A division bench comprising Justices S.Manikumar and Subramoium Prasad dismissed the PIL filed by Geeta Rani from Delhi.
Chennai: The Madras high court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation, which sought a direction to the Central government to de-recognise BCCI and its affiliated bodies/association as the official representative of India.
A division bench comprising Justices S.Manikumar and Subramoium Prasad dismissed the PIL filed by Geeta Rani from Delhi, which also sought a direction to the Central government to create a body of its own and register under the ICC to be the official representative of the nation.
In her petition, Geeta Rani also sought a direction to the Central government to take legal action against the members of BCCI to represent our country at the national and international level without any permission, authority/sanction from the government.
She further sought a direction to the central government to take suitable action for violation of section3 of the “Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act against the BCCI and its affiliated bodies/associations.
In its order, the bench said, “It cannot be said that the petitioner is not aware of the fact that the Supreme Court is monitoring the activities of the BCCI by constituting a Committee. This fact is a common knowledge and has been appearing in the news regularly. This petitioner has attempted to start a parallel enquiry by the Madras high court, when Supreme Court is monitoring the issue. This is against judicial propriety and discipline”.
BCCI was not a body which carries any trade, business or profession. It was therefore, not covered under section 3 of the Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act. “This petition is a frivolous petition. The Supreme Court and high courts in catena of judgments taken note of the growing tendency of the abuse of PILs said that the jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked seeking waiver of locus standi rule in case where the poor, down trodden and deprived member of society not able to approach the court to vindicate a legal wrong of injury caused to them for violation of legal and constitutional rights. This petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. We refrain from imposing cost on the petitioner with a hope that the petitioner will not indulge in filing such frivolous petitions in future”, the bench added.