Judgment RAVI S.DHAVAN, J. 1. This petition is about cricket. Counsel or not counsel the Court has heard arguments simultaneously from three Advocates on both sides and all have bowled in the same over and each seems to be throwing a body-line. All counsel, and the parties they represent, would like to run away with the ashes. And yet they are putting the two Judges, of this division, to umpire outside the field as a third eye. Apparently, between the other umpires, big names in the Cricket Control Board of India, the argument ran like no-balls and wideballs. Before the Court it is a heard I win, tail you loose situation. Sabre rattling counsel fling at each other without ball and bat but their verbal volleys seem like fours and sixes, except there are no boundaries in this Court. The argument match is very unconventional and the style of pleading was not confined within the boundaries of traditional submissions. It is more a frenzy amongst on lookers at the stadium stands. 2. The two counsel for the petitioners, one appears formally and the other informally vehemently submit that the Bihar Cricket Association has been sent for a six outside the stadium by the Cricket Control Board of India. They submit that the rules of the game have been changed during the game and the Bihar Cricket Association has been deleted and would not even have the status of a full member on the Board which it has had since 1935. 3. Before this Court the match apparently has been played from Brabourne Stadium, Mumbai, via Molnul Haque Stadium, Patna to Keenam Stadium, Jamshedpur, with a one day match pace. A lot of excitement has been displayed between playing counsel and the Bar gallery. The place of arguments was fast and all simultaneous. Something like the theme in the Sir Henry Newbolts poem : A bumping pitch an a blinding light/ one to make and the last man in. 4. This cricket match before the Court, with the embroiled counsel is on the wrong playing field. All the real players are not being named by the proxy players. This is big game outside the game and it would be best not to ask counsel to bilge out the names of the players. 5. Ultimately, with arguments exhausted counsel were looking for a decision from the Court as an umpire. All the real players are not being named by the proxy players. This is big game outside the game and it would be best not to ask counsel to bilge out the names of the players. 5. Ultimately, with arguments exhausted counsel were looking for a decision from the Court as an umpire. The Court told the trio counsel that at the High Court they did not connect the ball while swinging the bat wildly and lustly and the ball has been caught behind the stumps and returned to the bowler to bowl again. But, it will have to be another pitch at another field. While leaving the Bar of the Court, all counsel acknowledged that a two set Inning match is already being played at the District Court, Patna. On that this Court asked them to take their stumps and pitch it elsewhere. 6. On an Inquiry of the Court, the three counsel on an arguing match intimated that the rules and regulations of the Board of Cricket Control of India are under consideration for amendments. They informed the Court that the Board of Cricket Control of India had been incorporated as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 7. The playing field of the registered society of the Board of Cricket Control of India is at Brabourne Stadium, Mumbai. Thus, if this match is to continue in its variations it will have to be at a Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction. 8. A society is an incorporated body and in the present case it is certainly not discharging a State function and the prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not available to the petitioners in the circumstances of the present case. It is a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not a cricket match. 9. This petition is misconceived. 10. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.