A writ petition is not maintainable against a private sports association lacking statutory force, government funding, or administrative control, because internal management disputes within such private entities pertain to the realm of private law and must be adjudicated by a competent civil court.

JUDGMENT

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being heard & decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1313 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed.

2. Petitioner was holding office as Vice President, Cricket Association of Uttarakhand. He was removed from that office by an order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Ombudsman. Petitioner has challenged the removal order in this writ petition.

3. Clause 40 of the Rules and Regulations of Cricket Association of Uttarakhand provides for appointment of an Ombudsman and any act of indiscipline or misconduct committed by a member or administrator of the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand can be referred for decision to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman can pass necessary orders.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised objection as to maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended that Cricket Association of Uttarakhand is neither funded by the Central or State Government nor the Government has any amount of administrative control over the affairs of the Association. It is further submitted that no public function is being discharged by the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand and dispute between two office bearers or group of office bearers would not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach a Civil Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 & 2 submitted that the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and since it is a private society, therefore, the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be available to the petitioner. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 27180 of 2021. Paragraph No. 10 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

“10. Issue No.3:

As the impugned order is passed exercising the powers under Rule 43, 44 and 45 of Bye-laws of ACA following the procedure contemplated therein and Ombudsman is an independent internal dispute redressal mechanism created as per the directions of the Apex Court in the case of BCCI Vs Cricket Association of Bihar and he is like that of an arbitrator created under the contracts and any breach of Bye- laws as held by this Court in the case of Mohammed Azharuddin Vs. K. John Manoj and others, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court under the provisions of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, as the 1st respondent was registered as a Society under Societies Registration Act. This Court found that after receiving the complaint, petitioner was given fair and full opportunity to file counter and lead evidence, show cause notice was also issued and considered explanation and Ombudsman elaborately dealt with all the series of orders passed by it and its compliance before conducting elections and filing of counter and was given ample opportunity to defend his case and thereby not violated any principles of natural justice. Hence, contra contentions of the counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent had illegally terminated the petitioner from the elected office of the Secretary of 1st respondent in blatant violation of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the 1st respondent Association, violative of princ