Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D-867 of 1981, decided on 3rd December, 1981.

--Art. 9(lxa)(ii) read with M. C. C. Laws of Cricket 1980 Code, r. 21(3)-Writ proceedings- Decision of question of fact in finding on question of mala fides needs evidence and examination of disputed facts cannot be gone into in writ proceedings.

M. C. C. Laws of Cricket 1980Code, r. 21(3) ref. .

Worcestershire v. Somerset -Wisden Cricketers' Almanack (1980), p. 693 distinguished.

S. Nasiruddin for Petitioners.

A-Munshi Deputy Attorney-General and 1. M. Patel for Respon dents.

Dates of hearing : 17th, 18th, .19th, 23rd and 24th November, 1981..

The petitioner has been eliminated from taking part in Quaid-i-Azam Trophy Championship (1981-82) organized by. respondent No. 2, as a result of concession of a match by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 4 in Qusid-i-Azam Trophy, 1980-81. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the decision of respondent No. 2 rejecting the appeal of petitioner against the recognition of the act of conceding the match by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 4. It is alleged that the petitioner had secured 49 . points after playing Quaid-i-Azam Trophy, 1980-81. However, respondent No; 3,/ matches in who had secured 75 points while playing their last match against respondent No. 4 mala fidely conceded the match in favour of respondent No. 4, ; thereby respondent No. 4, became entitled to play in Quaid-I-Azam Trophy and the petitioner was eliminated. We have heard Mr. S. Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I. M. Patel, for respondent, No. 3 and Mr. Aziz A. Munshi, the learned Deputy Attorney General, for respondents Nos. I and 2. No one appeared for respon dent No. 4.

2. The main contention of Mr. S. Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that under rule 9 of the Schedule and Rules for the B.C.C.P. Tournament, 1980-81, issued by respondent No. 2. all matches are to be played under the M. C. C. Rules of Cricket, 1980 Code except where provided otherwise in these rules. It is accordingly contended that the concession of the match by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 4 was in violation of M. C. C. Laws of Cricket, 1980 Code and respondent No. 3 was. therefore, liable to be excluded from Quaid-i-Azam Trophy Championship. Reliance in this regard is placed by the learned counsel on Playing Conditions for First-class Matches Season, 1980, Holt Product Trophy Matches. The relevant condition relied upon by the learned counsel, is as follows :-

"Play may cease on the last day upto 30 minutes earlier than the schedule time for cessation of play by mutual agreement of the Captains."

Firstly the above condition relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not part of M. C. C. Laws of Cricket, 1980 Code but are the playing conditions laid down for particular Trophy Matches. Secondly the learned counsel was unable to show that this condition has effect as a statutory rules so as to bind the parties. Apart from it the above condi tion has no application to the concession of a match by one party in favour of the other. The condition relating to concession of a match is contained in rule 21(3) of M. C. C. Laws of Cricket, 1980 Code, -a copy whereof was placed before us and which is 'admitted by all the learned counsel appearing before us to the true copy of the M. C. C. Laws of Cricket; 1980 Code. The relevant rule 21(3) is to the following effect :-

"21(3) Umpires Awarding a Match

(a) A match shall be lost by aside which, during the match-

(1) refuses to play, or

(ii) concedes defeat, and the Umpires shall award the match to the other side.

by Should both Batsmen at the wickets or the fielding side leave the field at any time without the agreement of the Umpires, this shall constitute a refusal to play, and on appeal the Umpires shall award the match to the other side in accordance with (a) above."

It is admitted before us that upon concession of the match the Umpire unanimously awarded the match in favour of respondent No. 4. The appeal against the decision of Umpires to respondent No. 2 has also bee rejected unanimously. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out violation of any rule in the decision of Umpires awarding the match to respondent No. 4 upon concession by respondent No. 3. The rule regarding concession of a match relied upon by the learned counsel to our mind has no application to the concession of match by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that the action of respondent No. 2 by accepting the decision of concession of match by respondent No. in favour of respondent No. 4 was mala fide. We are unable to accept this contention. Firstly in the petition no particular o mala fides against respondent No. 2 are -alleged. Alt allegations o mala fides are made in the petition only against respondent No. 3.

Secondly finding on the question of mala fides needs evidence and examination of disputed facts which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. We would accordingly reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the Board of respondent No. 2 in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner was mala fide. Mr. S. Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision contained in the book titled Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 1980 reported as Worcestershire v. Somerset reported at page 693 of the Book. 1n that case Somerset who were participating in the Benson and Hedges Cup were disqualified from the Tournament by the T.C.C.B. for bringing the game of cricket into disrepute, as it was found that they delibera tely lost the game by declaring the innings after one over was bowled. We have considered this decision and we are of the view that this decision is of no assistance in the present case. There is no substance in this petition and we accordingly dismiss the same but there will be no order as to costs.

K. M. A. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.