JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners are aggrieved of and seek to declare the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations presented by respondent no.3 on behalf of respondents 4&5 and registered by respondent no.6 on 3rd October 2018, as null and void, with a direction to respondent no.2 to convene the Extraordinary General Council Meeting in compliance with the mandate of Rule 20 of the Rules of J&K Cricket Association and amend the Rules of the J&K Cricket Association in conformity with the recommendations made by the Lodha Committee, which have been accepted by the Supreme Court. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that they are Clubs, affiliated with the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA). It is averred that the Supreme Court by the Order dated 18th July 2016, in Civil Appeal no.4325/2014 and two other Civil Appeals, constituted a Committee, headed by Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha, to look into the management and affairs of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short “BCCI”). The recommendations submitted by the Committee, were accepted in entirety and the Supreme court directed the Committee to ensure that the recommendations made are implemented. BCCI and all the affiliate State Members/Associations were directed to cooperate and act in furtherance of the directives. The Committee, it is submitted, to have thereafter vide communication dated 28th August 2016, issued the guidelines for election of the State Associations and fixed the same on 15th November 2016. The Supreme Court, it is maintained, on 2nd January 2017, directed constitution of a Committee of Administrators to supervise the administration of BCCI through its Chief Executive Officer, with a further direction to ensure that the directions contained in the judgment dated 18th June 2016, passed by the Supreme Court are implemented. It is contended that the Committee of Administrators (for short “COA”) was constituted in compliance to the court direction dated 2nd January 2017 and thereafter the COA requested all members (State Association) to make available on their respective websites the names of their respective constituent members. The JKCA is stated to have, vide communication dated 7th August 2017, submitted a List of affiliated clubs with JKCA, in which the petitioners also figure. A total of 32 clubs including 07 government institutions are affiliated clubs of JKCA, who have voting right. The JKCA is stated to have, vide communication dated 7th August 2017, submitted a List of affiliated clubs with JKCA, in which the petitioners also figure. A total of 32 clubs including 07 government institutions are affiliated clubs of JKCA, who have voting right. A number of the writ petitions, according to petitioners, were filed before this Court, which were disposed of vide judgment dated 13th October 2017. The said judgment was challenged in various Letters Patent Appeals, with lead LPA no.196/2017. The said appeals were disposed of vide judgment dated 6th December 2017, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge with certain modifications therein. Petitioners maintain that the Supreme Court while considering Contempt Petition (Civil) no.47 of 2017, by the order dated 9th August 2018, directed that the full members of BCCI would undertake registration of their respective Constitutions. According to the petitioners, the respondents 2 to 4 are duty bound to amend the Constitution of JKCA on similar lines as that of the draft Constitution of BCCI as approved by the Supreme Court. The petitioners claim that the amendments should be restricted and limited in nature and have to be on similar lines as that of the Constitution of BCCI. It is also pleaded that respondent no.1 submitted its Constitution along with the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations before the Registrar of Societies, which were registered on 21st August 2018. A communication dated 9th August 2018 had been addressed by BCCI to the State Associations/Full Members/Associate Members, to submit the compliance certificate as per the proforma attached with the said communication and get constitution of their associations registered on the similar lines as that of BCCI Constitution. The petitioners claims that reportedly respondent no.3 informed respondent no.1 that a Constitution on similar lines has been prepared strictly in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court and the same would be presented for registration, but copy of the Constitution was not provided by respondent no.3 to respondent no.1, so as to enable respondent no.1 to derive the satisfaction as to what had been stated by respondent no.3 with regard to implementation of the Supreme Court directions. Instead of complying the directions of the Supreme Court, the petitioners complain that respondent no.2 through respondent no.3 has presented before respondent no.6 the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations, which are not on similar lines with the directions passed by the Supreme Court on 13th October 2017 and 9th August 2018. It is stated that respondent no.6 without deriving satisfaction as to the fact that the Constitution which was only required to be amended and not to be replaced, has registered it on the date of its presentation itself, i.e. 3rd October 2018. It is averred that the respondent no.6 has acted in haste in registering Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations notwithstanding the fact that a prior notice was served upon him informing about the mischief sought to be done in the form of presenting a Constitution, which is not similar to the Constitution of BCCI and has been prepared in violation of the direction passed by this Court and the Supreme Court. 3. Reply has been filed by respondents 2 to 5, in which they insist that petitioners 2&3 cannot maintain the writ petition on hand in the capacity of the President of the Associations for the reason that there is a dispute qua elections of the office bearers of the said Clubs and the said dispute is pending adjudication before the ombudsman and the petitioners cannot claim as the elected representatives of Baramulla Cricket Club and Kashmir Gymkhana Cricket Club till the dispute is resolved by the ombudsman and resultantly, the writ petition filed by petitioners 2&3 is liable to be dismissed. Respondents also aver that petitioners cannot file the writ petition in the present form in view of the fact that the alleged controversy raised by them relates to implementation of directions passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.4235 of 2014, and that the respondents are implementing the said directions and have to submit the status report before the Supreme Court and if the petitioners are aggrieved of the said actions, then the correct recourse for them was to approach the Supreme Court in the above petition and seek the reliefs as have been sought in the writ petition on hand. The respondents also assert that they being placed as CEO and Administrators on the directions of the Division Bench of this Court and are acting in furtherance of the directions passed by the Supreme Court, and as a sequel whereof amended the Constitution of JKCA in tune with the recommendations of the Lodha Committee and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court. It is maintained by the respondents that since the recommendations have been acted contrary to the expectations of the petitioners, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed for ulterior and oblique motive. The Constitution of JKCA is has been amended in conformity with the recommendations and the element of transparency, fairness and impartiality have been brought in by incorporating the changes that would make the Association at par with the other Cricket Bodies of the country. The entire exercise is said to have been conducted by the respondents on the strength of the directions passed by this Court. It is claimed that it was the Committee of Administrators, appointed by this Court along with Chief Executive Officer, who were exclusively given the mandate of making such amendments as necessary and therefore there is no question of involvement of any other body of the Association in conduct of amending the Constitution. According to the respondents, the amendment of the Rules in accordance with directions was vested with them exclusively and the petitioners have nothing to do with that. It is also claimed that the entire controversy regarding malpractices in the Cricket Association is a result of corruption as well as mishandling of the affairs of the Association and therefore the Division Bench of this Court engaged the services of the respondents. 4. It is also claimed that the entire controversy regarding malpractices in the Cricket Association is a result of corruption as well as mishandling of the affairs of the Association and therefore the Division Bench of this Court engaged the services of the respondents. 4. Having heard the rival contentions and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that the controversy raised in these petitions revolves around the following questions: (i) What is the extent of the mandate/authority of the Court Appointed Administrators (CAAs) vis-à-vis affairs of JKCA; (ii) Whether the memorandum of association made by CAAs and registered under the J&K Societies Act, 1998 (1941 A.D.), are in line with the judgment of the Supreme court rendered on 9th August 2018 in Civil Appeal no.4235 of 2014, titled Board of Control for Cricket in India and others v. Cricket Association of Bihar and others along with other clubbed matters; (iii) Whether this Court can go into determination: whether or not the Memorandum of Association (MOA) prepared by CAAs of JKCA fully complies the mandate of the directions contained in the order of the Supreme Court dated 9th August 2018 passed in Civil Appeal no.4235 of 2014, titled Board of Control for Cricket in India and others v. Cricket Association of Bihar and others; (iv) Whether for effecting the amendment to the registered Memorandum of Association (MOA) of JKCA, it was incumbent upon CAAs of JKCA to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the Rules of JKCA registered in the year 1957, when JKCA was initially constituted and registered as Society under the J&K Societies Registration Act, 1998; and (v) What is the effect of non-compliance of the Rule 20 (supra) on the amended MOA prepared by CAA of JKCA and registered with Registrar of Societies on 3rd October 2018. 5. For proper appreciation of the aforesaid questions, settled on the basis of the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the record, it would be appropriate to take note of the sequence of events, which have led to the appointment of the Administrators by this Court and their subsequent conduct in the matter of formulating the new MOA of JKCA. 6. In the year 1957, on the initiative of Kashmir Cricket Club, a process for formation of JKCA was set in motion. 6. In the year 1957, on the initiative of Kashmir Cricket Club, a process for formation of JKCA was set in motion. A Sub-Committee, consisting of six members, headed by Qazi Ghulam Rasul, was set up to prepare the modalities for formation of JKCA of all the Clubs and Colleges in the State. On the basis of the report prepared by the aforesaid Sub-Committee, the Rules of JKCA were framed, and accordingly, JKCA was registered as a Society under the J&K Societies Registration Act, vide Registration no.S-41 dated 29th August 1957. Since then, JKCA has been representing the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in the field of cricket. 7. This goes without saying that with the passage of time, the sport of cricket has gained upsurge and has become the most popular game amongst the citizens. It is because of this huge popularity, which the game of cricket enjoys, that the other things, like money, power, glamour and fame, have also come to be associated with it. Like the Cricket Associations of other States and BCCI, the JKCA has also not remained unaffected. There has been infighting amongst its members, resulting into litigation during and after every election. Since with the game of cricket is also associated the money, power, glamour, name and fame, the big and powerful amongst the politicians and industrialists have been jostling to get the control of the affairs of the Association. This has caused the serious damage to the game of cricket. The BCCI, an Apex Body to control the game of cricket in India, too came to be afflicted with all kinds of vices, like infighting inter se, and squandering of the huge funds at its disposal. This made the Hon’ble Supreme Court to intervene in the matter in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and others v. Cricket Association of Bihar and others, (2016) 8 SCC 535 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court set the theme for overhauling of the affairs of BCCI. What was stated by the Supreme Court in the paragraph 06 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “6. We have heard at considerable length learned counsel for the parties and those appearing for the intervenors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set the theme for overhauling of the affairs of BCCI. What was stated by the Supreme Court in the paragraph 06 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “6. We have heard at considerable length learned counsel for the parties and those appearing for the intervenors. As noticed earlier the task assigned to the Committee was to recommend such changes in the rules and regulations of BCCI as would in the opinion of the Committee safeguard the interest of public at large in the sport of cricket, improve the ethical standards and discipline in the game, streamline and promote efficiency in the management of BCCI, provide accessibility and transparency, prevent conflict of interest situations and eradicate political and commercial interference and abuse and create mechanisms for resolution of disputes within the BCCI. The direction issued by this Court for all round reform in the working of the BCCI and the conduct of its affairs proceeded fundamentally on the juristic foundation that BCCI was discharging public functions and is, therefore, subject to the rigours of ‘Public Law’ making it mandatory for the BCCI to adhere to the principles of reasonableness, fairness, accountability and transparency.” 8. The Committee of Administrators (COA) under the chairmanship of the former Chief Justice of India, Justice R. M. Lodha, was tasked to recommend the wholesome reforms in the game of cricket in India. The recommendations in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court were laid before it, which were accepted vide judgment dated 18th July 2016 (supra). The COA, appointed by the Supreme Court, dealt with the disqualification of certain category of the persons from holding any office in the Association. The paragraphs 80 and 81 of the judgment of the Supreme Court take note of the relevant recommendations made by the COA of BCCI. While accepting the recommendations made by the COA of BCCI, the Supreme Court requested the COA to draw the appropriate timeline for implementation of the recommendations and supervise the implementation thereof. The paragraph 102 of the judgment is noteworthy and for expediency is reproduced hereunder: “102. In the result, we accept the report submitted by the Committee and the recommendations made therein with such modifications and clarifications as have been set out by us in the body of this judgment. The paragraph 102 of the judgment is noteworthy and for expediency is reproduced hereunder: “102. In the result, we accept the report submitted by the Committee and the recommendations made therein with such modifications and clarifications as have been set out by us in the body of this judgment. Having said that we must hasten to add that the implementation of the recommendations is equally important and ought to be achieved within a reasonable period. The transition from the old to the new system recommended by the Committee shall have to be under the watchful supervision of this Court. Constrains of time and the multiple dimensions of the recommendations made however make it difficult for us to take that supervisory role upon ourselves. The supervision of the transition can, in our opinion, be left to be undertaken by the Committee not only because it has a complete understanding of and insight into the nature of the problems sought to be remedied but also the ability to draw timelines for taking of steps necessary for the implementation of the proposed reforms. We are conscious of fact that the process may be time consuming but we hope that the same should be completed within a period of four months or at best six months from today. We, therefore, request the committee headed by Justice Lodha to draw appropriate timelines for implementation of the recommendations and supervise the implementation thereof.” 9. In short, the agenda for the wholesale reforms in the game of cricket was clearly set by the Supreme Court in the judgment delivered on 18th July 2016 (supra). It may be noted that the guidelines formulated by the COA of BCCI included the recommendations to the effect that the affiliate State Associations will also incorporate in their Rules the eligibility and other things in the Memorandum of Association/Constitutions by effecting the necessary amendments. The Supreme Court of India in the subsequent order passed on 2nd January 2017, made it clear that all office bearers of BCCI and of its affiliate State Associations, who fail to implement norms recommended by COA and accepted by the Supreme Court, would forthwith demit and cease to hold the office. The Supreme Court of India in the subsequent order passed on 2nd January 2017, made it clear that all office bearers of BCCI and of its affiliate State Associations, who fail to implement norms recommended by COA and accepted by the Supreme Court, would forthwith demit and cease to hold the office. It was further provided that as recommended by the COA, a person shall be disqualified from acting as the office bearer of the Association if he or she is not a citizen of India; has attained the age of seventy years; is declared to be insolvent or of unsound mind or is a government servant or a minister; holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from cricket; has been the office bearer of BCCI for a cumulative period of nine years; has been charged by a court of law for having committed any criminal offence. 10. As observed herein above, the Supreme Court had taken upon itself the task of monitoring the implementation of the reforms in the game of cricket, recommended by the COA of BCCI and approved by the Supreme Court with certain modifications. Like other affiliated State Associations of BCCI, the JKCA also came under an obligation to set its house in order and incorporate in its Rules/Constitution the recommendations of the COA of BCCI. The JKCA was, however, in total disarray, inflicted by the infighting between the rival groups; each one jostling to control the affairs of the Association. There were the serious allegations and the criminal prosecutions launched against its office bearers with regard to the huge financial bungling and squandering the funds of the Association. In this background, it was almost impossible for the existing body of JKCA to carry out the mandate of the directions of the Supreme Court. In this milieu and state of affairs, several writ petitions came to be filed before this Court, seeking slew of the directions to the respondents, which included BCCI as well, to make JKCA functional and elect its management in the light of the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court. In one of the petitions, a direction was also sought to quash the appointment of ombudsman. The appointment of the office bearers and their continuance in the office beyond their term of one year was also assailed. In one of the petitions, a direction was also sought to quash the appointment of ombudsman. The appointment of the office bearers and their continuance in the office beyond their term of one year was also assailed. All these petitions came to be clubbed under the lead case of OWP no.787/2017 titled Gurmeet Singh v. State of J&K and others and were decided by a Single Bench of this Court on 13th October 2017. Taking note of the sorry state of affairs in the management of JKCA and having found that the terms of office of the officer bearers had expired and they were no longer entitled to hold the office, this Court vide order dated appointed Mr. Justice C. K. Prasad, retired Judge of the Supreme Court and Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chief Justice of M.P. and Allahabad High Courts, to act as Administrators of JKCA with the following mandate: (a) that the administrators shall ensure that the Rules of JKCA are amended in conformity with the recommendations made by the Lodha Panel, which have been accepted by the Supreme Court; (b) that the administrators shall also ensure free and fair election; (c) the administrators shall be free to appoint an ombudsman to decide the disputes between the members affiliated to the Association (JKCA); 11. This order of the learned Single Judge came to be assailed before the learned Division Bench of this Court in five Letters Patent Appeals; two of which were filed by JKCA. All these Appeals too were clubbed together and were disposed of on 6th December 2017, under the lead case of Omkar Nath Pajnu and others v. J&K Cricket Association (LPA no.196/2017). The Division Bench of this Court concurred with the findings of the fact recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to the office bearers of JKCA having lost their authority to continue as office bearers and also that such office bearers had no authority to appoint the ombudsman. The Division Bench taking note of the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 25 of the Order of 2nd January 2017, clearly held that the term of the office bearers of JKCA, apart from those disqualified, cannot be said to be existing. The Division Bench taking note of the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 25 of the Order of 2nd January 2017, clearly held that the term of the office bearers of JKCA, apart from those disqualified, cannot be said to be existing. The Division Bench also concurred with the observations of the learned Single Judge with regard to the appointment of the Administrators for performing certain functions as delineated in the judgment of the Single Bench, but did not approve of the direction of the Single Bench, giving liberty to the Administrators to appoint the ombudsman. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was modified in the following manner: (i) that the disputes inter se different clubs affiliated to JKCA shall be resolved by ombudsman to be appointed by the Court and not by the committee of administrators; (ii) Mr Justice Syed Bashir-ud-din (retired) shall be the ombudsman to settle the dispute of different affiliated members of the Association; and (iii) there shall a Chief Executive Officer to assist the committee of administrators to manage the affairs of the association. Mr. Ashiq Hussain Bukhari, IPS, DIG, shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Association. 12. The rest of the directions of the Single Judge pertaining to the appointment of administrators and their mandate, however, were upheld by the Division Bench. 13. It has been stated that no further appeal was taken against the judgment of the Division Bench and, therefore, the same attained finality. The Court appointed Administrators took over the charge of the Association and embarked upon the exercise to carry out the mandate of the directions passed by this Court. 14. While the Committee of Administrators (COAs) was in the process of carrying out the mandate of the Single Bench of this Court as upheld by the Division Bench, there was further development in BCCI case, monitored by the Supreme Court. The draft Constitution of the BCCI and the suggestions received thereto from the State Cricket Associations and other parties together with the comments of the COA of BCCI on the proposed suggestions was submitted to the Supreme Court by way of the status report dated 12th January 2018. The draft Constitution of the BCCI and the suggestions received thereto from the State Cricket Associations and other parties together with the comments of the COA of BCCI on the proposed suggestions was submitted to the Supreme Court by way of the status report dated 12th January 2018. On 1st May 2018, the Supreme Court, taking note of the suggestions to the draft Constitution and with a view to finalising the same, issued the directions in the following manner: “A draft Constitution meant for the B.C.C.I. and its Office Bearers has been filed on 27.10.2017. Suggestions to the same by various State Cricket Associations have also been filed and the same have been attached to the draft Constitution. The draft Constitution shall be finalized by this Court. In the meantime, if any State Cricket Association intends to file any further suggestion, they may submit the same in bullet points to Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae, who shall compile the suggestions and file it before this Court within three days. It is hereby made clear that the draft Constitution approved by this Court shall not be debated upon and shall stand finalized, only subject to the determination made in the applications for recall of the primary judgment, pending adjudication before this Court. Let the matter be listed on 11.5.2018.” 15. The Supreme Court considered the suggestions made by all stakeholders to the draft Constitution by COA and after threadbare discussion, accepted the draft Constitution submitted by the COA on 27th October 2017, subject to certain modifications detailed in the judgment/order dated 9th August 2018. Paragraph 40 of the judgment is of great significance and is, therefore, reproduced hereunder: “40. Having regard to the fact that the draft constitution submitted by the CoA on 27 October 2017 has now been approved by this Court subject to the aforesaid modifications, we issue the following directions: 1. The Registrar of Societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 shall upon the presentation of the said Constitution by the CEO, register the documents forthwith and report compliance by way of a report to the Secretary General of this Court within four weeks; 2. Upon the registration of the said Constitution of BCCI, each of the members shall undertake registration of their respective Constitutions on similar lines within a period of 30 days thereafter. Upon the registration of the said Constitution of BCCI, each of the members shall undertake registration of their respective Constitutions on similar lines within a period of 30 days thereafter. A compliance certificate must be furnished to the CoA, which shall file a status report before this Court with reference to the compliance undertaken by the State Associations; and 3. In the event that any State Association does not undertake compliance with the above said directions, the directions contained in the orders of this Court dated 7 October 2016 and 21 October 2016 shall revive.” 16. This goes without saying that the directions in the paragraph 40 of the order dated 9th August 2018, have an overriding effect upon the directions issued by this Court which have been taken note of herein above. There is, thus, significant change in the mandate of the CAA of JKCA. As per direction (1) contained in paragraph 40, the draft Constitution prepared by COA of BCCI and approved by the Supreme Court, subject to the modification enumerated in the order dated 9th August 2018, has been taken to be the final Constitution of BCCI, to be registered with the Registrar of Societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and as per the direction (2), each of the members of the BCCI, which would include JKCA as well, is mandated to undertake registration of their respective Constitutions on similar lines, providing further that a compliance certificate in this regard would be furnished by the affiliate Members/Associations to the COA of BCCI, which shall file the status report before the Supreme Court with reference to the compliance undertaken by the State Associations. The mandate of CAAs of JKCA, thus, is to undertake the registration of the Constitution on the lines of the BCCI Constitution registered in terms of direction (1). It is, thus, clear that in terms of the order dated 9th August 2018, passed by the Supreme Court, the JKCA, like other BCCI affiliate Associations has been put under an obligation to formulate its Constitution and register the same with the competent authority on the lines it has been so done by the BCCI. It is, thus, clear that in terms of the order dated 9th August 2018, passed by the Supreme Court, the JKCA, like other BCCI affiliate Associations has been put under an obligation to formulate its Constitution and register the same with the competent authority on the lines it has been so done by the BCCI. To put it succinctly, the affiliated Associations, including JKCA, are obligated to bring their respective Constitutions in line with the Constitution of BCCI, prepared by COA and approved by the Supreme Court subject to the modifications made by the Supreme Court in terms of the order dated 9th August 2018. 17. Furthermore, it would be significant to note that each affiliate member of the BCCI, which was mandated to register its Constitution on the similar lines was also obligated to submit a compliance report to the COAs of BCCI, and it is the COA, who shall examine the Constitution of BCCI affiliate members and submit status report before the Supreme Court with reference to the compliance undertaken by the State Associations. In short, the authority to determine whether the Constitution of the affiliate member of BCCI is on the lines of the Constitution of BCCI, has been conferred upon the COA appointed by the Supreme Court. In the backdrop of the position narrated above and in the light of the latest directions of the Supreme Court passed on 9th August 2018, the mandate of the CAA of JKCA is, inter alia, to ensure framing and registration of the Constitution of JKCA on the lines of BCCI. This answers the question (i) formulated herein above. 18. The contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the CAAs were only enjoined to ensure that the Constitution of the Association is amended to incorporate only the recommendations of Lodha Panel, may not be fully correct. Much water has flown since the Lodha Panel first submitted its report before the Supreme Court. As noted above, after the Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of the Lodha Panel in principle, a direction was issued to the Lodha Panel (COA) to prepare the draft Constitution of BCCI, to incorporate its recommendations as approved by the Supreme Court. The objections/comments to the draft Constitution were invited from all stakeholders, including the State Associations. The matter was considered threadbare and a comprehensive order was passed by the Supreme Court on 9th August 2018. The objections/comments to the draft Constitution were invited from all stakeholders, including the State Associations. The matter was considered threadbare and a comprehensive order was passed by the Supreme Court on 9th August 2018. The draft Constitution, prepared by COA with the modifications as directed in the order dated 9th August 2018 was approved by the Supreme Court, and a direction was issued to COAs to register the same with the Registrar of Societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. After finalising the Constitution of BCCI, the Supreme Court directed the State Associations to fall in line with BCCI and upgrade their Constitutions to bring them on the lines of the Constitution of BCCI. With the aforesaid directions issued by the Supreme Court, there remained no ambiguity with regard to the affiliate State Associations of BCCI that they were clearly mandated to frame/amend and register their Constitutions on the similar lines, that is, on the lines it had been done by COA with regard to the Constitution of BCCI. 19. Insofar as the questions 2 and 3 are concerned, they are interconnected and pertain to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petitions on hand. In this regard, it may be pointed out that in view of the unambiguous and unequivocal directions contained in paragraph 40 of the order dated 9th August 2018, passed by the Supreme Court, I am afraid that this Court can still determine as to whether the Memorandum of Association/Constitution of JKCA, registered by CAA, is in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court or the recommendations of COAs as approved by the Supreme Court. 20. It may be stated that each affiliate Association, which would include JKCA as well, is enjoined to register its Constitution in lines with the Constitution of BCCI. Whether the Constitution, registered by the affiliate Association is in line with the registered Constitution of BCCI, is a question to be determined by COAs of BCCI, appointed by the Supreme Court in terms of direction (2) (supra). The COAs of BCCI have been enjoined to submit the status report before the Supreme Court informing the latter with regard to the compliance undertaken by the State Associations. The COAs of BCCI have further been authorised to move the Supreme Court for appropriate directions as may be warranted and to secure the compliance. The COAs of BCCI have been enjoined to submit the status report before the Supreme Court informing the latter with regard to the compliance undertaken by the State Associations. The COAs of BCCI have further been authorised to move the Supreme Court for appropriate directions as may be warranted and to secure the compliance. In nutshell, the Supreme Court is still monitoring the implementation of its directions issued from time to time. The COAs of BCCI have already framed their Constitution and the same with the modifications suggested by the Supreme Court, has been registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. So far, the affiliate members/Associations are concerned, they too have been put under obligation to undertake the similar exercise and register their respective Constitutions on similar lines. The State Associations are further enjoined to furnish the compliance certificate in this regard to COA of BCCI, who shall file the status report before the Supreme Court with reference to the compliance undertaken by the State Associations. In case of failure by any State Associations to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court and to register their Constitution on the lines of the Constitution of BCCI, the COAs have been further authorised to seek the appropriate directions from the Supreme Court as may be warranted to secure such compliance. 21. In the face of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that this Court cannot entertain the plea of the petitioners that the Constitution/Memorandum of Association, registered by the CAA of JKCA is not in conformity with the Lodha Panel and that they have gone beyond their mandate. At this stage, it would be appropriate to take note of the 10th Status Report dated 28th October 2018, submitted by COA of BCCI before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the aforesaid status report, the COA has put JKCA in Category “C”, which contains a list of the affiliate State Associations, who have substantially complied with the directions of the Supreme Court, but are yet to do more to fully comply with the directions. In the aforesaid status report, the COAs have, inter alia, also sought a direction to Category “C” State Associations to further amend their respective new Constitutions in the light of corrective amendments communicated to them by the COAs. In the aforesaid status report, the COAs have, inter alia, also sought a direction to Category “C” State Associations to further amend their respective new Constitutions in the light of corrective amendments communicated to them by the COAs. The aforesaid status report is stated to be pending consideration of the Supreme Court. 22. It may also be worthwhile to notice that the Constitution/MOA, registered by CAA of JKCA, has not been fully accepted by the COA of BCCI and it has suggested necessary corrections/amendments in the Constitution to bring it in line with the Constitution of BCCI. A communication in this regard has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for BCCI. The relevant para whereof deserves to be reproduced hereunder: “Your attention is also drawn to the email dated 29th October 2018 addressed by the Committee of Administrators to all State Associations regarding membership structure. The Committee of Administrators is yet to receive a response from your association to the said email. While the issue of granting automatic membership to former international cricketers (men and women) is addressed in the attached corrective amendments, further corrective amendments may be identified after considering your response (once received) on the issue of how your association has divorced/separate the membership of any social club that is part of your association from the administration of cricket. Accordingly, kindly respond to the said email at the earliest in order for the Committee of Administrators to ascertain what (if any) further corrective amendments may be required in your constitution.(Emphasis supplied) 23. This communication is in line with the directions of the Supreme Court and the mandate of the COAs appointed by the Supreme Court with respect to BCCI. As per the amendment/corrections to JKCA Constitution suggested by the Supreme Court appointed Administrators, the issue, which has been primarily raised in these petitions, is already taken cognisance of and JKCA has been called upon to submit its response. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate for this Court to comment on the issue which is already pending consideration of the authority, i.e. the Supreme Court appointed Administrators. 24. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate for this Court to comment on the issue which is already pending consideration of the authority, i.e. the Supreme Court appointed Administrators. 24. That apart, the determination of the issue as to whether the Constitution of JKCA is in line with the Constitution of BCCI and the recommendations of the Lodha Panel as approved by the Supreme Court, lies within the domain of the Supreme Court appointed Administrators in light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its Order dated 9th August 2018. This obviates the necessity of going into the rival claims on the issue articulated by the parties. 25. Questions 4 and 5 too are interconnected and would indirectly touch upon the extent of the mandate of the CAA of JKCA. If we look to the directions of the Single Judge as approved by the Division Bench, the CAAs have been enjoined to ensure that the Constitution of the Association is amended to incorporate the recommendations made by the Lodha Panel and also to ensure the conduct of free and fair elections in consonance therewith. It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Constitution of JKCA could have been amended by following the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the Constitution registered in the year 1957, and therefore the exercise undertaken by CAAs in framing new Constitution of JKCA and registering the same with the registering authority, is dehors the Rule 20. The argument raised on the face of it is attractive but on close scrutiny it is found to be without substance. This is so, because the amendment, which was to be undertaken by CAA, was not an amendment to the Constitution, which is taken in routine to provide for or delete certain provisions. The amendment is mandated to incorporate the changes in the whole structure of the Association to bring it in line with the changes effected by the BCCI pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India. For dealing with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 20 hereunder: “20. The amendment is mandated to incorporate the changes in the whole structure of the Association to bring it in line with the changes effected by the BCCI pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India. For dealing with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 20 hereunder: “20. Alterations of Rules The rules of the Association shall only be altered at an Extraordinary General Council Meeting convened for the purpose by the General Secretary either at the discretion of the Committee or in pursuance of a requisition signed by at least 20 member stating the proposed alteration and giving the names of the proposer and seconder. Proposed alterations in the Rules shall be circulated to all affiliated Clubs and members 21 days prior to the meeting but no alterations in the Rules of the Association shall be made unless supported by at least three fourths of the members present and eligible to vote or a quarter of the total strength whichever is greater. Alterations in rules, when made, shall have immediate effect, unless decided otherwise by the resolution itself.” 26. As per the Rule 20, the rules of the Association can only be altered at an Extraordinary General Meeting convened for the purpose by the General Secretary either at the discretion of the Committee or in pursuance of the requisition signed by, at least, 20 members, stating the proposed alteration and giving the names of the proposer and seconder. In the backdrop of the aforesaid rule position, the question now arises for consideration is: whether in view of the judgment of this Court wherein it has been categorically held that the elected office bearers of JKCA have ceased to exist, whether the mandate of Rule 20 could have been carried. Admittedly, there is no General Secretary to convene the meeting nor there is any President to preside the same. Most of the members of the Association, which would constitute General Council, have now stood disqualified in view of the recommendations of the Lodha Panel as approved by the Supreme Court and the subsequent directions issued by the Supreme Court from time to time. Most of the members of the Association, which would constitute General Council, have now stood disqualified in view of the recommendations of the Lodha Panel as approved by the Supreme Court and the subsequent directions issued by the Supreme Court from time to time. That apart, I am also not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners for the reason that the convening of Extraordinary General Council meeting of JKCA for adopting the amendments to the Bylaws as directed by the Supreme Court was only an empty formality. There was clear mandate from the Supreme Court to register the Constitutions on the lines of BCCI. The directions, issued by the Supreme Court, are clear and are not mere suggestions, which could have been offered for considerations to the General Council. For this twin reasons: one presently there is no office bearer of JKCA in existence and fractured General Council; and second, that putting these amendments to General Council was only a formality as there were positive directions by the Supreme Court to be carried out without any further discussions or considerations. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, was also confronted with such like situation in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. M. Govind Reddy and others (WP(PIL) no.16 of 2017), the Division Bench while dealing with the similar question in paragraph 51 of the judgment held thus: “51. While we have no difficulty in accepting the first suggestion that there is no necessity to convene a Special General Meeting for adopting the amendments suggested to the Bye-laws, we have difficulty in accepting the second suggestion of the respondents about their patching up. On the first question, the law is very clear. Convening of a Special General meeting for adopting the amendments to the Bye-laws as directed by the Supreme Court, is only an empty formality. The directions of the Supreme Court are positive in nature and they are not mere suggestions offered for the consideration of the General Body of the State Cricket Associations. In fact, in one of the previous orders passed by this Court, this Court toyed with the idea of directing the amendments to be registered without a General Meeting. The directions of the Supreme Court are positive in nature and they are not mere suggestions offered for the consideration of the General Body of the State Cricket Associations. In fact, in one of the previous orders passed by this Court, this Court toyed with the idea of directing the amendments to be registered without a General Meeting. The relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 26.4.2018 is extracted in paragraph-12 above. But the hope expressed by this Court in its order dated 26.4.2018 is now belied, in the light of the fact that serious objections have been raised to the correctness of the amendments so far carried out. Therefore, we are of the view that even without calling for a Special General Meeting, the amendments as ordered by the Supreme Court can be effected and got registered in the office of the Sub Registrar.” (underlined by me) 27. I am persuaded to follow the judgment of the High Court of Hyderabad and held that non-compliance with the Rule 20 of JKCA, would not vitiate the exercise undertaken by CAA. That apart, the issue is now before the Supreme Court appointed Administrators and the grievance as projected by the petitioners in these petitions, has been well taken cognisance of by them. The JKCA through CAA has already been called upon to respond with regard to their decision of divorcing membership of social club, which was earlier part of JKCA from the administration of cricket. It is upon receipt of response from JKCA that the Supreme Court appointed Administrators have to take a call. 28. During the course of the argument, it has also been brought to my notice that the similar issue raised in some petitions is pending adjudication before the Division Bench of this Court at Jammu Wing, but no order from the Division Bench has been brought to my notice. There was near consensus amongst lawyers appearing for the parties that the pendency of the plea before the Division Bench would not take away the jurisdiction of the Single Bench to adjudicate on the issues raised in these petitions. There was near consensus amongst lawyers appearing for the parties that the pendency of the plea before the Division Bench would not take away the jurisdiction of the Single Bench to adjudicate on the issues raised in these petitions. Since this Court has only proceeded to consider the matter in light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court on the subject and, therefore, pendency of similar plea, if any, before the Division Bench in the writ petitions may not be impediment in disposal of these petitions. Hence, for the reasons explained above, this Court is not inclined to entertain these petitions. 29. For all what has been discussed above, the writ petitions on hand are not found maintainable and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated. This, however, shall not preclude the petitioners to voice their grievance either before the Supreme Court appointed Administrators or before the Supreme Court, which is monitoring the implementation of its directions contained in the Order dated 9th August 2018.