JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. Writ Petition (C) Nos. 378 of 2006 and 543 of 2006 have been heard together on the prayer for stay and maintainability of the petitions. It may be mentioned here that this Court by the order dated 20.1.2006 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 378 of 2006 stayed the resolutions adopted by the Respondent Association in its meeting held on 18.12.2005, in so far it relates to disqualifying the Petitioner from contesting for or holding any post of office bearer in the Assam Cricket Association. In Writ Petition (C) No. 543 of 2006, by the order dated 6.2.2006, as an interim measure, it was directed that the result of the election of the Association shall not be acted upon without leave of this Court. 2. By the order dated 2.3.2006, it was proved that the prayer for vacating the interim order of stay as well as the objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions will be heard and disposed of together. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions came up before this Court. 3. I have heard Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner assisted by Mr. D. Saikia, learned Counsel and Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel for the Respondent Association. 4. During the course of argument, the following points were urged for consideration by this Court: i) Whether the action of the Governing Body in debarring the writ Petitioner from holding any office or membership of the Association and from representing any District Spots/Cricket Association affiliated under the Assam Cricket Association was in violation of the rules and regulations? ii) Whether the writ Petitioner was eligible to take part in the election process in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Assam Cricket Association and whether he has the locus to file the Writ Petitions? iii) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable for issuance of a writ of mandamus for correcting the wrong committed by a non-statutory private body? 5. With regard to the first question relating to legality and propriety of the decision in debarring the writ Petitioner from holding any office in the Assam Cricket Association on the ground that he is a defaulter, it may be stated here that the writ Petitioner in para 2 of the Writ Petition (C) No. 543 of 2006 admitted that he had paid Rs. 20,000/- on 4.10.2002 and another sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 2.5.2003 to liquidate the amount due. His case is that he was not informed by the Association either in writing or verbally about the actual amount he owes to the Association. This admission in the writ petition shows that while handing over charge, he retained with him some unspecified amount out of which he had paid Rs. 40,000/-. However, Rule 19(VI) provides that there shall be a Disciplinary Sub Committee of five members whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding and a person aggrieved by the decision of the Disciplinary Sub Committee may prefer an appeal to the President of the Association for placing the same before the next General Body meeting. In the instant case, the matter was obviously not referred to the Disciplinary Sub Committee and, therefore, there is an apparent breach of the provisions in Rule 19(VI). The Petitioner also preferred an appeal 16.1.2006. In turn, by the letter dated 17.1.2006 the Honorary Secretary informed him to remain personally present in the meeting of the Governing Body on 21.1.2006 at 8.30 p.m. at Hailakandi. The Petitioner was not present on that day despite there being an order from this Court. The appeal apparently was not disposed of. The breach of the provisions of Rule 19(IV) though prejudicial to his interest could have been taken care of by the Governing Body either by remitting it to the Disciplinary Committee or by waiving the penalty imposed, particularly for the reason that the consecutive audit reports do not show any amount due from him. It is pertinent to mention here that the decision to debar him without giving him an opportunity to show cause is undoubtedly a violation of the principles of natural justice as well. 6. Next, I would like to deal with the second question which centres around the locus of the writ Petitioner. Admittedly, the Petitioner is not a member of the Assam Cricket Association. It has been stated in para 2 of Writ Petition (C) No. 378 of 2006 that he was the Honorary Secretary of the Association for two consecutive terms till July, 2000 and, therefore, he has not held any position in the Association either as an office bearer or as a representative of any District Association affiliated with the Assam Cricket Association. In para 2 of Writ Petition (C) No. 543 of 2006 this plea has been reiterated. Rule 13 provides for a General Body with two representatives from each affiliated unit; elected office bearers and members of the Governing Body and all life members. This General Body is required to elect the office bearers and members of the Governing Body for a tenure of four years as provided in Rule 13(e)(ix) and Rule 20. Therefore, one has to be a member of the General Body to be eligible to vote or to contest the election for any post of office bearer and member of the Governing Body. We may, therefore, examine whether at the relevant time when the impugned resolution was adopted the writ Petitioner was a member of the General Body? Para 8 of the rules and regulations provides for two kinds of membership. For better appreciation the relevant except from para 8 is quoted hereinabelow: Membership: There shall be 2 (two) kinds of membership: A. Affiliated Membership: All eligible DA/CA will be members of the General Body with two representatives, one of them will be the member of Governing Body. The names of such representative/representatives shall be submitted to the Secretary in writing with proper seal and signature by 15th of June or otherwise notified. A.2. N.F. Rly. Sports Association with headquarter at Maligaon with the territorial jurisdiction of Assam, Universities lie in Assam and such other neighbouring State Association who desire to have affiliation with the ACA. These bodies shall also have two representatives to the General Body and one of them shall represent in the Governing Body. B. Life Members: Any person having Sports background and interest in Cricket or involved in Cricket either directly or indirectly may apply or Life Membership on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) at a time. Such application will be considered by the General Body of ACA after the same is placed for consideration before the Governing Body by the Hony. Secretary. The Governing Body, if satisfied, may recommend the same to the General Body, for approval. Life Members shall be members for lifetime. Number of Life Membership will be restricted to maximum 5 (five) only, out of which one shall have voting right. The five members shall elect/select such member. 7. Secretary. The Governing Body, if satisfied, may recommend the same to the General Body, for approval. Life Members shall be members for lifetime. Number of Life Membership will be restricted to maximum 5 (five) only, out of which one shall have voting right. The five members shall elect/select such member. 7. It would appear from above that to be a member of the General Body, one must be a nominated representative of the District Sports/Cricket Association or of N.F. Railway Sports Association. The Petitioner has not been authorized or nominated to be a member of the Association by any affiliated unit. The question of his being an elected officer bearer or member of the Governing Body does not arise in view of his own admission in the Writ Petitions. He is also not a life member of the Association as provided in sub-para (B) of Para 8. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a member of the General Body. Hence, he was not competent even to vote in the election. The question of his participation in the election for any post of the Governing Body does not arise. Mr. Borbora submitted that the Petitioner has produced a certificate to show that he is a life member of the Guwahati Sports Association. But Rule 8 does not contemplate that a life member of a District Sports Association is ipso facto a member of the Assam Cricket Association so as to become eligible to vote and take part in the election. He has to be a representative duly nominated by an affiliated District Sports Association. It is, therefore, not understood as to how the Petitioner was eligible to take part in the election process or could be a candidate for any post of office bearer. In my considered opinion, he not being a member of the General Body had no right to vote. The irresistible conclusion that follows from this revelation is that the Petitioner does not even have the locus to file the Writ Petitions. 8. Regarding maintainability, it may be mentioned here that a learned Single Judge of this Court was seized with this question in Writ Petition (C) No. 272 of2006 filed by Dr. The irresistible conclusion that follows from this revelation is that the Petitioner does not even have the locus to file the Writ Petitions. 8. Regarding maintainability, it may be mentioned here that a learned Single Judge of this Court was seized with this question in Writ Petition (C) No. 272 of2006 filed by Dr. Kamala Kanta Kalita and Sri Pradip Talukdar for setting aside the notice dated 2.1.2006 issued by the Honarary Secretary of the Assam Cricket Association, whereby the Annual General Meeting of the Association was convened on 22.1.2006 to elect the office bearers and members of the Governing Body for the next tenure. According to the rules and regulations, the election was due in November, 2006. It was pre-poned and held on 22.1.2006. The learned Single Judge relying upon a number of decisions of the Apex Court held that a wrong committed must have an element of public interest or breach of fundamental right or breach of public duty. The learned Single Judge having noticed that the records of the writ proceeding do not indicate an iota of material, either to constitute a public wrong or a private wrong involving public interest, dismissed the writ petition holding inter alia that such a wrong may have a remedy in ordinary civil law. The issue relating to pre-ponement of the election was thus set at rest in the earlier writ petition. That apart, Rule 13(b) provides that the Annual General Body Meeting shall be held ordinarily not later than 30th June of the year. The words "not later than" alternately suggest that it could be held even before 30th June of the year. The business allowed to be transacted includes election of the office bearers and members of the Governing Body. I, therefore, do not find any wrong committed by the Respondent authority in pre-poning the Annual General Meeting and holding the election. Governing of the Annual General Meeting by the Honorary Secretary may be an irregularity, but it will not have the affect of vitiating the proceedings adopted by the duly constituted General Body. 9. Mr. Borbora, learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions in Surendra Nath Khosla and Anr. v. S. Dalip Singh and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 242 ; Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. 9. Mr. Borbora, learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions in Surendra Nath Khosla and Anr. v. S. Dalip Singh and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 242 ; Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V.R. Rudani and Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 691 ; Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 649 ; Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 741 and Ram Bhual v. Ambika Singh, (2005)12 SCC 121 in support of his contention that a writ would lie even in case of private wrong in discharging public duty. According to the learned senior counsel, in the case at hand, though the wrong committed is private, a writ would lie if such a wrong is ingrained with the element of public interest. 10. In Netaji (supra), the ratio available is that the BCCI being a registered Society with enormous powers in public domain and having monopoly of status regarding regulation of the sport of cricket in terms of the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association is bound to follow the doctrine of fairness and good faith and to act reasonably without being arbitrary. The Supreme Court further held that the rules and regulations framed by such a Body having enormous powers to control activities in respect of competitive cricket require such a body to act within the four corners of the Memorandum of Association and Articles. It may be mentioned here that this decision was rendered in a Civil Appeal arising out of a suit and not in Writ Petition under Article 226. Whether a writ would lie was not the question raised in Netaji (supra). Therefore, a mere breach of the rules and regulations of the Assam Cricket Association will not vest this Court with the jurisdiction to invoke the powers under Article 226 to interfere with the internal affairs of the Association unless the breach so occasioned is relatable to public duty amounting to a public wrong. 11. In Zee Telefilms (supra) it has been held that when a private Body exercises its different functions, even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution by way of writ petition under Article 226. 11. In Zee Telefilms (supra) it has been held that when a private Body exercises its different functions, even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution by way of writ petition under Article 226. In para 156 of the said judgment, it has been held that although the rule is that a writ cannot be issued against a private body, but there are exceptions: (a) Where the institution is governed by a statute which imposes legal duties upon it. (b) Where the institution is "State" within the meaning of Article 12. (c) Where even though the institution is not "State" within the purview of Article 12, it performs some public function, whether statutory or otherwise. It is, therefore, clear that even in case of a private body, which is not within the purview of Article 12, a writ would lie only when it performs public functions. 12. I have also taken care of the decision in Ram Bhual v. Ambika Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 121 rendered in a Civil Appeal and in Surendra Nath Khosla and Anr. v. S. Dalip Singh and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 242 , relied upon by the Petitioner. Both the cases are relatable to the Representation of the People Act. The ratio available in these two judgments is that improper rejection of nomination materially affects the result of the election. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V.R. Rudani and Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 691 . In this case the rights of teachers of private aided and affiliated college have been dealt with. The Supreme Court was of the view that a writ of mandamus for payment of terminal benefits and arrears of salary by teachers is maintainable. But a writ for specific performance of contractual service or declaration for continuation of service cannot be enforced. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Sarmah, learned Counsel for the Respondent Association relied upon a number of decisions to show that in the instant case, the election to the Governing Body being an internal affair of the Association, is in the realm of private law and, therefore, a writ would not lie, particularly when there is no enforceable legal right available with the aggrieved party. Sarmah, learned Counsel for the Respondent Association relied upon a number of decisions to show that in the instant case, the election to the Governing Body being an internal affair of the Association, is in the realm of private law and, therefore, a writ would not lie, particularly when there is no enforceable legal right available with the aggrieved party. In Union of India and Ors. v. C. Krishna Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 62 7 it has been held as follows: 13. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief officer function of the writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Therefore, in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. 14. Again in Binny Ltd. and Anr. v. V. Sadasivan and Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 657 , in para 10, it has been held that a writ of mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public or a statutory duty. The prerogative remedy of mandamus is for enforcing the public duties by public authorities and that a writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is preeminently a public law remedy generally not available as a remedy against private wrongs. It has been further observed that the duty cast on a public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial nevertheless, there must be public law element on such action. In G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC225, it has been again reiterated that a writ under Article 226 lies only when the Petitioner establishes that his or her fundamental right or some other legal right has been infringed. 15. In G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC225, it has been again reiterated that a writ under Article 226 lies only when the Petitioner establishes that his or her fundamental right or some other legal right has been infringed. 15. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the parties clearly show that a writ under Article 226 is available against a private body in case the materials on record show that the private wrong sought to be remedies involves public interest. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Manipur and Ors. v. Moirangthem Chaoba Singh and Ors., 2006 (1) GLT 19has held: 12...It is trite that this Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition wherein public law element is not involved. 16. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the principle of law as to the maintainability of a writ petition. In a case where a private wrong is sought to be corrected and it is relatable to omission on the part of a private body to discharge public functions in accordance with the provisions of its rules and regulations, a writ will lie. The rules and regulations of the Association cannot be treated as law or to have the force of law. Going by the ratio available in The Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. The Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1969 (2) SCC 43 , it can safely be concluded that the rules and regulations of the Association are regulatory in nature to control various activities without having the force of law. 17. In the instant case, the Petitioner was debarred from holding any post in the Association or from representing any District Sports Cricket Association. The decision may be a wrong caused to the Petitioner. His right to contest the election has been taken away by this decision. This wrong adversely affected his right to vote or contest the election, It is his private right. It has no element of public interest involved in it as because the prohibitive decision in no manner affects the public duty of the Association in organizing competitive cricket. His right to contest the election has been taken away by this decision. This wrong adversely affected his right to vote or contest the election, It is his private right. It has no element of public interest involved in it as because the prohibitive decision in no manner affects the public duty of the Association in organizing competitive cricket. Even in his absence, the elected Governing Body will be competent to organize competitive cricket and other events of sports in terms of its objectives in discharge of public duties. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Association by adopting the resolution dated 18.12.2005 has in any manner deviated in its duty as enumerated in para 6 of the rules and regulations. I have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner may have reasons to be aggrieved with the decision of the Governing Body, but his grievance appertains to the field of private law which can be taken care of by ordinary civil Court. 18. For reasons above, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. Over and above, the writ Petitioner has no locus to file the Writ Petitions. Consequently, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Interim order passed earlier in both the Writ petitions stands vacated. The cost is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the writ Petitioner to the Association within a month. Petition dismissed