JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. Two accomplished shuttle badminton players of the State of Kerala are before us in these proceedings challenging their exclusion from the Women’s team that was selected to represent India at the 2018 Asian Games. The event is scheduled to be held at Jakarta, Indonesia, between 18th and 29th of August 2018. 2. Aggrieved by their exclusion from the team, as well as the inclusion of two other players therein, the writ petitioners preferred W.P.(C).No.21900 of 2018 before a Single Judge of this Court. By way of interim reliefs, directions were sought to the Badminton Association of India to refrain from sending the select list of players to the Indian Olympic Association, as also to restrain the said respondents from permitting the two included players – arrayed as the 6th and 7th respondents in the writ petition – to participate in the Asian Games. The said interim reliefs were refused by the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 10.07.2018, on the finding that the last date for sending the names of players for the Asian Games was 30.06.2018, and the writ petition itself was filed only on 02.07.2018. The belated approach before this court was seen as reason enough to deny the interim relief. The writ petitioners therefore filed W.A.Nos.1410 and 1411 of 2018 before this Court, aggrieved by the denial of interim reliefs. When the appeals came for admission, noticing the urgency projected on behalf of the appellants, we deemed it appropriate to call for the writ petition itself before this court so as to finally decide the main issue agitated therein. It is thus that the present writ appeals and writ petition are before us. 3. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants, the learned senior counsel Sri. Bechu Kurien Thomas would submit that the selection for the national team is based on the performance of the players in two selection tournaments – one at Bangalore and the other at Hyderabad – and in the said tournaments, the petitioners had obtained a total of 850 points for their participation in the women’s doubles events. Bechu Kurien Thomas would submit that the selection for the national team is based on the performance of the players in two selection tournaments – one at Bangalore and the other at Hyderabad – and in the said tournaments, the petitioners had obtained a total of 850 points for their participation in the women’s doubles events. It is pointed out that the points earned were consequent to their reaching the finals, and being declared winners, in one tournament and reaching the semi-finals in the other and, although respondents 6 and 7 had also participated in the women’s singles events in both the said tournaments, their achievements were not as commendable as that of the petitioners. It is his further submission that the national women’s team is to comprise of ten players, and after selection of two singles players and a doubles pair, the selectors had the option of selecting two additional singles players as reserve players for the singles events and a doubles pair as reserve for the doubles event. Had that course been adopted, the petitioners would have made the cut as the reserve doubles pair. Contrary to that, however, the selection committee opted for four reserve singles players and no reserve doubles pair, leading to the exclusion of the petitioners, and the inclusion of respondents 6 and 7, who were taken in based on their performance in the singles event at the selection tournaments. The decision of the selection committee, to prefer two additional singles players to a doubles pair, is stated to be on account of the fact that the 6th respondent is the daughter of the 5th respondent who, in his capacity as the Chief National Coach, is also a member of the selection committee. The decision in A.K. Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.– [ AIR 1970 SC 150 ] is relied upon to contend that the presence of the 5th respondent, in the selection committee that selected the 6th respondent, is vitiated on account of bias. 4. In his challenge to the order dated 10.07.2018 of the learned single judge, refusing the interim reliefs prayed for on the ground that the writ petition had been filed belatedly, the learned senior counsel would submit that the cut-off date of 30.06.2018 is not an inflexible one, and changes can be made to the team in exceptional circumstances. 4. In his challenge to the order dated 10.07.2018 of the learned single judge, refusing the interim reliefs prayed for on the ground that the writ petition had been filed belatedly, the learned senior counsel would submit that the cut-off date of 30.06.2018 is not an inflexible one, and changes can be made to the team in exceptional circumstances. It is contended that the present is a case that calls for invocation of the special circumstances, since the rights of the petitioners have been infringed pursuant to a legally flawed decision of the selection committee. 5. Percontra, Sri. Nalin Kohli learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Badminton Association of India, would submit, based on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondent, that the selection of players for the Indian Women’s team was done pursuant to a transparent procedure that was followed for informing all concerned of the criteria for selection. It is stated that, the criteria fixed were in sharp contrast to the practice that was followed in earlier years when irregularities were detected and brought to the notice of the Association. The present selection criteria is stated to be an objective one, based on the performance of players in specified selection tournaments and the points scored by them as per the Indian ranking system 2009. It is submitted that the petitioners were awarded points based on their performance in the doubles event at the selection tournaments, and respondents 6 and 7 based on their performance in the singles event at the said tournaments. In the absence of any challenge by the petitioners, to the selection criteria published by the Association, it is submitted that the petitioners cannot question the points awarded to players, based on their performance in the event in which they participated at the selection tournaments. 6. Responding to the submissions made with regard to the decision of the selection committee, it is submitted that the ultimate decision as to the players who would constitute the Indian women’s team for the Asian Games is at the discretion of the selection committee, and so long as the said discretion is exercised fairly and without mala fides, the ultimate decision of the selection committee is not justiciable in a court of law. In the instant case, it is pointed out, the decision to choose two additional singles players rather than an extra doubles pair, was taken based on the committees assessment of the competition expected at the Asian Games, and the said decision has necessarily to be left to the body having the expertise to decide such issues. As regards the allegation of bias raised by the petitioners, it is submitted that in a selection committee constituted to select players for the Indian Team, the Chief National Coach is the most important constituent. In the absence of any material to suggest other wise, it would be unreasonable to assume that the Chief National Coach would sacrifice the interests of the nation to further the personal interests of his daughter. This is more so when there is no dispute that based on the points earned at the selection tournaments, the 6th respondent was equally eligible to gain entry into the national team. Learned Counsel would place reliance on the following judgments to fortify his submissions : [unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 7.11.2017 in W.P. (C).No.5271/2014 [Major Dr. Surendra Poonia v. Badminton Association of India and Ors.], order dated 6.7.2018 in W.P.(C).No.6823/2018 and C.M.Nos.25943 & 25945/2018 [Varsha Gautham v. Union of India and Others], order dated 6.7.2018 in W.P.(C).No.6943/2018 & C.M.Nos.26340 & 26374/2018 [Jakka Sowjanya Reddy, Through Her Attorney v. Union of India and Others], judgment dated 9.7.2018 in W.P.(C).No.6808/2018 and C.M.No.25887/2018 [Balaji Vijay Shankar and Another v. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and Ors.] and order dated 11.7.2018 in W.P. (C).No.6943/2018 and C.M.Nos.26340 & 26374/2018 [Jakka Sowjanya Reddy, Through Her Attorney v. Union of India and Others]]. 7. Sri. Kohli would also submit that the writ petition was filed beyond the last date notified for sending the names of players to the host committee in charge of holding the Asian Games in Jakarta. Reference is made to Ext.R2(h) Badminton Sport Technical Handbook, published by the Indonesia Asian Games Organizing Committee, to indicate that the deadline for submitting entries by name is June 30, 2018. He vehemently denies the suggestion that there could be changes effected in exceptional circumstances. It is pointed out that the handbook referred above indicates that a withdrawal of names after the deadline visits the defaulting team with disciplinary action. He vehemently denies the suggestion that there could be changes effected in exceptional circumstances. It is pointed out that the handbook referred above indicates that a withdrawal of names after the deadline visits the defaulting team with disciplinary action. Instances have been cited where changes were not permitted at previous international events and it is submitted that, at any rate, there are no exceptional circumstances, such as injury or medical exigencies, in the instant case justifying an attempt at recasting the list already finalised and dispatched to Jakarta. 8. An additional point raised by Sri. Kohli, as an alternate contention, is with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition before this court. It is submitted that the cause of action in the instant case arose in Bangalore, where the selection committee met to select the team. As a consequence, only the High Court of Karnataka would have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants would counter the said submission by pointing out that inasmuch as the application for participation in the selection tournaments had to be routed through the regional badminton association, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdictional limits of this court and consequently, this court would be justified in adjudicating the matter. 9. We have carefully considered the pleadings in the writ petition and writ appeals and also the submissions made by counsel at the bar. We have also heard Sri. Paul Jacob, the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1410 & 1411/2018 and the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.21900/2018, Smt. C.G. Preetha, the learned Central Government counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri. Zakeer Hussain, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Smt. Latha Anand, the learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent, Sri. Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, Sri. Midhun Kumar Allu, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent, Sri. P.I. Davis, the learned counsel for the 7th respondent and Sri. John Varghese, the learned counsel for the 8th respondent. Notwithstanding the fervent and persuasive plea of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants, we are afraid that, for the reasons that are set out herein below, the action must necessarily fail. 10. P.I. Davis, the learned counsel for the 7th respondent and Sri. John Varghese, the learned counsel for the 8th respondent. Notwithstanding the fervent and persuasive plea of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants, we are afraid that, for the reasons that are set out herein below, the action must necessarily fail. 10. The Badminton Association of India had, through the notification dated 08.05.2018, produced as Ext.R2(a) along with the counter affidavit filed on its behalf, informed the players of the sport, through the respective State Associations and Public Sector Undertakings, of the conduct of two national ranking tournaments purely for the purposes of selection of the Indian Team, for Men and Women, in the Singles, Doubles and Mixed Doubles events. Based on their international ranking, four players viz. P.V.Sindhu, Saina Nehwal, Ashwini Ponnappa and N. Sikki Reddy were exempted from participating in the tournaments, thereby indicating that four slots, out of ten in the women’s team, had already been filled. The competition at the two selection tournaments, to be held at Bangalore and Hyderabad, was essentially for determining the remaining six players who would constitute the Indian Women’s team for the Asian Games at Jakarta. The selection committee was to meet at Hyderabad on 24.05.2018 for identifying the said six players. 11. At the selection tournaments, the writ petitioners emerged the winners in the doubles event at Bangalore and semi-finalists in the doubles event at Hyderabad. Respondents 6 and 7, who are both singles players, also fared reasonably well in the singles event, with the 6th respondent reaching the quarter-final at Bangalore and the semi-final at Hyderabad. For the six slots remaining to be filled for the Indian team, two singles players viz. Sai Uttejita Rao and Ashmita Chaliha and one doubles pai viz. Rutaparna Panda and Aarthi Sunil were identified for four slots. That the said persons had higher points warranting their selection to the available slots is not disputed by the writ petitioners. As for the remaining two slots, the option for the selection committee was, either to pick two singles players or a doubles pair. Had the committee opted for the doubles pair, the petitioners would have been in the team. The committee, however, opted for the two singles players. 12. As for the remaining two slots, the option for the selection committee was, either to pick two singles players or a doubles pair. Had the committee opted for the doubles pair, the petitioners would have been in the team. The committee, however, opted for the two singles players. 12. The selection committee, in the instant case, comprised of the following persons, as seen from the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent; I. Chairman – Dr. Himanta Biswa Sarma, President Badminton Association of India. II. Convenor – Mr. Ajay Singhania, General Secretary, Badminton Association of India. III. Pullela Gopichand, Chief National Coach IV. SM Arif, Ex-Chief National Coach V. U.Vimal Kumar, Ex-Chief National Coach VI. Partho Ganguly, Ex-International Player VII. Mallika Baruah, Ex-International Player VIII. Manjusha Kanwar, Ex-International Player IX. Aparna Popat, Ex-International Player and National Observer 13. It can be seen from the composition of the committee that the Chief National Coach is an important constituent thereof, for he is the person most suited to speak on the inter-se merit among players who equally merit inclusion in the national team. Equally important is his choice of the event for which players must be included. As a national coach, his assessment of the ground realities that are likely to be faced in the upcoming international event has to be given due weightage. He is, in other words, an indispensable constituent of the selection committee. We make this observation because we are faced with a challenge to the composition of the selection committee in the instant case, on account of the fact that the 6th respondent, who was chosen for inclusion in the women’s team, happens to be the daughter of the Chief National Coach. The issue we have been called to answer is whether, on account of his presence in the selection committee, the selection of the 6th respondent can be seen as vitiated. 14. The issue we have been called to answer is whether, on account of his presence in the selection committee, the selection of the 6th respondent can be seen as vitiated. 14. While the decision in Kraipak's case (Supra)no doubt mandates that fairness in any selection process would require that persons, who are likely to influence the decision of the other members of the committee, should not be constituents in a committee before which their close relatives may appear as candidates, we are of the view that, in a case such as the present, where the selection is to the national team, the Chief National Coach has to be seen as a necessary and indispensable constituent of the committee. This is because his knowledge and assessment of the skill of a player, as a Chief National Coach, based on his close supervision of their performance at national ranking tournaments, is unique, and the inputs that he provides cannot be expected from any other member of the selection committee. He is also the one who will closely associate with the players, and assess the competition that can be expected at the international events. His opinion, as to whether the need of the hour is for additional singles players or doubles players is, therefore, crucial and cannot be ignored. In the absence of any material to doubt the integrity of the 5th respondent, we are of the view that it would be unfair, if not unreasonable, to assume that the Chief National Coach of our country would sacrifice national interest, in order to further his personal interest or that of his daughter. The fact that the 6th respondent also has the necessary credentials for inclusion in the national team, through the points earned by her at the selection tournaments, leads us to uphold the decision of the selection committee as one that is not vitiated on account of any bias, or even a real likelihood of it. 15. The question then arises as to whether, in the absence of bias, the decision of the selection committee can be said to be vitiated on any other ground. In this connection it must be noted that the selection procedure that was followed was a fair and transparent one. 15. The question then arises as to whether, in the absence of bias, the decision of the selection committee can be said to be vitiated on any other ground. In this connection it must be noted that the selection procedure that was followed was a fair and transparent one. The players aspiring for inclusion in the national team were informed of the basis on which they would be awarded points, and the tournaments in which they had to participate in order to earn those points. That having been done, the decision as to whether the last two slots in the team had to be filled by two singles players or a doubles pair has to be seen as one that was within the discretion of the selection committee. We are of the view that, in the absence of any material to suggest malafides or patent illegality, we must defer to the wisdom of the selection committee, the expert body in these matters, for they are better suited to take decisions on the relative merit of players, more so in national interest. 16. We may now refer to the objection raised by Sri. Kohli, as regards the territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the present action. Sri Kohli relies upon the decision in Alchemist Limited & Anr. v. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors., [ (2007) 11 SCC 335 ] to trace the development of law, pursuant to the amendment of Art.226 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment, Act, 1976, and contends that the High Court can issue writs, even when the person or authority to whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, only if the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within the High Courts territorial jurisdiction. In the instant case, it is pointed out, the exclusion of the petitioners from the Indian team happened at the meeting of the selection committee in Bangalore and hence, only the High Court of Karnataka would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. Per Contra, Sri. In the instant case, it is pointed out, the exclusion of the petitioners from the Indian team happened at the meeting of the selection committee in Bangalore and hence, only the High Court of Karnataka would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. Per Contra, Sri. Bechu Kurien Thomas would contend that the applications for participation at the selection tournaments, which was the criteria for seeking selection to the Indian team, had to be routed through the respective State Badminton Associations and hence, insofar as the applications of the petitioners’ were routed through the 3rd respondent, located in Kozhikode, a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. 17. On a perusal of the decisions in Alchemist Limited (Supra), Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basuand Ors., [ (1994) 4 SCC 711 ], Union of India and Ors. v. Adani Exports Limited & Anr. [ (2002) 1 SCC 567 ], Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited v. Union of India and Another – [ (2004) 6 SCC 254 ] and the Full Bench decisions of this court in Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant – [ 1999 (3) KLT 629 ] and Dental Council of India (DCI) v. Dr. V. Viswanath and Ors. – [ 2018 (3) KHC 143 (FB)], we are inclined to agree with Sri. Kohli that, no part of the cause of action, in the instant case, arose within the territorial limits of this court. It is important to note that there is a distinction between a “right of action” and a “cause of action”. As noted by this court in Anand Anoop v. Union of India – [ 2014 (3) KLT 171 ], based on the distinction drawn by the learned author Durga Das Basu in his Commentary on the Constitution of India (8th Edn, 2010), the terms “right of action” and “cause of action” are neither synonymous nor interchangeable. A right of action arises as soon as there is an invasion of a right, and it is a right to enforce a cause of action. A right of action arises as soon as there is an invasion of a right, and it is a right to enforce a cause of action. A person residing anywhere in the country, being aggrieved by an order of the Government, Central or State, or authority or person, may have a right of action in law, but the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 can be invoked only when the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction, either wholly or in part. The classic definition of “cause of action” is to be found in the judgment of Lord Esher MR in Read v. Brown – [1888 (22) QBD 128], that has been applied in a host of judgments of our Supreme Court, where it is stated that “cause of action” refers to every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved. Applying the said test to the facts before us, it is clear that the challenge to the exclusion from the national team depends, for its success, on the establishment by the petitioners’, of factors that would vitiate the decision of the selection committee. The deliberation of the selection committee having been at Bangalore, we would think that the High Court at Karnataka would be more suited to adjudicate upon this issue. We cannot accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners’ that, merely because the applications for participation at the selection tournaments were routed through an authority in Kerala, the said fact would clothe this court with territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. The routing of the applications, or even the participation in the selection tournaments at Bangalore and Hyderabad, were not required to be proved for establishing the right claimed by the petitioners’ viz. a right to preferential selection from among players, all of who were found equally eligible, after their participation at the selection tournaments. 18. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the selection committee, impugned in these proceedings. Consequently, we dismiss the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeals. a right to preferential selection from among players, all of who were found equally eligible, after their participation at the selection tournaments. 18. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the selection committee, impugned in these proceedings. Consequently, we dismiss the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeals. Before parting with this case, we might observe that our sympathies are with the writ petitioners who, despite their superlative performance at the selection tournaments, could not make the final cut to the Indian Women’s team. Defeat is inevitable in any competitive sport and the petitioners herein, being experienced sports persons, must know that only too well. The agony that inevitably follows a defeat, however, must be endured only for a fleeting moment, for after that, they must gather the courage and resolve to lift up their spirits and move on. It is at times like these that the petitioners should take advantage of the years of training put in by them to come to terms with the situation, and take defeat in their stride. We truly hope that our verdict today will not dampen the spirit of these talented youngsters.