LEGAL OPINION

TO: Walter Shobhchak

FROM:
RE: Filing of writ petition in the Delhi High Court
DATE: September 28, 2015

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Whether Walter Shobhchak can file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court demanding
appointment of Public Information Officer by BAI, disclosure of reasons for his exclusion
from the national team, and seeking restoration of his place in the Indian national team?
SHORT ANSWER
Yes, as the Delhi High Court has the writ jurisdiction to hear the case and issue a writ of
mandamus demanding BAI to appoint a PIO under Section 5(1), reveal the reasons for Walter
Shobhchak exclusion under Section 4(1)(d) and seek restoration of his place in the Indian
national team. This is possible as BIA is a public authority and comes under the ambit of the
Right to Information Act.
FACTS
Bowling Association of India is a society registered under the Societies registration Act,1860.
The Department of Sports under Minsitry of Youth Affairs and Sports accorded BAI
recognition as the National Sports Federation (NSF) for Bowling. It main function is to
promote bowling within the country, conduct national and international tournaments in all
age groups and send teams for national and international tournaments. It also enjoys various
benefits provided by the Government of India including financial assistance. However during
the selection of the national team BAI left out the current captain Walter Shobhchak. He filed
a letter with the Secretary of BAI seeking reasons for his drop. However he replied that BAI
was not under the ambit of the RTI Act. Walkter Shobchak wants to now file a writ petition in
the Delhi High Court.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1) Does the Delhi High Court have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition of Walter
Shobhchak?
2) Does BIA come under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005?
3) What can the High Court do to address the claims demanded by Walter Shobhchak?

DISCUSSION
Even though the BAI enjoys various benefits provided by the Government of India, it does
not come under the definition of State under Article 12 of the constitution because it is not
financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the
government.1 Though in this case Walter Shobchak cannot approach the court under Article
32, he can always seek a remedy by the way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
constitution which is much wider than Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High
Court to issue writs for the violation of fundamental as well as non-fundamental rights to
any person or authority.2 The use of any person or authority is not to be confined to only
statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State, but to any person or body who
performs a public duty.3 What kind of public functions make a body that is not a State,
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is explained through the
nature of functions and duties test in the case BCCI v State of Bihar. 4 The BAI is the
national apex body for bowling in India. It is recognised by the Department of Sports under
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports as the National Sports Federation (NSF) for Bowling in
India. Hence it is an autonomous body which is not under direct control of the Government. 5
The team selected by BAI represents the country at national as well as international events. It
regulates and controls the game. It formulates rules, regulations norms and standards
covering all aspect of the game. It exercises the power of disqualifying players which may at
times put an end to the sporting career of a person. 6 It spends crores of rupees on organising
tournaments across India including the junior and sub-junior levels. It promotes bowling as
well as spreads the grass root development of the sport. It incurs expenditure on coaches,
trainers etc.7 All these activities are undertaken with the concurrence of the Government of
India who are not only fully aware but supportive of these activities. 8 Therefore BAI having
such pervasive control over the sport in the country and the ability to end careers of bowlers
1 Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC
111, 142.
2 Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India,(2005) 4 SCC 649, 674.
3 Ibid.
4 Board of Control for Cricket in India and Ors. Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors,
(2015)3SCC251.
5 http://yas.nic.in/sites/default/files/File918.compressed.pdf, last accessed
28/9/2015.
6 Supra 4
7 Ibid.

or support them to achieve the greatest awards in the sport cannot be said to be undertaking
any private activity. The functions of the Board are clearly public functions, even though
discharged by a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act. Hence BAI may
not be considered as a State according to the Constitution but is definitely amenable to writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9
To show that BAI will come under the ambit of the Right to Information Act we must show
that BAI is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act can
be divided into two parts. The first part defines public authority as any authority or body or
institution of self-government established or constituted in the manner specified under (a) to
(d) of the Section 2(h). The second part of the definition under the same section begins with
the word includes and goes on to define a public authority as (i) bodies which are owned,
controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the
appropriate government , and (ii) NGOs substantially financed directly or indirectly by
funds provided by the appropriate government. BAI is clearly not one which would come
under (a) to (d) of Section 2(h). It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
and therefore has its own constitution, rules and regulations. It is a non-governmental
organisation. Therefore, the RTI Act could be applicable only if it can be shown that it is
substantially financed either directly or indirectly by funds provided by the Government. 10
It is seen that if a body satisfies the requirements under clause (i) and (ii) of the second part
of the definition, the first part of the definition need not be satisfied to determine whether a
body is a public authority or not. In the present case it is seen that BAI comes under clause
(ii) of Section 2(h) of the RTI act. The Government of India provides BAI with an annual
grant of 5 crores rupees. This is clearly substantial direct funding by the government and
hence BAI can be considered as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act. Even
though the term substantially financed is not defined in the RTI act, many cases have tried
to explain it further. In the case Navneet Kaur v. Department of Information
Technology/Electronics & Computer Software Export Promotion Council (ESC) 11 it was held
that, whether the government specifies the manner in which the funds are to be used or not
will not make the petitioner not financed by the government. But however specifying the
manner in which the funds are to be used will show more control of the government on the
body. In this case BAI has been provided with 5 crores for the specific purpose of promotion
of bowling and training of player. So as long there is substantial financing by the government,
a non-governmental body could be said to be under the ambit of the RTI act. To add on to
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Indian Olympic Association v V. Malik and Others, WP(C) No. 876/2007, High Court of Delhi.
11 Navneet Kaur v. Department of Information Technology/Electronics & Computer Software Export
Promotion Council (ESC), Appeal No. ICPB/A-8/CIC/2006.

this, in the case All India Chess Federation Vs. Chess Association of India and Ors.12 it was
said that the government through its notification F. No. 36/2-2010-SP II dated 30.3.2010 has
declared that all National Sports Federations are public authority.
Now that weve established that BAI is a public authority, Walter Shobhchak can under Article
226 file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court to obtain a writ of mandamus. Mandamus
literally means a command.13 It is a demand for some activity on the part of the body or
person to whom it is addressed, for the performance of a public duty.14 Article 226 of the
Indian Constitution has empowered the High Courts to issue the writ of mandamus. The court
in the case Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Pandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav
Smarak Trust and Ors. v V.R. Rudani and Ors.15 held that under Article 226, writs can be
issued to any person or authority. The term any person or authority may cover any person
or body performing pubic duty. What is relevant is not the form of the body but rather the
nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive
obligation owned by the person or authority to the affected party, no matter by what means
the duty is imposed. If a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied." The claims
made by the petitioner are those such that BAI has a positive obligation to attend to them.
Section 5(1) of the RTI Act discusses the designation of Public Information Officers. Under
this section it is said that for providing information for persons requesting information under
this Act it is mandatory for all public authority falling within the ambit o this Act, within 100
days of the enactment of this Act, to designate as many Central Public Information Officers
or State Public Information Officers, as the case maybe in all administrative units or offices
under it as maybe necessary. Here it is seen that BAI does not have Public Information
Officer and hence the court by issuing a mandamus can direct BAI to appoint one.
Under Section 3 of the Right to Information Act all citizens have a right to information. They
have a right to all information which is held by or under the control of any public authority.16
The right to information is covered under Section 2(j) of the act and the definition of the
information that can be asked for is given under Section 2(f) of the Act. To ensure the
availability of information to the citizens within reasonable time Section 4 of the Act imposes
certain duties on all bodies which come under this act. 17 Under these obligations, 4(1)(d)
states to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected
12 All India Chess Federation Vs. Chess Association of India and Ors, MANU/TN/0855/2015.
13 D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, pg 7231 (8th ed., 2010)
14 Ibid, pg 7232.
15 Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Pandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and
Ors. v V.R. Rudani and Ors, 1989 (2) SCC 691.
16 S. Naib, The Right to Information Act 2005 A Handbook, pg 83 (1st ed., 2011)

persons.18 The BAIs decision to drop the petitioner from the team would be one such
administrative or quasi-judicial decisions. Hence the BAI is liable to provide the reasons for
this decision. The court by issuing a writ of mandamus could direct the BAI to do so.
Finally the court can also issue a mandamus to direct the BIA to take him back into the team
if the reasons provided for his drop are unreasonable.

CONCLUSION
On these facts the court will recognise BIA as a public authority under the RTI Act and issue
a mandamus under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution whereby BIA will be directed to
appoint a PIO, give reasons for non-inclusion of the petitioner and if he was thrown out
unreasonably demand his return into the team. The object of RTI act is to bring transparency
and since BIA discharges public function in the sense it is the main association for people to
participate in bowling in the country, it should have no hesitation to keep its functions
transparent.

17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.