IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2809 of 2022

======================================================

Kumar Arvind, Son of Mr. Harshu Singh, resident of Jai Prakash Nagar,

Katira, P.S. Ara, District Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Bihar Cricket Association through its President, Shail Raj Complex,

Budha Marg, Patna-800001.

2.

The Committee of Management, Bihar Cricket Association, Bihar Cricket

Association, Shail Raj Complex, Budha Marg, Patna-800001 through its

President namely Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary.

3.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, son of Shri Suresh Tiwary, president of Bihar

Cricket Association as well as the Committee of Management of Bihar

Cricket Association, resident of 46 Patliputra Colony, P.O.-P.S. Patliputra,

Patna.

4.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Bihar Cricket Association, Bihar

Cricket Association, Shail Raj Complex, Budha Marg, Patna-800001.

5.

The Ombudsman, Bihar Cricket Association, Shail Raj Complex, Budha

Marg, Patna-800001.

... ... Respondents

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner

:

Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate

Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate

For the Respondents

:

Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN

SINGH

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN

SINGH)

Date : 29-04-2022

A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

in case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2005)

4 SCC 649, has conclusively held that the Board of Control for

Cricket in India (‘BCCI’ for short) is not a ‘State’ within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme

Patna High Court CWJC No.2809 of 2022 dt.29-04-2022

2/19

Court has, however, held in paragraph 31 in the said case as

under:-

“31. Be that as it may, it cannot be

denied that the Board does discharge some duties

like the selection of an Indian cricket team,

controlling the activities of the players and others

involved in the game of cricket. These activities

can be said to be akin to public duties or State

functions and if there is any violation of any

constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of

other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a

relief by way of a petition under Article 32. But

that does not mean that the violator of such right

would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a

State. Under the Indian jurisprudence there is

always a just remedy for the violation of a right of

a citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is

not available, an aggrieved party can always seek

a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by

way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution, which is much wider than Article

32.”

2. The said decision has been followed subsequently in

case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket

Association of Bihar (1), reported in (2015) 3 SCC 251 [BCCI vs.

CAB (1) for short], dated 22.01.2015. It is noteworthy that in case

of Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar (2),

Patna High Court CWJC No.2809 of 2022 dt.29-04-2022

3/19

reported in (2016) 8 SCC 535 [BCCI vs. CAB (2) for short],

dated 18.07.2016, the Supreme Court broadly accepted the reforms

in the administration of cricket as proposed by a Committee

chaired by Justice R.M.Lodha. The decision in case of BCCI vs.

CAB (1) was rendered in the wake of allegation of sporting fraud,

conflict of interest leveled against the functionaries of BCCI and in

such situation the jurisdiction of a writ court to intervene and issue

directions. The Supreme Court has conclusively held in BCCI vs.

CAB (1) that even when BCCI was not ‘State’ within the meaning

of Article 12 of the Constitution, it was amenable to the writ

jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitut