probe Committee has

recorded a specific finding that the allegations of match fixing, spot

fixing or betting were not proved against Mr. Srinivasa