In Secretary, Bihar Cricket Association vs. Bihar Cricket Association & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan passed a 5-page long order dated August 12, 2025. The Court appointed Justice L. Nageswara Rao, ex-judge of the Supreme Court of India to act as the Ombudsman of the Bihar Cricket Association under Article 142 of the Constitution. It set aside the appointment made on January 2, 2023 of Nawal Kishore Singh and the appointment of Paras Nath Roy dated June 4, 2023. The other ten respondents were: Inspector General of Registration, Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), 4Chairman, Board of Control for Cricket in India, Secretary, BCCI, State Of Bihar, Committee of Management, Bihar Cricket Association, President, Bihar Cricket Association, Kumar Rajnish, Aditya Prakash Verma and Nawal Kishore Singh.
This litigation had a chequered history. There was an dispute between the office bearers of the Bihar Cricket Association. The entire debate revolved around the appointment of Ombudsman. The Single Judge of Patna High Court while allowing the writ petition appointed Justice Shailesh Kumar Sinha, former Judge of the Patna High Court as the Ombudsman. Supreme Court observed: "This appointment was disturbed by the Division Bench of the High Court while disposing of the letters patent appeals. The Division Bench thought fit to direct that let a new Ombudsman be appointed by the BCCI." The Division Bench comprised of Justices Partha Sarthy and Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar. Supreme Court's order reads: "9. We fail to understand why BCCI has been involved in this matter. What has BCCI to do with the appointment of Ombudsman so far as Bihar Cricket Association is concerned."
The case was filed in the Court on July 27, 2025 and registered on August 1, 2025. The case arose out of impugned 46-page long final judgment dated July 14, 2025 by the Division Bench of the High Court in Nawal Kishore Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Bihar and Ors. LPA No. 840/2024 heard along with Bihar Cricket Association vs. Aditya Prakash Verma & Ors. in LPA No. 906/2024. The Division Bench judgement was authored by Justice Partha Sarthy.
The appeal was preferred by these appellants against the 54-page long judgment dated August 5, 2024 passed in Aditya Prakash Verma vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Bihar & Ors.,CWJC no.13405 of 2021 whereby Justice Sandeep Kumar, the Single Judge. The appeal tool note of the fact that the two retired District Judges namely Nawal Kishore Singh (appellant in LPA no.840 of 2024) and Paras Nath Roy, both continued to discharge function as Ombudsman, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, restrained both from functioning as Ombudsman and proceeded to appoint Justice Shailesh Kumar Sinha (retired) as Ombudsman with the observation that the new Ombudsman will decide all the complaints made against the office bearers of the Bihar Cricket Association (BCA) in accordance with the bylaws of the BCA and he will also examine the complaints and decide the same in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BCA. It was against this judgment by Justice Kumar dated August 5, 2024 that both Nawal Kishore Singh and the BCA through its Secretary, Ziaul Arefin preferred the instant appeals before the Division Bench.
Notably, it was Aditya Prakash Verma, the secretary, Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 who was before the Single Judge bench of Justice Kumar. The main object of the CAB is to work towards the growth and development of the game of cricket in the State of Bihar and to encourage youngsters to participate in the game of cricket and discover talented players who could represent the State of Bihar as well as the country in the game of cricket.
Justice Kumar's judgement stated that ''this Court is of the view that this writ petition is maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of BCCI vs. CAB reported as 2015 (3) SCC 251 as the present case is not a case between two private persons or office bearers or the associations but in this case the question of maladministration and mismanagement in the BCA and the BCCI has been raised. Accordingly, it is held that this writ petition is maintainable.''
The High Court was seized with the mismanagement in the affairs of the Bihar Cricket Association which is under the control of the BCCI. The Court's order recorded the following complaints:-''62(i). Ever since Rakesh Kumar Tiwari was elected as the President of the BCA on 29.09.2019, the entire power of the BCA has virtually been centralized in the office of the President. It is a matter of record that on 29.09.2019, the election of office bearers of the BCA was held in which Rakesh Kumar Tiwari was elected as the President and one Sanjay Kumar was elected as Secretary, but barely after three months, the elected Secretary was suddenly removed in the Annual General Meeting dated 31.01.2020, which was convened with some other agenda. Though the Joint Secretary was vested with the power of the Secretary but the Joint Secretary was also removed in the emergent meeting of the Committee of the Management dated 16.08.2021 and on the same day, all the powers of the Secretary and Joint Secretary was illegally vested with the President. The usurpation of power of Secretary and other office bearers by the President is against Rule 18(1)(iv) of the Rules and Regulations of the BCA, which provides that there must be distribution and balance of authority in the management of the BCA so that no single individual has unfettered powers.
62(ii). Moreover, the removal of successive Secretary of the BCA also offends Rule 45(1)(b) of the Rules and Regulations of the BCA, which reads as under:-
“45(1)(b) Deteriment caused by Member or Administrator If any Member or any Administrator of the BCA commits any act of indiscipline or misconduct or acts in any manner which may or likely to be deterimental to the interest of the BCA or the game of cricket or endanger the harmony or affect the reputation or interest of the BCA or refuses or neglects to comply with any of the provisions of the Memorandum an/or the Rules & Regulations of the BCA and/or the Rules of conduct framed by the BCA, the Committee of Management, on receipt of any complaint shall issue a Show Cause Notice calling for explanation and on receipt of the same and/or in case of no cause or insufficient cause being shown, refer the same to the Ombudsman. Procedure:- The Ombudsman shall, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, pass an appropriate order.”
As per the aforesaid Rule, the power to take disciplinary action against office bearers of the Association can only be exercised by the Ombudsman. In the aforesaid Rule, it is clearly stated that on receipt of any complaint against any office bearer or member of the Association, show cause notice shall be issued by the Committee of Management calling for explanation and in case, no sufficient cause is shown, his/her case would be forwarded to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, shall pass appropriate order. Admittedly, in the present case, the aforesaid Rule has not been followed and the successive Secretary was removed in the Annual General Meeting of the BCA without any jurisdiction.
62(iii). The conduct of the President also offends Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules and Regulations of the BCA, which stipulates that “The President shall, in the event of a vacancy or indisposition of an office bearer, delegate the functions to another Office Bearer until the vacancy is duly filled up, or the indisposition ceases”. Thus, as per the aforesaid Rule, the President can only delegate the functions of any vacant office bearer to another office bearer. The aforesaid Rule does not permit functions of any vacant office bearer. While examining the import of Rule 10(1)(d) and 18(1)
(iv), Sri Raghvendra Singh (Retired District Judge), Ethics Officer of the BCA in his order dated 20.09.2022 also disapproved this action of the President and directed him to immediately relinquish the charge of the vacant office of the Secretary and hand over the charge of the same to any other office bearer. However, irrespective of the above order of the Ethics Officer, the respondent no.9, who was duly elected as Secretary on 25.09.2022, was also removed in the meeting of the Committee of Management dated 30.12.2022 and 12.02.2023 and the President again assumed the functions of the Secretary.
62(iv). In the present case, the mandate of Rule 17(9)(a) of the Rules and Regulations of the BCA was also flouted as the aforesaid Rule clearly states that in case there is any vacancy in Committee of Management, the same shall be filled within 45 days. However, the office of the Secretary was deliberately kept vacant all through so that the President may continue to discharge the crucial functions of the Secretary as well.
62(v). The President also flouted Rules 10(5)(c), 25(2) and 47 of the Rules and Regulations of the BCA, which provide that the bank account of the BCA shall only be operated under the joint signatures of the Secretary and the Treasurer, but disregarding the above Rules, the signatory in the Bank account was changed in the meeting of the Committee of Management dated 16.08.2021 and it was resolved that henceforth the account of the BCA shall be operated under the joint signatures of the President and the Treasurer. This decision was again reiterated in the Special Annual General Meeting dated 12.02.2023. Thus, the action of the President and the BCA is violative of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
62(vi). In the emergent meeting of the Committee of Management dated 02.01.2023, an Ombudsman was appointed but, Rule 44(1) clearly states that “the BCA shall appoint an Ombudsman at the Annual General providing an independent dispute resolution mechanism”. Hence, as per the aforesaid Rule, it needs no clarification that an Ombudsman can never be appointed in a meeting of the Committee of Management and on this consideration alone, an earlier appointed Ombudsman was restrained from discharging her function vide order dated 06.03.2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4868 of 2020.
62(vii).Though the decision of appointment of Ombudsman dated 02.01.2023 was later withdrawn in the Special General Meeting dated 04.02.2023 requisitioned in accordance with law by 17 full members of the BCA, but the President still continue treating him as Ombudsman with oblique motive. Further, he abused his official power and ensured registration of the F.I.R. against Sri Paras Nath Roy, who was later appointed as Ombudsman on 04.06.2023 as he was not yielding to the desire of the President and was passing orders against him.
62(viii). It appears that the election of Rakesh Kumar Tiwari as President of the BCA is itself tainted as he
has never been member of the Association. This clearly transpires from the pleadings of the writ petition as also from the orders dated 09.06.2023 and 25.08.2023 passed by the Ombudsman. The above orders derive its strength from Rule 9(1) of the Rules and Regulations of the BCA, which stipulates that the office bearers of the BCA shall be elected by the full members and former international player members of the BCA from amongst their representatives at an Annual General Body Meeting but he still managed to continue on his post.
62(ix). A Three Men Committee was constituted in the meeting of the Committee of Management dated 17.06.2022 for appointment of selectors when it is expressly provided under Rule 29(2)(ii) that the power to appoint selectors is vested exclusively in the Annual General Meeting. The Vice President and the Joint Secretary of the BCA were designated as Chairman and Convenor of the said Three Men Committee and the said Three Men Committee rejected the candidature of at least two former national players namely, Rajesh Chouhan and Doda Ganesh and appointed their own favourites as Selectors, who then returned obligation by selecting one Shivam Singh (son of the Vice President) and G.D. Choudhary (son of Joint Secretary) in the Men’s Cricket Team. There cannot be a more brazen example of conflict of interest and travesty of justice. 62(x). The entire affairs of the BCA has essentially been reduced to a one man show and this has miserably affected the cause of cricket in the State of Bihar. Players from outside Bihar were allowed to be inducted in the Men’s Team on the basis of forged and fabricated certificates and this was rather done on routine basis. It is unfortunate that all these issues were repeatedly brought to the notice of the BCCI, which rather dealt with the issue in a very casual and perfunctory manner."
Justice Kumar's order reads:"63. In the opinion of this Court, the BCA is there for advancement of cricket in the State of Bihar but due to maladministration in the BCA the cricket in Bihar has been suffering since long and thereby sub-standard selectors selecting sub-standard players has resulted in giving bad name to the State particularly in the field of cricket. It appears that BCA is functioning as autocratic body with the support of the BCCI and any person or office bearer who is not supporting the President is being removed without following the bye-laws and the Rules. The power of the BCA cannot remain centralized with the President and the BCA should not be a one man show."
The Court's order reads: "64. The complaints regarding the centralization of power with the President Rakesh Kumar Tiwari are very serious and it is expected that henceforth the President of the BCA will act in accordance with Rules and Regulations of the BCA and will not act in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the BCA. He cannot usurp the powers of the office bearers of the BCA by removing them. The office bearers can be removed only in accordance with Rules and Regulations of the BCA. Further, the distribution and balance of authority in the management of the BCA should be as per Rules and Regulations of the BCA. Moreover, it is for the Ombudsman to take disciplinary action against any office bearer as per Rule 45(1)(b) of the Rules and Regulations of the BCA and the Committee of Management can only issue show-cause notice calling for explanation and after receipt of the show-cause, it can forward the same to the Ombudsman, who after hearing the parties, shall pass appropriate order. Further, the President in case of removal of any office bearer cannot assume his powers but has to delegate the powers and functions to another office bearer until the vacancy is filled up.
65. From the materials available on record and the discussions made above, it appears that an important post of elected Secretary was kept vacant by the BCA for a long period though the same should have been filled up within 45 days as per the mandate of Rule 17(9)(a) of the Rules and Regulations of the BCA. Further, the complaint regarding the operation of the bank account and management of finance is also a serious matter. Though the bank account was to be operated under the joint signature of the Secretary and the Treasurer but disregarding the Rules and Regulations, it was decided and resolved in the meeting of the Committee of Management dated 16.08.2021 that the bank account of the BCA should be operated under the joint signature of the President and the Treasurer, which has been reiterated in the Special Annual General Meeting dated 12.02.2023. I find that this action and the resolution of the BCA is illegal and it is directed that the bank account of the BCA can only be operated as per Rules and Regulations of the BCA and the Secretary and the Treasurer can only operate the bank account and not the President and the Treasurer.
66. So far as the objection of the petitioner and the respondent nos.9 and 10 with regard to the ineligibility of the President of the BCA for contesting the election is concerned, this question is not being decided by this Court, but the same is left open. The petitioner, the respondent nos.9 and 10 are granted liberty to challenge the same in an appropriate Forum/Court in accordance with Rules and Regulations and the bye-laws of the BCA.
67. The Three Men Committee constituted for appointment of selectors done by the Committee of Management is also held to be illegal as under Rule 29(2)(ii) the power to appoint selector is exclusively vested in the Annual General Meeting. It also appears that the selectors appointed by the BCA have selected the players who are the sons of the Vice President and Joint Secretary of the BCA. This is a clear case of quid pro quo and abuse of powers and this should not be allowed. A fresh Selection Committee should be appointed in the Annual General Meeting of the BCA and the said Selection Committee will select the deserving players who will represent the State of Bihar."
The Court observed: "68. This Court also find that the BCCI has been supporting the illegal acts of the BCA and has been turning a blind eye on the complaints received against the BCA. The BCCI is not supposed to support the illegal actions of the office bearers of the BCA, but it has to remain independent and has to act whenever any illegality is committed by the office bearers of the BCA. Hence, it is directed that the BCCI in near future shall act promptly on the complaints made against the office bearers of the BCA.
69. The objection with regard to the pendency of the I.A. application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is now no more available to the respondents particularly the BCCI and the BCA as the petitioner has filed an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for withdrawal of the said Interlocutory Application.
70. It appears that one Nawal Kishore Singh, retired District Judge, was appointed as Ombudsman in the meeting of Committee of Management dated 02.01.2023. He was then removed in the Special General Meeting dated 04.02.2023. Later, the appointment of one Paras Nath Roy, retired District Judge, as Ombudsman was approved in the Annual General Meeting dated 04.06.2023. However, both of them continued to discharge the function of Ombudsman. One was passing order(s) in favour of the President while the other was passing order(s) against him. As Sri Paras Nath Roy was not passing order(s) in favour of the President of the BCA, he was even dragged as an accused in an F.I.R. instituted by the BCA.
71. For the foregoing reasons especially the peculiar circumstances indicated in the preceding paragraph, it became expedient for this Court to invoke its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to appoint an Ombudsman for better administration of the BCA. It goes without saying that the presently functioning Ombudsmen were illegally appointed in the meeting of the Committee of Management in brazen violation of the approved Rules and Regulations of the BCA and they are thus restrained from functioning as Ombudsmen."
Justice Kumar concluded:"72. In these circumstances, this Court appoints Hon’ble Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. (Retired) as Ombudsman, who will decide all the complaints made against the office bearers of the BCA in accordance with bye-laws of the BCA after hearing the concerned parties. The Ombudsman will also examine the complaints, as indicated above, and will decide the same in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the BCA. The Ombudsman will get an honorarium of Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month. 73. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of."
No comments:
Post a Comment