R. RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE respondents in R. F. A. No. 684 of 1995 is the father of respondent in R. F. A. No. 685 of 1995. They have filed O. S. No. 415 of 1995 and O. S. No. 476 of 1995 respectively for a declaration that the order passed by the appellants 1 to 3 dated 8-1-1995 and confirmed by the order, dated 21-1-1995 by the members of the 4th respondent are illegal, void and without jurisdiction and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants or anybody claiming under them giving effect to the orders and to grant such other reliefs. ( 2 ) SINCE a common question of law is involved in both the appeals, the appeals are heard together and the following judgment is passed. ( 3 ) THE appellant No. 1 is a Secretary of Bangalore Turf Club, shortly BTC, and appellants 2 and 3 are the chairman and Senior stipendary Stewards of BTC respectively. Appellant NO. 4 is the Appellate Board (Authority) comprises of one elected steward as Chairman and two stewards nominated by the Government of Karnataka in the rank of Home Commissioner and the Commissioner of Police. ( 4 ) THE first appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act with members drawn from the public. The Company has been granted a licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Race Course Licensing Act and carries on the business of conducting horse races. The management of the Club is vested in a committee of management consisting of 14 members of whom 4 members are nominated by the Government of Karnataka. ( 5 ) THE Articles of Association of the Club provides for the Constitution of the Committee of Management consisting of 14 members of whom 9 shall be the Stewards of the Club vide Arts. 31 and 32 and 5 shall be committee members. 6 of the 9 Stewards and 4 of the 5 committee Members are elected among the Club members. The remaining 3 Stewards and 1 Committee Member are nominated by the Government of Karnataka. Under Art. 51 the Stewards are in charge and control of racing by enforcing the Rules of Racing. Clause (b) of Art. 51 enables them to take such action as they may consider necessary to ensure that Race Meetings are properly and regularly conducted. The remaining 3 Stewards and 1 Committee Member are nominated by the Government of Karnataka. Under Art. 51 the Stewards are in charge and control of racing by enforcing the Rules of Racing. Clause (b) of Art. 51 enables them to take such action as they may consider necessary to ensure that Race Meetings are properly and regularly conducted. ( 6 ) RULES of Racing having been framed by the Club and they apply to the running of races at all meetings held under the sanction of the Club. Parts III and IV of Rules of Racing set out the powers and duties of the Stewards of Meeting and Stewards of the Club respectively. The Stewards of the Club are themselves; the Stewards of the meeting held in Bangalore Race Course. The meetings held under these Rules must be sanctioned by the stewards of the BTC. Accordingly, the Race Meetings at Mysore are to be duly sanctioned by the Stewards of BTC. ( 7 ) RULE 17 provides that the Stewards have power to regulate, take cognizance of and adjudicate upon the conduct of all officials, owners, authorised agents, nominators, trainers, jockeys, riding boys etc. The stewards have full power to abandon the meeting or to abandon any races or to postpone any races to any other day under Rule 28. Rule 37 (f) empowers the Stewards to order cancellation or abandonment of any Race or Race Meeting while Rule 37 (h) confers power on the Stewards to make enquiry into, finally decide and deal with any matters relating to racing whether or not referred to them by the Stewards of the Meeting. Rule 138 specifies that every horse which runs in a Race shall be run on its merits, Rule 166 provides for declaring a Race as void and return of entrance money and stakes. Rule 177 provides what constitutes corrupt practice and disqualification, Rule 178 stipulates that the decision of the Stewards of the Club that a person has been guilty of any offence specified in Rule 177 shall be conclusive evidence of his guilt. ( 8 ) THE respondents are the Race Horse Owners. The respondent Sri Kishan Srivastava is the father of another respondent Prakash and one Sanjay who was also the Racing Horse Owner. The BTC is a Turf Authority and the Horse Races are conducted at Bangalore under its authority. ( 8 ) THE respondents are the Race Horse Owners. The respondent Sri Kishan Srivastava is the father of another respondent Prakash and one Sanjay who was also the Racing Horse Owner. The BTC is a Turf Authority and the Horse Races are conducted at Bangalore under its authority. Mysore Race Club, shortly MRC, also conducts Horse Races which is not a Turf Authority and therefore, the Races are conducted under the Rules and supervision of the BTC. Stipendiary Stewards of BTC and other officials of BTC like Handicapper, Starters and Veterinary Officers also attend the Races at Mysore on deputation to oversee and control. The Senior Stipendiary Steward of BTC officiates the Race meeting at Mysore and two other Stipendiary Stewards also officiate as Stipendiary Stewards at Mysore Race Meetings. ( 9 ) ON 20-10-1994 in Race No. 133 held at Mysore, a horse owned by Mr. Sanjay Srivastava son of the respondent Sri Kishan Srivastava, ran the race. Sri Kumar Srivastava participated in that Race. The name of the horse was Angel of Mercy. The said horse was trained by one Mr. R. V. Manohar and was ridden by Jockey Basheer. The respondent Prakash represented Mr. Sanjay on behalf of the horse Angel of Mercy. On a report made by the Stipendiary Stewards to the Stewards of Mysore Race Club regarding the running and riding of the horse Angel of Mercy, an enquiry was conducted and the stewards came to the conclusion that the horse was not allowed to run on its merit and and the Trainer and Rider have not satisfactorily explained, have imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each on Trainer Manohar and Jockey Basheer. Having considered that further action was necessary in this regard, the matter was reported to the Stewards of BTC for further action, if necessary. Ex P-1 is the minutes of the meetings connected to this incident. ( 10 ) ON receipt of the report of the stewards of the meeting regarding these events, the Stewards of the BTC decided to enquire into the matter and a detailed enquiry was held by the Stewards under Rule 37 (h) which commenced on 3-11-1994. On that day, Trainer Manohar and Jockey Basheer were examined by the Stewards of the Club. On 4-11-1994 Prakash Srivastava was called and examined by the stewards. Further examination of Jockey Basheer and Trainer Manohar was also held. On that day, Trainer Manohar and Jockey Basheer were examined by the Stewards of the Club. On 4-11-1994 Prakash Srivastava was called and examined by the stewards. Further examination of Jockey Basheer and Trainer Manohar was also held. From 6-11-1994 to 20-11-1994 the Stewards have examined Trainers B. K. Arshad, A. B. David, Karan Singh, B. Puttanna and Jockey Zia Akthar. Then some of the witnesses examined further on 20-11-1994 are Jockey Basheer and Jockey N. Kumar, Trainer Manohar, Prakash Srivastava, Trainer Arshad, A. B. David, Karan Singh and B. Puttanna. Respondent Kishan Srivastava participated in the proceedings of the enquiry and the copies of the enquiry proceedings have been furnished to him on 7-12-1994. A complaint filed by Jockey N. Kumar dated 4-11-1994 making certain serious allegations against the respondent Sri Kishan Srivastava was also considered after giving a copy of the complaint. Ultimately, the stewards of the Club who conducted the enquiry having come to the conclusion that the respondents have committed the corrupt and fraudulant acts have communicated the nature of charge framed against them vide Ex. D-48 and Ex. D-49 dated 15-12-1994. On conclusion, they have been disqualified from running their horses. The disqualification against the respondent Prakash Srivastava was upto 31-3-1996 and the disqualification against Sri Kishan Srivastava is up to 31-3-1997. While inflicting the punishment against Sri Kishan Srivastava, the Stewards have also considered the complaint of Jockey Kumar to the effect that Sri Kishan Srivastava has instructed the Jockey Kumar to ride polite Applause in Race N0. 184 of Bangalore Summer Meeting 1994 held on 20th July 1994 and to interfere with the rider of the horse Right Dancer to ensure that the Right Dancer should not win the Race. Jockey Kumar declined the instructions and refused to ride the horse in that Race. ( 11 ) AFTER 15-12-1994, it appears, that there was total non-co-operation by the respondents in the enquiry and ultimately, the Stewards having come to the conclusion that the charges against the respondents are proved, have inflicted the punishment stated above vide order dated 8-1-1994. This order was affirmed by the fourth appellant. ( 11 ) AFTER 15-12-1994, it appears, that there was total non-co-operation by the respondents in the enquiry and ultimately, the Stewards having come to the conclusion that the charges against the respondents are proved, have inflicted the punishment stated above vide order dated 8-1-1994. This order was affirmed by the fourth appellant. ( 12 ) THE respondents have filed the respective suits mentioned above for the reliefs stated at supra on the ground that the BTC had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry in respect of the running of the horse Angel of Mercy at Mysore and the Stewards with bent of their mind to punish the respondents have conducted an enquiry which was totally opposed to the principles of natural justice. It is further averred that the appellants have not provided to have the benefits of a spokesman and sufficient opportunity was not given to cross-examine the witnesses and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Stewards affirmed by the Appellate Authority was null and void. ( 13 ) THE learned trial Judge framed issues in respective cases and gave his finding after recording the common evidence by the parties. The issues in O. S. No. 476 of 1995 is verbatim of issues in O. S. No. 415 of 1995. Therefore, one set of issues is sufficient to note and they are as follows:-1. Do the plaintiff prove that the order passed by defendants 1 to 3 dated 8-1-1995 in so far as it pertains to the plaintiff is illegal, void and without jurisdiction?2. Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their officials, or agents or anyone acting or claiming on their behalf from giving effect to the order dated 8-1-1995 passed by the Stewards of Bangalore Turf Club, in so far as it pertains to the plaintiff?3. Do not plaintiff prove that the order passed by the Stewards as well as non-action on the part of the appellate authority are opposed to principles of natural justice apart from order being arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction?4. To what reliefs?the finding of the Learned Judge is as follows :-Issue No. 1=in the affirmative. Issue No. 2=in the affirmative. Issue No. 3=the order passed by the Stewards is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction and it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. To what reliefs?the finding of the Learned Judge is as follows :-Issue No. 1=in the affirmative. Issue No. 2=in the affirmative. Issue No. 3=the order passed by the Stewards is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction and it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The order of the Appeal Board is also wrong (dated 21-1-1995) illegal and without jurisdiction. Issue No. 4=suit decreed with costs. ( 14 ) THE respective plaintiffs have been examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2. On behalf of the appellant the Secretary of the Club was examined as D. W. 1. The proceedings of the enquiry and the connected papers were exhibited from Exs. P-1 to P-23 and Exs. D-1 to D-82. ( 15 ) THE learned trial Judge has proceeded to appreciate the case in support of the contentions raised by the respondents that the Stewards of the Meetings of the Mysore Race Club are the original authority for the decision of all disputes in respect of Races conducted at Mysore and this decision shall be final and that the Appeal Board of the BTC shall be the Appellate Authority. Inter alia, the Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the Stewards of MRC alone were empowered to proceed against the owner of the horse if any mal-practices are committed, of the horses run at MRC, and the Stewards of BTC have no jurisdiction to exercise their power over Mysore Races. Therefore, the conclusion was that the decision of the appellants in respect of the running of the Horse Angel of Mercy was without jurisdiction. ( 16 ) IN respect of the conducting of the enquiry, the learned trial Judge confirmed the role of Stipendiary Stewards to that of prosecutors therefore they ought not to have participated in the decision of the Stewards. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the witness and non-providing of the assistance of a Spokesman was decisive as the lack of that facility rendered the respondents helpless in cross-examining the witnesses, and the conclusion of the Enquiry Committee that the respondents have given misleading evidence was without any basis, therefore, the impugned orders came to be passed in favour of the respondents. ( 17 ) THE common points that arise for determination in these appeals are:-1) Whether the Stewards of BTC had jurisdiction to enquire into the running of the horse Angel of Mercy on 20-10-1994 at Race No. 133 held at Mysore Race Club?2) Whether the suit O. S. No. 415 of 1995 filed by Sri Kishan Srivastava is hit by Order 23 Rule 1 CPC in view of the earlier suit in O. S. No. 86 of 1995?3) Whether the procedure adopted by the Steward in the enquiry against the respondents are in accordance with the principles of natural justice?4) What order? ( 18 ) POINT No. 1:-Sri S. G. Sundaraswamy, the learned senior Advocate for the appellants, has submitted that the learned Trial Judge was wholly in error in coming to the conclusion that the Stewards of the BTC had no jurisdiction to disqualify the respondents as it relates to running of horse Angel of Mercy as it totally opposes the Memorandum of Articles of Association and Rules of Racing of BTC. According to the learned Advocate, the Stewards of the Meetings are different from the Steward of the Club as the Stewards of the MRC are the Stewards of the Meetings only and the Stewards of the Bangalore are the Stewards of the Club. Though the Stewards of the Meeting are entitled to impose punishment within the limitation prescribed by them and since the MRC is governed by Rules of Racing of BTC and also due to the fact that the MRC has no independent Rules of Racing and it is adopting the Rules of Racing of BTC which is a Turf Club. Horse owners are not the members of the BTC or MRC. There could not be any contractual relationship adumbrated in the Memorandum of Articles governed by BTC and MRC and such question is applicable to the members of a particular Club. ( 19 ) THERE is considerable force in the submission of the learned Advocate as the Races at Mysore are conducted at the direct Supervision of BTC and the Rules of Racing of BTC is followed by MRC if any offences which attract Rule 177 under Part XXII of Rules of Racing (Ex. D-2 ). The Stewards of the Club are empowered to disqualify any owner of a horse who commits any offence under Rule 177. D-2 ). The Stewards of the Club are empowered to disqualify any owner of a horse who commits any offence under Rule 177. ( 20 ) THE Memorandum of Articles of Association of MRC prescribe powers of Stewards and Art. 48 which is analogous to the powers of Stewards under Articles of Association of BTC. ( 21 ) BUT the distinction that could be drawn is through the Rules of Racing. Rule 3 deals with Race Meetings where all Race Meetings held under the Rules must be sanctioned by the Stewards of the Club. Part III prescribes the powers and duties of Stewards of the Meetings. Under Rule 19, the Stewards of the Meetings have power to enquire into all matters and to determine all questions arising in reference to Racing at the Meeting including questions relating to bets and lotteries subject to appeal to Stewards of the Club. Should they find that any person has committed or attempted to commit or has been interested or concerned, either directly or indirectly, in any corrupt or fraudulent act in connection with racing, they disqualify for all future engagement at that meeting any horse or horses of which he is wholly or in part the owner, and shall submit a report of their findings and also of any finding that a person is a defaulter for bets or lotteries, with a copy of the proceedings in each case to the Stewards of the Club, who on such report and with or without further enquiry, may deal with the matter and with the person or persons concerned as they think fit. The Stewards may submit to the Stewards of the Club any fresh evidence or further report in respect of matters that they have reported under this rule. ( 22 ) THE above rule normally demonstrates the Stewards of Meetings which require a quorum of at least 3 Stewards with the Stewards of the Club coming under Chapter IV of the Rules of Racing. The appeal provision from a decision of Stewards of the Meeting to the Stewards of the Club under Rule 31 and also superintendence Power of Stewards of the Club under Rule 19 clearly demarcates two bodies independently dealing with the Rules provided under the Rules of Racing. The appeal provision from a decision of Stewards of the Meeting to the Stewards of the Club under Rule 31 and also superintendence Power of Stewards of the Club under Rule 19 clearly demarcates two bodies independently dealing with the Rules provided under the Rules of Racing. ( 23 ) UNDER Rule 18 the Stewards of the Meetings have power to punish at their discretion all owners, nominators, trainers, jockeys, riding boys etc. , with a fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- and also the power of suspension. ( 24 ) AS against this, the Stewards of the Club may impose any fine not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 36, in addition to suspend licences and exclusion under Rule 37 (a) (i ). ( 25 ) THEREFORE the contention of Sri R. N. Narasimha Murthy, the learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent and the finding of the Trial Court on this aspect of the matter does not reflect the correct position of law and therefore, the first point is held in the affirmative. ( 26 ) POINT NO. 2:-Sri S. G. Sundaraswamy, the learned Senior Advocate submits that the suit filed by Sri Kishan Srivastava in O. S. No. 415 of 1995 is not maintainable in view of the earlier suit filed by him in O. S. No. 86 of 1995. This submission is resisted by Sri R. N. Narasimha Murthy the learned Advocate for Sri Kishan Srivastava as the cause of action are not similar and therefore, the bar under Order 23 (1) is not applicable. ( 27 ) UNDER Rule (1) of Order 23 the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants, abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim at any time after the institution of the suit. This results in preclusion from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim unless the plaintiff obtains permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim. ( 28 ) EX. D-5 contains the proceedings of the Trial Court and copy of the plaint and application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to accord permission to withdraw the said suit. ( 28 ) EX. D-5 contains the proceedings of the Trial Court and copy of the plaint and application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to accord permission to withdraw the said suit. In this suit, the prayer of the plaintiff was- (a) to declare that the defendants have no jurisdiction to hold any enquiry against the plaintiff regarding the running of the horse at Mysore Race; alternatively, assuming the defendants have the jurisdiction, the enquiry could not be held without providing necessary assistance of the Spokesman; (b) to further restrain the defendants from holding enquiry other than running of the horse Angel of Mercy, Race No. 133 held on 20-10-1994 at Mysore Race by perpetual injunction. The schedule is shown as proposed enquiry as per the letter of defendant No. 3, dated 2-1-1995 to be held on 4-1-1995 at 6 p. m. at the Stewards Room in BTC, Bangalore. O. S. No. 415 was filed on 18-1-1995. The relief was not only as against defendants 1 to 3 in that suit, but the Appeal Board also impleaded as Defendant No. 4. The prayer in the suit was- (a) for a declaration that the order passed by the defendants 1 to 3 dated 8-1-1995 and confirmed by order dated 21-1-1995 passed by the Appeal Board in so far as it pertains to the plaintiff is illegal, void and without jurisdiction; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their officials, agents, servants or anyone acting or claiming on their behalf from giving effect to the order dated 8-1-1995 passed by the Stewards of Bangalore Turf Club and confirmed by the order dated 21-1-1995 passed by the Appeal Board in so far as it pertains to the plaintiff. ( 29 ) ON a perusal of the averments made in O. S. No. 86 of 1995 it is seen that paras 1 to 17 are the verbatims of the first suit and paras 19 to 39 in the present suit is the averments connected to the events that took place subsequent to 4-1-1995 and also some of the instances that occurred prior to that date. ( 30 ) IN Sarguja Transport Service v. S. T. A. Tribunal, Gwalior, AIR 1987 SC 88 , Order 23, Rule 1 was invoked in the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 30 ) IN Sarguja Transport Service v. S. T. A. Tribunal, Gwalior, AIR 1987 SC 88 , Order 23, Rule 1 was invoked in the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner in that case after withdrawing the writ petition without the permission to institute a fresh petition has instituted the fresh writ petition in respect of the same cause of action. While dismissing the writ petition, under Order 23, Rule 1, it is observed by the Supreme Court that in order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by instituting suits again and again in the same cause of action without any good reason the Civil P. C. insists. The principle underlying the above rule is founded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res judicata. This principle underlying R. 1 of O. 23 should be extended in the interest of administration of justice to discourage the litigant from indulging in bench hunting tactics. In Vallabh Das v. Madanlal, AIR 1970 SC 987 Justice K. S. Hegde, as he then was, of the view that mere identity of some of the issues in the two suits do not bring about an identity of the subject-matter. 'subject-matter' means the bundle of facts which have to be proved in order to entitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed by him. Where the cause of action and the relief claimed in the second suit are not the same as the cause of action and the relief claimed in the first suit, the second suit cannot be considered to have been brought in respect of the same subject-matter as per the first suit. In this case, the first suit was for partition and separate possession where the question of adoption was involved and after withdrawal of the suit, another suit was filed for possession from a trespasser. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the issue of two suits do not bring about the identity of the subject-matter and therefore, Order 23, Rule 1 is not applicable. In Devilal v. Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1965 SC 1150 constructive res judicata was considered and the principle enunciated was that after rejection of a writ petition on merits by adding two more grounds, a fresh writ petition is hit by constructive res judicata. In Devilal v. Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1965 SC 1150 constructive res judicata was considered and the principle enunciated was that after rejection of a writ petition on merits by adding two more grounds, a fresh writ petition is hit by constructive res judicata. Order 23, Rule 1 restricts instituting of the fresh suit even abandonment of part of the claim without the permission of the Court for a liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of a subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim. The subject-matter has been defined in Vallabh Das's case, cited supra, by the Supreme Court. The expression 'subject matter' is not defined in the C. P. C. It does not mean. . . . . . that expression has a reference to a right in the property which the plaintiff seeks to interfere, that expression includes the cause of action and the relief claimed. ( 31 ) THE part of the claim abandoned by Sri Kishan Srivatsava in O. S. No. 86 of 1995 is being genesis of the cause of action claimed in O. S. No. 415 of 1995, I am of the clear view that the present suit is not maintainable and hit by the principles contained under Order 23, Rule 1 and Rule 4 (a) and (b ). It is also noticed that the Court was not appraised of the fact of filing of O. S. No. 86 of 1995 when the fresh suit was filed. Therefore, the suit O. S. No. 415 of 1995 is not maintainable. Hence, I hold this point accordingly. ( 32 ) POINT NO. 3:-The learned trial Judge has devoted a great length of time to give a finding on this point. The main reliance was placed on the testimony of the parties. Therefore, the suit O. S. No. 415 of 1995 is not maintainable. Hence, I hold this point accordingly. ( 32 ) POINT NO. 3:-The learned trial Judge has devoted a great length of time to give a finding on this point. The main reliance was placed on the testimony of the parties. The Trial Court also considered, in the way made out by the respondents regarding day-to-day proceedings and therefore came to the conclusion that the Stewards of the Enquiry have not given sufficient opportunity to take the assistance of the Spokesman and therefore, there is violation of the principles of natural justice and the enquiry was vitiated ( 33 ) SRI S. G. Sundaraswamy, the learned Advocate for the Appellants submits that the Rules of Enquiry governing to BTC does not provide scope for engaging an Advocate or a Spokesman and the Rules provide such asistance at the Appellate stage; therefore, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in deciding this factor in favour of the respondents. ( 34 ) THE enquiry proceedings disclose that when Sri Kishan Srivatsava requested for permission to take the assistance of an Advocate and sought time till the 2nd week of January, 1995, the Stewards have reiterated the earlier stand taken by them in their Club meeting held on 20-12-1994, Ex. D-54 and the request for permission to engage a counsel or a Spokesman was rejected. Since the Rules does not provide to have the assistance of a Spokesman, it is too much to assume that such an assistance is mandatory. However, one of the son of Sri Kishan Srivatsava, Sanjay Srivatsava was permitted to assist him when it was made known to the Stewards that Sri Kishan Srivatsava is unable to read and write English language. ( 35 ) IN Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2 SCC 115 : (1993 AIR SCW 1106) the question came up before the Supreme Court was right to have the asistance of an office bearers of the Union in domestic enquiry. ( 35 ) IN Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2 SCC 115 : (1993 AIR SCW 1106) the question came up before the Supreme Court was right to have the asistance of an office bearers of the Union in domestic enquiry. The delinquent employee sought the assistance of an office bearer of an other Trade Union who is not a member of either a recognised union or a non-recognised union functioning within the undertaking in which the delinquent is employed notwithstanding the statutory limitation contained in Certified Standing Orders and Section 22 (ii) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. On this question after taking into consideration the earlier decisions on this question, the same was summarised in paras 11,12,13,17 and 18 as hereunder:-"ordinarily it is considered desirable not restrict the delinquent's right to be represented by counsel or an agent of his choice, but it is different thing to say that such a right is an element of the principles of natural justice and denial thereof would invalidate the enquiry. The right to be represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statutes, rules, regulations or standing orders. Presented through counselor agent unless the law specifically confers such a right. The requirement of rules of natural justice, in so far as delinquent's right of hearing is concerned, cannot and does not extend to a right to be represented through counsel for agent. In the instant case the delinquent's right or representation was regulated by the standing orders which permitted a clerk or a workman working with him in the same department to represent him and this right stood expanded in Sections 21 and 22 (ii) permitting representation through an officer, staff-member or a member of the union, albeit on being authorised by the State Government. The object and purpose of such provisions are to ensure that the domestic enquiry is completed with despatch and is not prolonged endlessly. Secondly, when the person defending the delinquent is from the department or establishment in which the delinquent is working he will be well conversant with the working of that department and the relevant rules and would, therefore, be able to render satisfactory service to the delinquent. Thirdly, not only would the entire proceedings be completed quickly but also inexpensively. Secondly, when the person defending the delinquent is from the department or establishment in which the delinquent is working he will be well conversant with the working of that department and the relevant rules and would, therefore, be able to render satisfactory service to the delinquent. Thirdly, not only would the entire proceedings be completed quickly but also inexpensively. It is, therefore, not correct to contended that the standing order or Section 22 (ii) conflicts with the principles of natural justice. " ( 36 ) I may add here further that each body can lay down its own procedure but the only thing required to be considered is the seriousness complexity of the allegations levelled against a delinquent. Therefore, the submission of Sri Narsimha Murthy that the Stewards of the Club conducting the enquiry were acted both as Prosecutor's and the Judges is not well founded. This point can assume importance only in the event, the bias is attributed against such authority. ( 37 ) IN the instant case, it is purely a discretion of the enquiry to take a decision on this point though the Rules do not provide for the same. The assistance of a Spokesman or an Advocate is totally unwarranted in the nature of the enquiry conducted under the Rules of Racing because the party involved and the persons sitting for the enquiry were in know of the things better than an outsider because it relates to running of a horse which reflects in the CCTV Tapes. Added to this, allowing a stranger to act as a Spokesman in the enquiry will unnecessarily drag on the proceedings and the required will be defeated. Therefore, the Trial Court is in clear error in considering this fact in favour of Sri Kishan Srivastava. ( 38 ) THE enquiry proceedings discloses that the enquiry was commenced on 3-11-1994 under Rule 37 (h) and on that date Trainer Manohar and Jockey Basheer were examined by the Stewards of the Club. On 4-11-1994 Mr. Sanjay Srivastava was called and examined by Stewards. On 6-11-1994 Trainer B. K. Arshad was examined. On 11-11-1994 Sanjay Srivastava the owner of horse Angel of Mercy was examined and later Jockey Basheer and then Sri Kishan Srivatsava and another Jockey Zia Aktar were examined. On 4-11-1994 Mr. Sanjay Srivastava was called and examined by Stewards. On 6-11-1994 Trainer B. K. Arshad was examined. On 11-11-1994 Sanjay Srivastava the owner of horse Angel of Mercy was examined and later Jockey Basheer and then Sri Kishan Srivatsava and another Jockey Zia Aktar were examined. This was continued throughout by informing the dates of enquiry and this has assumed a role of pre-trial enquiry before framing of any charges against the respondents. ( 39 ) THE respondents have appeared throughout and on conclusion of pre-trial examination, the Stewards have framed necessary charges and sent the letters containing the allegations of charge to the respondents as per Exs. D-48 and D-49. ( 40 ) IT is the contention of Sri S. G. Sundaraswamy that the respondents realising that the results collected in the pre-trial enquiry was directly pointing out the offence alleged against them have started adopting dilatory tactics to stall the proceedings. To substantiate this submission, it is pointed out that by a letter dated 14-12-1994 one of the respondent pleaded ignorance as to the purpose for which he was asked to appear. That is the reason the letter dated 15-12-1994 was sent to them. Though Sri Kishan Srivastava was assisted by his son Prakash, he refused to participate in the enquiry and pleaded unwell. In fact, on 14-12-1994 the respondents have not co-operated with the enquiry and thereafter several Trainers were examined and all the proceedings were sent to the respondent along with the charge memo contained in the letter and it was delivered to them personally even some telegrams are also sent. On 17-12-1994 Sri Kishan Srivatsava requested for an opportunity to cross-examine the Jockeys and Trainers and only thereafter he would submit a reply to the authority. The assistance of an Advocate was once again raised and the same was rejected by the Stewards. It was again adjounred to 2-1-1995 to make written submission and adjourned the enquiry to 4-1- 1995 for examination of witness by getting all the witnesses present. ( 41 ) THE proceedings further disclose that the respondents were allowed to file their written statement by 2-1-1995. They have not filed and this fact was brought to their notice on 4-1-1995. It was again adjounred to 2-1-1995 to make written submission and adjourned the enquiry to 4-1- 1995 for examination of witness by getting all the witnesses present. ( 41 ) THE proceedings further disclose that the respondents were allowed to file their written statement by 2-1-1995. They have not filed and this fact was brought to their notice on 4-1-1995. The persistence of the respondent that he would require a Spokesman for cross-examination has ultimately driven the Stewards to proceed to pass the orders on the available material collected during enquiry. Indeed, Jockey N. Kumar, on whose complaint the riding of horse Polite Applause in Race No. 184 at Bangalore to interfere with the rider of another horse Right Dancer has come into light and this charge was also included by the letter dated 15-12-1994. This Court cannot for a moment attempt to draw the conclusion on the basis of the evidence placed by the witnesses, but it can only attempt to find out whether sufficient opportunity was given to cross-examine these witnesses to understand the nature of enquiry conducted against the respondents. ( 42 ) MY attention was also drawn to the oral evidence placed by the respondents before the trial Court as in the First Appeal, the scope of scrutinising the evidence of the witnesses before the Court is left open. An advertance to this fact is also necessary which will shed some light on the enquiry. ( 43 ) SRI Kishan Srivastava in this cross-examination at page 19 of the deposition went to the extent of telling that though he was informed that there was an enquiry made in respect of running of horse Angel of Mercy, he did not make any enquiry as to what are the things happened nor wrote any letter to the Club to know the nature of enquiry and he did not remember if Sanjay was called in the Chambers. He also stated that on 11th he did not tell the Stewards that he needs the assistance of Sanjay. But he accepts that the Stewards were examined him on that day. He also gave a vague answer of having received the communication dated 15-12-1994 and various other documents connected to the enquiry though he was received the same. In fact, he says at page 21 that he did not understand the charge against him though the contents were read by his sons. He also gave a vague answer of having received the communication dated 15-12-1994 and various other documents connected to the enquiry though he was received the same. In fact, he says at page 21 that he did not understand the charge against him though the contents were read by his sons. He has stated that he did not reply the charge memo in writing at all. With regard to the filing of a suit during the pendency of this enquiry he has accepted the fact that the same was not informed to the Stewards even after its withdrawal. He has admitted that the appeal was heard by giving an opportunity and he has also appeared along with his son Sanjay and made their submissions. ( 44 ) NOW, coming to another respondent Prakash Srivastava, he went to the extent of denying his participation throughout the enquiry. These answers are quite vague in nature and the witness has conveniently said that he did not remember the events. Indeed, he was made to accept the denials made in his examination-in-chief and therefore, the Trial Court has totally disregarded the effect of the admissions made by the respondents and it has proceeded to appreciate the case by taking those of the answers which are advantageous to the case set up by the respondents. ( 45 ) THE appreciation of the oral evidence placed by the parties is absolutely necessary in cases of this nature as every party interested will attempt to draw a picture which would support his contention. Therefore, the Evidence Act provided for cross-examination of the witnesses and only by these processes the truth will generally come out. Therefore, the Trial Courts should bestow their attentions on this aspect of the matter as the documentary evidence is only corroborative piece of evidence which mainly depended on the appreciation of oral evidence. ( 46 ) SRI S. G. Sundaraswamy, the learned Advocate proceeded to make his submission that the Stewards of the Club who are entrusted to take action and set right the irregularties are uninterested persons in this regard and the Rules of Racing being vested the powers on Stewards of Superintendence of racing activity and enquiry into all matters connected with racing that they shall be allowed to function independently and that is the reason the Rules provided that their finding is final. ( 47 ) IT is further submitted under the Karnataka Race Course Licensing Act, the Club should ensure fair racing which depends to the large extent on the popularity of the sports itself and also the conduct of the punters. The serious repercussion that would follow if the undesirable persons were to be allowed to indulge in fraudulant practise, the confidence reposed in the Club by the Punters, owners, trainers, jockeys, Government and other members of the public will be tarnished and if an order of expulsion is injected by the Civil Courts it will create an atmosphere of undesirable elements participating in the Race and fraudulantly bring chaos in the art of racing. It is further submitted that the respondents have not approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, granting of an injunction in their favour will defeat the very object of law. ( 48 ) SRI R. N. Narasimha Murthy, the learned Advocate for the respondents has also taken me through to the proceedings of enquiry and the learned Advocate tried to point out that the enquiry conducted by the Stewards is not in accordance with any settled principle of Rules or it is also opposed to the principles of natural justice. The contention of Sri Narasimha Murthy is that the Stewards used to call the witnesses without adopting a proper procedure as and when they required their presence and the questions they asked to these witnesses are in the nature of leading questions. It is further submitted, the legal disability of the respondents in cross-examining these witnesses would have been considered by the Stewards to give a Spokesman and therefore, the enquiry smacks the principles of natural justice. ( 49 ) THE nature of conducting the domestic enquiries in various fields of litigation were subjected to judicial scrutiny and several views were expressed by the Courts. The case law developed spontaneously in this arena of litigation as this question was mostly labour oriented in view of the position held by a delinquent. ( 50 ) THE Stewards to whom the matter was referred by the MRC regarding the running of horse Angel of Mercy have taken the matter seriously and to arrive at a conclusion they have to do a roving enquiry during pre-trial stage as any punishment under Rule 177 will have a far-reaching consequence to the horse owners. ( 50 ) THE Stewards to whom the matter was referred by the MRC regarding the running of horse Angel of Mercy have taken the matter seriously and to arrive at a conclusion they have to do a roving enquiry during pre-trial stage as any punishment under Rule 177 will have a far-reaching consequence to the horse owners. The Stewards of the Club were able to reach a conclusion regarding the charges levelled against the respondent during early part of December 1994 and thereafter they have sent the charge memo by letters dated 15-12-1994. ( 51 ) EXCEPT saying that the mode of enquiry conducted by them is opposed to the principles of natural justice no allegation was made against them of having any special interest or bias to inflict punishment in respect of these respondents. In fact, during 1992 a Race Owner was punished as disclosed in the evidence of D. W. 1. ( 52 ) THE conduct of the respondents amounts to non-participating in the enquiry as they have refused to cross-examine the witnesses by taking pretence of Spokesman nor they have filed any written statement refuting the allegations made against them. This has virtually posed difficulty to the Inquiring Authorities to give a negative finding in favour of the respondents. ( 53 ) IN Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha, ( 1994 (2) SCC 615 ) the request made by the delinquent employee that he would examine all the witnesses after they have been examined in chief completely, was not entertained by the Enquiry Officer and the Supreme Court held that it does not amount to violation of natural justice. ( 54 ) THE position of law regarding the decision of the domestic Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the Court, the Privy Council in L. A. P. O. Reilly v. C. C. Gittens, AIR 1949 PC 313 went to the extent of non-interference of the Civil Courts when such enquiries cannot be equated to an enquiry conducted by a Court of Law. The learned Judges have accepted the law enunciated by Maugham J. in the case of Maclean v. The Workers' Union, 1929-1 Ch 602 which reads thus:-"at the outset it may be expedient to point out that the question will not be whether the Court considers that the conduct of the defendants or their executive committee was fair and just but the very different question whether the case is one in which the Court has power to interfere. The jurisdiction of the Courts in regard to domestic tribunals a phrase which may conveniently be used to include the committee or the councils or the members of trade unions of members' clubs, and of professional bodies established by statute or Royal Charter while acting in a quasi-judicial capacity - is clearly of a limited nature. Parenthetically I may observe that I am not confident that precisely the same principles will apply in all these cases; for it may be that a body entrusted with important duties by an Act of Parliament is not in the same position as, for example, the executive committee in the present case. Speaking generally, it is useful to bear in mind the very wide differences between the principles applicable to Courts of justice and those applicable to domestic tribunals. In the former the accused is entitled to be tried by the Judge according to the evidence legally adduced and has a right to be represented by a skilled legal Advocate. All the procedure of a modern trial including the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses and the summing up, if any, is based on these two circusmtances. A domestic tribunal is in general a tribunal composed of laymen. It has no power to administer an oath and, a circumstance which is perhaps of greater importance, no party has the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. It is not bound by the rules of evidence, it is indeed probably ignorant of them. It may act, and it sometimes must act, on mere hear-say, and in many cases the members present or some of them (like an English jury in ancient days) are themselves both the witnesses and the Judges. Before such a tribunal counsel have no right of audience and there are no effective means for testing by cross-examination the truth of the statements that may be made. Before such a tribunal counsel have no right of audience and there are no effective means for testing by cross-examination the truth of the statements that may be made. The members of the tribunal may have been discussing the matter for weeks with persons not present at the hearing, and there is no one even to warn them of the danger of acting on pre-conceived views. It is apparent and it is well settled by authority that the decision of such a tribunal cannot be attacked on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence, since evidence in the proper sense there is none, and since the decisions of the tribunal are not open to any sort of appeal unless the rules provide for one. " ( 55 ) IN The Chairman Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965 the question that required determination was the cancellation of shot fire certificate which was made by collecting the materials including the admission of the delinquent is required to be interferred with, as made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Summarising this aspect of the matter it was held thus at para 13 at page 969:-"the last violation regarded as a lethal objection is that the Board did not enquire of the respondent, independently of the one done by the Regional Inspector. Assuming it to be necessary, here the respondent has, in the form of an appeal against the report of the Regional Inspector , sent his explanation to a the Chairman of the Board. He has thus been heard and compliances with Reg. 26, in the circumstances, is complete. Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt-that is the conscience of the matter. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt-that is the conscience of the matter. " ( 56 ) IN State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512 : (1977 Lab IC 845) where the punishment imposed to a Bus Conductor for not collecting fares from certain passengers came up for consideration. The mode of conducting a domestic enquiry was the subject matter requires an analytical approach by the Supreme Court and in that context the Hon'ble Judges went to the extent of laying down the law that there is no allergy to hear-say evidence provided it was reasonable nexus and credibility. The essence of a judicial approach is objectively, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Fair-play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. ( 57 ) IN T. P. Dever v. Lodge Victoria, AIR 1963 SC 1144 , in the enquiry of similar nature where the allegations raised was the procedural irregularity, the Supreme Court held at para 15 thus at page 1149:-"the question is whether this error in the procedure vitiated the trial. It is obvious that the appellant was not prejudiced. He never made a complaint of it. Indeed in his answer he made it clear that he would not be present at the enquiry. The law itself enabled him to apply for further time, but he did not ask for it, as he did not want to appear at the meeting. He did not raise this objection either in the appeal before the District Grand Lodge or in the second appeal before the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Before the said appellate Lodges he took the decision on merits. Indeed, by his answer and subsequent conduct he clearly waived the said requirement of the Law. Can he now be allowed to rely upon a breach of the procedural rule to invalidate the proceedings? In our views, he cannot do so. Before the said appellate Lodges he took the decision on merits. Indeed, by his answer and subsequent conduct he clearly waived the said requirement of the Law. Can he now be allowed to rely upon a breach of the procedural rule to invalidate the proceedings? In our views, he cannot do so. There is a distinction between the jurisdiction of a Lodge and the irregular exercise of it is the matter of the taking of procedural steps. A party to a dispute can certainly waive his objections to some defects in procedure. In this case, the appellant could have taken objection for his being given a shorter period of notice than prescribed under the Law for his appearance before the meeting of the Lodge. He did not do so. The appellant has, by his aforesaid conduct, clearly waived his right under the said Law. Having waived it, he is now precluded from relying upon the said defect. We, therefore, hold that it is not open to the appellant to rely upon the said defect for invalidating the proceeding. Further, it is held at para l6 thus:- "the rules governing Tribunals and Courts cannot mutatis mutandis be applied to such bodies as Lodges. We have to see broadly in the circumstances of each case whether the principles of natural justice have been applied. In the circumstances of this case, particularly when we find that the appellant had not raised any objection, we cannot say that the resolution passed by the Lodge Victoria is bad for violating any principles of natural justice. " ( 58 ) IN Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society, (1958) 2 All ER 579 the question of natural justice was once again considered in a case where Inspector of trade association buying tickets for the purpose of calculating number of patrons in a cinema theatre entered the same and the question was whether his entry was a trespass. The law laid down in this decision is that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made, secondly that he should be given an opportunity to stake his case and thirdly that the Tribunal should act in good faith. ( 59 ) IN Administrative Law by H. W. R. Wade, Seventh Edition, the question of natural justice in the proceedings before a domestic enquiry was dealt with under the heading 'natural Justice and Legal Justice'. ( 59 ) IN Administrative Law by H. W. R. Wade, Seventh Edition, the question of natural justice in the proceedings before a domestic enquiry was dealt with under the heading 'natural Justice and Legal Justice'. Sri Narasimha Murthy, the learned Advocate for the respondents invited to the directions contained in pages 468, 499 and 641. The learned Author, tracing the history of natural justice in the common law and the subsequent case law developed on this question, has come to the conclusion that the members of trade unions of clubs, for example, cannot normally be expelled without being given a hearing, for their contracts of membership are held to include a duty to act fairly, by accepting them as members and receiving their subscriptions the trade union of club impliedly undertakes to treat them fairly and in accordance with the rules. In essence it is pointed out by the learned Author that any orders passed in the domestic enquiry to the detriment of an individual, the Rules governing that field shall be followed and in the absence of the rules, the natural justice and fairplay is sine qua non for rendering the proper justice. There cannot be any quarrel over this proposition and there is no material that there was any violation of this aspect of the matter by the Stewards. The learned Author with reference to audi alteram partem quoted an instance where the bishop had appointed a curate, at the vicar's expenses, to perform the duties of vicar whom the bishop considered to be vicar to make any defence, and for this reason the Court held the whole process to be void. The learned Author speaking about domestic tribunals and disciplinary bodies at page 641 says that the Tribunals whose jurisdiction is confined to the internal affairs of some profession or association, and which are commonly called domestic tribunals, have not until recently appeared among the numerous tribunals against which certiorari and prohibition have been granted. Where their powers are statutory, as in the case of the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council and the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society, there is no apparent difficulty in fitting them into Atkin LJ's formula as bodies having legal authority to determine questions affecting rights. Where their powers are statutory, as in the case of the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council and the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society, there is no apparent difficulty in fitting them into Atkin LJ's formula as bodies having legal authority to determine questions affecting rights. Nevertheless in practice their decisions were reviewed by ordinary actions for injunctions and declarations until the new procedure for judicial review was introduced in 1977. Since then an application for prerogative remedies has been allowed against the General Medical Council, and there have been other comparable cases. Where a disciplinary body has no statutory powers its jurisdiction will normally be based upon contract. Members of trade unions, business associations and social clubs and also students in universities and colleges have, as we have seen, contractual rights based on their contracts of membership, with implied terms which protect them from unfair expulsion. In these cases declaration and injunction are the appropriate remedies. ( 60 ) THE above are the guidelines suggested by the learned Author based on the development of rule of law by the learned Judge of various Courts. Indeed as pointed out by the Privy Council in AIR 1949 PC 313 the proceedings before the domestic enquiries shall be appreciated by adverting to the behaviour and conduct of the Inquiring Authorities rather than the non-co-operative attitude of delinquents. If statute governs the domestic enquiry we have no difficulty to make an interference to test the validity of such enquiry, but where there are no rules prescribing the mode of enquiry, the general law governing such field shall be taken note of. What the Court should examine is was there any bias attitude on the part of the Inquiries Authorities or they have been motivated to punish a person. If such things are absent, the Courts should give credence to the conclusion reached by them on the basis of their enquiry. It is not the form that requires to be appreciated the method requires consideration. ( 61 ) SERIOUS allegations were made against the respondents which if allowed to continue will affect a large number of race goers and the horse races will assume the place of gambling. Recently, the Supreme Court of India, while deciding a question relating to Madras Horse Racing Club came to the conclusion that horse racing is a skill and not a gambling. Recently, the Supreme Court of India, while deciding a question relating to Madras Horse Racing Club came to the conclusion that horse racing is a skill and not a gambling. When the question of skill comes, the race should be conducted on merits of each horse and any method adopted to prevent a natural running of the horse will affect the punters who after assessing to the pedigree of a horse, its previous winning, the handicap given to it will make their bettings. If the method alleged against the respondents is allowed to continue then the Horse Race will become a gambling. ( 62 ) IT is not out of place to express that the volume of enquiry conducted by the Stewards and the non-co-operative attitude shown by the respondents will give raise to any person of ordinary prudence that the respondents have attempted to absolve from this liability by adopting dilatory methods. We are dealing with most enlightened class of citizens and not of ordinary unskilled labour of a factory. The law provided the assistance to an unskilled labourer to protect his interest due to his ignorance of many things of the world. ( 63 ) THE order of the Stewards was affirmed by the 4th appellant. The order of the 4th appellant shows that the members who are holding responsible positions in the Society have considered the method of enquiry, nature of charge, manner of evidence, the status of the witnesses and lastly the tendency shown by the respondents in this enquiry. The conclusion reached by such a body of persons shall not be required to be brushed away by simply saying that their conclusion is questionable. ( 64 ) IT is needless to say it held that any interventions by the Civil Courts will tend to undermine the legitimacy of a body of persons who are entrusted to take action by their own rules against a person who violated such rule. When once a horse owner, horse trainer or Jockey seeks a licence to perform their jobs in a race course they are governed by the rules framed by the Club. The conclusion reached by such body cannot be overturned by the Civil Courts as the limitation for the Civil Court is to find out the procedural aspects of domestic enquiry. Only unfairness and bias should be the subject matter of interference and not otherwise. The conclusion reached by such body cannot be overturned by the Civil Courts as the limitation for the Civil Court is to find out the procedural aspects of domestic enquiry. Only unfairness and bias should be the subject matter of interference and not otherwise. A body of individuals forming a company and submitting themselves to the rules shall not be allowed to transgress and violate such rules to get immunity from other sources. ( 65 ) THE mode of enquiry in this sphere is mostly depended upon the unbias attitude of the Inquiries Officers concerned. Due to clandestine attitude of some of the members, the charges cannot be proved in an ordinary course; that does not mean that such a thing is allowed to be continued. Therefore, the assistance of large number of people are necessary to set right this type of clandestine dealings which ultimately affect the interest of punters, totalisers, book makers and the Club. ( 66 ) VIEWING the present appeal in the circumstances discussed above, there is no hesitation to hold that the Stewards of the Club are the ultimate authority in all matters relating to racing. They are charged with a duty to take all such actions as may be necessary to ensure that races are run fairly. They are also vested with the responsibility of ensuring that no malpractices are indulged in and if indulged in to take steps to prevent the unjust enrichment of a few unscrupulous elements to the detriment of the interests of the public. The Stewards are also the custodians of public trust under the statutory duties provided under the Rules of Racing, considering the large volume of betting that is involved in races and bearing in mind that the racing public are largely dependent on the Stewards of the Club for conducting clean and fair racing. The Supreme Court in the recent Madras Race Club case held that Racing is a Game of Skill. There are thousands of punters, owners, trainers, jockeys, Government and members of the public all over India who are connected with and involved with racing. In order to retain their confidence it is necessary that unfair conduct on the part of any person entails serious punishment from the Stewards. There are thousands of punters, owners, trainers, jockeys, Government and members of the public all over India who are connected with and involved with racing. In order to retain their confidence it is necessary that unfair conduct on the part of any person entails serious punishment from the Stewards. Such a punishment will act as a deterrent and will be in the public interest especially in a case like this, where serious offences have been committed. Therefore, the punishment of exclusion imposed against the respondents cannot be disturbed under the guise of holding that the domestic enquiry was conducted by flouting principles of natural justice. ( 67 ) HAVING considered the merits of the appeals in this perspective, the irresistible conclusion is that the order of the Stewards dated 8-1-1995 and the order affirming the same by the Appeal Board does not require any interference. ( 68 ) IN view of the discussions made above, point Nos. 1 to 3 are held in the affirmative. ( 69 ) IN the result, these appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court in O. S. No. 415 of 1995 and O. S. No. 476 of 1995 dated 26-9-1995 is hereby set aside. In view of the peculiar circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed. --- *** --- .