THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21952 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a member and Vice-President of the Andhra Cricket Association (ACA), the 1st respondent herein, which, in turn, is affiliated to Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has a General Body, comprising of 42 members. Its day-to-day affairs are looked after by the Executing Committee, the 2nd respondent, consisting of 33 members. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, alleging that, he resorted to acts of misconduct. Show cause notice dated 29-08- 2009 was issued, alleging that, some members have complained against the petitioner, stating that he has recorded his conversation with other ACA members, and in particular, the President of the Association. It was also alleged that the petitioner resorted to financial irregularities. Petitioner submitted an explanation, and on a consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent passed a resolution dated 06-10-2009, recommending to the general body, that the membership of the petitioner be cancelled. This writ petition is filed with a prayer, to declare that the procedure contemplated under Clause (6) of the Rules and Regulations of the Association (for short ‘the Rules’), as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice. The ground urged by the petitioner is that, when the 2nd respondent, which comprises of 33 members, has taken a decision, any further decision by the general body comprising of 42 members would almost, a foregone conclusion. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fair play and compliance with principles of natural justice demands that the members of the 2nd respondent do not participate in the general body. Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the procedure prescribed under the Rules cannot be deviated, and the general body has to take its own decision, irrespective of the recommendations of the 2nd respondent. He also raises an objection, as to the maintainability of the writ petition. A serious doubt exists, as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The reason is that, neither the 1st respondent, nor the BCCI to which it is affiliated, answer the description of the State. In categorical terms the Hon’ble Supreme Court held so, in Zee Tele Films Ltd., v. Union of India[1]. However, an observation was made to the effect that, though a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained, the relief against such organizations can certainly be claimed, by way of a writ, under Article 226. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable. This Court cannot regulate the affairs of an organization like the 1st respondent. It has to manage its affairs, in accordance with the bye-laws framed by itself. If any person feels aggrieved by the decision taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, he has to institute the proceedings under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act. There exists a peculiar situation in the instant case. The general body comprises of 42 members. The executive committee is so large, that more than 3/4th of the members of the general body are part of it. 33 members would become parties to the decision taken by the 2nd respondent. If the same is put before the general body, either for approval, or for independent decision, it emerges that the 33 persons, who are members of the 2nd respondent, would participate in the general body, and it is only 9 members, who will be strangers to the topic, or issue. Naturally, that miniscule minority would hardly be of any consequence, in preventing, or altering the decision, that may have been taken by the executive committee. Therefore, equity and fair play mandates that, the members of the executive committee excuse themselves in the proceedings of the general body, whenever the issue, relating to the petitioner, is taken up. This, of course, cannot be treated as a general rule, and this is being indicated as an exception to the instant case, having regard to the peculiar facts of the case. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that, in the meeting of the general body of the 1st respondent, proposed to be held on 31-10-2009, or any other subsequent date; relating to the expulsion of the petitioner, such of the members of the executive committee, who have participated in its deliberations, leading to the resolution against the petitioner, shall not participate. The meeting shall, however, be presided over by the President, and he shall have casting vote in the event of the house being divided equally. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-10-2009. Note: c.c. in two days. (B/O) KO [1] (2005) 4 SCC 649