Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. The petitioner, by means of present writ petition, seeks to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hold joint discussions and negotiations with the petitioner and to evolve a system in order to effectively integrate and merge the Women’s Cricket ensuring that the members of the women’s cricket wing of BCCI are nominated by the elected office bearers of WCAI in which the petitioner has its representation; State of Uttarakhand has representation in the women’s cricket wing of BCCI in the same manner as it was having representation in WCAI before the merger; Women’s cricket activities in Uttarakhand are immediately revived and should be further strengthened; and adequate funds are provided to the petitioner for promotion of the activities of Women’s Cricket in Uttarakhand. Petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding BCCI to recognize the petitioner as its Unit of affiliation and the position of the petitioner before the exclusion of the petitioner as an affiliated body of BCCI is restored. The petitioner further seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure no. 8) and that the same may not be implemented during and until the pendency of the writ petition. 2) The first and foremost question, before this Court is, as to whether present writ petition is maintainable against the respondent Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short ‘BCCI’) or not? Whereas learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that such petition against respondent BCCI is maintainable, it is the contention of learned senior counsel for respondent BCCI that present writ petition is not maintainable against it. 3) Both the learned counsel relied upon paragraphs no.31 and 32 of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Zee Tele Films Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2005 SC 2677 . The relevant paragraphs of said judgment are reproduced here-in-below for convenience: “31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved in the game of cricket. The relevant paragraphs of said judgment are reproduced here-in-below for convenience: “31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved in the game of cricket. These activities can be said to be akin to public duties or State functions and if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a petition under Article 32. But that does not mean that the violator of such right would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a State. Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for violation of a right of a citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not available, an aggrieved party can always 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. 32. This Court in the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others, 1989 2 SCC 691 , has held: “Article 226 confers wide powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs. This is a striking departure from the English law. Under Article 226, writs can be issued to ‘any person or authority’. The term ‘authority’ used in the context, 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. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. 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. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of the positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party, no matter by what means the duty is imposed. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of the positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party, no matter by what means the duty is imposed. If a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied.” 4) It appears to be the finding of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the perception of this Court, that, whereas a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against respondent BCCI, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will lie. In other words, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against BCCI. 5) Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner drew attention of this Court towards paragraph no. 53 of the judgment rendered in M/s Zee Tele Films Ltd. case (supra), in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as under: “Mr. Salve, therefore, submits that the Board is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as : (i) it regulates cricket; (ii) it has a virtual monopoly; (iii) it seeks to put restrictions on the fundamental rights of the players and umpires to earn their livelihood as envisaged under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (iv) the cricket events managed by the third Respondent have a definite concept, connotation and significance which have a bearing on the performance of individual players as also the team as a national team representing the country in the entire field of cricket.” But, as has been discussed above, Hon’ble Supreme Court, by its majority judgment, did not find favour with such argument and, consequently, it is held that BCCI is not ‘State’ and, therefore, an aggrieved has no right to file a writ petition against BCCI under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. But a writ petition under Article 226 may be filed against BCCI. 6) It is held in catena of decisions that the scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is much wider than Article 32 of the Constitution of India. But a writ petition under Article 226 may be filed against BCCI. 6) It is held in catena of decisions that the scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is much wider than Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It is so held because, one can approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India. Hon’ble Supreme Court, according to Article 32 of the Constitution of India, shall have powers to issue directions or orders or writs, including writ in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari, whichever should be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. According to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. Sub-clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution enjoins any High Court to exercise such power in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. 7) Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Zee Tele Films Ltd. case (supra) has held that the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a writ petition under Article 32, but it is the cardinal principle of jurisprudence that there is always a remedy for the violation of any right of a citizen (ubi jus ibi remediam), which can be sought either under the ordinary law of the land or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8) It follows that this High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 8) It follows that this High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In other words, this Court has jurisdiction to direct BCCI appropriately, in case the writ petitioner is able to establish its case and succeeds in its writ petition. 9) The next question which arises for determination of this Court is –Whether there is violation of any of the constitutional rights or legal rights of the writ petitioner? To make it clear, this writ petition will succeed only if the writ petitioner is able to establish that any of his constitutional or legal rights is violated. 10) Before proceeding further, let this Court analyse, what is the prayer of the writ petitioner? By way of present writ petition, the writ petitioner seeks to (i) direct the respondents to hold joint discussion and negotiations with the petitioner (ii) evolve a system in order to effectively integrate and merger the Women’s Cricket (iii) ensuring that the members of the women’s cricket wing of BCCI are nominated by the elected office bearers of Women’s Cricket Association of India (WCAI) (respondent no. 2), in which the petitioner has its representation (iv) State of Uttarakhand has representation in women’s cricket wing of BCCI in the same manner as it was having representation in WCAI before merger (v) women’s cricket activities in Uttarakhand are immediately revived and should be further strengthened (vi) adequate funds are provided to the petitioner for promotion of the activities of women’s cricket in Uttarakhand (vii) BCCI to recognize the petitioner as its unit of affiliation (viii) position of the petitioner before the exclusion of the petitioner as an affiliated body of BCCI be restored and (ix) order dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition), passed by BCCI be quashed. 11) It will be worthwhile to reproduce here-in-below the material paragraphs of Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition. The same read as under: “There is no independent organization or association for Women’s Cricket at the state level in any state after 2007. The same state association that is affiliated to BCCI controls both men’s and women’s cricket. The BCCI has not granted affiliation to any State Association for the State of Uttarakhand, as no recognized association exists there. The same read as under: “There is no independent organization or association for Women’s Cricket at the state level in any state after 2007. The same state association that is affiliated to BCCI controls both men’s and women’s cricket. The BCCI has not granted affiliation to any State Association for the State of Uttarakhand, as no recognized association exists there. There is no provision in the BCCI rules and regulations for a Women’s Association independent of the general association. All present players from Uttarakhand, both men and women can only play under the Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association, which is affiliated to the BCCI. Under these circumstances the Uttarakhand Women’s Cricket Association cannot be granted affiliation to the BCCI nor can be part of any discussion concerning Women’s Cricket as the BCCI has its own committee for the same.” 12) Men’s Cricket, as well as Women’s Cricket, at the international level, as well as at the national level, were managed and organized separately and independently until 2005. Development and organization of Men’s Cricket at the international level was under the control of International Cricket Council (for short ICC) having representation from all playing member countries. Development and organization of Men’s Cricket in India was, and still continues to be, under the control of BCCI, having representation from several States and Organizations like Railways, All India Universities and services etc. Women’s Cricket, at international level, until 2005, was under the control of International Women’s Cricket Council, having representation from all cricket playing countries. Women’s Cricket until 2005, in India, was under the control of WCAI having representation from various States, including the State of Uttarakhand, and certain other organizations like Air India and All India Universities etc. 13) One of the grievance of the petitioner is that BCCI has completely ignored WCAI. BCCI has picked up certain persons arbitrarily in the Women’s Wing of BCCI, who were never associated with Women’s Cricket. Those persons were made members of Women’s Wing of BCCI without any election or consultation, either with WCAI or any of the State Women’s Cricket Associations. BCCI has picked up certain persons arbitrarily in the Women’s Wing of BCCI, who were never associated with Women’s Cricket. Those persons were made members of Women’s Wing of BCCI without any election or consultation, either with WCAI or any of the State Women’s Cricket Associations. It is the statement of the petitioner that it has been having its representation in WCAI for about 20 years, but after integration and merger of Women’s Cricket with Men’s Cricket, BCCI has denied any representation from the State of Uttarakhand in the management of Women’s Cricket, as a consequence of which, there is no one to look after the development of Women’s Cricket in Uttarakhand, in the Women’s Cricket Wing of BCCI. The said statement of the petitioner is denied by respondent BCCI by saying that U.P. Cricket Association (for short ‘UPCA’) is looking after the interest of Men’s Cricket, as also Women’s Cricket, of Uttar Pradesh, as well as Uttarakhand. 14) After VIIIth Women’s World Cup in South Africa in 2005, ICC announced for integration and merger of Women’s International Cricket with Men’s Cricket under the umbrella of ICC. It is the grievance of the petitioner that BCCI ought to have adopted a suitable system ensuring transparency and democracy in the process of appointing the Office Bearers in taking decisions in respect of Women’s Cricket. Action of BCCI, according to the petitioner, smacks of gender bias and discrimination. 15) Respondent BCCI has filed objections, by way of filing counter affidavit, stating therein that BCCI is not amenable to the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Such a preliminary objection falls to the ground on the basis of what is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, a description of which has been given in the forgoing paragraphs of this Judgment. 16) According to BCCI, UPCA is the controlling body for Men’s Cricket as well as Women’s Cricket of the State of Uttarakhand. The petition was filed in June 2007. BCCI, in its Annual General Meeting of 2007, has made amendments to the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations to the effect that BCCI will give its decisions in all matters, including Women’s Cricket, which may be referred to it or by its Member Associations. Under the BCCI rules, the State of Uttarakhand has representation in the Women’s Cricket Wing of UPCA. Under the BCCI rules, the State of Uttarakhand has representation in the Women’s Cricket Wing of UPCA. If there is any grievance relating to Women’s Cricket in Uttarakhand, the same should be forwarded to UPCA. WCAI cannot participate in the running of Cricket, as it is not a member and not recognized by ICC. There is no question of merger of representatives of WCAI with Women’s wing of BCCI. 17) WCAI is not the petitioner in the instant case. WCAI has not come up with the prayer, not to merge the same with BCCI. Women’s Cricket and Men’s Cricket have been brought under the umbrella of BCCI at the national level, and ICC at the International level. A women’s Wing has, however, been formed in BCCI to deal with promotion, development and organization of Women’s Cricket. [If Women’s Cricket in BCCI is at the helm of affairs of few chosen persons, is certainly a matter of concern.] WCAI, therefore, has lost relevance within the organizational fabric of BCCI, after the integration of Women’s Cricket with Men’s Cricket under the umbrella of BCCI. 18) The most important thing, in this context, is that full members of the BCCI are listed in its Rules and Regulations and do not necessarily correspond to the political boundaries to the States. Not all the States are the members of BCCI. Even those who are not ‘States’, are also the members of BCCI. It, therefore, follows that State of Uttarakhand, being a separate political entity within the Indian Union since 09.11.2000, need not necessarily be represented separately in BCCI as its member. The same, therefore, does not mean that if anything is going wrong in Women’s Cricket in Uttarakhand, there is no grievance redressal mechanism, for the same can be agitated through UPCA, as of now. UPCA is full member of BCCI. 19) UPCA is not arrayed as respondent in the present writ petition. Merger of Women’s cricket with BCCI is a forgone conclusion. The same has not been challenged in present writ petition. WCAI has not filed the present writ petition, although it is arrayed as respondent no.2 by the petitioner in its’ writ petition. WCAI has propagated petitioners’ cause. As stated earlier, membership of teams affiliated to BCCI do not correspond to political boundaries of the States. The same has not been challenged in present writ petition. WCAI has not filed the present writ petition, although it is arrayed as respondent no.2 by the petitioner in its’ writ petition. WCAI has propagated petitioners’ cause. As stated earlier, membership of teams affiliated to BCCI do not correspond to political boundaries of the States. There are many a States, who are not the members of BCCI, but their Men’s Cricket as well as Women’s Cricket is looked after by other Member Associations. Amendments made in September, 2007, to the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations of BCCI appear to take care of the development and control of Women’s Cricket in India. Those rules of BCCI have not been challenged in the present writ petition. This Court need not enter into the validity of the decision as to whether the rules of BCCI permit affiliation of the petitioner as a separate unit or not? Suffice will it be to say, at this stage, that UPCA, in theory, is taking care of Men’s Cricket, as also Women’s Cricket, in Uttar Pradesh as well as in Uttarakhand. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for continuing with the pre-existing arrangement before the merger of Women’s Cricket with BCCI is concerned, it is not possible for this Court to deal with the same, in the absence of any challenge (to the same). In other words, merger of Women’s Cricket with BCCI is not under challenge before this Court. It may be stated here, at the cost of repetition, that WCAI has not challenged the merger of Women’s Cricket with BCCI in the present writ petition. Simply because the petitioner was a beneficiary to pre-existing arrangement, whereby WCAI was a different and powerful entity, in the field of Women’s Cricket, the same cannot be allowed to continue in the absence of any challenge (of it) by WCAI. ICC is not a party to present writ petition, nor it can be. It is ICC, who has taken a decision for the merger of Men’s Cricket with Women’s Cricket at the International level, which is followed by BCCI at the Nation level. 20) The next vital question, which arises for the consideration of this Court is - whether the persons chosen to look after the Women’s Cricket under BCCI have been so selected arbitrarily or there are some Rules and Regulations for their selection? 20) The next vital question, which arises for the consideration of this Court is - whether the persons chosen to look after the Women’s Cricket under BCCI have been so selected arbitrarily or there are some Rules and Regulations for their selection? What is the electoral process to select or elect them? It is the contention of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that whereas there is democratic process in Men’s Cricket, no such system has evolved for running Women’s Cricket. Women’s Cricket has not been organized in any formal manner by BCCI. Women’s Wing of BCCI has been formed without a Constitution, Rules or Regulations, without any electoral process, which is otherwise available in Men’s Cricket. There is sense in the said submission of learned Senior Counsel (for the writ petitioner). 21) WCAI, in its letter dated 05.05.2007, addressed to the President BCCI, rightly voiced concern, relating to Women’s Cricket, in the following words: No game including Women’s Cricket can be made subservient to a few personalities. Following such a route only leads to anarchy, favouritism and lack of direction. A democratic system be put in place for the entire Women’s Cricket, which is inherent in every institute of the country, including every sport. We are in no favour of or against any particular personality but, only request, that a proper methodical and democratic system be devised so that the advantage of this merger (of Men’s Cricket with Women’s Cricket) be made available to the game at every level and does not become a clash of personalities or be dependent on the whims and fancies of one or all individuals in the Women’s Cricket. Our Association with every State Association is interested in cooperating with the BCCI and providing a fillip to the game of Women’s Cricket, which is important method of self-expression for the girl child in the country. 22) Needless to say that Cricket, like in any part of the country, is very popular in the State of Uttarakhand. The Court need not mention the names of women cricketers, who represented India ‘A’ team in the past. Article 1 of the Convention On the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 (CEDAW) provides for prohibition on discrimination of women. CEDAW is accepted by all the countries, including our own country. The Court need not mention the names of women cricketers, who represented India ‘A’ team in the past. Article 1 of the Convention On the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 (CEDAW) provides for prohibition on discrimination of women. CEDAW is accepted by all the countries, including our own country. Clause (C) of Article 51 of the Constitution of India, which provides for promotion of international peace and security, says that the State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another. 23) Hon’ble Apex Court, in Vishakha’s case reported in AIR 1997 SC 3011 relied upon CEDAW to protect the rights of women. Gaurav Jain vs. Union of India, 1997 (8) SCC 114 and Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University, 1996 (3) SCC 545 , are other illustrations on the point. 24) Cricket, in any part of the country, cannot be finished on the ground that Men’s Association is not in existence in that State. Further, Women’s Cricket cannot be ignored in the absence of rules for constituting Governing Council to run such Cricket. Gender bias or gender discrimination, at least in India, is not permissible. The petitioner was granted provisional affiliation by WCAI on 02.05.2002. Full membership was awarded to it. But subsequently, Women’s Cricket was merged with BCCI. For Men’s Cricket, there is a Governing Body, which is elected by the Members as per it’s byelaws. No such rules exist for Women’s Cricket. Women’s Cricket appears to be run by few personalities, which are picked up by BCCI. 25) In order to give effect to the merger, the BCCI ought to have adopted a suitable system ensuring transparency and democracy in the process of appointing the Office Bearers for taking decisions in respect of the Women’s Cricket, which would have been in the best interest of the game. At national level, BCCI should have formed a Governing Body for Women’s Cricket within BCCI. In view of the merger of Women’s Cricket with Men’s Cricket, at least some byelaws should have been framed for constituting the Governing Council to run Women’s Cricket. 26) In India, it is the age old tradition of turning out to the males for decision making and seeking their advice. The ideology of division of labour restricted women’s existence, largely, within domestic life, as homemakers. 26) In India, it is the age old tradition of turning out to the males for decision making and seeking their advice. The ideology of division of labour restricted women’s existence, largely, within domestic life, as homemakers. The male hegemony prevailed in the decision making process, both in private as well as in public domain. Women’s entry into local government has shattered the myth that women are not interested in carving out policies. The participation of women in every sphere of life is a sign of change. There are emerging trends of participation of the women in governing process. Governance should be a democratic, participatory, accountable and transparent means to bring about a just, humane and equitable society, of which women constitute half of the population. It is high time to seek and work towards transformation of policies that would establish a decisive role for women at all levels of governance, including cricket. 27) To recapitulate, jurisdictional aspect is to be seen in the light of the pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Zee Telefilms’s case (supra), in which ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that whereas writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against BCCI, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will lie. WCAI is not the petitioner in the present writ petition. Rules of merger amalgamating Men’s Cricket with Women’s Cricket are not challenged. Bringing Men’s Cricket and Women’s Cricket, at the international level, within the umbrella of ICC is not under challenge. Likewise, merger of Men’s Cricket with Women’s Cricket, at the national level, bringing the same within the umbrella of BCCI, is also not under challenge. ICC has not been arrayed as respondent, nor could it be. It is, therefore, not possible to bring pre-existing situation of the merger, which took place in 2005, when both were brought under the common umbrella of ICC, at the international level and, BCCI, at the national level. The Associations or the teams are not based upon geographical boundaries. Railways, Services and All India Universities are not the names of the ‘States’ within the Indian Union. The petitioner body seems to be an enthusiast in Women’s Cricket. It professes itself to be a cricket loving organization. The Associations or the teams are not based upon geographical boundaries. Railways, Services and All India Universities are not the names of the ‘States’ within the Indian Union. The petitioner body seems to be an enthusiast in Women’s Cricket. It professes itself to be a cricket loving organization. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, in the absence of challenge to many a vital things, a brief description of which is given in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. The most important thing is that the merger of Men’s Cricket with Women’s Cricket is not under challenge. BCCI has its separate rules for affiliation. Constitutionality of those rules has not been challenged. The representation of the petitioner for affiliation was considered by BCCI and was rejected. Existing rules are not amenable to judicial review in the absence of challenge to their constitutionality. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has refused to intervene in ‘Leader of Opposition case’ on similar grounds. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to hold joint decisions and negotiations with the petitioner. Since Women’s Cricket has already been merged with BCCI, therefore, no mandamus can be issued to direct that State of Uttarakhand be represented in the Women’s Cricket Wing of BCCI, in the same manner, as it was having representation in WCAI before the merger. It is for BCCI to consider the same, but no direction is possible to be issued. Consequently, no mandamus can be issued to direct that adequate funds be provided to the petitioner for promotion of the activities of Women’s Cricket in Uttarakhand. It will be beyond the scope of Article 226 to direct BCCI to recognize the petitioner as its unit of affiliation, and restore it’s old position. It is, however, open to BCCI to consider genuine requests of the petitioner organization on appropriate occasion(s). 28) Respondent-BCCI is expected to provide a fillip to Women’s Cricket, which is one of the most important mode of self- expression for girl child in our country. Women’s Cricket should not be ignored at the cost of Men’s Cricket. Gender discrimination is not permissible under the constitutional ethos of this country. 29) It is hoped and expected that Women’s Cricket activities in Uttarakhand are reorganized, revitalized and strengthened with renewed vigour. 30) Rules and Regulations of BCCI provide for the power and duties of the Board. Women’s Cricket should not be ignored at the cost of Men’s Cricket. Gender discrimination is not permissible under the constitutional ethos of this country. 29) It is hoped and expected that Women’s Cricket activities in Uttarakhand are reorganized, revitalized and strengthened with renewed vigour. 30) Rules and Regulations of BCCI provide for the power and duties of the Board. One of such power is to frame the laws of cricket in India and to make alternation, amendment/or addition to the laws of cricket in India whenever desirable or necessary, to make bye laws generally for the management of the affairs of the Board and generally to do all such other acts and things as may appear to the Board to be expedient, convenient or conducive to the carrying out of the objects of the Board. The Rules and Regulations of the Board can not be repealed, added to, amended or altered except when passed and adopted by 2/3rd majority of the members present and entitled to vote at a Special General Meeting convened for the purpose or at the Annual General Meeting. 31) The following direction is, therefore, issued to the respondent BCCI, in the best interest of the game: Since Women’s Cricket is being run without separate Rules or Regulations or Byelaws and the same canons for Men’s Cricket and Women’s Cricket, put together, are not going to do any good to the administration of Women’s Cricket, therefore, respondent BCCI is requested to frame suitable Rules or suitably modify existing Rules for governing Women’s Cricket in such a way that the women get due electoral representation in Women’s wing of BCCI. Proper methodology and democratic system be put in place for governing Women’s Cricket within BCCI. Such an exercise be completed within one year from today. 32) Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The winner is nobody, but the game of Cricket!