2025:UHC:8996 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1313 of 2025 09 October, 2025 Dhiraj Bhandari --Petitioner Versus Cricket Association of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2497 of 2025 Dr. Buddhi Chand Ramola and another --Petitioners Versus Cricket Association of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/S) No.260 of 2025 Sanjay Gusain and others --Petitioners Versus Cricket Association of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/S) No.955 of 2025 Dhiraj Bhandari --Petitioner Versus Cricket Association of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Aryan Dev Uniyal, Advocate for the BCCI. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2025:UHC:8996 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 2 2025:UHC:8996 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 3 2025:UHC:8996 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 principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are untenable, as the 2nd respondent has given full and fair opportunity to the petitioner and it has power to impose penalties for the violation of its orders as it is created as per the orders of the Apex Court. Accordingly, it is held that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court against the impugned order. Accordingly, the Issue No.3 is answered.” 6. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 have also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Manabedra Kumar Sarma v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and others [WP (C)/5220/2021]. Paragraph nos. 26, 27 & 35 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- “26. The above quoted paragraphs make it succinctly clear that even if an institution or body is imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226. It was further opined that while a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. It was clarified that an educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the 4 2025:UHC:8996 societal sphere and such functions would fall within the domain of a "public function" or "public duty" and open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution But, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognized as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. 27. Therefore, from the judgments which have been referred herein above, it would clearly show that private bodies which are not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, but discharging public duty and public functions would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Article 226 of the Constitution so far it relates to discharge of the public duty and public functions by the said private body. However, if dispute arises relating to individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts not being an integral part of the public duty and public functions performed by the private body would not be amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 35. This Court, however, is of the opinion that dismissal of the writ petitions on the ground of maintainability should not prejudice the petitioners to approach the appropriate competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievances if otherwise permissible in law. This Court is of the opinion that the period during which the three writ petitions have been pending before this Court are required to be excluded while computing the limitation in as much as the petitioners on legal advice have been bonafidely and diligently pursuing their remedies before this Court. It is however clarified that this Court has not enlarged the permissible period of limitation. This Court has only directed that the period of the pendency of the writ petitions be excluded while computation of the limitation. The period from the date of filing of the instant writ petitions till the date of the instant judgment be excluded while computing the period of limitation.” 7. Mr. Aryan Dev Uniyal, learned counsel appearing for BCCI placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Patna, in the case of Kumar Arvind v. Bihar Cricket Association, through its President, Shail Raj Complex 5 2025:UHC:8996 and others, reported as 2022 SCC OnLine Pat 1169. Paragraph nos. 22, 23, 24 & 25 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- “22. In our opinion, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of controversy, which is primarily an outcome of internal dispute among the office bearers of the BCA, lying within the realm of private law, we decline to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 23. In case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 741, the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 81 and 82 as under:— “81. In law, there cannot be any dispute that having regard to the enormity of power exercised by it, the Board is bound to follow the doctrine of “fairness” and “good faith” in all its activities. Having regard to the fact that it has to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of millions, it has a duty to act reasonably. It cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously. As the Board controls the profession of cricketers, its actions are required to be judged and viewed by higher standards. 82. An association or a club which has framed its rules is bound thereby. The strict implementation of such rules is imperative. Necessarily, the office-bearers in terms of the Memorandum and Articles of Association must not only act within the four corners thereof but exercise their respective powers in an honest and fair manner, keeping in view the public good as also the welfare of the sport of cricket. It is, therefore, wholly undesirable that a body in charge of controlling the sport of cricket should involve itself in litigations completely losing sight of the objectives of the society. It is furthermore unfortunate that room for suspicion has been created that all its dealings are not fair. The Board has been accused of shady dealings and double standards.” 24. It is significant, however, to note that the Supreme Court's decision in case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club (supra) had arisen out of a civil suit. In our opinion, the Ombudsman under the memorandum of association, rules and regulations cannot be said to be a quasi judicial forum created by any statutory authority. Such controversies, as are being raised in 6 2025:UHC:8996 the present writ application, in our opinion, should normally not be entertained in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. In such view of the matter, we decline to exercise our prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present facts and circumstances of this case.” 8. Another judgment, on which respondents’ counsel placed reliance is rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3077 of 2019 (Lalit Kumar Modi v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and others). Paragraph No. 6 of the said judgment is reproduced below:- “6. Though the above decision was delivered in 2005, this petition was instituted in 2018, pleading that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have consistently held that the BCCI is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed upon the petitioner by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI.” 9. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that SLP filed against the judgment rendered by Bombay High Court was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum, including civil court. 10. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Karunakaran v. 7 2025:UHC:8996 Ombudsman Cum Ethics Officer, Kerala Cricket Association and another, SLP (Civil) No(s). 12903 of 2021. In the said judgment, the order passed by Ombudsman and the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge and Division Bench of Hon’ble Kerala High Court was set aside. 11. Learned counsels for respondents are right in submitting that the issue of maintainability of writ petition against a State Cricket Association was not considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in that judgment, therefore, the said judgment cannot be treated as authority for deciding the issue of maintainability of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Boys and Girls Cricket Association of Chitoor District v. Chitoor District Cricket Association, reported as 2024 SCC OnLine AP 2822. Paragraph Nos. 16 & 17 of the said judgment is extracted below:- “16. The Ethics Officer/Ombudsman of the 2nd respondent is a quasi judicial authority which has come into existence by virtue of Justice Lodha Committee reforms. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, appointed a seven Member Committee headed by Justice R.M. Lodha, former 8 2025:UHC:8996 Chief Justice of India to examine and make suitable recommendations on several aspects such as making of amendments to Memorandum of Association of Board of Control for Cricket in India, Rules and Regulations and to prevent frauds, conflict of interests and streamline its work. On 18.12.2015 the Committee recommended appointment of Ombudsman and Ethics Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of the Committee and directions were given to Board of Control for Cricket in India (in short ‘BCCI’) to implement the recommendations. Accordingly, amendments were made to the Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of the 2nd respondent and the rules and regulations and Bye-laws were registered. Therefore, as per Rule 49, any amendment to the bye-laws of the 2nd respondent require prior approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Court, as discussed above. 17. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Ombudsman has exercised his jurisdiction to grant such relief in Case No. 9 of 2021 dated 10.01.2023, which necessitates to amend/repeal and alter the list of members of the byelaws/Regulations of ACA, except with 3/4th majority in Special General Meeting and any such amendment shall be done only with the leave of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or High Court. Hence, the order passed by the learned Ombudsman is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, in view of Rule 49 of the Rules. Hence, I find that the writ petition is maintainable.” 13. The said judgment, however, do not help the petitioners for the simple reason that in the said case, Rules and Regulations applicable to Andhra Cricket Association could be amended with the leave of Hon’ble Supreme Court or that of the High Court; the issue involved in the writ petition before Andhra Pradesh High Court was amendment of the Rules, therefore, the question whether the Cricket Association of Andhra Pradesh is ‘State’ within meaning of Article 12 or not was not considered at all in that judgment. 9 2025:UHC:8996 14. As per the Rules and Regulations applicable to Cricket Association of Uttarakhand, particularly Clause 45 thereof, amendment to the Rules can be made only with the leave of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court has not been conferred any power to grant such relief. 15. Learned counsels for the petitioners then relied upon an order dated 23.12.2020 passed by this Court in WPMS No. 112 of 2020. By the said order, writ petition filed by Director of a different Cricket Association, formed in Uttarakhand, was disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the Registrar of Companies. The said order also do not help the case of the petitioners, as petitioner in that case was aggrieved by inaction on the part of Registrar of Companies, who is a statutory authority. Here in the present case, the dispute is between an office bearer, who was removed from office vis-à-vis the other office bearers, who are still holding the office. 16. Learned counsels for the petitioners submits that in the present case order passed by Ombudsman is under challenge, which is quasi judicial authority, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 10 2025:UHC:8996 17. The provision for appointment of Ombudsman is made in the Rules and Regulations of the Association. The Rules and Regulations do not have any statutory force, as held by Apex Court in the case of Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, (1969) 2 SCC 43 and Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-op. Bank, (1984) 2 SCC 50. Therefore, merely because the Ombudsman has taken a decision will not entitle the petitioner to challenge the removal order by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to approach a Civil Court. 18. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Dt: 09.10.2025 Navin 11 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df 006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87 5643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.10.14 11:05:07 +05'30'