FACTS:
The BCCI was registered in the year 1940, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. After the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, it is registered under the said Act. Under Section 6 of the Act of 1975, any society seeking to register itself has to submit its Memorandum of Association and regulations/bye-laws/rules.
The respondent No. 1, i.e., the BCCI sent an invitation to India Cements Limited based at Chennai and represented by its Managing Director, Mr. N. Srinivasan, who is respondent No. 2 herein, to participate in the auction conducted by IPL. It may be mentioned that at that time the Mr. Srinivasan was also the Honorary Treasurer of BCCI and the President of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association. Mr. Srinivasan, on behalf of India Cements Limited, participated in the auction and was awarded the franchised IPL rights for ownership of Chennai Super Kings team by the BCCI.
The appellant is the Ex-President of BCCI and an administrator as defined in Clause 1(n) of the Regulations framed by BCCI. The appellant addressed a letter to the President of BCCI and made complaint about the violation of Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations by Mr. Srinivasan. In the said letter it was claimed by the appellant that Mr. Srinivasan was liable to be penalized since he is the Managing Director of India Cements Limited, which was one of the franchisee of IPL and IPL being an event of BCCI, Mr. Srinivasan had thereby acquired commercial interest and violated the terms of Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations. Since no action was taken, the appellant has filed Civil Suit in the High Court of Madras at Chennai seeking a permanent injunction to restrain BCCI from permitting Mr. Srinivasan to participate in the General Body Meeting scheduled in Mumbai. The appellant has also sought permanent mandatory injunction directing BCCI to initiate inquiry under clause 32(ii) of the Regulations, by appointing a Commissioner to make a preliminary inquiry against Mr. Srinivasan. Another relief claimed by the appellant in the said suit is for mandatory injunction directing the respondent No. 1 to exercise his powers as per Clause 8(6) of the Regulations by suspending Mr. Srinivasan as Treasurer of the respondent No. 1 pending inquiry.
As the Court did not grant ex-parte temporary injunctions as prayed for by the appellant, the respondent No. 2 participated in the Annual General Meeting scheduled in Mumbai, wherein the respondent No.2 was elected as Secretary of the respondent No. 1. On the same day an amendment in Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations for players, team officials, managers, etc. was made with effect from September 27, 2008. Aggrieved by the amendment carried out, the appellant has filed another suit in the High Court. The High Court has dismissed the appeals which has given rise to the instant appeals.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT:
The learned counsel contended that the suits were filed by the appellant in the capacity of past President of BCCI as he was an administrator within the meaning of the said phrase, as defined in Clause 1(n) of the Regulations. It was also submitted that the provisions of clause 6.2.4 should be read with Memorandum of Association and Regulations of BCCI. The appellants further claimed the BCCI to be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT(S):
The respondent No. 1 contended that the suits were instituted by the appellant in his individual capacity and, therefore, the decision would be binding only on him but the nature of the reliefs claimed indicated that the suits were filed in public interest and, therefore, the suits in individual capacity were not maintainable.
HELD:
The Apex Court observed that the the appellant is not a member, as defined in Clause 1(b) of the Regulations of the respondent No. 1. Therefore, merely because he was associated in past, with the administration of the BCCI, that fact by itself will not clothe him with any legal right to maintain an action in law against the BCCI. Also, the appellant does not claim to be a member of the registered society, namely, the BCCI.
It was further stated that the record does not indicate that any personal right of the appellant is infringed. Prima facie the appellant, who is claiming declaratory decrees against the respondents, would not be entitled to the same because no personal right of the appellant is infringed. The Court further concluded that the appellant has failed to establish that the amendment made in the subsidiary regulation 6.2.4 is opposed to the policy laid down in the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 or the memorandum and rules and regulations and/or bye-laws of the BCCI approved under the said Act. Therefore, the second suit at the instance of the appellant is not maintainable at all.
The bench held that on applying the principles laid down by the seven-Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111, it would be clear that the facts established do not cumulatively show that the Board is financially, functionally or administratively dominated by or is under the control of the Government. Hence, legal remedy to be availed of under Article 226 and not under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Further, the appellant could not explain to the Court as to what was the factual conflict of interest and how BCCI was put to financial loss because of participation by the respondent No. 2 in bidding process for the IPL team. It was further stated that IPL started so that any person who is interested in the game should be able to participate in the commercial aspect of T20. Therefore, it is difficult to uphold the contention of the appellant regarding conflict of interest in an IPL since the purpose of this new model of cricket was to maximize outreach of the game and exploit its commercial potential as well.
The upshot of the above discussion was that the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court were justified in not granting the temporary injunction claimed by the appellant, held the Apex Court. For the foregoing reasons the appeals failed and were dismissed.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS