Srinagar, July 6, KDC: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a writ petition under Article 226 against the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) is maintainable only when the dispute concerns the discharge of a public duty or public function, ruling that a private dispute over the representation of a cricket club in the association’s electoral process does not attract writ jurisdiction.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Dhar and Sanjay Parihar dismissed an appeal filed by cricket administrator Sanjay Saraf, affirming the Single Judge’s decision that his challenge to an order of the JKCA Ombudsman was not maintainable. The Ombudsman had recognised the rival faction of Whites Cricket Club headed by Rajeev Pandita for the limited purpose of participating in voting during the JKCA elections.
Saraf had argued that the Ombudsman’s decision affected the composition of the electoral college in elections being held pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court and, therefore, involved a public law issue. He also claimed that the order was passed without hearing him and in disregard of findings recorded by a court-appointed Ombudsman in 2019.
The Bench rejected the contention, holding that the controversy was confined to rival claims over the representation of a private cricket club and did not concern any public function performed by the JKCA.
It observed that while the BCCI and its constituent associations are amenable to writ jurisdiction, the maintainability of a writ petition depends on the nature of the function under challenge.
“If a public duty or public function is involved, any body, public or private, in relation to that duty or function, would be subject to judicial scrutiny of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,” the court said.
At the same time, the Bench held that the question of who represents a particular cricket club is a matter internal to the club and has no bearing on the public at large. It ruled that such a dispute cannot be treated as one involving a public law element merely because it arises in the context of elections to the JKCA.
The court further noted that the Ombudsman whose decision was challenged had been appointed by the JKCA and not under any statute or court order. It held that the opinion of such an authority could not be tested in writ proceedings through a writ of certiorari.
Observing that the appellant was not left without a remedy, the Bench said he was free to institute a civil suit challenging the Ombudsman’s decision or any determination made by the Electoral Officer under the JKCA Memorandum of Association.
Finding no patent illegality in the Single Judge’s judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
