Judgment : 1. W.P. No.135 of 2011 is with a request to direct the State Government to complete the enquiry against the Andhra Cricket Association expeditiously and to restrain the said association from amending its bye-laws in the Special General Body meeting scheduled on 09-01-2011 to scuttle the enquiry. 2. The petitioner claimed to be the President of the Guntur United Club, which was a member of the Andhra Cricket Association and in W.P. No.21134 of 2009, though an interim direction was given permitting his participation in the activities of Andhra Cricket Association, later the writ petition was held to be not maintainable. In W.P. No.16645 of 2009, a Division Bench directed the State Government to conduct an enquiry on 22-09-2009. In the counter in the said writ petition, the Secretary, Sports of the State Government specified about allotment or alienation of land at five places and purchase of land by Andhra Cricket Association at Mangalagiri from the Urban Development Authority. Alleging the 3rd respondent to be manipulating the affairs of the association and to have convened a special general body meeting without mandatory notices or requisition or agenda, the petitioner claimed that the proposed amendments are illegal and unconstitutional and the sweeping amendments put the association in jeopardy. The enquiry directed by the Court has a statutory source in Section 28 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Hence, the writ. 3. At the time of admission, an interim direction was given to maintain status quo with regard to the amendment of the bye-laws. 4. The Andhra Cricket Association and the 3rd respondent as its Honorary General Secretary contended that the Government has absolutely no role to play directly or indirectly in the affairs of the Andhra Cricket Association and there is no financial assistance by the Central or State Governments. The source of income is the Board of Control for Cricket in India, to which the association is affiliated. The allotment of lands to the association was on the basis of payment of market value. Later the Principal Secretary to Government clearly stated in his Memo, dated 26-07-2011 that the association was not allotted any Government land on lease and is not funded by the Government. Elections to the association were conducted and the new Body took charge and the writ petition is premature when no new bye-laws are adopted. Later the Principal Secretary to Government clearly stated in his Memo, dated 26-07-2011 that the association was not allotted any Government land on lease and is not funded by the Government. Elections to the association were conducted and the new Body took charge and the writ petition is premature when no new bye-laws are adopted. Even otherwise, the proposed amendments have to be questioned before the District Court. Hence, it is desired that the interim direction be vacated and the writ be dismissed. 5. W.P. No.11303 of 2011 is for declaring the communication from the Honorary General Secretary of Andhra Cricket Association/3rd respondent to the petitioner to be illegal and the notice, dated 10-04-2011 to show-cause against any disciplinary action was for the alleged misconduct of approaching the High Court without approaching the competent Court at Guntur and without agitating the rights of the petitioner in the Special General Body meeting, dated 09-01-2011. The petitioner claims to be the Honorary General Secretary of the association for 24 years and the expulsion of members not toeing the line of the present management led to litigation. The petitioner approached the appropriate Court, which is civil Court, under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001 against pushing through amendments to the bye-laws and as the civil Courts were on Sankranthi vacation, he had to file a receive and transmit petition before the vacation Court of the High Court. In W.P. No.135 of 2011, the High Court stayed the meeting and hence, the petitioner withdrew his petition. That is made the subject of the show-cause notice and agitating a cause through a legal remedy is a constitutional right and hence, the writ to quash the show-cause notice. 6. While ordering notice before admission on 21-04-2011, a learned Judge of this Court observing that if allegations are made, which are not sustainable by a party, the appropriate forum to be complained of such allegations is the Court itself and a party to a litigation cannot convert himself to be a Judge in such situations. The learned Judge, therefore, directed the 1st respondent to refrain from taking any further action in pursuance of the notice. 7. The learned Judge, therefore, directed the 1st respondent to refrain from taking any further action in pursuance of the notice. 7. W.P. No.11319 of 2011 is similar to W.P. No.11303 of 2011 in respect of a similar show-cause notice against the petitioner, the President of Chittoor District Cricket Association with identical allegations and with a similar interim direction by this Court. 8. W.P. No.12884 of 2011 is against the expulsion of the petitioner therein, who is the President of East Godavari Cricket Association, by a resolution dated 14-11-2009 of the Andhra Cricket Association. The petitioner making similar allegations as in the earlier two writ petitions, alleged the amendments to have been pushed through in the Special General Body meeting on 09-01-2011. The attempt by the petitioner to bring the wrong doings of the association to the notice of the High Court did not succeed, as W.P. No.11834 of 2009 was dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy being available. The show-cause notice dated 31-08-2009 was based on the incorrectness of the contents of the affidavit of the petitioner in support of W.P. No.11834 of 2009 and approaching the Court of law without raising any objection during the Executive Committee meeting. The Special General Body meeting of the association on 14-11-2009 noted the petitioner to have not offered any explanation and expelled him for life. 9. At the time of ordering notice before admission on 29-04-2011, the orders, dated 14-11-2009 of the 1st respondent association were suspended. 10. Subsequently the prayer in the writ petition was amended as per orders in W.P.M.P. No.35225 of 2011 including the prayer to declare the proceedings, dated 10-10-2011 of the association to implement the expulsion of the petitioner in East Godavari District Cricket Association also as illegal. 11. W.P. No.16777 of 2011 is to declare the expulsion of the petitioner therein, who is the President of the Chittoor District Cricket Association, by the resolution of Andhra Cricket Association, dated 24-05-2011 and the order of expulsion dated 08-06-2011 as illegal. The petitioner making identical allegations, contended that he filed a receive and transmit petition before the High Court, as the civil Courts were on Sankranthi vacation, under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001 against pushing through the amendments and withdrew the same in view of the stay order in W.P. No.135 of 2011. The petitioner making identical allegations, contended that he filed a receive and transmit petition before the High Court, as the civil Courts were on Sankranthi vacation, under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001 against pushing through the amendments and withdrew the same in view of the stay order in W.P. No.135 of 2011. That was construed as a misconduct in issuing a show-cause notice dated, 10-04-2011 and he filed W.P. No.11319 of 2011 against the same. After hearing the caveator/respondent, this Court stayed further proceedings by an order, dated 21-04-2011, against which respondents 1 and 3 filed W.A. No.320 of 2011, in which it was directed that the association can go ahead with the enquiry, but final orders shall not be passed before the next date of hearing. However, the Honorary General Secretary issued a notice, dated 03-05-2011 asking him to show-cause before 10-05-2011, on which the petitioner gave a reply on 09-05-2011. A notice of the Executive Committee meeting was issued on 16-05-2011 though the petitioner submitted a reply on 09-05-2011 and the meeting on 24-05-2011 suspended the petitioner from the membership of the affiliation body of the association pending enquiry by the general body. The petitioner was, hence, filing a contempt petition and the alleged misconduct for giving a sworn statement allegedly falsely is incorrect and in a predetermined move, by resolution, dated 24-05-2011, it was decided to expel the petitioner and the expulsion order was dated 08-06-2011. The petitioner contended the same to be illegal and against the orders of this Court in W.A. No.320 of 2011. 12. At the time of admission, a learned Judge of this Court ordered on 27-06-2011 that the 1st respondent association shall not prevent the petitioner from contesting the elections slated for executive committee pending further orders only on the ground of the petitioner being suspended pursuant to the resolution, dated 24-05-2011. 13. While so, the Andhra Cricket Association represented by its Honorary General Secretary filed W.P. No.17536 of 2011 questioning the memo issued by the Principal Secretary, Youth Services and Sports, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 06-05-2011 directing the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registrations and Stamps to send his report to the Government for taking further action and to further direct the official respondents not to interfere with its day to day administration. The petitioner in W.P. No.11303 of 2011 is made the 5th respondent. The petitioner in W.P. No.11303 of 2011 is made the 5th respondent. The association claimed that a false complaint, dated 18-04-2011 appeared to have been made by the private respondent to the Principal Secretary alleging likelihood of misuse of power by the present management in the ensuing elections to the association. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registrations and Stamps directed the District Registrar, Guntur to send his report on the complaint of the 5th respondent, which amounts to interference with the affairs of the association without any authority and jurisdiction. The private respondent was alleged to be acting due to personal grudge. The District Registrar, Guntur appeared to have sent his report to the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. An action was stated to be contemplated, while the association was never given notice nor was asked to give its explanation to the allegations. 14. The petitioner in W.P. No.11303 of 2011 filed W.P. No.17876 of 2011 for declaring bye-law No.26 of Andhra Cricket Association to be unconstitutional and illegal and consequently to declare the election notification issued by the General Body meeting, dated 19-06-2011 as null and void and hence, not to conduct elections from 13-07-2011. It was contended that there were allegations against the present Secretary/earlier President regarding abuse of properties and illegal activities and methods. Bye-law No.26 prescribes the procedure for nominations and nomination of an election officer. The annual returns are not being filed as prescribed. As the directions of this Court in the writ petitions were violated, the conduct of elections becomes contemptuous. Hence, the writ. 15. In the additional affidavit contending that fair election is part of fundamental right to form association under article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner claimed that bye-law No.26 prescribing nominations to be given to the Honorary General Secretary is arbitrary. The change of the election officer was not intimated to the members. 16. A learned Judge of this Court issued directions on 08-07-2011 noting that the nomination of the petitioner was accepted as a contestant at the election though he was suspended from the membership of the association due to an interlocutory clarification by this Court and that the election was scheduled to be held at 10 A.M. on 13-07-2011. 16. A learned Judge of this Court issued directions on 08-07-2011 noting that the nomination of the petitioner was accepted as a contestant at the election though he was suspended from the membership of the association due to an interlocutory clarification by this Court and that the election was scheduled to be held at 10 A.M. on 13-07-2011. The learned Judge directed to ensure fair and transparent procedure at the election and that the association videograph the entire proceedings and make a copy of the proceedings in a compact disc form available to the Court. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh was directed to function as a Court Observer for observing the proceedings in the elections and submit a report to the Court. 17. The learned Judge gave further directions on 21-07-2011 on perusing the report submitted by the Court Observer and directed the results of the elections held on 13-07-2011 to be published. The III Additional District Judge, Guntur was directed to proceed with the original petitions on his file uninfluenced by the observations herein. 18. The Secretary to Government, Youth Services and Sports/2nd respondent in his counter-affidavit stated about the details of allotment of Government land in favour of Andhra Cricket Association and District Cricket Associations in Andhra area and stated the Andhra Cricket Association to be a purely private organization, not affiliated to the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. He stated that no grants are released to the association from the Sports Authority or the State Government and some I.A.S., and I.P.S., officers were associated in their personal capacity with the association. He further stated about the action being taken for not inviting the nominees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the meetings of the Board of Directors. 19. The Andhra Cricket Association and its Honorary General Secretary in their counter-affidavit contended that the association is not a State within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India and the maintainability of such writs is the subject matter before a Single Judge and a Division Bench. Even if there is any allegation of mismanagement of the assets of the association, the Government has no right to interfere and it is for the Executive Committee and the General Body to take appropriate action as per bye-laws. Even if there is any allegation of mismanagement of the assets of the association, the Government has no right to interfere and it is for the Executive Committee and the General Body to take appropriate action as per bye-laws. Persons, who requested for allowing their nominations, have no right to ask for stay of elections. The petitioner himself as Secretary of Andhra Cricket Association for 24 years conducted five elections under clause No.26 of the Bye-laws and the nomination of Captain B.L.K. Reddy, Honorary Secretary, Hyderabad Golf Association as election officer was circulated to all the 32 members of the Executive Committee, out of which 22 members gave their consent by the time of the counter-affidavit. The scope of judicial review in election process is very limited and hence, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 20. The petitioner in W.P.M.P. No.25088 of 2011 claiming to be a member of the association, claimed that he filed S.O.P. No.646 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Guntur seeking to set aside the election schedule and questioning the eligibility of the 3rd respondent in the original petition to contest as President. As per orders, dated 21-07-2011, the said petition was redundant. 21. W.P. No.17877 of 2011 was also filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.135 of 2011 to declare the election notification, dated 19-06-2011 as void and to direct the association to restrain from conducting election on 13-07-2011. Similar contentions were raised and it was apprehended that the 3rd respondent will manage to get himself declared elected. 22. The petitioner in W.P. No.19157 of 2011 is Gandhi Memorial Cricket Club represented by its President, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.11303 of 2011 and W.P. No.17876 of 2011, which questioned the suspension of the petitioner club from the affiliation of the Andhra Cricket Association by an order, dated 12-06-2011. The power of the Executive Committee to suspend any member was questioned and there was no power of suspension without an enquiry or at least without issuing a show-cause notice. Hence, the writ for permission to participate in the elections to the Executive Committee to be held on 13-07-2011 also. 23. The power of the Executive Committee to suspend any member was questioned and there was no power of suspension without an enquiry or at least without issuing a show-cause notice. Hence, the writ for permission to participate in the elections to the Executive Committee to be held on 13-07-2011 also. 23. On 12-07-2011, a learned Judge of this Court directed the representatives of the petitioner’s club to be permitted to participate in the election process to the Executive Committee of the 1st respondent association slated to be held on 13-07-2011. 24. In W.A. No.645 of 2011, a Division Bench of this Court by an order, dated 21-10-2011 considered the orders of the learned Judge in W.P. No.17876 of 2011, dated 21-07-2011 directing publication of results of the elections held on 13-07-2011 to the 1st respondent association. The Division Bench directed III Additional District Judge, Guntur to dispose of the election petition pending before him in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in the order of the learned single Judge or in the order of the Division Bench, on the material placed before the learned Additional District Judge independently. 25. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Sri M.L. Ali, learned counsel for Andhra Cricket Association and its Honorary General Secretary. 26. In so far as the grievances relating to the elections to Andhra Cricket Association are concerned, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has stated that grant of any reliefs concerning the same has become redundant by the subsequent events and the writ petitions to the extent of their subject matter relating to such elections may be treated as not pressed, with which submission the learned counsel for Andhra Cricket Association and its Honorary General Secretary had no disagreement. The judgment in W.A. No.645 of 2011 making the election O.P. pending before III Additional District Judge, Guntur to be open to determination on merits, uninfluenced by the observations of the Division Bench or the Single Judge on the material placed before the said III Additional District Judge, Guntur independently, governs that issue. 27. Then remain the questions of suspension/expulsion of the different petitioners by Andhra Cricket Association represented by its Honorary General Secretary and the maintainability of a writ petition on such questions. 28. 27. Then remain the questions of suspension/expulsion of the different petitioners by Andhra Cricket Association represented by its Honorary General Secretary and the maintainability of a writ petition on such questions. 28. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel relied on Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 691, wherein the Apex Court while noting that the prerogative writ of mandamus is confined only to public authorities to compel performance of public duty in England, held that there is no such limitation for our High Courts to issue such writs. Article 226 conferring wide powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs to any person or authority for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose, is a striking departure from the English law. Therefore, the term “authority” used in article 226 must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in article 12, which is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under article 32. The words “any person or authority” used in article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State and they may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The Apex Court pointed out that the form of the body is not very much relevant, as the nature of duty imposed on the body must be judged in the light of the positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. It was, hence, pointed out that the judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment and it should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found and technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under article 226. 29. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 649, the preliminary issue was whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India falls within the definition of ‘State’ as contemplated under article 12 of the Constitution. 29. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 649, the preliminary issue was whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India falls within the definition of ‘State’ as contemplated under article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that the intention of the Constitution framers in incorporating article 12 was to treat such authority which has been created by law and which has got certain powers to make laws, to make rules and regulations to be included in the term “other authorities” as found presently in article 12. The judicial expansion of the term “other authorities” was noted to have come about primarily with a view to prevent the Government from bypassing its constitutional obligations by creating companies, corporations, etc., to perform its duties. Referring to the guidelines laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 , the Apex Court noted by a majority that the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not created by a statute, no part of its share capital is held by the Government, practically no financial assistance is given by the Government, monopoly status enjoyed by the Board in the field of cricket is not State-conferred or State-protected, there is no existence of a deep and pervasive State control, the control, if any, being only regulatory in nature, not specifically exercised under any special statute, the functions of the Board are not public functions nor closely related to Governmental functions and the Board is not created by transfer of a Government-owned corporation, but is an autonomous body. The Supreme Court, thus, found it to be clear that the Board is not financially, functionally or administratively dominated by or is under the control of the Government and concluded that even assuming that there is some element of public duty in the discharge of the Board’s functions, even then, as per the judgment of a seven Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (3 supra) that by itself could not suffice for bringing the Board within the net of “other authorities” for the purpose of article 12. Assuming that there is violation of any fundamental right by the Board, that will not make the Board ‘State’ for the purpose of article 12. Assuming that there is violation of any fundamental right by the Board, that will not make the Board ‘State’ for the purpose of article 12. However, while a relief by way of a petition under article 32 may not be available, an aggrieved party was held to be always at liberty to seek a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, which is much wider than article 32. Referring toAndi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1 supra), the Apex Court found it clear that when a private body exercises its public 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 a writ petition under article 226. While the minority held the Board of Control for Cricket in India to be answering the description of the “other authorities” as contained in article 12 of the Constitution and would be, therefore, restrained, even the conclusion of the majority, thus, made the Board amenable to jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reading the above two decisions together, while the remedy of a writ under article 226 should reach injustice wherever it is found irrespective of technicalities, a duty in the light of a positive obligation owed by a person or authority to the affected party must be existing for attracting such jurisdiction and if in performance of the activities akin to public duties or State functions, there is violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under ordinary law but also by way of a writ petition under article 226. 30. Sri Sri Raghu Ram also brought to notice the decision in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 741 rendered by a two Judge Bench consisting of the learned Judges delivering the majority and minority judgments in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 supra). The same was referred to by the minority judgment inZee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 supra) with reference to the Board being bound to follow the doctrine of fairness and good faith in all its activities in view of enormity of powers. The same was referred to by the minority judgment inZee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 supra) with reference to the Board being bound to follow the doctrine of fairness and good faith in all its activities in view of enormity of powers. In Netaji Cricket Club’s case (4 supra), the two Judge Bench was, however, dealing with civil appeals arising out of a suit for declaration and injunction filed in the Madras High Court and in laying down the Board to be having the duty to act reasonably, but not arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously, the issue of writ jurisdiction under article 226 was not considered with reference to its applicability. 31. The decision in A.C. Muthiah v. Board of Control for Cricket in India 2011 (5) Scale 68 is also referred to, wherein also the matter arose out of a civil suit in the High Court of Madras. Hon’ble Sri Justice J.M. Panchal referred to Netaji Cricket Club’s case (4 supra) andZee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 supra) and concluded that the observations of Netaji Cricket Club’s case (4 supra) in paras 80 and 81 about the duty of the Board to follow the doctrine of fairness and good faith are no longer good law in view of the subsequent decision of the constitution Bench inZee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 supra). This question whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India is a ‘State’ or an ‘instrumentality of State’ was held to be irrelevant by Hon’ble Smt. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, for determining the maintainability of the suits. The matter is pending determination by an appropriate Bench of the Apex Court. 32. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel referred to the action against the aggrieved petitioners having been initiated for seeking redressal through constitutional remedies and referred to V.K. Parameswaran v. The Union of India 1981(3) Services Law Reporter 164, wherein it was pointed out that the act of the petitioners in presenting the writ petitions before the High Court to vindicate their right and in persuading the other colleagues to join as writ petitioners, whatever be the final orders in those cases, constituted no misconduct and institution of any disciplinary proceedings or imposition of a penalty on the same is improper, arbitrary and capricious. Every citizen was held to have a right to resort to constitutional remedies and any act in taking disciplinary action for resorting to constitutional remedies, amounts to interference in the due course of justice, liable to result in action for contempt of Court. 33. Similarly in Pratap Singh v. Gurbaksh Singh AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1172, Gurbaksh Singh first filed a suit and then a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order of recovery of loss and it was laid down by a majority that if there is a clear and unmistakable tendency of the proceedings taken being to coerce a party to force him to withdraw the suit or otherwise not press it, in law the appellants taking such action are guilty of contempt of Court even if they were carrying out the instructions of the circular letter of the Government. The principle can admit of no exceptions and taking any disciplinary action against any of the aggrieved petitioners solely on the ground of their pursuing their constitutional and legal remedies, undoubtedly, amounts to interference in the due course of justice and if a writ under article 226 can be considered maintainable in the facts and circumstances of these cases, the petitioners can claim to stand on a very strong ground. 34. Sri M.L. Ali, learned counsel for Andhra Cricket Association firstly relied on Lieutenant Governor of Delhi v. V.K. Sodhi (2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 136, in which the Supreme Court considered the various facets of the foundation and the working of an entity to be relevant in determining the question in the context of the duties entrusted to it or taken up by it for performance in determining whether an entity is ‘State’ or ‘other authority’ within the meaning of article 12. The Apex Court noted that in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (3 supra), the majority specifically overruled as a legal principle that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or a company incorporated under the Companies Act is by that reason alone excluded from the concept of ‘State’ under article 12 of the Constitution of India. Examining the status of the State Council of Education, Research and Training with reference to the financial, functional and administrative domination or control of the Government, though coordination of education by the Council and the dependence on the funding by the State were considered to be two tests satisfied, the administration including that of finance being completely with the Council, the very formation of independent society under the Societies Registration Act, the object with which the society was formed, etc., were considered to make the Council not ‘State’ or ‘other authority’ and to be normally not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 35. Sri M.L. Ali, learned counsel also relied onPradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (3 supra), which was already referred to in the earlier precedents cited. 36. The learned counsel further relied on a Full Bench decision in K. Ramakrishna v. State Election Commission, Hyderabad 2004 (6) ALD 587 (FB), wherein it was held that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution to entertain matters relating to elections under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1984. The learned counsel further referred to Sarvani Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai 2010 (1) ALD 40 (DB), wherein it was held that a writ petition is not maintainable against a show-cause notice but only against a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party. The learned counsel further referred to Santhoshima Parboiled Modern Rice Mill v. District Collector, Nalgonda District 2010(5) ALD 310 (DB) for the same proposition. These three decisions are relied on firstly to question the maintainability of those writ petitions, which are against show-cause notices and secondly to contend that when a statutory remedy is available under Societies Registration Act, the petitioners could not have taken recourse to writ jurisdiction. 37. Lastly, C. Babu Rao v. District Registrar, Registration of Societies, Hyderabad 2010 (1) ALD 542 relied on by Sri M.L. Ali is about the maintainability of a writ petition against Hyderabad Cricket Association, which was registered under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act 1350 Fasli and is affiliated to Board of Control for Cricket in India. 37. Lastly, C. Babu Rao v. District Registrar, Registration of Societies, Hyderabad 2010 (1) ALD 542 relied on by Sri M.L. Ali is about the maintainability of a writ petition against Hyderabad Cricket Association, which was registered under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act 1350 Fasli and is affiliated to Board of Control for Cricket in India. The Hyderabad Cricket Association appears to be in pari materia with the Andhra Cricket Association and the contention of the Hyderabad Cricket Association is that any dispute regarding management of the society is amenable only to the remedy under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. A learned Single Judge of this Court referred toZee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 supra) and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (3 supra) and observed that this Court is bound to follow the majority opinion of the Apex Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 supra). The learned Judge also referred to Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, which reads as follows: “In the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit.” The learned Judge further referred to Section 32 dealing with repeals and savings and held that in view of the view expressed by the Apex Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 supra), the remedy by way of writ petition is misconceived remedy and the remedy, if any, available to the writ petitioner being elsewhere, opportunity is given to the writ petitioner to pursue such remedies, which are available to the writ petitioner in accordance with law. Thus, not only the association being not ‘State’ or ‘instrumentality of State’ within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution but also availability of alternative remedy led the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition against the Hyderabad Cricket Association at the stage of admission. 38. The questions in controversy in this batch of writ petitions being heard and decided by this common order at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties in view of the commonality of the subject matter of adjudication, have to be determined in the background of the above factual and legal scenario. 39. Andhra Cricket Association is an association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 15-07-1953 with registration No.25 of 1953. The Memorandum and Articles of Association and the rules and regulations of the association contained an arbitration clause in rule/regulation 58, which is as follows: “58. ARBITRATION: (a) If there are any disputable or disputed matters between the Association on one side and District Association/member club or individual member of member clubs on the other side, all such matters shall be referred to arbitration by a tribunal to be appointed by the Association as its General Body Meeting. Its decision shall be final. (b) A tribunal consisting of three members of the Association with the President as its Chairman shall be appointed by the Association at its General Body meeting, such a ‘Tribunal’ shall have the authority of arbitration in any matter/dispute arising between the Association and any of its constituent members.” While none of the parties referred to this rule/regulation nor focused on the applicability and non-applicability of the said rule/regulation to the questions in issue in these writ petitions, whether such a rule/regulation providing mandatorily a reference to arbitration by a arbitral tribunal of any disputable or disputed matters militates against the maintainability of these writ petitions, is an interesting and relevant question to be answered. 40. However, even otherwise the Andhra Cricket Association was earlier governed by the Societies Registration Act, 1860, under which it was registered and now by the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, which repealed by Section 32, the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in its application to the Andhra Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 40. However, even otherwise the Andhra Cricket Association was earlier governed by the Societies Registration Act, 1860, under which it was registered and now by the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, which repealed by Section 32, the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in its application to the Andhra Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 provides that in the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or may file an application in the District Court concerned, which Court shall after necessary inquiry, pass such order as it may deem fit. This provision received consideration in All India SC., S.T. Railway Employees Association v. E. Venkateswarlu 2003(3) ALT 674 , wherein a learned Judge of this Court considered the right to move the District Court concerned under Section 23 of 2001 Act to be an effective remedy provided by the statute making the jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India not invokable. Again in C. Babu Rao v. District Registrar, Registration of Societies, Hyderabad(12 supra), the learned Judge referred to Sections 23 and 32 and held the remedy of the writ petitioner therein was elsewhere than in a writ. The conclusion in respect of the Hyderabad Cricket Association, which appears on all fours to be identical with the Andhra Cricket Association in all material aspects, applies with equal force to this batch of writ petitions. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy invites application of the self-imposed restraint adopted by Courts against invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 in such cases. 41. In so far as the writ petitions in W.P. Nos.11303 and 11319 of 2011 are concerned, in view of the same being against show cause notices, the principles laid down in Sarvani Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai(10 supra) and Santhoshima Parboiled Modern Rice Mill v. District Collector, Nalgonda District(11 supra) shall apply, which operate against the maintainability of these writ petitions. 42. 42. While a flexible and liberal approach bereft of technicalities was advised to be adopted in respect of considering the relief under article 226 byAndi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1 supra), Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 supra) followingPradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology(3 supra) concluded the Board of Control for Cricket in India to be not ‘State’ or ‘instrumentality of State’ for purpose of article 12 and so should be the legal status of Andhra Cricket Association. While as already stated, a writ under article 226 may be available to any aggrieved person, a duty in respect of whom in the light of a positive obligation owed by a person or authority to the affected party is violated in performance of activities akin to public duties or State functions, the majority opinion inZee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2 supra) may not amount to exclude the maintainability of a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India only on the ground of the association in question being not a State within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India as opined inC. Babu Rao v. District Registrar, Registration of Societies, Hyderabad(12 supra). However, the possible recourse by way of a writ petition under article 226 appears to become unavailable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, even if not by rule/regulation 58 of Andhra Cricket Association. Either or both of them appear to make unavailable the remedy of a writ to an aggrieved member. In this regard it may be noted that W.P. No.21134 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.135 of 2011 and W.P. No.11834 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.12884 of 2011 were admittedly dismissed by this Court as not maintainable probably in view of the availability of alternative remedy and it is not disputed that those judgments have also become final. Under the circumstances, the writ petitions against the Andhra Cricket Association and its Honorary General Secretary can be concluded to be not maintainable in view of rule/regulation 58 of the Association containing an arbitration clause and in any view, because of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. 43. Under the circumstances, the writ petitions against the Andhra Cricket Association and its Honorary General Secretary can be concluded to be not maintainable in view of rule/regulation 58 of the Association containing an arbitration clause and in any view, because of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. 43. While the parties themselves stated any adjudication of the questions relating to the elections to the association during the relevant period to be no longer necessary to be adjudicated, the alleged allotment/alienation of any lands to the association by the State Government was later disowned. In the absence of any financial, functional, administrative domination or control of the Government, the absolutely independent legal entity may not be susceptible to the writ jurisdiction in respect of the subject matters of the present controversy, which cannot be considered to be clearly in the domain of public duties or State functions, but not private interests or rights of the individual members. In fact, the writ affidavits in W.P. No.11303, 11319 and 16777 of 2011 refer to approaching the civil Court under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001 as the appropriate remedy. 44. Under the circumstances, the aggrieved members/suspended or expelled members should be referred to the remedy under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 or the remedy under rule/regulation No.58. If any question of limitation comes in, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or the principle underlying the same should come to the aid of such aggrieved persons. 45. As already observed, it is true that in so far as the Andhra Cricket Association attempting to penalize any member solely on the ground of their pursuing their constitutional and legal remedies, it amounts to interference in the due course of justice and cannot be a ground for any such disciplinary or penal action, which, of course, has to be adjudicated as such in a proceeding under Section 23 or rule 58. 46. In so far as W.P. No.17536 of 2011 filed by the Andhra Cricket Association is concerned, on the report said to have been sent by the District Registrar, Guntur to the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, no further adverse action appeared to have been initiated or taken against the Andhra Cricket Association, due to which no further orders need be passed therein. If it is aggrieved by any future action by any of the official respondents in this regard, it will be open to the association to pursue its remedies. 47. Under the above circumstances, it has to be concluded that in so far as the issues relating to the elections to the Andhra Cricket Association are concerned, any reliefs concerning the same need no consideration as of now as already stated. The writ petitions against show-cause notices are per se not maintainable. The writ petition by the Andhra Cricket Association in W.P. No.17536 of 2011 does not appear to be necessary to be ordered in any respect as of now. The grievances of the members of the Andhra Cricket Association in other writ petitions have to be pursued in accordance with Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration 2001 or rule/regulation 58 of the Andhra Cricket Association, as the case may be, and in pursuing any such remedies, any of these proceedings or any observations made herein shall not stand to the prejudice of any party, while the parties may take the aid of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or the principle underlying the same in this regard, if it becomes necessary. 48. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly subject to the above observations. No costs.