Kamala Kanta Kalita (Dr. ) v. Assam Cricket Association
2006-02-27
I.A.ANSARI
body2006
DigiLaw.ai
I. A. ANSARI, J.— By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought to get set aside and quashed the notice, dated 02.01.2006, issued by the respondents No. 2 as Secretary of the Assam Cricket Association, whereby the Annual General Meeting of the said Association was convened on 22.01.2006, at Karimganj, to, inter alia, elect the office-bearers and members of the Governing Body of the said Association for the next tenure. With the help of the present writ petition, the petitioners have also sought for a direction to be issued to the respondents to hold the General Body Meeting of the said Association in the month of June, 2006. 2. If put in a narrow compass, the case of the writ petitioners unfolds thus : The Assam Cricket Association (in short, 'the ACA') is an affiliated member of the Board of Control of Cricket in India, popularly known as the BCCI, and discharges public functions and duties, such as, selection of the Assam cricket team to participate in various national and domestic tournaments. The ACA also controls the activities of the players involved in the filed of cricket in Assam. The activities of the ACA are akin to public duties. The petitioner No. 1 is an elected office-bearer of the ACA holding the office of the Vice-President and the petitioner No. 2 is a member of the Governing Body of the ACA. The present Governing Body of the ACA was constituted in the Annual General Meeting (in short, 'the AGM') of the ACA held on 9th and 10th of November, 2002, at Bongaigaon. At the time, when the present Governing Body was elected, the tenure of the Governing Body was two years; but thereafter, pursuant to the amendment of the constitution of the ACA made on 11.01.2004, the tenure of the Governing Body has been enhanced to 4 years. As the tenure of the Governing Body, according to the constitution of the ACA, is 4 years, the tenure of the present Governing Body would have, in the normal course, expired on 10th of November, 2006 and not before.
As the tenure of the Governing Body, according to the constitution of the ACA, is 4 years, the tenure of the present Governing Body would have, in the normal course, expired on 10th of November, 2006 and not before. Hence, if anew Governing Body is elected in the AGM to be held on 22.01.2006, it will shorten the tenure of the present Governing Body by about 11 months and this is impermissible under the constitution of the ACA, for, Rule 20 of the said constitution makes it clear that the new office-bearers for the Governing Body would be elected at the end of the tenure of 4 years. Though the Governing Body meeting of the ACA was held on 18.12.2005, at Goalpara, which was presided ever by the respondent No. 3 as President, no decision was taken in the said meeting to shorten the tenure of the present Governing Body or to hold the AGM, on 22.01.2006, at Karimganj. Since under Rule 18(a), the power is vested in the Governing Body of the ACA to fix the date, time and venue of the General Body Meeting of the ACA and since no decision had been taken, on 18.12.2005, as mentioned here in a before, with regard to holding of the AGM, on 22.01.2006, at Karimganj, to elect a new Governing Body, the notice, dated 02.01.2006, aforesaid, which has been issued by the respondent No. 2 as Secretary, is not sustainable inasmuch as the agenda for the AGM includes election of office-bearers and members of the Governing Body for the next tenure. It is, thus, neither necessary nor legal to shorten the tenure of the present Governing Body and hold election on 22.01.2006. The steps to hold the election have been resorted to for the purpose of enabling the President, who is a powerful Cabinet Minister in the State of Assam, to garner support and hold the election of the Governing Body during the time, when he remains a Minister, so as to enable him to get re-elected. The holding of the election for constituting a new Governing Body would also hamper the management of the Governing Body in the State of Assam, particularly, when the 'Ranji Trophy One Day Tournament' is scheduled to be held in February, 2006 and One Day International match between India and England is stated to be held, in April, 2006.
The holding of the election for constituting a new Governing Body would also hamper the management of the Governing Body in the State of Assam, particularly, when the 'Ranji Trophy One Day Tournament' is scheduled to be held in February, 2006 and One Day International match between India and England is stated to be held, in April, 2006. The petitioners, being members of the Governing Body, have legitimate expectation to continue till end of their tenure and the impugned notice has the effect of taking away the rights of the petitioners to continue in office till the end of their tenure. The AGM has, thus, been fixed, at Karimganj, with mala fide intention and when huge public money would be handled by the ACA, the Governing Body of the ACA, which will deal with the public money, shall be constituted in accordance with law. Since the Governing Body, to be constituted on 22.01.2006, at Karimganj, will not be legally valid, holding of such a meeting or holding of election for constituting a new Governing Body should not be permitted. 3. While issuing notice of motion, on 20.01.2006, in this case, the Court passed, as an interim measure, directions to the effect that until 27.01.2006, the results of the election of the ACA shall, if held in the meanwhile, not be acted upon without leave of this Court. When the matter came up, again, on 27.01.2006, the respondents, as the case record reveals, resisted extension of the interim directions on the ground that since elections have already been held, on 22.01.2006, at Karimganj and a new Governing Body also stands elected, balance of convenience lies in allowing the newly constituted Governing Body to assume office. As the record reflects, it was also agitated, on behalf of the respondents on 27.01.2006, that the interim directions passed, on 20.01.2006, may not be extended any further, for, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court fixed the writ petition, on 10.02.2006, for admission and extended the interim directions until then. However, the writ petition could be taken up for admission hearing on 16.02.2006.1 have accordingly heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. Presenting the case on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.
However, the writ petition could be taken up for admission hearing on 16.02.2006.1 have accordingly heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. Presenting the case on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned notice, dated 02.01.2006, aforementioned has been issued in violation of the relevant provisions embodied in the constitution of the ACA inasmuch as the impugned notice shortened the tenure of the writ petitioners as office-bearer and member of the Governing Body of the ACA. By shortening the tenure of the present Governing Body, the petitioners have been, contends Mr. Saikia, unreasonably and arbitrarily, denied their legitimate expectation and right to continue as office bearer and member of the Governing Body until completion of their tenure of four years. This apart, points out Mr. Saikia, Rule 18(a) makes it very clear that it is the Governing Body, which will fix the date, time and venue of the election, but in the case at hand, the Governing Body did not fix the date, time and place for holding of the election, which the impugned notice mentions. Thus, convening of the AGM, on 22.01.2006, at Karimganj, by the impugned notice, dated 02.01.2006, is, according to Mr. Saikia without any legal foundation inasmuch as, reiterates Mr. Saikia, there was no resolution adopted by the Governing Body in its meeting held at Goalpara, on 18.12.2005, to hold the AGM of the ACA at Karimganj on 22.01.2006. 6. Pointing out to Annexure B to the writ petition, Mr. Saikia submits that Annexure B contains the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the Governing Body held, on 18.-12.2005, at Goalpara and these minutes clearly show that no resolution had been adopted by the Governing Body to hold the AGM and election. It is also pointed out by Mr. Saikia that while under Rule 20 of the constitution of ACA, it is permissible to extend the tenure of the Governing Body, no provision of this constitution envisages reduction of the tenure of an elected Governing Body. 7. Mr.
It is also pointed out by Mr. Saikia that while under Rule 20 of the constitution of ACA, it is permissible to extend the tenure of the Governing Body, no provision of this constitution envisages reduction of the tenure of an elected Governing Body. 7. Mr. Saikia submits that the entire process of election was resorted to for the purpose of enabling the respondent No. 3, who is the present President of the ACA and a powerful Cabinet Minister in the State of Assam, to garner support for his re-election as President. This apprehension of the writ petitioners, points out Mr. Saikia, has been proved correct, when in the AGM held, on 20.01.2006, at Karimganj, the respondent No. 3 stood re-elected to the office of President of the ACA. Mr. Saikia also submits that according to the announcements made by the present Secretary of the ACA, the President of the BCCI has sanctioned a sum of Rs. 10 crores for construction of a cricket stadium at Guwahati, This apart, the government also, submits Mr. Saikia, allotted funds to the ACA and, thus, the ACA deals with public money and discharges public function; hence, according to Mr. Saikia, there is an element of public interest involved in the activities of the ACA and since the ACA would be dealing with huge public money, it is necessary, in the public interest, that the Governing Body of the ACA be constituted in terms of its constitution. 8. Mr. Saikia contends that since the ACA is a body, which discharges public functions and duties, it cannot be allowed to abuse its powers and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the election of the new Governing Body was ex facie in violation of the relevant provisions of the constitution of the ACA, public interest requires interference with such election by this Court in exercise of this Court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Support for his submissions are sought to be derived by Mr. Saikia from the decisions in Rohtas Industries Ltd & Anr. Vs. Rohtas Industries Staff Union & Ors., reported in (1976)2 SCC 82 , Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Dr. Mahesh Madav Gosavi & Ors. reported in (1987) 1 SCC'227': AndiMukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. Vs.
Saikia from the decisions in Rohtas Industries Ltd & Anr. Vs. Rohtas Industries Staff Union & Ors., reported in (1976)2 SCC 82 , Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Dr. Mahesh Madav Gosavi & Ors. reported in (1987) 1 SCC'227': AndiMukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. Vs. V.R. Rudani & Ors., reported in (1989) 2 SCC 691 , Unni Krishnan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1993) 1 SCC 645 , LIC of India Vs. Consumer Education & Research Center, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 482 , K. Krishnamacharyulu Vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering reported in (1997) 3 SCC 571 , Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377 , Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of India, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 667 , State of Tripura Vs. Manoranjan Chakraborty, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 740 , ZEE Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649 , Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors., reported in (2005) 4 SCC 741 and Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sadasivan & Ors., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 657 . 9. Controverting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has pointed out that while the petitioner No. 1 was an elected office-bearer of the Governing Body of the ACA, the petitioner No. 2 has incorrectly mentioned in the writ petition that he is a member of the Governing Body of the ACA, for, petitioner No. 2 is merely a representative of Mangladoi District Sports Association and not an elected member of the Governing Body of the ACA. 10. The Governing Body of the ACA, points out Mr. Dutta, has there categories of members, namely, life members, elected members Cricket/Sports Associations of the various districts in Assam and the two Lfniversities in Assam, namely, Gauhati University and Dibrugarh University. In the case at hand, emphasizes Mr.
10. The Governing Body of the ACA, points out Mr. Dutta, has there categories of members, namely, life members, elected members Cricket/Sports Associations of the various districts in Assam and the two Lfniversities in Assam, namely, Gauhati University and Dibrugarh University. In the case at hand, emphasizes Mr. Dutta, the petitioner No. 2 is not an elected member of the Governing Body, but it is the Mangoldoi District Sports Association, whom petitioner No. 2 represents in the Governing Body of the ACA was and has remained a member of the Governing Body of the ACA and nothing stops or can stop the Mangaldoi District Sports Association to either re-authorise the petitioner No. 2 to represent them in the Governing Body of the ACA or to authorize a new person in place of the petitioner No. 2, particularly, when the petitioner No. 2 has no fixed tenure as a representative of the Mangaldoi District Sports Association. Even within a period of four years, Mangaldoi District Sports Association, submits Mr. Dutta, may change their representative to the Governing Body as many times as the Mangaldoi District Sports Association may deem necessary and me petitioner No. 2 cannot object thereto. In the case at hand, points out Mr. Dutta, there is absolutely no material on record or any averment in the writ petition to indicate that Mangaldoi District Sports Association has authorized the petitioner No. 2 to file this writ petition and/or that Mangaldoi District Sports Association had any objection to the holding of the AGM at Karimganj on 22.01.2006 and/or to the holding of elections as had been scheduled by the impugned notice, dated 02.01.2006. 11. Mr. Dutta has also pointed out that the minutes of the proceedings of the Governing Body of the ACA are confirmed in the next meeting of the Governing Body. The minutes of the Governing Body, which the petitioners rely upon, are, according to Mr. Dutta, unconfirmed proceedings of the Governing Body, Many a times, submits Mr. Dutta, the minutes of the proceedings of a Governing Body are corrected, at the time of confirmation thereof, in the next meeting of the Governing Body. An error, according to Mr. Dutta, had, as reflected by Annexure B, crept in, while circulating amongst the office -bearers and members of the Governing Body of the ACA, for their information, the minutes of the proceedings of the meetings of the Governing Body.
An error, according to Mr. Dutta, had, as reflected by Annexure B, crept in, while circulating amongst the office -bearers and members of the Governing Body of the ACA, for their information, the minutes of the proceedings of the meetings of the Governing Body. The original records of the proceedings, however, clearly show, contends Mr. Dutta, that a decision had, indeed, been taken by the Governing Body to hold the AGM. In fact, the original minutes indicate, reiterates Mr. Dutta, that the petitioner No. 2 was very much present in the meeting held on 18.12.2005 and on that day, it was resolved to hold the AGM for electing new office-bearers and members of the Governing Body. Surprisingly enough, however, the petitioner No. 2, points out Mr. Dutta, nowhere, mentions, in the writ petition, that he was present in the meeting of the Governing Body on 18.12.2005 and that true to his own knowledge, no decision was taken, on 18.12.2005, by the Governing Body to hold the AGM and election. / 12. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta as the petitioner was present in the meeting of the Governing Body held, on 18.12.2005, at Karimganj, he knew that the resolution to hold the AGM and also the elections had been adopted on that day by the Governing Body and it was for this reason that the petitioner No. 2, while swearing the affidavit in support of the writ petition, deliberately did not swear the affidavit to the effect that true to his knowledge, no resolution to hold the AGM and elections had been adopted by the Governing Body, on 18.12.2005, at Goalpara. No wonder, therefore, further points out Mr. Dutta, that the petitioner No. 2 has sworn the affidavit to the effect that true to his belief based on record, no such resolution to hold the AGM had been adopted. 13. Mr.
No wonder, therefore, further points out Mr. Dutta, that the petitioner No. 2 has sworn the affidavit to the effect that true to his belief based on record, no such resolution to hold the AGM had been adopted. 13. Mr. Dutta concedes that it is true that Annexure B, nowhere, reflects that any resolution was adopted by the Governing Body on 18.12.2005 at its meeting, at Goalpara, to hold the AGM and/or the election, but, then, the fact remains that the petitioner No. 2 was very much present at the said meeting of the Governing Body and it was in the said meeting that the decision was taken to hold the meeting of the AGM and also the election and since the petitioner No. 2 was very much present in the meeting held on 18.12.2005, nothing had stopped him from swearing, in his affidavit, to his knowledge that no such resolution had been adopted. The omission, on the part of the petitioner No. 2, to swear the said statement true to his knowledge is, according to Mr. Dutta, obvious and the reason is, reiterates Mr. Dutta, that the petitioners knew that Annexure B was yet to be confirmed by the Governing Body in its next meeting and that there was, indeed, a decision to hold the AGM and the election and it was for this reason that the petitioner No. 2, cleverly and deliberately, swore his affidavit to the effect that true to the records, no such decision had been taken. It is further submitted by Mr. Dutta that when the petitioner No. 2 was himself present in the Governing Body meeting held, on 18.12.2005, at Goalpara and had there been really no decision taken in the said meeting to hold the AGM and the elections, nothing could have really stopped the petitioners and, particularly, the petitioner No. 2, from swearing, true to his knowledge, the fact that no such decision had been taken. The petitioner No. 2, has, however, according to Mr. Dutta, cleverly and intelligently, sworn, the affidavit, on this aspect of the case, true to his belief as derived from the records and the effect of such an affidavit is that even if tomorrow.
The petitioner No. 2, has, however, according to Mr. Dutta, cleverly and intelligently, sworn, the affidavit, on this aspect of the case, true to his belief as derived from the records and the effect of such an affidavit is that even if tomorrow. It is proved that in the presence of petitioner No. 2, a decision to hold the AGM and the election was reached in the Governing Body meeting held, at Goalpara, on 18.12.2005, the petitioner No. 2 would not expose himself to the offence of perjury. Be that as it may, the conduct of the petitioners shows, contends Mr. Dutta, that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands and when the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands, this Court may even refuse to look into the writ petition and dismiss the same. 14. It is also submitted by Mr. Dutta that the ACA is a democratically run association and there is no impediment, on the part of the Governing Body, to cut short its tenure and go to the AGM of the ACA for re-election. Such re-election, points out Mr. Dutta, may become necessary in a variety of circumstances, for example, when there is a difference of opinion amongst the office-bearers and members of the Governing Body and the Governing Body decides to seek a fresh mandate for its policies by the general body of the ACA or when all those, who constitute the Governing Body, unanimously, decide to go for re-election to have a fresh mandate from the general body of the ACA. 15. Mr. Dutta further submits that in the month of April, 2006. One Day International would be played between India and England at Guwahati and for this purpose, TV rights are required to be settled. When a new Governing Body has already elected, desirable it is, pleads Mr. Dutta, that the new elected Governing Body be allowed to deal with such issues. 16. What is also point out by Mr. Dutta is that as per the convention of the ACA, the president of the Association and other office-bearers and elected members of the Governing Body resign before the election of the new office-bearers and members of the Governing Body takes place and the same has been done in the present case too. On 22.01.2006, submits Mr.
Dutta is that as per the convention of the ACA, the president of the Association and other office-bearers and elected members of the Governing Body resign before the election of the new office-bearers and members of the Governing Body takes place and the same has been done in the present case too. On 22.01.2006, submits Mr. Dutta, the President and not only the other office bearers, but even elected members of the Governing Body, who were present in the meeting, had resigned and it was thereafter that a new Governing Body was elected. Thus, contends Mr. Dutta, neither the present Governing Body can function nor can function, because of the interim directions passed by this Court, the newly elected Body. Everything has, therefore, points out Mr. Dutta, come to stand still and it was for this reason that the respondents prayed before this Court for hearing on the maintainability of the writ petition. 17. Mr. Dutta has also submitted that according to the constitution of the ACA, several sub-committees, such as, technical sub-committee, food sub-committee, etc., are required to be constituted by the newly elected Governing Body, but these committees could not be constituted by the new Governing Body, because of the interim directions passed by this Court and without these sub-committees, it has become impossible to run the affairs of the ACA and organize the One Day International. The grave public emergency, therefore, requires, submits Mr. Dutta, that unless the writ petitioners make out a clear case showing maintainability of their writ petition, this Court may not permit the petitioners, who have not come with clean hands, to continue with the writ petition. 18. The grievances of the writ petitioners, points out Mr. Dutta, are that their tenure has been reduced and that the AGM and the elections, which were sought to be held on 22.01.2006, were contrary to provisions of the constitution of the ACA. In effect, thus, submits Mr. Dutta, what the petitioners pray before this Court is that the provisions of the constitution of the ACA be enforced by this Court by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution. However, contends Mr. Dutta, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised to merely enforce the provisions of the constitution of the ACA, for, the provisions of this constitution have, contends Mr. Dutta, no force of law. In support of his submission, Mr.
However, contends Mr. Dutta, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised to merely enforce the provisions of the constitution of the ACA, for, the provisions of this constitution have, contends Mr. Dutta, no force of law. In support of his submission, Mr. Dutta places reliance on Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (AIR 1979 SC 245). 19. It is also submitted by Mr. Dutta when the District Cricket/Sports Associations of Assam have not objected to the holding of the AGM and/or the elections on 22.01.2006 and when even the Mangaldoi District Sports Association has not raised any objection, in writing, to the holding of the AGM, the grievance against the holding of the AGM and the new election of the Governing Body can be safely said to have been raised by only one elected office bearer, i.e., the petitioner No. 1. The alleged right of the petitioner No. 1 to remain in office for a period of four years, contends Mr. Dutta, is merely a civil right and breach thereof, if any, gives rise to civil remedy. No writ jurisdiction, according to Mr. Dutta, can be exercised for enforcement of such a right unless an element of public interest demands enforcement of such right. In the case at hand, according to Mr. Dutta, the petitioners have completely failed to show that any public interest will suffer or has been made to suffer either in issuing the impugned notice or by electing a new Governing Body on 22.01.2006. The petitioners have, thus, contends Mr. Dutta, completely failed to make out a case sustainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The present writ petition is, therefore, according to Mr. Dutta, not maintainable in law. 20. It is further submitted by Mr.
The petitioners have, thus, contends Mr. Dutta, completely failed to make out a case sustainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The present writ petition is, therefore, according to Mr. Dutta, not maintainable in law. 20. It is further submitted by Mr. Dutta that when the District Cricket/Sports Associations, in Assam, have no objection to the holding of the meeting of the AGM and when even the Mongaldoi District Sports Association has raised no objection, in writing, to the holding of the Annual General Meeting, the petitioner No. 2, who is a mere representative of the Mangaldoi District Sports Association, cannot object to the holding of the Annual General Meeting or constitution of the new Governing Body, for, the Mongaldoi District Sports Association has remained a member of the new Governing Body and it has the freedom to authorize either the petitioner No. 2 herein or any one else to represent the district concerned in the Governing Body of the ACA. The petitioner No. 2 can, thus, according to Mr. Dutta, be safely held to have made out no case to agitate before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. Turning to the case of the petitioner No. 1, who was the elected Vice-President of the ACA, Mr. Dutta has submitted that no elected office-bearer or member has objected to the holding of the Annual General Meeting and/or to the holding of new election of the Governing Body. Hence, the petitioner No. 1, points out Mr. Dutta, is the only elected office-bearer, who has objected to the holding of the Annual General Meeting and the elections of the new Governing Body at Karimganj on 22.01.2006. 22. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta that the ACA may be discharging public function, yet the fact remains that it is a private body and unless it is shown that its action in shortening the tenure of the Governing Body is against public interest or in breach of its public duties, no interference in exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 will be permissible. In the case at hand, however, contends Mr. Dutta, the writ petitioners have miserably failed to show that ACA has committed breach of any public duty in shortening the tenure of its elected Governing Body.
In the case at hand, however, contends Mr. Dutta, the writ petitioners have miserably failed to show that ACA has committed breach of any public duty in shortening the tenure of its elected Governing Body. Far from this, none of the District Sports Associations or none of the elected members of the Governing Body other than the petitioner No. 1 has objected to the holding of the meeting of the Governing Body for re-electing the Governing Body. The presentwrit petition may, therefore, be held to be, pleads Mr. Dutta, not maintainable in law. 23. Let me, now, examine the merit of the rival submissions made before me on behalf of the parties concerned. While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be noted, at the very out set, is that despite repeated assertions made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner No. 1 had attended the Governing Body's meeting, on 18.12.2005, at Goalpara, the petitioners have not denied these assertions nor have they asserted before this Court that the petitioner No. 2 had not attended the meeting of the Governing Body on 18.12.05. In fact, the records, produced before this Court, reveal that the petitioner No. 2 had, indeed, attended the said meeting. In the face of this admitted position, what cannot be ignored is that if the Governing Body's meeting held, on 18.12.05, had not taken any decision to hold the Annual General Meeting of the ACA or elect a new Governing Body of the ACA, nothing had really stopped the petitioner No. 2 from swearing, as correctly points out Mr. Dutta, to the effect that true to the knowledge of the petitioner No. 2, no such resolution had been adopted. Discarding such a straight forward approach based on his own knowledge, the petitioner No. 2 swears, in the affidavit, to the effect that according to the records, no such decision had been taken.
Dutta, to the effect that true to the knowledge of the petitioner No. 2, no such resolution had been adopted. Discarding such a straight forward approach based on his own knowledge, the petitioner No. 2 swears, in the affidavit, to the effect that according to the records, no such decision had been taken. When the petitioner No. 2 has not sworn, in his affidavit, to the effect that true to his knowledge, no decision was taken on 18.12.05, at Goalpara, to convene Annual General Meeting of the AC A and/or to hold election for constituting a new Governing Body and when no explanation has been offered by the petitioners, particularly, petitioner No. 2, as to why he has not sworn this aspect of the matter of his affidavit based on his knowledge and when no plausible and convincing explanation is discernible, in this regard, from the materials on record, it is not difficult to infer, and one would be quite reasonable in inferring, that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands and that they have tried to mislead this Court by relying on the minutes of the Governing Body's meeting circulated amongst the office-bearers and members of Governing Body (as reflected by Annexure B), which are, admittedly, unconfirmed minutes of the proceedings of the Governing Body's meeting held on 18.12.2005 at Karimganj. 24. What also cannot be ignored is that the ACA, admittedly, supervises, controls and conducts the activities of the sports of cricket in Assam and since Ranji Trophy One Day Tournament is scheduled to be held in February, 2006, and a One Day International between India and England is also scheduled to be held in April, 2006, at Guwahati, holding of these two events, apart from other regular activities of the ACA, require, admittedly, effective functioning of the various sub-committees, such as, the Technical Sub-Committee Imperative it is, therefore, that the writ petition is considered and disposed of at the earliest. 25. In view of the fact that the petitioners are prima facie shown to have come to this Court with unclean hands and the writ petition suffers from misleading statements of facts, this Court could have rejected the writ petition out-right.
25. In view of the fact that the petitioners are prima facie shown to have come to this Court with unclean hands and the writ petition suffers from misleading statements of facts, this Court could have rejected the writ petition out-right. However, in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the question of maintainability of the present writ petition, desirable it is, in my view, that this Court decides the maintainability of the present writ petition independent of the fact that ^ the petitioners do not appear to have approached this Court with clean hands. ' 26. Now, turning to the maintainability of the present writ petition, what is pertinent to point out is that the ACA, which is affiliated to the BCCI, is a private body. Has made it clear, into uncertain words, the Supreme Court, in Zee Telefilms Ltd., (supra), that the BCCI is not a State or an instrumentality of the State or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the . Constitution, but owing to the nature of the functions, which the BCCI performs and the kind of duties, which the BCCI, as a private body, discharges, makes it, in an appropriate case, amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has made it further clear, in Zee Teleflims Ltd. (supra), that the activities of the BCCI are akin to public duties or State (functions and if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of the citizens, an aggrieved person can seek a remedy not only under the ordinary law, but also by way of a writ petition under Article 226. 27. What logically follows from the decision in Zee Television Ltd. (supra) is that though some of the functions of the ACA, which is an affiliated body of the BCCI, partake the nature of public duties or State actions and though there are some elements of public duty involved in the discharge of the ACA's functioning, the ACA is not a State or an instrumentality of the State or an authority within the meaning of Article 12.
However, notwithstanding the fact that the ACA is not a State or an instrumentality of the State or other authority of the State within the meaning of Article 12, the ACA, being a body, which discharges public function and its activities being akin to public duties, is, in the light of the majority opinion expressed in Zee Television Ltd. (supra), nevertheless, in an appropriate case, amenable to the writ jurisdiction if it violates any public interest or commits breach of any public duty. 28. In short, thus, the ACA, as a body, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. In fact, the fact that the ACA, as a body, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not in dispute in this writ petition. What is, however, contended is that the provisions of the constitution of a private body, such as, the ACA are not enforceable by taking resort to Article 226 unless an element of public interest demands such enforcement. What is also contended is that the grievance of the petitioners, if any, that the provisions of the constitution of the ACA have been breached in convening the AGM and/or in fixing re-election does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 inasmuch as no breach of public duty is shown to have been committed in convening the AGM and/or in fixing the re-election and, in the absence of any public wrong having been committed by the ACA in this regard, resort to Article 226 cannot be had. 29. As a matter of fact, to be fair to the respondents, I may point out that Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has not even contended that the ACA, which is affiliated to the BCCI, is, as a body, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
29. As a matter of fact, to be fair to the respondents, I may point out that Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has not even contended that the ACA, which is affiliated to the BCCI, is, as a body, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. While the fact that the ACA, as a body, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not in dispute, what is, at the same time, contended, on behalf of the respondents, is that the breach of duty, if any, in the present case, is not a public duty and since the alleged wrong committed by the ACA by shortening the tenure of the Governing Body is a mere civil wrong, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, be availed of by the petitioners, particularly, when the wrong, if any, committed is a private wrong and not a public wrong. 30. In order to appreciate the real issue involved in this case, what needs to be noted is that howsoever thin and subtle may be, there is, indeed, a real and definite line of demarcation not only between a public wrong and a private wrong, but also between a public law remedy and private law remedy. Article 226 is pre-eminently a public law remedy and is not, generally, available as a remedy against private wrongs. The resort to Article 226 can be had to enforce various rights of the public or to compel the public or statutory authorities to discharge their public duties and/or to act, in the realm of their public functions, within the bounds of law. The remedy under Article 226 can, no doubt, be availed of even against a private body or person; but the scope of the right of mandamus is limited to enforcement of public duty. In minimum possible words, but with extreme exactitude, clarified the Supreme Court, in Binny Limited (supra), the position of law, in this regard, in these words : "29. Thus, it can be seen that a writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is preeminently a public law remedy and is not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs.
Thus, it can be seen that a writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is preeminently a public law remedy and is not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs. It is used for enforcement of various rights of the public or to compel public/statutory authorities to discharge their duties and to act within their bounds. It may be used to do justice when there is wrongful exercise of power or a refusal to perform duties. This writ is admirably equipped to serve as a judicial control over administrative actions. This writ could also be issued against any private body or person, specially in view of the words used in Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the scope of mandamus is limited to enforcement of public duty. The scope of mandamus is determined by the nature of the duty to be enforced, rather than the identity of the authority against whom it is sought. If the private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any right is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial, but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action." 31. What, thus, in the face of succinctly laid down position of law with regard to issuance of writ under Article 226 against a private person or body, one has to bear in mind is that in a case of private wrong, in order to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, (i) the identity of the person, against whom the writ is sought, as person or body, which is amenable to writ jurisdiction, and (ii) the nature of duty, which is sought to be enforced, is a public duty or has an element of public interest. In a given case, one may, perhaps, ignore the first pre-requests namely, the identity of the person or body as a person or body amenable to writ jurisdiction, but the second pre-requisite, as indicated hereinbefore, cannot be ignored, for, in the absence of public interest or in the absence of breach of public duty or in the absence of any public wrong having been committed, no recourse to Article 226 is possible.
To put it differently, the private person or body, against whom the writ is sought, must be amenable to the writ jurisdiction and the duty, which is sought to be enforced, must be a public duty or the decision, which is sought to be corrected, must be a wrong in the discharge of public duty. The duty, cast on the private body, may be statutory or otherwise and though the source of such power is immaterial, there must be, nevertheless, public law element present in the action, which a petitioner impugns in his writ petition to seek issuance of writs against a private person or body, particularly, when issuance of a writ of the nature of mandamus is sought for. 32. Logically, therefore, in the present writ petition, the petitioners owe a duty to satisfy this Court, if this Court has to issue any writ, that apart from the fact that the ACA is, as a body, amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the decision, which is sought to be corrected (i.e., the notice, dated 02.01.2006), is in breach of the public duty, which the ACA has, and/ or the duty, which the petitioners seek to get enforced is a public duty, which the ACA must discharge, or the decision, sought to get corrected, is against the interest of the public or has an element of public interest involved. 33. In the case at hand, what needs to be noted is that there is no dispute before me that the constitution of the ACA en-visages that the tenure of its Governing Body shall be four years. There is also no dispute that while Rule 18(a) envisages that in a given case, the life of the Governing Body may be extended, there is no specific or corresponding provision in the ACA's constitution permitting reduction of the tenure of the elected Governing Body, does this mean that the tenure of the Governing Body of the ACA cannot be reduced at all? 34. While considering the above aspect of the matter, what needs to be borne in mind is that the ACA, admittedly, functions as a democratic body and its Governing Body must also function democratically. Any association, society or body, which functions democratically, has invariably one element present.
34. While considering the above aspect of the matter, what needs to be borne in mind is that the ACA, admittedly, functions as a democratic body and its Governing Body must also function democratically. Any association, society or body, which functions democratically, has invariably one element present. A democratically elected person cannot be forced to become a slave to his tenure and must have the liberty of quitting the elected office, when he so desires. In other words, every elected person has the inherent right, in a democratically run institution, to resign from his elected office. It, therefore, logically follows that even if there is no specific provision in any bye-law or constitution of such a body, the life of an elected body can always be reduced if the situation so warrants; for instance, if all office-bearers and elected members of the Governing Body of the ACA decide to resign and go for re-election, no one can force the elected Governing Body to continue to run its tenure for four years. The difficulties may, however, arise, as is the present case, when there is difference of opinion amongst the members of the Governing Body as to whether the office-bearers and elected members should resign from their respective offices leading to the dissolution of the Governing Body. In a case, such as the present one, when, even according to the writ petitioners, huge amount of fund would be handled by the ACA, it cannot be said to be against public interest if the Governing Body gets re-elected, though the Governing Body might have, in the present case, decided to seek re-election for different reasons. Whether in a given case, the Governing Body has opted to resign for good and bona fide reasons or otherwise can always be a subject of debate; what, however, cannot be disputed and denied is that the Governing Body, having been elected by the general body of the ACA, has, every right to go back to the general body seeking re-election and it is, then, for the general body to take remedial measures. Ordinarily, therefore, it is possible for an elected body, such as the Governing Body of the ACA, to cut short its tenure and go back to its general body for re-election unless it is barred under its bye-laws or constitution. 35.
Ordinarily, therefore, it is possible for an elected body, such as the Governing Body of the ACA, to cut short its tenure and go back to its general body for re-election unless it is barred under its bye-laws or constitution. 35. What emerges from the above discussion is that notwithstanding the fact that there is nothing specially "incorporated in the constitution of the ACA providing for shortening of the tenure of the elected Governing Body, such a right is, indeed, available with the members of the Governing Body. Merely, therefore, the fact that the Governing Body of the ACA decided to go for re-election before its general body, no public wrong can be said to have been caused and no public duty can be said to have been breached by the Governing Body. 36. That it is possible to shorten the tenure of the Governing Body and hold election is, in fact, tacitly admitted by the petitioners themselves inasmuch as the petitioners have sought for, inter alia, issuance of direction to the respondents to hold the AGM in June, 2006. If the tenure of the Governing Body could not have been shortened, the question of seeking such a direction would not have arisen. I, therefore, find considerable force in the submissions, made on behalf of the respondents, that by seeking a direction from this Court to hold the AGM in June, 2006, the petitioners have made a latent admission that it is possible to shorten the tenure of the Governing Body of the ACA. 37. What may, now, be pointed out is that though, the ACA is, admittedly, a private body, amenable to writ jurisdiction, the decisions of the ACA, which affect the internal functioning of the ACA, cannot be said to be public wrong unless the decision of the ACA can be shown to have adversely affected the public interest or can be shown to be in breach of the ACA's public duties.
The decision of a governing body of an association, such as, the present one, to hold their AGM and/or election, sooner than what the normal tenure of their Governing Body may be, is a private act of an association, such as the ACA, and such a private act, in the absence of anything showing to be contrary to the public interest or in breach of public, cannot be construed to be public wrong and cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226. 38. Hence, even if the tenure of an elected member of the ACA is shortened by the acts of some other members of the governing body of the ACA, such a wrong, if any, is, at best, a private wrong and can be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226 only if it can be shown that the decision to hold the election is in breach of public duty or is against public interest. To a pointed query made, in this regard, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not been able to show as to what public wrong has been caused by the decision to hold the AGM and/or the election. A wrong, if any, of the present nature, being entirely in the realm of private law, is, at the most, a civil wrong and the remedy lies in the ordinary civil court and not in the Writ court. Despite repeated queries made by this Court, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, could not point out as to how the public at large can be said to be interested in the decision to cut short the tenure of the present Governing Body. 39. There can also be no dispute, in the face of the decision in Netaji Cricket Club (supra), that a body, such as the ACA, which discharges public function and public duties, is bound to follow the doctrine of fairness and good faith and that such a body cannot be allowed to act unreasonably, arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously. There can also be, no doubt, as laid down in Netaji Cricket Club (supra), that a body, such as the ACA, is bound by the rules framed by it and the office-bearers must exercise their powers in accordance therewith in an honest and fair manner keeping in view the public good and welfare of the sports of cricket.
There can also be, no doubt, as laid down in Netaji Cricket Club (supra), that a body, such as the ACA, is bound by the rules framed by it and the office-bearers must exercise their powers in accordance therewith in an honest and fair manner keeping in view the public good and welfare of the sports of cricket. What is, however, of immense importance to note is that a mere breach of the provisions of such constitution is a private and not a public wrong and such breach cannot be interfered with under Article 226 unless the breach is satisfactorily shown to be in breach of a public duty or against the public interest. Put in simpler words, the Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for settling private scores or purely private disputes or personal feuds. 40. Unable to show that the wrong, if any, caused by cutting short of the tenure of the petitioners, particularly, of the petitioner No. 1, is a public wrong or has any element of public interest involved, Mr. Saikia has submitted that the ACA is bound to conduct itself in accordance with the provisions of its constitution. Apart from the fact that I do not find that by shortening the tenure of the Governing Body, provisions of the constitution of the ACA have been contravened or violated, what may be noted is that the constitution of the ACA stands on the same footing as do the bye-laws of any society, which the society might have framed to govern and manage its own affairs. The provisions contained in such bye-laws or constitution, in the light of the decision in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. (supra), do not have the force of a statute, though these provisions may be binding on the members of the society concerned.
The provisions contained in such bye-laws or constitution, in the light of the decision in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. (supra), do not have the force of a statute, though these provisions may be binding on the members of the society concerned. The constitution of a society, such as the ACA, stands on the same footing as do the articles of association of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, for, while the provisions contained in such articles of association will be binding on the share-holders and directions of the company in their internal management, such provisions shall have no force of law and for breach of such provisions, relief can be had in the ordinary civil court did not in a court of writ jurisdiction unless contravention of the provisions of such articles of association, bye-laws or constitution can be shown to be breach of some public duty and/or against public interest. 41. If this Court interferes, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, with the impugned notice, dated 02.01.2006, on the ground that the said notice has been issued in violation of the provisions of the constitution, what, in effect, it will mean is that this court would be merely enforcing the provisions of the constitution of the ACA, which is impermissible in law unless enforcement of such provisions become imperative in public interest or for enforcing the public duty cast on the ACA. 42. Without entering into the controversy as to whether there was or was not a decision reached, on 18.12.2005, at Goalpara, to hold the AGM and the elections, what can be safely said is that a writ Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked merely to enforce the provisions of the ACA's constitution, which stand on the same footing as do the bye-laws of a society or articles of association of a company incorporated under the Companies act inasmuch as such constitution, bye-laws or articles of association may be binding on the members of the society in their internal management, but mere breach thereof would not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, for, such interference would be possible only when the violation of the provisions of the constitution of a body, such as that of the ACA, is against public interest or in breach of public duty.
If any wrong has been committed by shortening the tenure of the present Governing Body, such a wrong is nothing, but a private wrong and the remedy for such wrong, if any, lies in the ordinary civil courts. 43. Though Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on Netaji Cricket Club (supra) to contend that a body, such as, the ACA, is bound by the constitution that it has framed and its office-bearers must exercise their powers in accordance therewith, what needs to be noted is that the decision in Netaji Cricket Club (supra) was rendered in an appeal arising out of a suit and not in a writ petition under Article 226. It is, no doubt, true that the ACA is bound by the constitution that it has framed. What is, however, crucial to note is that a mere breach of the provisions of the constitution of the ACA would not enable this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction and interfere with the internal affairs of a body, such as, the ACA, unless it is shown that the action of the ACA is not only in breach of the provisions of its constitution, but also in breach of its public duty or that such a violation constitutes a public wrong and not a private wrong and/or that the wrong committed has an element of public interest. If the ACA violates the provisions of its constitution, remedy, I may reiterate, lies in the ordinary civil courts and not in a Writ court. 44. In short, therefore, in order to successfully shows that the alleged breach of the petitioners of the constitution of the ACA warrants interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the petitioners must prove that the alleged breach constitutes a public wrong or a private wrong committed in breach of public duty or against public interest. However, in the absence of anything available either in the pleadings of the petitioners or in the materials placed on record showing that the impugned notice reducing the tenure of the Governing Body is in breach of the ACA's public duty or against public interest, jurisdiction contained under Article 226 cannot be exercised. 45. Though Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on Rohtas Industries (supra), Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil (supra), And Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors.
45. Though Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on Rohtas Industries (supra), Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil (supra), And Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. (supra), Unni Krishnan (Supra), Consumer Education & Research Center (supra), Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering (supra), Air India Statutory Corporation (supra), Common Cause, A Registered Society (supra) and Manoranjan Chakraborty (supra) to show that even when there is a private wrong, interference under Article 226 is permissible, what is of immense importance to note, in this regard, is that in all the decisions so relied upon, on behalf of the petitioners, the position of law clarified and reiterated is that to invoke the Writ jurisdiction, the wrong committed must have an element of public interest or a breach of fundamental right or a breach of public duty. In the case at hand, however, there is not even an iota of materials available on record indicating that the impugned notice, dated 02.01.2006, aforementioned constitutes either a public wrong or a private wrong involving public interest. In a situation, such as the present one, a writ Court under Article 226 cannot be said to have any jurisdiction, for, though such a wrong may have remedy in ordinary civil law, it is not amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction. 46. When the petitioners have failed to show that shortening of the tenure of the present Governing Body and/or holding of-the election, on 22.01.2006, can be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the motive with which the impugned notice, dated 02.01.2006, has been issued becomes immaterial and the motive alone, in the absence of anything else, cannot be made a subject of challenge in a writ petition under Article 226. 47. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the petitioners have miserably failed to show that the grievances, which the petitioners have raised, even if true, can be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. 48. Because of what have been pointed out above, I have no hesitation in holding that the present writ petition is not maintainable and must, therefore, fail. 49. In view of the above, the writ petition is not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. The interim directions, passed in this case, on 20.01.2006, shall accordingly stand vacated. 50. No order as to costs.