Board Of Control For Cricket In India v. Central Information Commission
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17.09.2025 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.No.33097 of 2018 -- Board of Control for Cricket in India, Through its Secretary, Having its office at 4th Floor, Cricket Centre, Wankhede Stadium D.Road, Mumbai- 400020.
.. Petitioner Vs.
1. Central Information Commission, Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110 067
2. Smt.Geeta Rani
3. Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
.. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in respect of the order of the respondent No.1, dated 01.10.2018 passed in Second Appeal No.CIC/MOYAS/A/2018/123236 and quash the same. 1 / 5
For petitioner : Mr.P.R.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.Anupam Raghuraman For respondents: Mr.C.V.Shyam Sundar, CGSC for RR-1 & 3 No appearance for R-2
ORDER
The petitoner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in respect of the order of the respondent No.1, dated 01.10.2018 passed in Second Appeal No.CIC/MOYAS/A/2018/123236 and quash the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent made an application before the public authority under the Right to Information Act, claiming certain particulars as against the petitioner-BCCI for information, before the Ministry of Youth and Sports and the same was rejected, against which, the second respondent preferred Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission, namely the first respondent herein. The first respondent issued a direction to the petitioner to furnish information as sought for by the second respondent. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner-BCCI.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2 / 5
grievance of the petitioner is that they are not a party before the first respondent. However, an order was passed as against the petitioner to furnish information which is not the simple reason on the issue. As on date, neither the State Government, nor the Central Government had brought the petitioner under the purview of the Right to Information Act and even the Apex Court in the decision reported in 2016 (8) SCC 535 (Board of Control for Cricket Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar) only made an observation to grant liberty to the Central Government and State Government to bring the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Till date, neither the Central Government, nor the State Government brought the petitioner under the ambit of the Right to Information Act.
However, without considering the same, the first respondent has passed the impugned order and hence, the petitioner prays to set aside the same and remand the matter back to the first repondent to pass appropriate orders strictly in terms of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the said decision reported in 2016 (8) SCC 535. The learned counsel for the third respondent has no serious objection, but however, there is no representation for the second respondent, even though a counsel had entered appearance for them.
4. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in terms of the guidelines of the Supreme Court in the said decision on the subject matter.
3 / 5
5. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is closed. 17.09.2025 cs To
1. Central Information Commission, Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110 067
2. Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
4 / 5
M.DHANDAPANI, J cs 17.09.2025 5 / 5