Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the termination of a former Ranji cricketer’s life membership of the Punjab Cricket Association (PCA), holding that the dispute was private in nature and did not involve the performance of any public function or public law element.“The petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke this court’s extraordinary jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes that are private in nature pertaining to his PCA membership, as they do not involve the performance of any public function or any public law element,” Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya observed.The high court, however, granted the petitioner, Rakesh Handa, liberty to avail alternate remedies available under law, if so advised.Handa, through his counsel, advocate Shekhar Verma, approached the high court seeking to set aside the May 21, 2026, order passed by the PCA terminating his life membership on the ground that he simultaneously held life memberships of the PCA and the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA), allegedly in violation of the norms and directives prescribed by the Committee of Administrators governing membership, eligibility and conduct.He also sought directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to investigate alleged fraudulent sale transactions involving PCA office-bearers, which he had reported in a complaint dated Jan 2, 2026, before the PCA Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer.Appearing for Handa, his counsel submitted that the complaint against alleged fraudulent transactions involving PCA office-bearers was rejected by the Ombudsman on March 10, 2026. The rejection was based on the ground that Handa’s membership had already been suspended by the PCA Apex Council through a resolution dated November 12, 2025, and subsequently confirmed by a notice dated Dec 29, 2025.The petitioner contended that he had never been informed of the proceedings leading to the suspension of his membership. He submitted that he came to know of its termination through the impugned order dated May 21, 2026, after seeking copies of the suspension orders, and alleged that the termination was effected without affording him an opportunity of hearing. He also argued that there was no bar on simultaneously holding membership of two cricket associations.Opposing the petition, the respondents contended that the PCA was a private body and its rules and regulations did not have statutory force. They submitted that the dispute related exclusively to the petitioner’s membership, which was private in nature and did not involve any public cause.The petitioner argued that Rule 52 of the PCA’s Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations, which stipulates that amendments cannot be given effect without the Supreme Court’s leave, gave the regulations statutory force. He also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgement in Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar and others (2016) 8 SCC 535, to contend that writ petitions against sports associations performing public functions were maintainable.Rejecting the contention, Justice Dahiya observed that the dispute concerned the termination of Handa’s life membership and was to be decided under the PCA’s rules and regulations.The HC observed that the dispute did not involve the PCA’s public functioning relating to cricket, selection of teams for national or international events, or regulation of the activities of players and other stakeholders.The HC further held that the petitioner’s request for a CBI and ED investigation into the alleged transactions could not be treated as an independent cause for maintaining the petition, as the complaint had already been made before the Ombudsman and its dismissal was connected to the suspension of his membership.The Bench also held that Rule 52 did not confer statutory status on the PCA’s regulations.“These Rules and Regulations have been made by the PCA, for the PCA and are of the PCA. No statute regulates them, and they remain in the private domain, having been made by a private body,” the HC observed.Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue alternate remedies available under law, if so advised.
About The Author
