ORDER : Aggrieved by the action of Respondents 2 to 4 in demanding Petitioner to share Aadhar OTP verification, petitioner is before this Court. 2. At the time of admission of Writ Petition, this Court, considering the material on record, passed interim order dated 06.11.2024 which is extracted hereunder: “Notice before admission. Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Aditya Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Sports takes notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and seeks time to file counter affidavit. Sri N. Gangadhar, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Cricket Association takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and seeks time to file counter affidavit. List on 20.11.2024. Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel draws attention of this Court to the recent judgment, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of Circular No.08 of 2023 issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). In the said circular, it was clarified that while an Aadhar card may be used to establish identity, it does not serve as conclusive proof of date of birth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further highlights the unreasonable nature of the respondents demand for Aadhar OTP verification. In view of the same, learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner possess other documents such as Passport, birth certificate, study certificates from 6th to 9th grade and Aadhar card which satisfy the BCCI's residency and identity verification requirement. However, ignoring these valid documents, respondent No.2 is insisting for Aadhar OTP verification which, according to the learned Senior Counsel is arbitrary and unjust and obstructing petitioner to participate in the tournament. In view of the above noted clarification rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there shall be interim direction as prayed for 3. During the course of hearing, it is informed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao that Interim Order passed by this Court was not implemented by Respondent No. 2 to 4. 4. The basic contention of Petitioner is that he is aged 15 years and he played league matches conducted by Respondent No. 2 and represented Respondent No. 2 State team, participated in inter-state zonal matches for U-14 age group for the season 2022-23. 4. The basic contention of Petitioner is that he is aged 15 years and he played league matches conducted by Respondent No. 2 and represented Respondent No. 2 State team, participated in inter-state zonal matches for U-14 age group for the season 2022-23. He played Respondent No.2 leagues for the last three years and was the captain for U-14 Hyderabad team in South Zone Boys League Tournament held in Goa. He also was the top performer in U-16 inter-school and junior college tournament and scored a total of 444 runs and is consistently among the highest scores in district level tournaments. While matters stood thus, on 03.10.2024, at around 9:26 pm, the father of Petitioner received a call from the representative of Respondent No. 2 on his mobile number and demanded to provide One Time Password of Aadhar Card of his son which was sent to his phone asserting that it is necessary under the direction of senior officials of Respondent No. 2. In spite of refusal by the father of Petitioner, the said representative unauthorisedly accessed Petitioner's Aadhar details resulting in generating two OTPs through BT-AADHAR and on refusal to share the same, the representative of Respondent No.2 had threatened father of Petitioner about the negative consequences of his son’s future cricket career and threatened to obstruct Petitioner's participation in Respondent No. 2 tournaments, leagues and other BCCI tournaments. The father of Petitioner sent e mail to Respondent No. 4 on 04.10.2024, reporting the incidents of demand of OTP on 03.10.2024. The contents of e mail are very categorical and in brief amounts to raising objection for demanding OTP of Aadhar. The contents of e mail dated 04.10.2024 is extracted in Writ Affidavit. Admittedly, there is no response from Respondent No. 2 to e mail, thereby the father of Petitioner approached one of the Apex Council Member who, in turn, responded by addressing e mail to the President, Secretary and the CEO of Respondent No. 2 Association. However, there is no response to the said e mail dated 06.10.2024 issued by the Apex Council Member by the Respondent No. 2. However, there is no response to the said e mail dated 06.10.2024 issued by the Apex Council Member by the Respondent No. 2. The father of Petitioner, on 07.10.2024, lodged a report with police on 07.10.2024 and FIR No. 955 of 2024 was registered for the offences under Sections 318(2), 308 and 316 of BNS read with Sections 32, 38 and 44 of Aadhar Act & Sections 66 and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 . The said registration of FIR was followed up by sending another e mail on 08.10.2024 to Respondent No. 2 informing registration of FIR against Respondents 2 to 4. While matter stood thus, on 15.10.2024, Respondent No. 2 sent Whats App message to father of Petitioner to be present at Uppal Stadium with specific documents for Petitioner's registration and in the list of documents that are sought by Respondent No.2 includes passport size photo, digitalised Date of Birth certificate, school marks certificate, current year's study Bona fides, player's Aadhar card, PAN Card, Bank passbook/Cancelled cheque and Passport (optional) and the specific emphasis of Petitioner is that nowhere in the said communication, there was a demand for sharing of Aadhar OTP Verification for requirement as to the eligibility. Thereby the Aadhar OTP Verification was never mandated and sudden insistence is not supported by any official communication or requirement. It is the further case of Petitioner that in the context of player's eligibility for BCCI tournaments, it is explicitly mentioned in the common player registration form that determination of age for U-16 Boys is relied upon TW-3 method of skeletal maturity while the eligibility for U-19 Boys is based on the chronological age. It is his specific case that Petitioner had successfully undergone TW-3 bone test conducted on 09.09.2024 by Respondent No. 2 and he had passed the said test and report is in possession and custody of Respondent No.2. In the guidelines issued by BCCI and Rules for Registration, it is not the mandate to share Aadhar OTP Verification for considering eligibility of player. In the guidelines issued by BCCI and Rules for Registration, it is not the mandate to share Aadhar OTP Verification for considering eligibility of player. From the guidelines of BCCI, Aadhar details are one of the several documents for proof of residence along with other alternatives like Passport or Voter ID, thereby, demand of the representative of Respondent No.2 to share Aadhar OTP Verification is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Justice K. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India , (2017) 10 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that privacy is an intrinsic part of right of life and personal liberty. Further, recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken notice of Circular No. 8 of 2023 issued by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). In the said circular, it was clarified that while an Aadhar card may be used to establish identity, it need not serve as a conclusive proof of date of birth. The law laid down by the Supreme Court mentioned supra, in clear terms, demonstrates that demand for sharing of OTP verification, overlooking other documents namely Passport, Birth Certificate, Study certificates from 6 th to 9 th grade and Aadhar Card is an action of vindictiveness by Respondents 2 to 4. 5. To the said Writ Petition, respondents filed counter asserting that BCCI had issued guidelines for on line registration of players for the season 2024-25 vide instructions dated 09.08.2024 and the players opting to register on line must submit a detailed application form namely - a) Scanned Original Copy of Computer-generated Date of Birth Certificate b) Scanned Original Copy of School Marksheet or school leaving certificate or School/College Bonafide certificate c) Scanned Original Copy of PAN Card d) Scanned Original Copy of Cancelled Cheque e) Scanned Original Copy of GST Registration Certificate (if applicable) f) Scanned Original Copy of Address Proof (Passport / Voter ID / Aadhar /Aadhar Update History g) Scanned Original Copy of Employment Proof As per Clause 20 of BCCI guidelines, it is mandate to provide Aadhar Update History when a player is opting for presenting the Aadhar Card as proof of address. Since Petitioner failed to provide Aadhar Update history, the agent of Respondent No. 2 Association has contacted the father and sought for generation of Aadhar Update History for uploading the same, however, the latter refused to share the OTP which was generated and lodged false complaints against Respondents with the police. While matters stood thus, Respondent No. 2 received an e mail communication from an ID named "SAVE CRICKET" (cricketsave7@gmail.com) stating that Petitioner has two different date of birth certificates suggesting possible age manipulation along with a copy of birth certificate with a specific direction to Respondent No. 2 to investigate before registering Petitioner and as per the said direction of BCCI, Respondent No. 2 conducted investigation and found that Petitioner has two Birth certificates dated 08.12.2009 registered on 10.12.2009 and another certificate by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation with a date of birth as 08.02.2009 and the date of registration as 17.02.2009 and registration of Petitioner was kept on hold as such he is prevented from playing matches and it is also the case of Respondents 2 to 4 that there is a grievance redressal mechanism in the Rules and Regulations of Respondent No.2 and any stakeholders having grievance against the Association shall approach the Ombudsman and since there is an alternative remedy, Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no coercion by Respondents 2 to 4 much less with an intent to compromise Petitioner's data security nor there is an insistence/exerting undue influence for the provisions of the said data and the allegation that Respondent No. 2 - Association is trying to misuse Petitioner's private data, is in violation of the provisions of the Aadhar Act, 2016. The on line registration guidelines issued by BCCI dated 09.08.2024, registration of player was mandated to be made on line and accordingly, players who had provided the Aadhar as proof of residence/address were to provide Aadhar updated history. The on line registration guidelines issued by BCCI dated 09.08.2024, registration of player was mandated to be made on line and accordingly, players who had provided the Aadhar as proof of residence/address were to provide Aadhar updated history. While stating so, Respondent No. 2 avers that Aadhar update history is the only source of information which reflects as to the modification of Aadhar data in the relevant point of time which not only authenticates the actual Date of Birth of the individual but also reflects if the individual has modified his date of birth in the past and that BCCI had made it mandatory for the provision of Aadhar Update History to confirm the Date of Birth of the individual applicant as such Aadhar Update history is mandatory document to be provided for confirming the Date of Birth of the individual; while stating so, a contra pleading is also taken by Respondent No. 2 wherein it is admitted that there is no mention of Aadhar OTP Verification as it was not a mandatory yet the Aadhar card requires Aadhar Update History which is not provided by Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 admits that Petitioner underwent TW-3 Bone test, however, remains silent about the details of the test. It is a categorical case in the counter of Respondent No. 2 that Aadhar OTP Verification is not a process for confirming the eligibility of the applicant (Petitioner) but only it was to help him in completing the Application. It has nothing to do with the eligibility of Petitioner or judging his capability as a player. Clause 20 of the BCCI Guidelines clearly specifies the Aadhar as proof of address and the same shall be provided by Aadhar History and seeking of Aadhar OTP is not a mandate and that the same was sought with the consent of Petitioner and application of Petitioner was put on hold only due to the reason that Petitioner has two Date of birth certificates which are nothing but a proof of manipulating his age for the sake of claiming a position in the team and absolute deprivation of rights of other candidates. 6. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Sports and Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for HCA. 7. Both the parties have relied upon the guidelines issued by the BCCI. 6. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Sports and Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for HCA. 7. Both the parties have relied upon the guidelines issued by the BCCI. Important aspect of the said guidelines is extracted hereunder: "It is hereby clarified that: Under 16 boys' eligibility is determined on the basis of TW3 method of skeletal maturity and Under 19 boys' eligibility is determined on the basis of Chronological Age only. In the event a player's chronological age is deemed indeterminable, the player will have to undergo further medical test as advised by the BCCI." 8. The above content in the guideline is unambiguous and the language shows that TW3 test report will decide the age determination of a player and not the contents and details of Aadhar Card are not conclusive and cannot be the deciding factor of age determination for the players who are in the age category of under -16. Proforma of the player registration form shows the documents that are required for the players (Men and Women) to participate in BCCI tournaments (Junior and Senior) for Season 2024-25 is also incorporated. From the above, it is very clear that Aadhar and its update history is for the purpose of residential proof and nothing more can be inferred. 9. Clause 20 mentions about usage of AADHAR card as proof of residence. "20. Aadhaar Card as a proof of residence We shall accept Aadhaar Card also as a proof of residence to consider a cricketer as local of that Association, subject to the following conditions: Aadhaar should be issued, on or before 01.09.2023 bearing address within jurisdictions of the Association that player intends to play for 2024-25 season. The players will have to generate their Aadhaar card history, simply by visiting the below link: https://resident.uidai.gov.in/aadhar-updatehistory Once you click onto the above link, please enter your 12- digit UID no. mentioned on the Aadhaar card & enter your Security code. Click on Send OTP button you will receive 6-digit OTP no. on your registered mobile no. Type OTP received and click onto submit button. mentioned on the Aadhaar card & enter your Security code. Click on Send OTP button you will receive 6-digit OTP no. on your registered mobile no. Type OTP received and click onto submit button. It will take you to a page, where the history of your Aadhaar Card will be seen." The object and intent of Clause 20 is clear that Respondent No.2 cannot demand Aadhar OTP from the players seeking registration with BCCI and even otherwise, Aadhaar history cannot be a proof of determining the age of the player seeking registration and TW3 test is the basis for determining the age of the player who is below the age of 16 years. 10. Now it is necessary to look into the byelaws of Respondent No.2 Association. Though a copy of byelaws is not filed in this Writ Petition, during the course of hearing, in the batch of Writ Petitions filed against HCA, a copy of byelaws forms part of the record in Writ Petition No.35139 of 2024 and the same is being considered for the adjudication of this lis. 11. It is apparent on the face of the record that on behalf of the petitioner e mails were extended during the period 04.10.2024 to 10.10.2024. It is also an admitted fact that, Crime No. 955 of 2024 was registered at the instance of father of Petitioner against Respondent No. 2 and its representatives. During pendency of Writ Petition, father of Petitioner had issued the letter dated 16.11.2024 to the Secretary of Respondent No.2 informing that as per the instructions of Commissioner of Police and the outcome of the discussions between father of Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, he had issued to withdraw all petitions and accordingly, he had intimated Respondent No. 2 for withdrawing cases registered by Jagdhgirigutta Police Station and Cyber Crime PS. and said letter was acknowledged by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime so also by Jagdhgirigutta Police Station and in view of an amicable settlement, cases can be closed. and said letter was acknowledged by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime so also by Jagdhgirigutta Police Station and in view of an amicable settlement, cases can be closed. While matters stood thus, Petitioner filed additional documents during the course of hearing, wherein father of Petitioner had produced Death Certificate of Baby Terli Shiva Ramakrishna showing the date of death as 01.08.2009 and there is an e mail specifically addressed to Respondent No. 4, CEO dated 14.10.2024 to evident that documents as sought by Respondent No. 2 i.e. HCA have been attached and there is no rebuttal to this e mail. On perusal of the said e mail, attachments are clearly reflected. The aforesaid e mail is followed up by issuance of another e mail dated 07.11.2024 addressed to Secretary of Respondent No. 2 requesting to sharing of information inter alia SAVE CRICKET. Admittedly there is no response from Secretary of Respondent No. 2 Association. On 16.11.2024, an e mail was addressed to Secretary of Respondent No. 2 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "To, Secretary Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) Uppal, Hyderabad 1, T. Sivannaidu, father of Shiva Rama Krishna u16 cricket player. Humbly submit the following few lines for your kind consideration. I was called by the commissioner of police, Hyderabad for enquiry of a petition, After hearing my grievances, CP Sir advised me to meet the secretary of HCA to explain the facts relating to my son. As per the instructions of the Commissioner of Police (CP), Hyderabad, I met with the Secretary, HCA today, on 16.11.2024, after obtaining prior permission. I explained my grievances and emotional actions in front of the CEO to the Secretary. I sincerely apologize for any hurt or offence caused to Sri Suneel Kante (CEO), Sri Ravi Kumar Reddy and others. I understand that emotions drove my actions, and I regret any personal allegations made. I am committed to withdrawing all petitions, including the Writ Petition (WP). I am confident that this matter can be amicably resolved. I request your acceptance of my apology and closure of all pending matters in HCA relating to my son Shiva Rama Krishna, U16 cricket player Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. copy to CEO sir Suneel Kante. Sincerely, Terli Sivan Naidu 8309723907" 12. I am confident that this matter can be amicably resolved. I request your acceptance of my apology and closure of all pending matters in HCA relating to my son Shiva Rama Krishna, U16 cricket player Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. copy to CEO sir Suneel Kante. Sincerely, Terli Sivan Naidu 8309723907" 12. Considering all the documents and pleadings of the contesting parties, the point for adjudication is whether the demand for sharing of Aadhar OTP verification or refusal to share Aadhar OTP verification, Petitioner can be deprived of his right to play/participate in the tournaments being conducted and to be conducted by the Respondent No.2 and by the BCCI?. 13. In this regard, Circular No. 8 of 2023 issued by UIDAI plays a crucial role in the present lis. “ Circular No. 08 of 2023 S Subject: Accepting Aadhaar as a proof of Date of Birth (DoB) regarding. It has been observed that AUA KUAs are considering and accepting Aadhaar card/-Aadhaar as one of the acceptable documents for proof of Date of Birth (DOB) 2. In this regard, a is pertinent to mention that, Aadhaar is a unique 12 digit ID issued to a resident after he/she undergoes the enrolment process by submitting his/her demographic and biometric information. Once a resident is assigned an Aadhaar number, it can be used to authenticate the resident through various modes as prescribed under Aadhaar Act, 2016 und Regulations framed there under. 3. At the time of enrolment/updation, UIDAI records DoB as claimed by the resident, on the basis of the documents submitted by them, as specified under the list of supporting documents for Aadhaar enrolment, provided on the UIDAI website (https://uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/26 JAN 2023 Aadhaar List of documents English.pdf). Further, it is to be noted that Regulations 10(4) and 19A of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016, mention that verification of the enrolment and update data shall be performed as provided in Schedule III 4. In this regard, attention is drawn towards Office Memorandum dated 20.12.2018 issued by Meity through UIDAI, wherein it has been stated that "An Aadhaar number can be used for establishing identity of an individual subject to authentication and thereby, per se its not a proof of date of birth" (copy enclosed). 5. This aspect of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 has been reiterated/highlighted/stressed upon by different High Courts in recent judgments. 5. This aspect of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 has been reiterated/highlighted/stressed upon by different High Courts in recent judgments. The most recent one is given by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Unique Identification Authority of india And Ors. dated 28.07.2023 (copy enclosed) 6. In view of the above, it is required that use of Aadhaar, as a proof of DoB needs to be deleted from the list of acceptable documents. 7. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Encl.: As above. 14. Respondent No. 2 or its representatives cannot demand for sharing OTP generated in respect of Petitioner's Aadhar card under all or any circumstances and for whatever reason. More so, Circular No. 8 is very categorical to show that the demand made by Respondent No. 2 even for registration of player under the guise of facilitating players for registration of player with BCCI sharing of OTP is not mandatory. Further, Respondent No.2 cannot deny the fact and it is unrebutted fact that Petitioner had already undergone TW3 test and passed the said test and the report is in the custody of Respondent No.2. Even for remote understanding of circumstances from the perspective of Respondent No.2 facilitating registration of player with BCCI, Respondent No.2 shall rely and consider TW3 Test examination report for ascertaining the age of a player. And this is the stand taken by the BCCI in the High Courts in Delhi and Madhya Pradesh, which are extracted hereunder: ORDER IN W.P.NO.22375/2024, DATED 19.12.2024 1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 22.04.2024 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association whereby he has been directed to get declaration from competent Court of law as regards his death of birth. 2. Earlier the petitioner had preferred an application before respondent No.1 for enrollment. Along with the same he had submitted an Aadhar Card in which his date of birth was recorded as 26.07.2004. The same was in variance to his date of birth recorded in the other documents submitted by him hence explanation was called for by respondent No.1 from him as regards his date of birth pursuant to which he submitted an affidavit on 25.01.2024 annexing therewith his new Aadhar Card in which his date of birth was recorded as 15.10.2006. The same was in variance to his date of birth recorded in the other documents submitted by him hence explanation was called for by respondent No.1 from him as regards his date of birth pursuant to which he submitted an affidavit on 25.01.2024 annexing therewith his new Aadhar Card in which his date of birth was recorded as 15.10.2006. On the basis of the same the impugned communication has been issued to the Petitioner. 3. An Aadhar Card is not a proof of date of birth though the same may be used as corroborative for the said purpose. The primary document as regards date of birth would always be the scholar register. In the scholar register of the petitioner of Gyansagar Vidya Niketan where he had studied his date of birth is recorded as 15.10.2006. Even in all the marksheets/certificates of the school the same date of birth has been mentioned. In the Birth Certificate issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Planning, Economics and Statistics on 13.09.2022 his date of birth has been recorded as 15.10.2006. 4. Thus, merely in view of discrepancy of the date of birth as recorded in the old and new Aadhar Card of the petitioner there was no justification on part of respondent No.1 to issue the impugned communication to the petitioner. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.10.2006 as is recorded in his new Aadhar Card and not 26.07.2004 which was recorded in his previous Aadhar Card. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed off. LPA 52/2014 Board of Control for Cricket In India v. Aryan Sehrawat (2015 SCC OnLine Del 12213) G. ROHINI, C.J.: Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short 'BCCI) preferred these two appeals aggrievedly the common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2013 disposing of W.P. (C) Nos. 5284/2013 and 5283/2013 with the following directions: "13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to verify the genuineness and authenticity of the documents filed by the petitioners as proof of their respective date of birth, within four weeks from today. 5284/2013 and 5283/2013 with the following directions: "13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to verify the genuineness and authenticity of the documents filed by the petitioners as proof of their respective date of birth, within four weeks from today. If such verification, the respondents find that the aforesaid documents are genuine documents, they would record the date of birth of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 5284/2013 as 27.2.1998 and that of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5283/2013 as 3.10.1996 in their database and accordingly consider them for playing in the tournaments for which they are found to be eligible, taking their date of birth to be 27.2.1998 and 3.10.1996 respectively." 2. The respondents herein/writ petitioners desired to participate in Under-16 Tournaments organized by BCCI in the year 2012-2013 in which those who are born on or after 01.09.1996 were eligible to participate. However, in the age determination test conducted through Tanner-White House 3 (TW3) method, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5284/2013 was determined to be 16 years and 2 months as on 01.09.2012. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5283/2013 was determined as 16 years and 5 months on the said date. Though the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5283/2013 was held eligible to play in Under-16 Team giving him the benefit of six months, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5284/2013 was held ineligible to participate. It is claimed by the writ petitioners that a s per the birth certificates issued to the writ petitioners under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, transfer certificates issued by the schools where the petitioners studied as well as the Passports, the date of birth of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No 5284/2013 is 27.02.1998 and the date of birth of petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5283/2013 is 03.10.1996 and thus both of them were within the age limit prescribed and were eligible to participate in the tournament. Therefore, assailing the action of BCCI in declaring them ineligible to participate on the basis of the age determined by TW3 method, the petitioners filed W.P. (C) Nos. 5284/2013 and 5283/2013. 3. Therefore, assailing the action of BCCI in declaring them ineligible to participate on the basis of the age determined by TW3 method, the petitioners filed W.P. (C) Nos. 5284/2013 and 5283/2013. 3. The writ petitions were contested by BCCI pleading that bone age test being conducted for age verification of the players by TW3 method has been recognized as the most authenticated and scientific method by various National sporting Federations in India as well as international sports bodies; that prevention of age manipulation for competent advantage is of the factors underlying the Age Verification Program of BCCI to contain the menace of manipulation of birth certificates which is rampant in South Asia; that the age testing process by GP method (Greulich-Pyle method) which was being followed by the Associations earlier had accuracy rate of+/-2(tw o years, where as the TW3 method has the accuracy rate of +/- 6 (six) months; that the age determination by TW3 method was adopted in accordance with the directions of this Court d a ted 11.10.2013 in CM No. 14211/2013 In W.P. (C) No. 612/2011 titled Lokniti Foundation v. Union of India. 4. Rejecting the contentions of the respondents, the learned Single Judge opined that it would be highly unreasonable and unfair to the players if despite submitting authentic and genuine documents they are denied opportunity to play in a tournament meant for their age group merely because in the medical opinion their age could be more than 16 years. Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of with the above- noticed directions observing as under: "10. In my view, though there can be no objection to the respondents subjecting a person seeking to play in a tournament meant for a particular age group to TW3 test for the purpose of verification of his age, but, if on such determination, and after giving benefit of margin of error up to six months on either side, it is found that the age so determined was resulting in the person concerned being held ineligible to playin a tournament, the respondents should also take into consideration the documentary evidence, if any, produced by him as proof of his age. If the documents submitted by such a person are found to be authentic and genuine, the respondents would not be justified in giving preference to the age determined through use of TW3 method over the age as reflected in such unimpeachable documentary evidence. While determining the age of such a person, the respondents would also be entitled to ask him to produce such other evidence as they may feel necessary and appropriate in a given case. If a person seeking to play in such a tournament does not produce documentary evidence which should be available or can be obtained by him, the respondents would be justified in relying upon the age determined through TW3 method and ignoring the documents produced by him. If, however, such a person produces all such documents which he could be reasonably expected to produce as a proof of his age and such documentary evidence establishes the age claimed by him, the respondents would not be justified in discarding such documentary evidence and relying upon the determination of age through the use of TW3 method." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeals are filed by BCCI contending inter alia that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered in the policy matter of BCCI policy matter of BCCI particularly in the absence of challenge to the policy of the Age Verification Programme of BCCI by the petitioners. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners that the order under appeal does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 6. As could be seen from the material available on record, from 01.04.2010, the Ministry of Sports, Government of India adopted a National Code Against Age Frauds in Sports (NCAAFS). The said Code set out the procedure for medical examination by medical and scientific testing paramoun t which are to be conducted by Sports Authority of India and National Sports Federations. The Working Committee of BCCI at its meeting held on 12.05.2012 in Chennai resolved to adopt the TW3 policy for all future BCCI Under-16 age group tournaments and the same was communicated to the concerned radiology centres inviting them to be partners in the process. The details of how the test was to be conducted were also conveyed. The Working Committee of BCCI at its meeting held on 12.05.2012 in Chennai resolved to adopt the TW3 policy for all future BCCI Under-16 age group tournaments and the same was communicated to the concerned radiology centres inviting them to be partners in the process. The details of how the test was to be conducted were also conveyed. The BCCI also conveyed to the affiliated State Cricket Associations the AVP Rules and Regulations of BCCI which are to be followed for all Under-16 players. The said AVP became effective from 01.09.2012. 7. It is also relevant to note that BCCI is the governing body for the sport of cricket in India. The Age Verification Programme has been undertaken by BCCI to ensure a level playing field for competitive participation of players in its age group tournaments by ensuring competition only between players of similar skeletal maturity. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellant/BCCI, the petitioners never challenged the policy of BCCI to adopt a scientific method of determination of the age. It is not in dispute that, BCCI was earlier adopting GP method which is also one of the bone age testing methods for determination of the age of players. From 01.09.2012 onwards, the BBCI has started adopting TW3 method in the place of GP method since TW3 method is found to be more authenticated scientific method all over the world. The fact that all the participants in Under-16 tournaments are subjected to the age determination test by TW-3 method is also not in dispute. 9. Under these circumstances the policy decision taken by BCCI for adopting TW -3 method for age determination of the participants in Under-16 Tournaments cannot be held to be based on either irrational or extraneous criterion. The decision of BCCI, according to us, stands to the test of reasonableness and under no circumstances can be held to be against public interest. The law is well-settled that such a decision does not warrant interference under Article 226 merely because it is possible to take a different view. 10. We are also of the view that BCCI cannot be expected to have the method of verification of genuineness of documents which are given a s proof of age by the players from all over the country. 10. We are also of the view that BCCI cannot be expected to have the method of verification of genuineness of documents which are given a s proof of age by the players from all over the country. Evidently, the bone age test adopted by BCCI is to avoid discrimination between the players and to ensure a level playing field in age group tournaments. It may be added that even the petitioners did not raise any objection to the procedure/method of age determination being adopted by BCCI and had voluntarily subjected themselves to the age determination test by TW3 method conducted by BCCI. Merely because the age determined by TW3 method did not tally with the birth certificates and other documents produced by the petitioners, they cannot now turn around and seek a mandamus directing BCCI to rely upon the birth. 11. Having regard to the admitted fact that BCCI has been adopting the scientific method of bone age test for age determination of players for all Under-16 tournaments for the past several years and that the petitioners were very well aware of the said fact and particularly in view of the undisputed fact that all the players participated in the Under - 16 tournaments in the year 2012 - 2013 were subjected to age determination test by TW3 method, the impugned action of BCCI cannot be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the interference by this Court under Article 226 is not warranted and no mandamus can be issued compelling BCCI to adopt a different method for age determination of the writ petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the order u appeal is set aside and the writ petitions shall 14. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. 15. In the pleadings filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, there is total silence about TW3 report being in the custody of Respondent No. 2. Thereby, it can be safely concluded that age of Petitioner shall be in accordance with TW3 examination report unconnected with the disputed birth certificates and the said certificates are of no significance for the simple reason that even if the said certificates are considered, Petitioner is below 16 years of age. Thereby, it can be safely concluded that age of Petitioner shall be in accordance with TW3 examination report unconnected with the disputed birth certificates and the said certificates are of no significance for the simple reason that even if the said certificates are considered, Petitioner is below 16 years of age. Thereby, it can be safely concluded that petitioner is eligible for being registered in U16 tournaments to be conducted by BCCI and HCA. Further, for unexplained reasons and circumstances for not placing TW3 report of Petitioner on record in the present writ petition by Respondent No.2 adverse inference has to be drawn against Respondent No.2 and its representatives and office bearers more specifically Respondent No.4, who is the administrative head of Respondent No.2 vide Rules 23 and 24 of the Rules and Regulations of the Respondent No.2. The Court is of the firm conclusion that whole exercise which led to filing of the present Writ Petition is at the instance of Respondent No.4 which act of Respondent No.4 is not bona fide and is by design. 16. The acts of Respondents 2 and 4 and the way the demands were made by Respondent No. 2 for sharing OTP late in the evening from the parents of players is pricking the minds of this Court. In the instant case on hand, neither the Rules and Regulations of Respondent No.2 nor the guidelines of BCCI specify that Aadhar card and its history is the genesis for verification of birth certificates. Respondent No. 2, at one breath states that the purpose of Aadhar card registration is only for the proof of residence and not for verification of birth of the player. However, a contra pleading and stand is taken that Aadhar history of player is a proof of verification of birth of a player which is contra to the requirements of BCCI guidelines. Guideline No.20 of BCCI is very categorical and is specifying that the role of Aadhar card and Aadhar history is only for ascertainment of proof of residence and not the verification of birth certificate/details of birth of a player. Furthermore, in the guidelines of BCCI, it is categorical that BCCI's requirement is the Birth Certificate that is generated through computer (Computer generated Birth Certificate) and not the birth certificate/details as mentioned in Aadhar History. Furthermore, in the guidelines of BCCI, it is categorical that BCCI's requirement is the Birth Certificate that is generated through computer (Computer generated Birth Certificate) and not the birth certificate/details as mentioned in Aadhar History. Thus, the act of Respondent No. 2 and the exercise taken by it on a random complaint that was given by an anonymous person, without verifying the genuinety of the source of information of the complaint, had straightaway attacked the entitlement of Petitioner for registration and in participating in the tournaments of Respondent No.2 and that of BCCI is nothing short of high handedness of Respondent No.2 and its officials in particular Respondent No.4. 17. Respondent No. 2, on receipt of information or directions from BCCI to investigate into the matter of Petitioner, should have issued a show cause notice calling upon him to explain his stand and should have followed the procedure stipulated under the rules and regulation, more specifically Rule 41 - Grievance Mechanism. The said clause mandates that in the event of taking any action against any player, Respondent No. 2 shall comply with the requirements of the procedure envisaged in the said Rule and in specific Rule 41(c). On the face of the record, the procedure stipulated in the Rule 41 is not followed in the instant case. That apart under Rule 41 it is the Apex Council of the Respondent No.2 which is empowered pass necessary orders and not certainly by the Respondent No. 2 to 4. Thus, the Petitioner is robbed off the right of hearing by submitting his explanation on being show caused. At this juncture, it is need take into consideration of the conduct of the Respondent No. 2 to 4 in overreaching the Interim Orders of this court dated 06.11.2024 in not allowing the Petitioner in participate in the tournaments pending disposal of the present writ petition and this also speaks volumes about the respect and integrity of the Respondent No. 2 towards the judicial process and system. 18. Looking from any perspective, the conduct of Respondent No. 2 in refusing to register/withholding registration of petitioner with BCCI, is not in accordance with rules and regulations and is in complete violation of Principles of natural justice and preventing him from participating in the tournaments (ongoing) being conducted by Respondent No.2 and BCCI. 19. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. 19. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to register Petitioner with BCCI and also with Respondent No.2 as is the case and shall allow him to participate in all the tournaments of Respondent No.2 and BCCI, basing on TW3 report without relying upon the Aadhaar Card history and other documents. No costs. 20. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.