Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns a Miscellaneous Civil Application filed by Vidarbha Cricket Association (VCA) seeking recall/review of an order dated 09.08.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.4440/2011. The original petitioner, a former Ranji Trophy cricketer who played for VCA and was a member during 1983-84, had been receiving ex-gratia payments (termed 'pension') from August 2010 to December 2010 pursuant to a VCA resolution. However, from January 2011 onwards, the payments ceased. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to VCA to continue the monthly pension. VCA resisted the petition primarily on the ground that it is not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and that the ex-gratia payment was a bounty, not a legal right. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing VCA to continue the pension. VCA filed the present application for review, contending that the order was influenced by the minority view in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649, overlooking the majority view that bodies like VCA are not under any statutory or constitutional obligation. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application, holding that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown. The court noted that the order was based on the majority view in Zee Telefilms, which held that while BCCI is not 'State' under Article 12, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for public functions. The court found that VCA, being a similar body, was properly subjected to writ jurisdiction. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Writ petition maintainable against a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 if it performs public functions or discharges public duty - The court held that Vidarbha Cricket Association, though not 'State' under Article 12, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for its public functions (Paras 1-4). B) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Review lies only for error apparent on the face of the record, not for re-argument of the case - The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any such error, as the order was based on the majority view in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649 (Paras 1-4). C) Sports Law - Pension/Ex-gratia Payment - Vidarbha Cricket Association's resolution to pay ex-gratia to former Ranji Trophy players - The court held that the cessation of payment without notice or hearing violated principles of natural justice, and the writ petition was maintainable (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 09.08.2012 in Writ Petition No.4440/2011 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting recall/review, particularly regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against Vidarbha Cricket Association.
Final Decision
The Miscellaneous Civil Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petition against private society performing public functions
- Review jurisdiction limited to errors apparent on face of record
- Distinction between majority and minority views in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India
