Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being heard & decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1313 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed.

2. Petitioner was holding office as Vice President, Cricket Association of Uttarakhand. He was removed from that office by an order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Ombudsman. Petitioner has challenged the removal order in this writ petition.

3. Clause 40 of the Rules and Regulations of Cricket Association of Uttarakhand provides for appointment of an Ombudsman and any act of indiscipline or misconduct committed by a member or administrator of the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand can be referred for decision to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman can pass necessary orders.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised objection as to maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended that Cricket Association of Uttarakhand is neither funded by the Central or State 2 2025:UHC:8996 Government nor the Government has any amount of administrative control over the affairs of the Association. It is further submitted that no public function is being discharged by the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand and dispute between two office bearers or group of office bearers would not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach a Civil Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 & 2 submitted that the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and since it is a private society, therefore, the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be available to the petitioner. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 27180 of 2021. Paragraph No. 10 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

Accordingly, it is held that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court against the impugned order. Accordingly, the Issue No.3 is answered."

6. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 have also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Manabedra Kumar Sarma v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and others [WP (C)/5220/2021]. Paragraph nos. 26, 27 & 35 of the said judgment are reproduced below:-

7. Mr. Aryan Dev Uniyal, learned counsel appearing for BCCI placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Patna, in the case of Kumar Arvind v. Bihar Cricket Association , through its President, Shail Raj Complex 5 2025:UHC:8996 and others, reported as 2022 SCC OnLine Pat 1169. Paragraph nos. 22, 23, 24 & 25 of the said judgment are reproduced below:-

24. It is significant, however, to note that the Supreme Court's decision in case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club (supra) had arisen out of a civil suit. In our opinion, the Ombudsman under the memorandum of association, rules and regulations cannot be said to be a quasi judicial forum created by any statutory authority. Such controversies, as are being raised in 6 2025:UHC:8996 the present writ application, in our opinion, should normally not be entertained in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

25. In such view of the matter, we decline to exercise our prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present facts and circumstances of this case."

8. Another judgment, on which respondents' counsel placed reliance is rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3077 of 2019 ( Lalit Kumar Modi v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and others). Paragraph No. 6 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

9. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that SLP filed against the judgment rendered by Bombay High Court was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum, including civil court.

10. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Karunakaran v. 7

2025:UHC:8996 Ombudsman Cum Ethics Officer, Kerala Cricket Association and another, SLP (Civil) No(s). 12903 of 2021. In the said judgment , the order passed by Ombudsman and the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge and Division Bench of Hon'ble Kerala High Court was set aside.

11. Learned counsels for respondents are right in submitting that the issue of maintainability of writ petition against a State Cricket Association was not considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in that judgment, therefore , the said judgment cannot be treated as authority for deciding the issue of maintainability of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Boys and Girls Cricket Association of Chitoor District v. Chitoor District Cricket Association , reported as 2024 SCC OnLine AP 2822. Paragraph Nos. 16 & 17 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

13. The said judgment, however, do not help the petitioners for the simple reason that in the said case, Rules and Regulations applicable to Andhra Cricket Association could be amended with the leave of Hon'ble Supreme Court or that of the High Court; the issue involved in the writ petition before Andhra Pradesh High Court was amendment of the Rules, therefore, the question whether the Cricket Association of Andhra Pradesh is 'State' within meaning of Article 12 or not was not considered at all in that judgment. 9

2025:UHC:8996

14. As per the Rules and Regulations applicable to Cricket Association of Uttarakhand, particularly Clause 45 thereof, amendment to the Rules can be made only with the leave of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court has not been conferred any power to grant such relief.

15. Learned counsels for the petitioners then relied upon an order dated 23.12.2020 passed by this Court in WPMS No. 112 of 2020. By the said order, writ petition filed by Director of a different Cricket Association, formed in Uttarakhand, was disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the Registrar of Companies. The said order also do not help the case of the petitioners, as petitioner in that case was aggrieved by inaction on the part of Registrar of Companies, who is a statutory authority. Here in the present case, the dispute is between an office bearer, who was removed from office vis-à-vis the other office bearers, who are still holding the office.

16. Learned counsels for the petitioners submits that in the present case order passed by Ombudsman is under challenge, which is quasi judicial authority, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 10

2025:UHC:8996

17. The provision for appointment of Ombudsman is made in the Rules and Regulations of the Association. The Rules and Regulations do not have any statutory force, as held by Apex Court in the case of Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal , ( 1969) 2 SCC 43 and Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-op. Bank , (1984) 2 SCC 50. Therefore, merely because the Ombudsman has taken a decision will not entitle the petitioner to challenge the removal order by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to approach a Civil Court.

18. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Dt: 09.10.2025 Navin NAVEEN Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df 006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, CHANDRA st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87 5643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.10.14 11:05:07 +05'30' 11