Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J
01/- In this petition petitioner, Modern Cricket Club, has challenged order dated 19.03.2025, passed by respondent no. 4, whereby he has opined that faction headed by Sh. Balbir Singh Chib be recognised for the limited purpose of taking part in the voting for the forthcoming elections of Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association, (hereinafter to be referred as JKCA), with respect to representation of Modern Cricket Club, Jammu. Petitioner-Club is also seeking a direction upon respondent no. 2 to take over the entire control of affairs for conducting of election of JKCA, in pursuance to the order dated 27.10.2025, passed by the Supreme Court, by ignoring order impugned dated 17.11.2025, issued by respondent no. 2 and further to issue election calendar for the election of JKCA as per election norms and Constitution of JKCA, thereby, accepting the nomination paper of the President of the petitioner club to participate in the election meeting of JKCA and to contest the election of president of JKCA.
FACTUAL MATRIX
02/- The petitioner is a cricket club comprising of Twelve (12) members, out of which five (5) are its office bearers and seven (7) are its executive members. As per the petitioner, he is the President of the club since 1998. JKCA has not been conducting its elections since July 2016, therefore, number of petitions were instituted for conducting of elections of JKCA in terms of the recommendations of Lodha committee, the petitions were clubbed and disposed of by the this court vide order dated 23.03.2021 passed in LPA no. 14/2019, with a direction to BCCI to constitute a committee to run affairs of JKCA, the said committee of BCCI was also directed to constitute a sub-committee to run the affairs of JKCA, till the elections are held. Accordingly a sub committee comprising of three members was constituted.
03/- The dispute with respect to delay in conducting the election of JKCA was also agitated before Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal no. 4325/2014, titled as Board of Control for Cricket in India v/s Cricket Association, Bihar & Ors. Supreme Court vide order dated 27.10.2025 appointed respondent no.3 as Electoral Officer for conducting the election of JKCA, in accordance with the approved Constitution within a period of 12 weeks from the date of passing of the order. Respondent no. 3, accordingly, accepted the assignment of being Electoral Officer for conducting the election of JKCA.
04/- The grievance of the petitioner is that the member administration, JKCA, vide letter dated 12.11.2025, forwarded a copy of the order passed by respondent no. 4 dated 19.03.2025, for information to the President of Modern Cricket Club, Jammu, by referring the internal dispute of the Modern Cricket Club, Jammu, with the allegations that there are two factions, one headed by Balbir Singh Chib and other headed by Mr Sudarshan Mehta and opined that the faction headed by Balbir Singh Chib be recognised for the limited purpose of taking part in the voting for the forthcoming election of JKCA.
05/- It is stated that respondent no. 4 has found Shri Balbir Singh Chib as valid representative of Modern Cricket Club only on the ground that he has responded to the notice issued by respondent no. 4 and the petitioner had not responded to the same. It is stated that the Ombudsman Respondent no. 4, has passed the order impugned without jurisdiction on the ground that he was not holding the charge of Ombudsman on 19.03.2025 and his term stood expired on 01.11.2024.
06/- Per contra in the reply filed by respondent no.1 & 2, respondents have raised a preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground that respondents do not qualify as State so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court. It is also stated that petitioner herein has no locus standi to file the present petition; this petition is also not maintainable to question the decision of Ombudsman concerning the right to represent the club as it is a pure and simple private dispute between two factions of the same club; the club is neither a statutory body, nor is amenable to writ jurisdiction, even Ombudsman does not exercise any statutory powers. Moreover, none of the fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners have been violated; the action taken by respondents is strictly in adherence to the constitution of JKCA and the directions of the Supreme Court. It is also stated that Sh. Balbir Singh Chib who has been recognised by the Ombudsman for the limited purpose of taking part in the voting in the elections of JKCA has also not been arrayed as party in the petition being the necessary party. This court on 12.12.2025 had impleaded Sh. Balbir Singh Chib as respondent no. 5 in this petition.
07/- Detailed reply has been filed by respondent no. 5 stating therein that the petitioner has filed a suit OS No. 30/2025 titled modern cricket club v. JKCA which is pending disposal before the court of learned IInd Additional District Judge, Jammu, without impleading the respondent no. 5 as party; the representation of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage when the learned Ombudsman has taken a clear and categorical finding in the matter to the effect that Sudershan Mehta is not the representative of the Modern Cricket Club; the respondent no. 5 is the president of Modern Cricket Club which is affiliated with the JKCA and registered with the Registrar under Societies Registration Act svt. 1998; petitioner has no authority under law to present and maintain the present petition for and on behalf of Modern Cricket Club; the petitioner despite having knowledge about the fact that respondent no. 5 is the president of the Modern Cricket Club concealed such fact and did not even implead respondent no. 5 as party to the writ petition.
08/- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
09/- Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr Abhinav Sharma has stated that this petition is maintainable on the ground that ombudsman is appointed under chapter 9 of the constitution of JKCA, section 47 of the constitution of JKCA provides that JKCA shall appoint ombudsman at the general meeting for the purpose of providing an independent dispute resolution mechanism. The procedure to be followed by the ombudsman, thus appointed, for resolution of dispute is envisaged in section 48 of the constitution, as such any action taken by the ombudsman JKCA who is acting as a quasi public function authority is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
10/- Learned senior counsel for repondent no.1&2 Mr Rahul pant has stated that this petition is not maintainable on account of fact that it not only raises disputed questions of fact but there is also absence of any violation of public law element in this petition. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court reported as 2023 vol. 4 SCC 498 titled St. Mary's Education Society and another v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others, has sought dismissal of the writ petition. The paragraphs 75.1 &, 75.2 of the said judgment are reproduced herein, thus:
"(75.1) An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public.
(75.2) Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226. Wherever Courts have intervened in their exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, either the service conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions or the employer had the status of "State" within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action complained of has public law element."
11/- This court in a case titled M/s Ayesha constructions v. J and K Cricket Asociation & Anr., has held in paragraph No. 20 as under:
"20) From the foregoing enunciation of the law on the subject, it is clear that while a private body like respondent No. 1, would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but the judicial review of its actions by the High Court would be confined to only those actions which have the element of public duty and its actions which have the character of private law rights are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court."
12/- Learned senior counsel for respondent no.1& 2 has produced copy of the judgment dated 17.12.2025, passed by this court in WP(C) no. 3158/2025 titled Sanjay Saraf vs JKCA, wherein, this court has dismissed an identical writ petition as not maintainable. It is profitable to reproduce paragraphs 15, 16 and 19 of the said judgment herein:
"15. If the present case is approached with the aforesaid principle of law, it is manifest from the case set out by the petitioner as also from the tone and tenor of the impugned order that it is a pure civil dispute and there is no element of public duty, sought to be enforced. By virtue of impugned order, respondent No. 4, a faction of WCC, has been recognized for the limited purpose of taking part in the voting in the forthcoming elections of JKCA, by virtue of order dated 27.10.2025 passed by Hon"ble Supreme Court.
16. Petitioner claims to be elected president of WCC and is aggrieved of the impugned order, because it records the existence of two factions of WCC, which is apparently a private civil dispute between two factions of WCC and there is no public law element involved. Petitioner, by virtue of present petition, intends to be recognized, as a lawful representative of WCC, with respect to which, he has already approached the electoral officer under clause (c) of Section 40 of the Memorandum of Association of JKCA. It reads as below:
"40(c) In case of any dispute or objection as to candidacy, disqualification, eligibility to vote, or the admission or rejection of a vote in the elections to the Apex Council, or any of the Committees, the Electoral Officer shall decide the same and such decision shall be final and conclusive."
19. In view of the preceding discussion, it is apparent that neither any element of public law is made out nor agitated in the present petition. The impugned order whereby WCC has been recognized as a disputed club and private respondent has been given a limited right of voting in the forthcoming election of JKCA, has no public element, therefore, petition, in the present form, is not maintainable, hence, dismissed."
13/- This court in an identical writ petition has already dismissed the petition of the petitioner therein on the ground that in absence of any element of public law, petition is not maintainable, the grievance of the petitioner is purely of a private character as such this court cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Respondent no-3 has already issued the Election Notification dated 23.12.2025, wherein as per clause 1(2) the cricket club has been granted an opportunity to file objections to the names enrolled in the Draft Electoral Roll on 26th and 27th of December, 2025. The petitioner had an option to invoke clause c of Section 40 of the Memorandum of Association of JKCA, which he has chosen not to avail.
14/- Petitioner herein states that he is an elected president of Modern Cricket Club, as such, is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 19.03.2025, which on account of the dispute between the two factions in Modern Cricket Club has given voting right to respondent no. 5, this grievance on the face of it has no public law element but reflects violation, if any, of the private rights of the petitioner. The locus of the petitioner is also under clouds on the basis of the submissions and reply filed by repondent no .5 who claims to be president of duly registered club namely Modern Cricket Club.
15/- In view of above, since the grievance of the petitioner is purely a civil dispute and has no element of public law, which can be enforced by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, as such, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, Petitioner is at liberty to approach respondent no. 3 in terms of the Election Notification dated 23.12.2025.
