ORDER : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. We had, by our order in W.P. (PIL) M.P. No. 30 of 2017 in W.P. (PIL) No. 16 of 2017 dated 06.02.2017, directed the Committee of Administrators of the BCCI to depute its representative to monitor the India-Bangladesh test match conducted at Hyderabad from 09th February, 2017. We had also directed the BCCI to depute a financial advisor to assist the BCCI observer, and to ensure proper maintenance of the records. The Financial Advisor was directed to submit a report to this Court by the next date of hearing. Accordingly Prof. Ratnakar Shetty, BCCI Observer, submitted his report dated 24.02.2017 enclosing thereto the un-audited income and expenditure statements of the India- Bangladesh test match. 2. In our order dated 28.02.2017, we had observed that the contents of the report of the BCCI observer dated 24.02.2017 were disconcerting, and reflected poorly on those at the helm of affairs of the HCA. A copy of the report of the BCCI observer (other than the provisional un-audited report on the income and expenditure) was directed to be made available to all the parties to enable them to submit their objections thereto. We had also directed the BCCI to submit a report to this Court by 07.03.2017 on the role of State Associations, such as the HCA, in conducting IPL matches i.e. whether they were given any share in the revenue generated from the sale of tickets, advertisements, sale of food items etc, whether any steps had been taken by the Committee of Administrators of the BCCI to ensure transparency in awarding of contracts by the HCA, more particularly those matters referred to in the initial three pages of the report dated 24.02.2017 and whether the BCCI had issued any instructions regarding the manner in which these IPL matches should be conducted by the HCA. A report has been submitted by the Chief Executive Officer of the BCCI which details the obligation of the State Associations, the franchisees and the BCCI. 3. When the matter was listed before us on 07.03.2017, the Learned Senior Counsel and the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 4 sought further time to file counter-affidavits. A report has been submitted by the Chief Executive Officer of the BCCI which details the obligation of the State Associations, the franchisees and the BCCI. 3. When the matter was listed before us on 07.03.2017, the Learned Senior Counsel and the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 4 sought further time to file counter-affidavits. Sri K. Priyadarshan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the BCCI, however, submitted that there was an urgent need to make interim arrangements, as a tripartite agreement was required to be entered into between the BCCI, the franchisee, and the Committee representing the State Associations; as two rival groups had claimed to represent the Executive Committee of the HCA, any delay in examining this issue would put the IPL matches in jeopardy; and the BCCI requests that an Observer be appointed by this Court to oversee the IPL matches conducted at Hyderabad. Learned Counsel for the BCCI undertook to file an application in this regard by 10.03.2017. The present application was filed by the BCCI, on 09.03.2017, seeking appointment of an Observer/Administrator. 4. Learned Counsel for the BCCI undertook to file an application in this regard by 10.03.2017. The present application was filed by the BCCI, on 09.03.2017, seeking appointment of an Observer/Administrator. 4. This application is filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India ("BCCI" for short) (respondent No. 2 in WP (PIL) No. 16 of 2017), requesting this Court to appoint an independent Observer/Administrator for the Hyderabad Cricket Association ("HCA" for short) to work in conjunction with the BCCI to oversee/supervise the smooth conduct of the Indian Premier League ("IPL" for short) matches at Hyderabad; maintain proper accounts for the income and expenditure of the HCA in relation to the IPL matches; supervise and ensure implementation of the recommendations of Justice Lodha (Retd) Committee by the HCA, in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4235 and 4236 of 2014; to direct the HCA and all its office bearers to function under the overall supervision of such an independent Observer/Administrator; direct that any of their decisions shall only be taken in consultation with, and the prior approval of, such independent Observer/administrator till such time that all the IPL matches are conducted at Hyderabad for the year 2017, and the Justice Lodha (Retd.) Committee recommendations, in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of and 4236 of 2014, are implemented to the satisfaction of such independent Observer/Administrator; and to direct such Observer/Administrator to submit status reports as may be required to update this Court. 5. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, the Chief Executive Officer of the BCCI has referred to (1) the order passed by us in W.P. (PIL) No. 30 of 2017 dated 06.02.2017 directing the BCCI to forthwith depute its representative to Hyderabad to monitor the conduct of the India - Bangladesh Test Match to be held from 09.02.2017 to 13.02.2017; (2) the report of Observer dated 24.02.2017 highlighting certain organisational issues in the HCA wherein it was brought to the notice of this Court that (a) in respect of India - Bangaladesh Test match, more than twenty five per cent of the tickets for the test match were given complimentary, (b) an official of the HCA, who demitted office in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court, was actively involved in the tendering process and in awarding contracts for the test match, (c) the total expenses for food alone was Rs. 75 lakhs, (d) the tendering process followed was far from being transparent, (e) there was absolutely no check on the expenditure on catering, (f) the vendor, who was awarded ten annual maintenance contracts by the HCA aggregating to payment of nearly Rs. 10 lakhs per month, was given separate contracts for similar scope of work for the match days, (g) the HCA had no control on the issue of accreditation cards for the test match and pursuant to the order of this Court dated 28.02.2017 BCCI had submitted its report. 6. 10 lakhs per month, was given separate contracts for similar scope of work for the match days, (g) the HCA had no control on the issue of accreditation cards for the test match and pursuant to the order of this Court dated 28.02.2017 BCCI had submitted its report. 6. It is further stated that the 2017 season of the IPL matches, being organised by the BCCI, are scheduled to be held from 05.04.2017 to 21.05.2017; eight franchisees were participating in IPL 2017; the League matches i.e. the matches between the home team and the away team were being staged by the franchisee; the play-off matches i.e., final four matches would be staged by the BCCI at stadiums which were owned/operated by the State Associations; to enable the franchisees to stage the League matches and avail the stadium facilities, the BCCI, being the organizer of the IPL, would be entering into a tripartite agreement, with the respective State Associations and the franchisee in respect of the League Matches, which outlined the duties and responsibilities of the parties thereto; with regards play-off matches, BCCI would enter into an agreement with the respective State Associations, which outlined the roles and responsibilities of the State Associations; the role of the State Association, in respect of the Play-off matches, remained the same as in respect of the League Matches; the role of the franchisee was replaced by the BCCI in the playoff matches; there were eight matches scheduled to take place at Hyderabad, which included the opening and closing matches of IPL 2017; from out of the 8 matches, 7 were League matches and one was a Play-off Match i.e., the final match; and all the matches were planned to be held at the HCA stadium i.e., the Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium. 7. It is further stated that, in consideration of the State Association making the Stadium available for the 2017 IPL season, and for providing related facilities and services to the BCCI and the franchisee, BCCI and the franchisee would pay Rs. 30 lakhs each to the State Association per match for the League matches; BCCI would pay to the State Association Rs. 30 lakhs each to the State Association per match for the League matches; BCCI would pay to the State Association Rs. 60 lakhs in respect of the play-off matches; the franchisee is required to pay the match fee on or before the business day which precedes the match; BCCI is required to pay the fee within 14 days of the end of the 2017 IPL season; and towards the end of the financial year, the full members receive seventy percent of the total franchisee consideration/fees received by the BCCI for the relevant season of IPL. 8. 8. Reference is made to the orders of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 07.10.2016 and 21.10.2016 whereby BCCI was directed to forthwith cease and desist from making any disbursement of funds for any State Association until and unless the concerned State Association adopted a resolution undertaking to implement the recommendations of Justice Lodha Committee as accepted by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 18.07.2016; the Supreme Court had also directed that, after such resolution was passed, and before any disbursement of funds took place, a copy of the resolution should be filed before the Justice Lodha Committee and before the Supreme Court, together with an affidavit of the President of the State Association undertaking to abide by the reforms contained in the report of the Committee as modified by the Supreme Court; any transfer of funds should take place, to the State Associations which have accepted these conditions, only after compliance is effected; to the best of their knowledge, no such affidavit and resolution has been filed by the HCA before the Justice Lodha Committee or before the Supreme Court; by its e-mail dated 22.02.2017, the Committee of Administrators of the BCCI had called upon the State Associations, including the HCA, to provide information by 1st March, 2017, among others, of the names of the current office bearers and members of the Government Body /Managing Committee/Working Committee; obtain an undertakings from their current office bearers and members of the Governing body/Managing Committee/Working Committee to the effect that they are not disqualified in terms of the criteria laid down; and forward copies of the same to the Committee of Administrators; the State Associations were also called upon to confirm whether or not they had completed the compliances in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 07.10.2016 and 21.10.2016; in the event they had been complied, the State associations were required to forward, to the Committee of Administrators, copies of the resolution and affidavits required in terms of the said orders; the State Associations were also called upon to confirm the status of compliance with the timelines issued by the Justice Lodha Committee; the Committee of Administrators had received e-mails dated 01.03.2017 and 02.03.2017 from the HCA in response to their e-mail dated 22.02.2017; the HCA had informed them that a special general body meeting of the HCA was held on 20.11.2016 in which the members of the general body meeting had unanimously adopted the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee; they have not received any funds from the BCCI, since the order dated 07.10.2016 and 21.10.2016 were passed by the Supreme Court; HCA had called for, and held a Special General body Meeting to amend the memorandum, Rules and Regulations; a Special General Body Meeting was being convened to ratify the amendment; elections for the Executive Committee would be held on the last Sunday of May, 2017 i.e., 28.05.2017, and the Electoral officer would be appointed in April, 2017 for the ensuing elections; the second list of timelines, issued by the Justice Lodha Committee on 28.08.2016, had been complied with; they disagreed with the Committee of Administrator of the BCCI on the issue of disqualifications of representatives/nominees/patrons/advisors/committee/members/Council members of the State/member associations; two committees i.e., the 3rd respondent committee and the committee said to have been elected on 14.09.2014 were claiming to be the legally elected managing committee of the HCA; while elections seem to have been held in December, 2016, the announcement of the result had been stayed by this Court in CRP No. 174 of 2017 dated 11.01.2017; in the light of the report of the Observer dated 24.02.2017 and the uncertainty as to who the rightful office bearers of the HCA were, the state of affairs of the HCA was precarious; BCCI apprehended that the IPL matches, scheduled to be held from 05.04.2017 to 21.05.2017, may not be properly administered by the HCA and it was necessary, therefore, to grant the relief sought for in the application. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed to WP (PIL) MP No. 97 of 2017, the Secretary of the HCA refers to the e-mail dated 14.02.2017, addressed to the President of the HCA by Prof. R.S. Shetty (BCCI Observer for the smooth conduct of the test match between India and Bangladesh from 09th to 13th February, 2017) stating that the test match was organised well in spite of the short time at hand, and in circumstances beyond the control of the HCA; the attendance was good and the HCA had spared no efforts to ensure almost 4000 students on each of the five days and the children had enjoyed the match. With regards the defects pointed out in the report of the BCCI Observer, it is stated that, in so far as complimentary passes were concerned, as against the total capacity of the stadium of 39,600 seats, complimentary passes were given for 3,860 seats which was within 10% of the capacity of the stadium as recommended by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee; while 10% of the capacity of the stadium would be 3,960 seats, complimentary passes were given only for 3,860 seats; additional 5000 student passes were issued on the directions of the BCCI; and, hence, no excess passes were given. 10. While admitting that the total expenditure for food, during the test match, was Rs. 75,78,821/- a break-up of the expenditure is given which shows that Rs. 2,97,000/- was spent on food for the affiliated club members; Rs. 9,63,383/- was spent on food for Corporate Boxes; Rs. 34,65,832/- was spent on food for police personnel; and for others (like the BCCI Box, the President's Box, the Chief Minister's Box, the Press and Electronic Media, the HCA Staff including Ground Staff etc) Rs. 28,52,606/- was spent towards food. It is stated that the quality of food is maintained to the optimum level and HCA could not refuse the requirement of providing food to the policemen on duty. 11. On the tender process, it is stated that, in the executive committee meeting held on 26.12.2016, it was decided to call for tenders for all the works; thereafter a tender notification was issued in the newspapers; and the works were allotted to the lowest bidder as per the tender process. It is admitted that printing of tickets and accreditation cards was given on nomination basis and, as against the total amount received of Rs. It is admitted that printing of tickets and accreditation cards was given on nomination basis and, as against the total amount received of Rs. 4,82,00,000/- around Rs. 2,88,84,347/- was spent towards conduct of the Test Match and a profit of Rs. 1,93,15,653/- was made. It is stated that none of the persons, who have demitted office, would be involved in any manner in future; the role of the HCA, in respect of conduct of the IPL matches, is minimal; it is confined to the following: (a) host association i.e. the HCA has to hand-over a clean stadium to the franchisee for the conduct of the IPL matches bereft of any advertisements etc; (b) ensure total cleanliness and hygiene in the entire stadium area, particularly the toilets; and (c) facilitate obtaining of statutory permissions from the concerned statutory authorities by the franchisee. 12. It is further stated that distribution of complimentary tickets, catering, security and all other aspects are entirely the responsibility of the franchisee. Reference is made to the resolution passed in the Special General Meeting of the HCA held on 20.11.2016 resolving to adopt the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, and to the fact that Justice R.M. Lodha Committee was informed of the resolutions. With regards disqualification of some of the present executive committee members, it is stated that e-mail dated 22.02.2017 was received, from the Committee of Administrators of the BCCI, calling upon State Associations, including the HCA, to provide certain information by 5.00 P.M. on 01.03.2017; HCA had, vide its e-mail dated 01.03.2017, forwarded the undertaking given by the entire executive committee of the HCA stating that they were not disqualified in terms of the criteria laid down by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, and as accepted by the Supreme Court, from being an office bearer/executive committee member of the HCA; the entire information regarding HCA has been uploaded as directed by the Committee of Administrators; the Committee of Administrators had also directed that a website be created by all State Associations and, even before the said directions were issued, HCA had already put in place a website. 13. 13. It is further stated that a list of members who demitted office, and the present committee members, was also furnished; the Committee of Administrators were informed that the HCA had not received any funds from the BCCI from 07.10.2016; the present committee, elected on 07.09.2014 by an overwhelming majority, is the duly elected body; the 3rd respondent cannot claim to be a legally elected managing committee; on its own admission, it is only an ad-hoc body; there is no provision under the Memorandum, Rules and Regulations of the HCA for formation of an adhoc body; there is no ambiguity or uncertainty as to who were the rightful officer bearers and executive committee members of the HCA; HCA is functioning smoothly from the date of their election i.e. on 07.09.2014; the BCCI observer had also placed his appreciation regarding the smooth conduct of the test match with the cooperation of the HCA; and the petitioner's apprehension that the IPL matches, scheduled to be held from 04th April to 21st May, 2017, may not be properly administered by the HCA is wholly illusory and imaginary. The counter-affidavit concludes by stating that the BCCI has every right to appoint an Observer to work in conjunction with the HCA for the smooth conduct of the IPL matches; HCA is only a facilitator in respect of the IPL matches; the franchisee alone is the organiser of the IPL matches to be conducted between 5th April and 21st May, 2017; this Court had earlier directed that an observer be appointed by the BCCI to oversee the conduct of the test match; and a similar order may be passed by this Court if it deems fit and proper. 14. Sri K. Priyadarshan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the BCCI, would submit that 8 IPL matches are scheduled to be held in Hyderabad, including the first and the final match; while both the BCCI and the franchisee would be paying Rs. 30.00 Lakhs each (i.e. a total sum of Rs. 60.00 Lakhs) to the HCA for the initial 7 matches, the BCCI would pay Rs. 30.00 Lakhs each (i.e. a total sum of Rs. 60.00 Lakhs) to the HCA for the initial 7 matches, the BCCI would pay Rs. 60.00 Lakhs to the HCA for the final match; in addition, the expenditure incurred by the HCA for licences, permits etc, and other out of pocket expenses such as providing security, deployment of police personnel etc would be paid by the BCCI; the HCA was not entitled to any share in the revenues generated during the IPL matches; HCA was liable to meet all the expenditure incurred during the league matches; infighting among two groups within the HCA has resulted in a situation where the BCCI is not in a position to determine which group is the duly elected body of the HCA, this has, in turn, resulted in the BCCI being unable to have the tripartite agreement executed; the report of the BCCI observer shows that the existing committee had misutilised funds during the India-Bangladesh Test match held from the 9th of February, 2017; in the absence of the HCA complying with the requirement of filing an undertaking, both before the Supreme Court and the Justice Lodha Committee, to abide by the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee as accepted by the Supreme Court, the BCCI has been prohibited from releasing any funds; the correspondence between HCA and BCCI shows the former's precarious financial position; HCA does not appear to be able to effectively host the IPL matches; and it is necessary for this Court, therefore, to appoint an Administrator/Observer who can manage the affairs of HCA during the IPL 2017 season, enter into the tripartite agreement, and approach the Supreme Court requesting it to permit BCCI to release funds to enable HCA to organise the IPL 2017 season matches effectively, besides ensuring implementation by the HCA of the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. 15. 15. Reference is made by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the HCA and the present office bearers, to the minutes of the Special General Meeting of the HCA held on 20.11.2016 to submit that the members, at the general body meeting, had unanimously passed a resolution to amend the Memorandum, Rules and Regulations of the HCA to bring it in conformity with the recommendations of the Supreme Court Committee headed by Justice R.M. Lodha, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 18.07.2016; a letter was addressed to the Secretary of the Justice Lodha Committee on 20.11.2016 informing him of the Special General Meeting of the HCA having been held on 20.11.2016, and the unanimous resolution passed thereat; a similar letter was addressed to all the affiliated clubs of the HCA on 21.11.2016; again another letter was addressed to all the affiliated clubs on 22.11.2016 informing them that the HCA Memorandum, Rules and Regulations were required to be amended, and the amendments were required to be placed before the General Body after one month; the Justice Lodha Committee had been requested to extend the time for holding elections accordingly; reference is made therein to the amendments to be carried out by insertion in the byelaws/ regulations of the State Association; the affiliated bodies were informed that a communication had to be addressed to the Justice Lodha Committing stating that the institutions, which were affiliated to the HCA, should have voting rights as they were full members of the Association; a letter was also addressed by the HCA to the Secretary of the Justice Lodha Committee on 22.11.2016 informing him that the members of the General Body had unanimously adopted the recommendations of Justice Lodha Committee; necessary amendments to the Memorandum, Rules and Regulations of the HCA were being carried out to bring them in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 18.06.2016; and a clarification was sought as to whether (i) public servant could contest elections to the State Associations; and (ii) since the existing office bearers had completed only two years in office, whether they could contest again without a cooling off period? (since the term has now been increased to 3 years). 16. (since the term has now been increased to 3 years). 16. Reference is made by Learned Senior Counsel and the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the HCA and present office bearers, to the HCA notice dated 27.01.2017 informing all affiliated bodies of the HCA that a special general body meeting of the HCA would be held on Sunday the 26th February, 2017, at 11.00 am at the HCA registered office of the Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, to consider carrying out alterations, amendment or addition/insertion to the existing Memorandum, Rules and Regulations of the Association as per the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee to bring it in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 18.07.2016, and as per the recommendations of Justice Lodha Committee; and the proposed amendments, to be carried out in the Memorandum, Rules and Regulations, would be communicated to the affiliated bodies shortly. Reference is also made to the frequently asked questions and its answers by the Justice Lodha Committee, to submit that the Secretary of the HCA is not required to demit office as the nine year limitation does not apply to a member of the Executive Committee of the HCA. 17. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the HCA would submit that an affidavit was filed by the President of the HCA on 15.03.2017 both before the Supreme Court and the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, enclosing a copy of the resolution passed by the Special General Body, in its meeting held on 20.11.2016, agreeing to adopt the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. 18. Before examining the rival contentions it is necessary, at the outset, to consider the preliminary objections, including that the Writ Petition as filed is not maintainable. 18. Before examining the rival contentions it is necessary, at the outset, to consider the preliminary objections, including that the Writ Petition as filed is not maintainable. Sri J. Sudheer, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the proposed respondent No. 7 (applicant in WP (PIL) MP No. 71 of 2017 and the Joint Secretary of the HCA), would submit that this Court's precious time should not be wasted in deciding who should administer the HCA, when far more important matters necessitate its urgent attention; the Writ Petition filed by a practicing advocate of this Court, who claims to be a cricketer of standing and a cricket enthusiast, is not a bona fide Public Interest Litigation; it is evidently set up by the rival faction in the HCA; the Writ Petition as filed does not fulfil the requirements of the Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2015; a Writ Petition, filed to implement the orders of the Supreme Court, is not maintainable; and the Writ Petition should be dismissed in limini. Learned Counsel would rely on Varinderpal Singh vs. Justice M.R. Sharma, 1986 (Supp) SCC 719 to contend that Writ Petitions, such as these, should not be permitted to add to the burden faced by the High Court in dispensing justice. He would rely on R and M Trust vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91 ; Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136 ; State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 ; Common Cause A Regd. Society vs. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 511 and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo, (2014) 1 SCC 161 to contend that the Writ Petition is not a bona fide Public Interest Litigation, and should not be entertained. He would also rely on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in S. Udhaya Bhaskar vs. The State of A.P. (Order in PIL No. 3 of 2013 dated 10.12.2013) to contend that the order of the Supreme Court cannot sought to be implemented in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. He would also rely on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in S. Udhaya Bhaskar vs. The State of A.P. (Order in PIL No. 3 of 2013 dated 10.12.2013) to contend that the order of the Supreme Court cannot sought to be implemented in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. As he had put forth elaborate submissions, for more than one hour, on the aforesaid issues, we asked Sri J. Sudheer, Learned Counsel, whether such elaborate submissions were justified, when all the Learned Senior Counsel and Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the existing office bearers of the HCA had themselves requested that an order, similar that passed earlier on 06.02.2017 in WP (PIL) MP No. 30 of 2017 appointing an observer, be passed, and the only dispute was whether an administrator should be appointed instead of an observer. Sri J. Sudheer, Learned Counsel, would submit that it was necessary for him to put forth elaborate submissions to impress upon this Court that its precious time was being wasted by the Learned Counsel for the BCCI, and the Learned Senior Counsel and Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and others, who sought appointment of an administrator instead of an observer. 20. The contention that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the HCA is only to be noted to be rejected. The BCCI, like the HCA, is also a society, but one which was registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act. 20. The contention that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the HCA is only to be noted to be rejected. The BCCI, like the HCA, is also a society, but one which was registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act. The Supreme Court, in BCCI vs. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251 : 2015 (1) ALT 35.1, observed that the BCCI was discharging duties like selection of the Indian Cricket Team, controlling the activities of players etc, which activities were akin to public duties or State functions so that, if there was any breach of a constitutional or a statutory obligation or the rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party was entitled to seek redress under the ordinary law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was much wider than Article 32; that did not mean that the violator of such rights would go scot-free; there is always a just remedy for the violation of a right of a citizen; 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; BCCI is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 even though it is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12; the rationale lies in the "nature of duties and functions" which the BCCI performs; BCCI has a complete sway over the game of cricket in this country; it regulates and controls the game to the exclusion of all others; it formulates rules, regulations, norms and standards covering all aspect of the game; it enjoys the power of choosing the members of the national team and the umpires; it exercises the power of disqualifying players which may, at times, put an end to the sporting career of a person; it spends crores of rupees on buildings and maintaining infrastructure like stadia, running of cricket academies and supporting State Associations; it frames pension schemes and incurs expenditure on coaches, trainers etc; it sells broadcast and telecast rights and collects admission fee at the venues where matches are played; all these activities are undertaken with the tacit concurrence of the State Government and the Government of India who are not only fully aware but supportive of the activities of the BCCI; the State has not chosen to bring any law or take any other step that would either deprive or dilute the BCCI's monopoly in the field of cricket; on the contrary, the Government of India has allowed the BCCI to select the national team which is then recognised by all concerned and applauded by the entire nation including, at times, by the highest of the dignitaries when they win tournaments and bring laurels home; those distinguishing themselves in the international arena are conferred highest civilian awards like the Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri apart from sporting awards instituted by the Government; such is the passion for this game in this country that cricketers are seen as icons by youngsters, middle aged and the old alike; any organization or entity that has such pervasive control over the game and its affairs, and such powers as can make dreams end up in smoke or come true, cannot be said to be undertaking any private activity; the functions of the BCCI are clearly public functions which, till such time the State intervenes to takeover the same, remain in the nature of public functions, no matter discharged by a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act; if the Government not only allows an autonomous/private body to discharge functions which it could in law takeover or regulate, but even lends its assistance to such a non-government body to undertake such functions which, by their very nature, are public functions, it cannot be said that the functions are not public functions, or that the entity discharging the same is not answerable on the standards generally applicable to judicial review of State action; while the BCCI may not be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, it is certainly amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. Just like the BCCI, HCA is also a registered society administering cricket in Hyderabad. It holds complete sway over cricket in the State of Telangana, and has exclusive authority to select the Hyderabad cricket team. It controls the Rajiv Gandhi cricket stadium at Uppal. As the functions discharged by HCA are public functions, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. The answer to the question, whether the Writ Petition as filed is in public interest, is also to be found in the very same judgment in Cricket Association of Bihar wherein the Supreme Court observed that all actions which BCCI takes, while discharging public functions, are open to scrutiny by the High Court in the exercise of their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution; such actions shall, when under scrutiny, be judged by the standards and on principles that govern similar actions when taken by the State or its instrumentalities; the approach, which a Court exercising powers of judicial review of administrative action adopts, will remain the same irrespective of whether the action under review is taken by the State or its instrumentality or by any non-statutory non-government organisation like the BCCI; in K. Murugon vs. Fencing Association of India, Jabalpur (1991) 2 SSC 412 it was held that sports in India has assumed great importance for the community, while international sports has assumed greater importance over the past few decades, despite this several sports bodies in this country have got involved in group fights leading to litigation, and in the process losing sight of the objectives which such societies and bodies are meant to serve and achieve; BCCI is a very important institution that discharges important public functions; demands of institutional integrity are, therefore, heavy and need to be met suitably in larger public interest; the expectations of millions of cricket lovers in particular, and the public at large in general, have lowered considerably the threshold of tolerance for any mischief, wrong doing or corrupt practices which ought to be weeded out of the system; and conflict of interest was one area which appeared to have led to the current confusion and serious misgivings in the public mind as to the manner in which BCCI was managing its affairs. 23. 23. In the light of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it is evident that public interest lies in ensuring that the cricket loving public of Hyderabad get to see the eight IPL-2017 season matches, scheduled to be held at Hyderabad from 05.04.2017 unhindered, and that the infighting in the HCA, and its acts of mismanagement, does not result in disruption of the scheduled IPL cricket matches. 23. In S. Udhaya Bhaskar the Division bench of this Court, while considering the question whether a direction can be sought to the respondent to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court, observed that the declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, being the law of land, the order and direction of the Supreme Court can be implemented and executed by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone, unless the Supreme Court directs that some measures be taken for implementation of orders by other Courts; and, in view of Section 38 CPC, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any application to execute and implement the directions or orders passed by the Supreme Court. 25. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in S. Udhaya Bhaskar is misplaced. In the hierarchical system of courts which exists in this country, it is necessary for each lower tier to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers. The judicial system only works if someone is allowed to have the last word and if that last word, once spoken, is loyally accepted. (Kausalya Devi Bogra vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (1984) 2 SCC 324 ; Cassell and Co. Ltd. vs. Broome, (1972) 1 All ER 801). The singular Constitutional role of the Supreme Court under the Constitution, and correspondingly of the assisting role of all authorities - civil or judicial in the territory of India - towards it, mandate the High Court, which is one such judicial authority covered under Article 144 of the Constitution, to act in aid of the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court is a judicial order, and is otherwise enforceable throughout the territory of India under Article 142 of the Constitution. The High Court is bound to come in aid of the Supreme Court in having its order worked out. The order of the Supreme Court is a judicial order, and is otherwise enforceable throughout the territory of India under Article 142 of the Constitution. The High Court is bound to come in aid of the Supreme Court in having its order worked out. While the High Court is independent, and is a co-equal institution, the Constitutional scheme and judicial discipline requires that the High Court should give due regard to the orders of the Supreme Court which are binding on all courts within the territory of India. Spencer and Co. Ltd. vs. Vishwadarshan Distributors (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 259 ; Bayer India Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, (1993) 3 SCC 29 ; E.S.P. Rajaram vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 186 ; Vadlamani Srinivas @ Srinivas vs. Union of India, 2013 (5) ALD 746). 26. Even otherwise, the infighting within the HCA and the mismanagement by those at the helm of affairs thereat, is put in issue in this Writ Petition. Just like the BCCI, the HCA is also required to comply with the recommendations of Justice R.M. Lodha Committee as accepted by the Supreme Court. Among the contentions raised in the Writ Petition is that the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee has not been implemented by the HCA. We see no reason, therefore, to non-suit the petitioner, or to dismiss the Writ Petition as not maintainable. 27. In a Writ Petition filed in larger public interest, hyper-technical objections have no place. The present application is filed by the BCCI seeking appointment of an Administrator/Observer for the HCA during the current IPL 2017 cricket season, to ensure that the eight cricket matches scheduled to be held at Hyderabad do not suffer any form of disruption. The BCCI is presently administered by the Committee of Administrators appointed by the Supreme Court. While the BCCI could have filed a separate Writ Petition for the relief sought for in this application, we see no reason to non-suit them on this ground as, in a Writ Petition filed in public interest, it is the larger public interest which must be safeguarded and hyper-technicalities should not disable this Court from acting in furtherance of larger public interest. 28. Even among the Learned Senior Counsel, and the Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the present office bearers of the HCA there is a divergence of opinion. 28. Even among the Learned Senior Counsel, and the Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the present office bearers of the HCA there is a divergence of opinion. Sri M. Surender Rao, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the interim president of the HCA, suggested the names of three eminent retired Supreme Court judges, and stated that the HCA had no objection if one of them was appointed as the Administrator. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the HCA, stated that this Court should consider passing an order similar to the one passed earlier on 06.02.2017, appoint an Observer, and not an administrator. Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Secretary of the HCA, contended that it was unnecessary to appoint retired judges either of the Supreme Court or of this Court as an Administrator, and this Court should, instead, consider appointing Prof. Ratnakar S.Shetty (who was the Observer during the test match from 09.02.2017 to 13.02.2017 pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 06.02.2017) as the observer. Sri J. Sudheer, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Joint Secretary of the HCA, has put the maintainability of the Writ Petition itself in issue as an alternate submission, apart from the contention that only an Observer should be appointed and not an Administrator. 29. The question which necessitates examination is whether we should pass an order similar to the one passed on 06.02.2017 whereby the BCCI was directed to appoint an Observer to oversee the India-Bangladesh Test match with the assistance of a financial advisor, or whether we should appoint an Administrator instead to administer and mange the affairs of the HCA both for conducting the eight matches scheduled to be held at Hyderabad during the IPL cricket season 2017, and to ensure implementation of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee recommendations by the HCA. 30. As noted by us, in our order dated 06.02.2017, the Supreme Court, in its order in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 22.01.2015 (Cricket Association of Bihar), had constituted a committee comprising of Justice R.M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India as the Chairman; Justice Ashok Bhan, former Judge, Supreme Court of India and Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as the other members. The three member committee was requested to examine and make suitable recommendations for reforms in the practices and procedures of the BCCI, and such amendments in the memorandum of association, rules and regulations as may be considered necessary and proper on matters set out by the Supreme Court in its order. 31. By its order dated 18.07.2016, Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar (2016) 8 SCC 535 : 2015 (1) ALT 35.1 (DNSC), the Supreme Court accepted the report of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee and the recommendations made therein, with such modifications and clarifications as were set out in the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court requested the Committee headed by Justice R.M. Lodha to draw appropriate timelines for implementation of the recommendations, and to supervise implementation thereof. 32. By its order in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 30.01.2017, the Supreme Court nominated the following members to function as the Committee of Administrators for the BCCI: (i) Mr. Vinod Rai, former Comptroller and Auditor General of India; (ii) Mr. Ramchandra Guha, eminent writer, thinker and cricket historian; (iii) Mr. Vikram Limaye, Managing Director and CEO, IDFC Ltd. (iv) Ms. Diana Edulji, former eminent cricketer and captain of the Indian Women's Cricket team. 33. Mr. Vinod Rai was appointed as the Chairman of the Committee of Administrators, the CEO of the BCCI was directed to report to the Committee of Administrators, and the Administrators were directed to supervise the management of the BCCI. The Committee of Administrators were directed to instruct the CEO of the BCCI to submit a compliance report regarding implementation of the suggestions of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. 34. In considering whether an Observer or an Administrator should be appointed, it is necessary to refer, albeit in brief, to the deficiencies pointed out in the report of Prof. Ratnakar S.Shetty (BCCI Observer) dated 24.02.2017, and the explanation submitted thereto on behalf of the present office bearers of the HCA. 34. In considering whether an Observer or an Administrator should be appointed, it is necessary to refer, albeit in brief, to the deficiencies pointed out in the report of Prof. Ratnakar S.Shetty (BCCI Observer) dated 24.02.2017, and the explanation submitted thereto on behalf of the present office bearers of the HCA. We had, in our order in WP (PIL) MP No. 30 of 2017 in W.P. (PIL) No. 16 of 2017 dated 06.02.2017, emphasised the need for fiscal discipline and proper maintenance of records by the office bearers of the HCA, duly accounting for the funds received from various sources in connection with the India-Bangladesh Test match to be held at Hyderabad from the 09th of February, 2017, and the expenditure to be incurred for hosting the Test match. We had opined that, as cricket is administered in India by the BCCI, they owed a duty to the public at large to ensure that its affiliated bodies prudently utilised the funds (received from various sources) to promote cricket, not spend it for frivolous and needless purposes, and avoid ostentation. The BCCI, functioning under the Committee of Administrators, was directed to forthwith depute its representative to Hyderabad to monitor the conduct of the test match, between India and Bangladesh, by the office bearers of the HCA elected on 14.09.2014. All revenues received from various sources were directed to be deposited, in its entirety by the HCA, in its bank account, and it was only with the prior written permission of the BCCI observer that the required expenditure, for holding the test match, had to be incurred. The BCCI was directed to appoint a financial advisor to assist the BCCI observer, and to ensure proper maintenance of the records duly accounting for the amounts received by HCA from various sources in relation to the said Test match, and the expenditure incurred by them in connection therewith. The office bearers of the HCA, elected on 14.09.2014, were directed to function under the overall supervision of the BCCI observer, and to ensure that the Test match at Hyderabad was properly conducted. The financial advisor, appointed by the BCCI, was directed to submit his report to this Court, by the next date of hearing, furnishing details of the amounts received by the HCA, for the Test match from different sources and the expenditure incurred by HCA during this period. The financial advisor, appointed by the BCCI, was directed to submit his report to this Court, by the next date of hearing, furnishing details of the amounts received by the HCA, for the Test match from different sources and the expenditure incurred by HCA during this period. We had made it clear that any decision which the office bearers of the HCA elected on 14.09.2014 may take would only be in consultation with, and the prior approval of, the BCCI observer. Pursuant thereto the BCCI observer, for the India-Bangladesh Test match held from 9th February, 2017, has submitted his report to this Court. 35. In his report dated 24.02.2017, Prof. Shetty, the BCCI observer, has stated that he took charge of supervision of the conduct of the Test match on 7th February, 2017; he met the office bearers/executive committee members, accountants and internal auditors of the HCA at Hyderabad, and informed them that all the required expenditure for holding the Test match should be incurred only with the prior written permission of the BCCI observer, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court; Mr. Santosh Rangnekar, Chief Financial Officer, BCCI was appointed as the Financial Advisor for the Test match; by the time, he took charge of supervision of the conduct of the test match, the HCA officials had already called for tenders, and had decided on the organisational aspects of the Test match; the Test match was successful and the spectator turn out was good; and the officials of the HCA had cooperated fully in the conduct of the Test match for the entire duration. 36. The BCCI observer has, thereafter, detailed certain organisational issues relating to the HCA. His report dated 24.02.2017 records that the President and the Secretary of the HCA were given clear instructions that officials, who had to demit office in accordance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court, should not be involved in the conduct of the Test match; however Mr. His report dated 24.02.2017 records that the President and the Secretary of the HCA were given clear instructions that officials, who had to demit office in accordance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court, should not be involved in the conduct of the Test match; however Mr. Syed Moizuddin, the former Vice-President who demitted office, was actively involved in the tendering process, and in the award of contracts for the Test match; the office bearers and executive members of the HCA were briefed about the need to restrict the number of complimentary tickets in accordance with the recommendations of the Justice Lodha Committee; however, the total number of complimentary tickets, issued by the HCA, was around 11,500 in a total capacity of 39,000 seats; i.e. more than 25% of the tickets were given as complimentary tickets; HCA office bearers, and the executive committee members, were more keen to protect their own vote banks by giving free tickets with buffet lunches to the members; almost 50% of the catering bills were towards the members and officials (each club was given five passes in the main pavilion with lunch); they were not interested in ensuring that the HCA made profits during an international match; the total expenses for food alone was approximately Rs. 75,00,000/- the tendering process, followed by HCA, was far from being transparent; most contracts had one vendor bidding, and in some cases no bids were called; the interim President had himself handpicked an agency for ticketing without any tender; one of the Joint Secretaries was involved with the award of contracts for buses and cars for the teams and match officials; there was only one tender, and quotations were called for use of vehicles for 24 hours-something which was unheard of; HCA had spent a lot of money on catering costs during matches; there was absolute no check on this expenditure; the Inspector of Police had certified food bills for 2000 policemen every day of the test match; even the Police Commissioner was surprised when the note was shown to him, and he assured that the exact number of deployment would be notified in future; there was one vendor, by name M/s.Sanjay Maintenance Services, who had been awarded various annual maintenance contracts (10 in all) by the HCA aggregating to a payment of approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- per month; the same vendor had been given separate contracts for similar scope of works for the match days; HCA had no control on the issue of accreditation cards for the test match; accreditation cards should have been issued only to those who had match duties, in addition to the office bearers, executive committee members and the HCA staff; HCA obliged several people, including their members, with accreditation cards; and the financial advisor for the test match, along with the internal auditors of the BCCI, had studied the entire tendering process, and the contracts awarded by the HCA, for the test match. The provisional and un-audited income and expenditure statement of the Test match was enclosed along with the report. As the BCCI observer requested that a copy of the un-audited report of income and expenditure not be made available to the parties to these proceedings, we do not propose to refer to its contents as at present. 37. While the BCCI observer has, in his report dated 24.02.2017, pointed out that the HCA had issued 11500 complementary tickets, as against the total capacity of the stadium of 39000 seats (i.e., more than 25% of the tickets were given on complementary basis), the submission put forth on behalf of the present office bearers is that they had only issued 3860 complementary tickets which is below the 10% limit prescribed by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, and the additional 5000 student passes were issued only on the directions of the BCCI. Adding 3860 passes admittedly given by the HCA, to the 5000 student passes, would still account only for 8860 complimentary tickets. No explanation is forth coming for the remaining more than 2600 complementary tickets said to have been issued by the office bearers of the HCA (11500 - 8860). 38. With regards the abnormal expenditure incurred towards food, while a break up is given by the office bearers of the HCA of the expenditure incurred in this regard, it must be borne in mind that, though the Test match ended within four days, a sum in excess of Rs. 75.78 lakhs was spent by the office bearers of the HCA towards breakfast and lunch on these four days alone. 75.78 lakhs was spent by the office bearers of the HCA towards breakfast and lunch on these four days alone. No explanation is forthcoming why the HCA office bearers did not even choose to verify the claim of the Inspector of police that 2000 policemen were deployed each day of the Test match, nor was any effort made by them to ascertain the exact number of policemen deployed in the stadium for the Test match, justifying the abnormal expenditure, in excess of Rs. 34.65 lakhs, towards their breakfast and lunch alone. Even if the claim of the office bearers of the HCA, that they could not refuse to provide food to the policemen, were to merit acceptance, there is no justification for their blindly making payment on the certification of the Inspector of Police that 2000 policemen were deployed each day of the Test match without even verifying whether such large number of policemen were, in fact, deployed towards security during the Test match. 39. In its order in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 02.01.2017, the Supreme Court directed that all the office bearers of BCCI, and of its affiliated State Associations, who failed to meet the norms recommended by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, and accepted by the Supreme Court, shall forthwith demit and cease to hold office viz., a person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer if he or she, among others, has been an Office Bearer of a State Association for a cumulative period of 9 years. The Justice Lodha Committee report on Reforms in Cricket Volume 1 contains a synopsis of the proposals set out under the head "end of the innings." Para 4, which relates to office bearers, stipulates that, while all the existing office bearers (President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer and Joint Secretary) are retained in honorary positions , the number of Vice-Presidents was pruned from five to one; the duties were realigned; the President was shorn of his say in selections; the additional vote for the President, at the meetings, was deleted; the term of these office bearers continued to be three years, but with a maximum of three such terms regardless of the posts held, with a cooling off period after each such term. 40. 40. Chapter 2 clause 2 of the existing Memorandum, Rules and Regulations of the HCA are the definitions and, under clause 2(13), office bearers of the association are defined to be (1) President, (2) Vice President, (3) Honorary Secretary, (4) Honorary Joint Secretary, and (5) Honarary Treasurer. Reliance is also placed on the frequently asked questions dated 12.01.2017 issued by the Justice Lodha Committee wherein certain questions are answered thus:- "4. In a State/Member Association, if an individual has occupied the post of Assistant Secretary, Assistant Treasurer, Director or any other post that is not defined as an 'Office bearer' in the Report, then will his tenure in those posts be calculated towards the 9 year disqualification? If The Constitution/bye-Laws of the State/member Association Has Defined The Post (Assistant Secretary, Assistant Treasurer, Director, Etc.,) As An Office Bearer Post, Then The Tenure of An Individual In Any of Those Posts Will Be Reckoned While Determining Whether The 9 Year Period Has Been Completed. For Example, In An Association Where The Constitution Refers To The Assistant Treasurer As An Office Bearer, If A Person Has Occupied That Post For 3 Years And Also Been Secretary For 6 Years, He Stands Disqualified. 5. Will a member of the Governing Body, Managing Committee or Working Committee of a State/Member Association who has never been an office bearer also have the 9 year disqualification period apply to him? Such An Individual Is Eligible To Contest An Office Bearer Post, Unless The Constitution Or Bye-Laws of the Association Defines Office Bearers To Include The Governing Body/managing Committee/working Committee Members." 41. It is contended on behalf of the Secretary of the HCA that, as a member of the Executive Committee is not an office bearer subject to the limit of nine years, the Secretary of the HCA does not suffer from disqualification and is entitled to continue in office. The submission urged by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the HCA, that the present office bearers do not suffer disqualification cannot, therefore, be brushed aside. It is, however, unnecessary for us to dwell on this aspect as these are all matters better left to those entrusted with the task of implementing the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. 42. It is, however, unnecessary for us to dwell on this aspect as these are all matters better left to those entrusted with the task of implementing the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. 42. As noted herein above, the recommendations of Justice R.M. Lodha Committee include the requirement of Government servants, and office bearers whose term exceeded nine years, to demit office. Sri Syed Moizuddin, Vice President of the HCA, admittedly demitted office in January, 2017 in view of the directions of the Supreme Court in its order in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 02.01.2017. There is no justification, therefore, for his being involved by the HCA in the tendering process for certain works allotted in connection with the India-Bangladesh Test match held from 09.02.2017 onwards. It does appear that the recommendations of Justice R.M. Lodha Committee were observed only in breach, and those who demitted office, surreptitiously continued to manage the affairs of the HCA thereafter. There is no explanation either regarding one vendor being awarded various annual maintenance contracts or the work of printing of tickets and accreditation cards being entrusted on nomination basis. 43. The order of this Court dated 06.02.2017 required the BCCI to ensure that its affiliated bodies prudently utilised the funds, received from various sources, to promote cricket, not spend it for frivolous and needless purposes, and avoid ostentation. The report of the Prof. Ratnakar S. Shetty shows that the office bearers of the HCA failed to exercise any form of control on the expenditure during the Test match. Unnecessary expenditure, being incurred on the four days of the Test match, has resulted in money, which could have been better utilised to promote cricket and groom youngsters from the State of Telangana to play for India in future, being frivolously spent for the self-aggrandisement of the office bearers of the HCA. While the HCA claims to have made a profit in excess of Rs. 1.93 crores during the Test match, they could have made a far higher profit if they had minimised their expenditure and had avoided ostentation. 44. The material placed on record shows that the HCA staff, at the Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, Uppal, have not been paid their salaries from January, 2017, and have threatened to abstain from involvement in the preparation of the grounds for the IPL 2017 season, if their demands were not met. 44. The material placed on record shows that the HCA staff, at the Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, Uppal, have not been paid their salaries from January, 2017, and have threatened to abstain from involvement in the preparation of the grounds for the IPL 2017 season, if their demands were not met. It is not in dispute that the HCA has requested the BCCI to release funds. 45. In its order in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 07.10.2016, the Supreme Court observed that the BCCI ought to have avoided disbursement of huge amounts when the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee was still examining the need for formulating a disbursement policy, more so because one of the reasons, for non-adoption of the Memorandum of Association proposed by Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, was the reluctance of the State Associations in subscribing to the same. The Supreme Court held that there was no reason why the State Associations, that were opposed to the reforms suggested by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee and accepted by the Supreme Court, should either expect or draw any benefit from the release of grants by the BCCI. The Supreme Court issued the following directions: "No further amount in terms of the Resolution passed in AGM on 09.11.2015 or any subsequent resolution by the BCCI or its Working Committee shall be disbursed to any State Association except where the State Association concerned passes a proper resolution to the effect that it is agreeable to undertake and to support the reforms as proposed and accepted by this Court in letter and spirit. Upon such a Resolution being passed, a copy of the same shall be filed before Justice Lodha Committee with an affidavit of the President of the State Association concerned unequivocally undertaking to abide by the reforms as proposed by the Committee and accepted and modified by this Court. A similar affidavit, with a copy of the Resolution, shall be filed before this Court also. It is only after such affidavits are filed, that BCCI may transfer the balance amount of Rs. 16.73 crores each payable to the State Associations." 46. Thereafter, in its order in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 21.10.2016, the Supreme Court issued certain additional directions. It is only after such affidavits are filed, that BCCI may transfer the balance amount of Rs. 16.73 crores each payable to the State Associations." 46. Thereafter, in its order in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 21.10.2016, the Supreme Court issued certain additional directions. The BCCI was directed forthwith to cease and desist from making any disbursement of funds for any purpose whatsoever to any State Association until and unless the State Association concerned adopted a resolution undertaking to implement the recommendations of the Committee as accepted by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 18.07.2016; after such a resolution is passed, and before any disbursement of funds takes place to the State Association concerned, a copy of the resolution should be filed before the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee and before the Supreme Court, together with an affidavit of the President of the State Association undertaking to abide by the reforms contained in the report of the Committee, as modified by the Supreme Court. Any transfer of funds was to take place, to the State Associations which accepted these terms, only after compliance as above was effected. The Supreme Court made it clear that this direction was in addition to the previous directions issued on 07.10.2016 in regard to the disbursement to, and appropriation by, the State Associations. 47. Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present Secretary to the H.C.A. has placed before us a newspaper clipping from the Deccan Chronicle dated 20.03.2017 to submit that it is not H.C.A alone, but several other State Associations have also been requesting the BCCI to release funds to conduct the IPL 2017 matches. The fact, however, remains that the order of the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 dated 07.10.2016 and 21.10.2016, required the BCCI not to release funds till the State Associations put their house in order. 48. The H.C.A claims to have complied with the order of the Supreme Court, and to have filed an affidavit undertaking to implement the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee as accepted by the Supreme Court. While a resolution was no doubt passed on 20.11.2016 to adopt the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, no action has been taken thereafter for amendment of the HCA bye-laws to bring it in conformity with the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. While a resolution was no doubt passed on 20.11.2016 to adopt the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, no action has been taken thereafter for amendment of the HCA bye-laws to bring it in conformity with the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. A notice was issued by the HCA on 27.01.2017 calling for a special general body meeting to be held on 26.02.2017 for amendment of the bye-laws. The members of the affiliated bodies of the H.C.A were informed that details of the proposed amendments would be furnished to them later. However, no such meeting was held either on 26.02.2017 or on any day thereafter. The bye-laws of the H.C.A. have also not been brought to conform, to the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, till date. 49. It is only after the BCCI filed the present application, for appointment of an Observer/Administrator, on 09.03.2017 did the HCA take steps to file the affidavit before the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee on 15.03.2017, and before the Supreme Court later, undertaking to abide by the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. In the affidavit, said to have been filed on 15.03.2017 before the Supreme Court and the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee by the President of the HCA, reference is made to the Special General Body meeting of the HCA convened on 20.11.2016 having unanimously adopted the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. The notice of the Special General Body meeting, along with its minutes, are filed as Annexures-I and II to the said affidavit. It is also stated that passing of the aforesaid resolutions was conveyed to the Secretary of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, and to the President of the BCCI; in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court dated 02.01.2017, the following members had demitted office i.e. (1) Arshad Ayub, former President; (2) P. Yadgiri, former Vice-President; (3) Syed Moizuddin, former Vice-president; (4) Victor Amal Raj, former Executive Committee Member and (5) M. Srinivas Reddy, former Executive Committee Member; and the HCA unequivocally undertook to abide by the reforms as proposed by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, and accepted and modified by the Supreme Court. This affidavit makes no reference to the notice dated 27.01.2017 calling for a special general body meeting to be held on 27.02.2017 to amend the bye-laws of the HCA, or to the fact that no meeting was held on 27.02.2017, or even to the fact that the byelaws of the HCA have not been amended, to bring it in tune with the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, till date. 50. Sri K. Priyadarshan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the BCCI, would draw our attention to the letter addressed by the H.C.A. to the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee on 01.03.2017 informing them that the H.C.A. had been advised that the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the Associations which sought to recall the previous orders including the principal judgment dated 18.07.2016; the next date of hearing was on 27.03.2017; they have been advised that the Supreme Court was likely to take up the issue on that day and, in these circumstances, they felt that any further attempts, to impose the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee directives, should be deferred till the matters were decided. The reluctance of the H.C.A. to implement the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, notwithstanding the directives of the Supreme Court that BCCI and the State Associations implement them, is disconcerting. While HCA is, no doubt, entitled to avail their judicial remedies, including seeking review of the earlier order of the Supreme Court, they cannot, as long as the earlier order of the Supreme Court remains in force, avoid implementation of the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. We find considerable force in the submission of Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, that appointment of an Administrator is essential to ensure implementations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee recommendations as the reluctance of the existing office bearers of the H.C.A. to implement the said recommendations notwithstanding their claims to the contrary, is evident. 51. Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the present Secretary of HCA, would submit that a sum of Rs. 1.6 crores is lying in the bank account of the HCA, and it is only because of the orders of this Court dated 06.02.2017, directing the entire proceeds be deposited in a bank account, that the amount due to the employees and other suppliers could not be paid. 1.6 crores is lying in the bank account of the HCA, and it is only because of the orders of this Court dated 06.02.2017, directing the entire proceeds be deposited in a bank account, that the amount due to the employees and other suppliers could not be paid. On the other hand Sri K. Priyadarshan Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing for the BCCI, would submit that it is only because the office bearers of the HCA had failed to furnish details of the amounts payable to vendors and others, along with supporting documents, was permission not granted by the BCCI Observer to the HCA to meet the expenditure. 52. The HCA appears to be riddled with infighting, with two rival groups jostling for power, and to exercise control over the HCA. Though the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee issued a second list of timelines for implementation on 28.08.2016 where under the deadline for elections for the State Associations was fixed as 15.11.2016, it is not in dispute that this timeline of 15.11.2016 was violated by the HCA. While the present office bearers have had the byelaws of HCA amended to postpone the election scheduled to be held in May, 2016 by one year to May, 2017, the rival body conducted elections and claims that it is the adhoc body in charge of the affairs of the HCA. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also invoked by the rival group in O.P. No. 1254 of 2016 seeking a direction for elections to be held and, pursuant to the orders of the Civil Court, in I.A. No. 899 of 2016 in O.P. No. 1254 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016, elections were also held in December, 2016. The order of the Civil Court, in I.A. No. 899 of 2016 in O.P. No. 1254 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016, was challenged before this Court by the HCA and, in view of the orders passed in C.R.P. No. 174 of 2017 dated 11.01.2017, the election results have not been declared till date. The order of the Civil Court, in I.A. No. 899 of 2016 in O.P. No. 1254 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016, was challenged before this Court by the HCA and, in view of the orders passed in C.R.P. No. 174 of 2017 dated 11.01.2017, the election results have not been declared till date. As hearing of CRP No. 174 of 2017 is being taken up by the Learned Single Judge, pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court that it be heard early, preferably before 5th April, 2017 (when the first IPL match is scheduled to be held at Hyderabad), it would be wholly inappropriate for us to express any opinion either on the amendment to the bye-laws or regarding the elections held, pursuant to the orders of the Civil Court, in December, 2016. Suffice it to observe that, in any scenario, a newly elected body for the HCA would take office latest by the first week of June, 2017. The Justice R.M. Lodha Committee recommendations also prescribe the manner in which elections are to be held, and requires elections to be conducted under the supervision of an independent electoral officer. Several other reforms recommended by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee also necessitate compliance. 53. The apprehension expressed by BCCI, that the infighting among the members of the HCA with two rival groups indulging in a no-holds barred fight to take control of its affairs, has resulted in their not being able to enter into a tripartite agreement with the HCA, is not unfounded. Before the commencement of the IPL cricket season 2017, a tripartite agreement is required to be entered into between the BCCI, the franchisee and the HCA. A copy of the proforma agreement required to be entered into between the BCCI, the franchisee and the State Association (HCA) has also been placed before us. The said agreement is called the "Stadium Agreement for League Matches". Clause 2 thereof relates to grant of rights and, under Clause 2.1, the State Association (HCA) is required to grant to the BCCI (for itself and for the benefit of the Franchisee), the exclusive right and licence to have access to and to use the stadium during each contracted season for the matches, and any practise sessions required by the franchisee and any other matters connected with the matches, including press conferences etc. While the State Association personnel are entitled to have access to the stadium during each contracted season, such access on match days, and the days on which practise matches are held in the stadium, is required to be limited to the accredited State Association personnel solely in connection with carrying out its obligations under the agreement. The rights and obligations of the State Association are detailed in Clause 3. Clause 3.1 requires the HCA to ensure that BCCI, its agents, the team, the away team and the franchisee have access at all times to the stadium for the 30 day prior to, and throughout, each contracted season to carry out and facilitate exploitation of all of their respective rights under the agreement. Clause 3 also contains clauses relating to the media, the licensee, tickets and intellectual property rights. Clause 4 relates to the rights and obligations of the BCCI and the franchisee. Clause 5 relates to consideration and, under Clause 5.1, all income derived from the staging and commercial exploitation of each match, and the commercial rights and media rights would belong to the BCCI and/or the franchisee exclusively. The consideration payable to the State Association for making the stadium available, to the BCCI and the franchisee, is stipulated in Clause 5.2 and, thereunder, the franchisee is required to pay the State Association, the prescribed consideration. Clause 6 relates to commercial rights and Clause 6.1 requires the State Association to acknowledge and agree that the BCCI, the franchisee and the licensees are the owners, licensees or sub-licensees of all commercial rights, and the State Association shall not be entitled to exploit any of the commercial rights or any other rights in relation to any match. 54. Clause 15 details the accreditation process and, thereunder, the BCCI is responsible for providing accreditation for the league matches. The said clause stipulates that the BCCI shall provide, at its absolute discretion, approved accreditation for the league and each match for the State Association, the State Association staff, all local suppliers and local officials on duty provided that the number and details of each person would be provided to the BCCI by the State Association in advance and approved in writing by the BCCI. The said clause prohibits the State Association from providing accreditation to any person. The said clause prohibits the State Association from providing accreditation to any person. Schedule I of the agreement are the facilities to be provided by the State Association including the pitch, ground and cricket, the media etc. As there is uncertainty on whether the present office bearers would continue to hold office, as that would depend on the outcome of C.R.P. No. 174 of 2017, the submission of the BCCI, that an Administrator be appointed by this Court and he/they be authorised to enter into the tripartite agreement on behalf of the HCA, necessitates serious consideration. 55. The report of the BCCI observer dated 27.02.2017 reveals that the affairs of the H.C.A are not only being mismanaged, but the present officer bearers also chose not to exercise any form of control over the expenditure incurred during the Test Match held at Hyderabad from the 09th of February, 2017. Their reluctance to implement the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee is also clear. While, ordinarily, the elected office bearers would be entitled to manage the affairs of the H.C.A, the urgent need to ensure that the 8 IPL matches, scheduled to be held at Hyderabad during the 2017 IPL cricket season, are conducted without any hindrance, the tripartite agreement is entered into at the earliest, and the reforms suggested by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee are promptly implemented by the H.C.A. necessitate an Administrator being appointed to take control of the affairs of the H.C.A. for the entire duration of the 2017 IPL cricket season, and till the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee are implemented both in its letter and spirit. 56. While we were initially inclined to appoint a cricketer of repute as the Administrator, Sri K. Priyadarshan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the BCCI, has conveyed to us the request of the BCCI that, like the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court and/or of this Court be appointed as the Administrator/s as their ability and integrity would find wide acceptance among the cricket loving public of Hyderabad. In Delhi and District Cricket Association v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi WP (C) No. 7215 of 2011 dated 30.01.2017, the Division bench of the Delhi High Court directed that, since the tenure of the Executive committee had ended, as Justice Mukul Mudgal had expressed his inability to continue as an Administrator, to ensure continuity till changes were made to the DDCA's Articles of Association, and to ensure that matches - both domestic fixtures and international events were held smoothly, a replacement was needed. Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed to act as the Administrator in the place of Justice Mudgal to oversee the affairs of the DDCA - including its day-to-day functioning, and to ensure that cricket matches were conducted smoothly till such time the directions given in the judgment were implemented, and charge was handed over to the newly elected executive committee of the DDCA. 57. The Delhi High Court Division bench further observed that it was open to the Administrator to seek the assistance of the individuals who had helped in running the affairs of the DDCA for the past one year, including those employed under the Justice Mudgal Committee and/or any individual for any specific purpose in this regard; while doing so, the Administrator should ensure that an expert in finance and auditing of accounts and overseeing tender/contractual specifications etc, was also included; and the Administrator was free to associate any member of the DDCA in whom he reposed confidence, and for that purpose consult such past office-bearers as he may deem essential. 58. We had, during the course of hearing of this application, called upon Sri K. Priyadarshan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the BCCI, to ascertain from the Committee 17 (Judgment in WP (C) No. 7215 of 2011 dated 30.01.2017) of Administrators of the BCCI whether they had any retired Judge/s in mind. On 20.03.2017, at the conclusion of hearing of this application, Sri K. Priyadarshan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the BCCI, has handed over an envelope containing two names i.e. Sri Justice Anil R. Dave, Retd. Judge of the Supreme Court and Sri Justice G.V. Seetapathy, Retd. Judge of this Court, to be considered for appointment as the Administrators of the HCA. On 20.03.2017, at the conclusion of hearing of this application, Sri K. Priyadarshan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the BCCI, has handed over an envelope containing two names i.e. Sri Justice Anil R. Dave, Retd. Judge of the Supreme Court and Sri Justice G.V. Seetapathy, Retd. Judge of this Court, to be considered for appointment as the Administrators of the HCA. Learned Counsel would submit that both of them may be appointed as Administrators, and they could co-ordinate with each other in administering the affairs of the HCA. When we asked whether both these Learned Judges were willing to undertake this task, Sri K. Priyadarshan Reddy, Learned Counsel, stated that the BCCI had informally sounded both the Learned Judges who had expressed their willingness, if this Court were to entrust them with this responsibility. 59. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to appoint Sri Justice Anil R. Dave, Retd. Judge of the Supreme Court, A1-58, Sardarjung Enclave, Near Ambiance School, New Delhi - 110 029. and Sri Hon'ble Sri Justice G.V. Seethapathy, Retd. Judge of this Court, Door No. 5-8-30/34, Govardhanapuri Gardens, Yapral, Secunderabad - 87, as the Administrators to exercise overall control over the administration of the HCA, and to manage its affairs. The Administrators shall be assisted by the elected body of the HCA, and the Committee of Administrators of the BCCI shall render all such assistance as they may require. We make it clear that the office bearers of the body elected on 14.09.2014 cannot be understood to be the elected body which has been directed to assist the Administrators till the end of IPL 2017 cricket season and thereafter, for the elections held in December, 2016, pursuant to the orders of the Civil Court in I.A. No. 899 of 2016 in O.P. No. 1254 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016, is under challenge in C.R.P. No. 174 of 2017 and the continuance of the present elected body, during the IPL 2017 cricket season, would depend on the outcome of C.R.P. No. 174 of 2017. Suffice it to make it clear that the elected body of the H.C.A. be it the present body or the body elected in the December, 2016 elections, (depending on the result of C.R.P. No. 174 of 2017), shall assist the Administrators during the IPL 2017 cricket season. 60. Suffice it to make it clear that the elected body of the H.C.A. be it the present body or the body elected in the December, 2016 elections, (depending on the result of C.R.P. No. 174 of 2017), shall assist the Administrators during the IPL 2017 cricket season. 60. The Administrators are requested to take all such steps as are necessary to ensure that the IPL 2017 cricket matches, scheduled to be held at Hyderabad, are conducted properly and the cricket loving public of Hyderabad is able to watch these matches without disruption from any quarter. Both the Administrators shall, on behalf of HCA, enter into the tripartite agreement with the HCA and the franchisee. All sums, received from various sources, shall be deposited in its entirety in the bank account of the H.C.A. and the Administrators shall incur such expenditure as is necessary for the smooth conduct of the IPL 2017 cricket matches, and thereafter. 61. As certain amounts appear to be due to the suppliers and the staff of the H.C.A. it is open to the Administrators, after verifying the genuineness of such claims, to make payment from the balance available in the bank account of the H.C.A. It is also open to the Administrators to file an application before the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the BCCI to release such funds as are necessary for conducting the matches scheduled to be held at Hyderabad during IPL 2017 cricket season, and thereafter. The Administrators shall take all such steps as is necessary for effective implementation of all the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee at the earliest, preferably on or before 30.09.2017. It is open to the Administrators to move this Court for modification of the orders passed by us, or to seek any clarification which they may consider necessary. The expenditure to be incurred for the travel of Sri Justice Anil R. Dave, Retd. Judge of the Supreme Court, from New Delhi to Hyderabad, and for his stay at Hyderabad, shall be borne by the H.C.A. The transportation charges in Hyderabad for both the Learned Administrators shall also be met from the funds available with the H.C.A. Both the Administrators shall appoint a financial advisor, in consultation with the Committee of Administrators of the BCCI, to assist them during the entire IPL 2017 cricket season. It shall be the responsibility of the financial advisor to ensure maintenance of proper accounts of the income and expenditure of the H.C.A, and to keep the expenditure, to be incurred during the IPL 2017 cricket season, to the minimum and avoid ostentation. The Administrators are requested to submit their report, regarding the steps taken by them to ensure smooth conduct of the IPL 2017 cricket season, furnish details of the income and expenditure incurred by the H.C.A during the IPL 2017 cricket season, and the efforts made by them to ensure early and effective implementation of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee recommendations, by 31.05.2017. 62. As an epilogue to this order, we clarify that appointment of two retired judges as the Committee of Administrators may not be understood as an attempt to take over administration of cricket in the State. We are conscious, and constantly remind ourselves, of our lack of expertise in specialised arrears which would include cricket administration. We would, ordinarily, have deferred to the wisdom of the elected office bearers, more so as the bye-laws of HCA confer power on them to administer the HCA and manage its affairs, and would have acceded to their request for appointment of an Observer like we did earlier by our order dated 06.02.2017. What persuaded us to appoint a Committee of Administrators, instead of an Observer, is the report of the BCCI Observer dated 24.02.2017 which revealed mismanagement of the affairs of the HCA, their lack of fiscal discipline, and their failure to avoid ostentation despite our specific directions to do so by our order dated 06.02.2017. 63. In the absence of legislation by the competent legislature (be it Parliament or the State Legislature) regulating the game of cricket in this Country/State, Courts are forced to step in to ensure that the cricket loving public are not deprived of viewing International cricket matches, and popular events like the IPL, without disruption. We had perforce to appoint a Committee of Administrators (a retired judge of the Supreme Court and a retired judge of the High Court) also because of the extreme reluctance of the existing office bearers of the HCA to implement the recommendations of Justice R.M. Lodha Committee which, to the extent accepted by the Supreme Court, constitutes "law" under Article 141 of the Constitution of India binding on the BCCI and the State cricket Associations, including the HCA. It is only to ensure its implementation, which the existing office bearers have failed to do, is a Committee of Administrators being appointed to administer and manage the affairs of the HCA, that too for the limited duration of the IPL 2017 cricket season and thereafter till the recommendations of Justice R.M. Lodha Committee are fully implemented. Implementation of the recommendations would ensure that the popular game of cricket is administered in a fair and transparent manner, ostentation is avoided, and the precious resources of HCA are spent usefully to promote the game of cricket, and to groom young cricketers, in the State of Telangana in general and the city of Hyderabad in particular. The Committee of Administrators shall hold office only for the duration of the IPL 2017 cricket season, and till the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee recommendations are implemented, which task we are confident they will complete within six months. Thereafter the responsibility of managing the affairs of HCA, in accordance with the bye-laws, shall be handed back to the duly elected office bearers. 64. W.P. (PIL) M.P. No. 97 of 2017 is accordingly disposed of. List W.P. (PIL) No. 16 of 2017 for orders on 02.06.2017.