The Delhi High Court today asked the Board of Control for Cricket in India to file a reply on the merits of the case banning cricketer Ajay Jadeja for five years from playing on match fixing charges.

Directing the BCCI to file replies on the merits of the case within a week, Justice Mukul Mudgal said "in the meantime, hearing of the case will continue".

Appearing for Jadeja, senior advocate PP Malhotra alleged that the decision to ban the former all rounder for five years was taken without following the principle of "natural justice" and "rule of law".

"The BCCI has not followed the principle of natural justice. Any action of the Board should be in confirmity with the rule of law," he said adding that Jadeja's claim for relief was maintainable under Article 226 of the constitution.

Earlier, during the course of the argument, BCCI counsel had said Jadeja's petition challenging the Board's decision to ban him from playing was not maintainable under Article 226 as it was not performing any of the state's functions.

Stating that the scope of Article 226 is much wider, Malhotra contended that "technicalities should not come in way of guaranteeing natural justice and maintaining rule of law when a body is involved in performing public duty".

The arguments from both sides had been confined to the issue of the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Jadeja's counsel had earlier contended that "the scope of Article 226, under which any citizen can move the High Court for seeking relief for violation of his right, is very wide as such a right can be enforced against a state, its authorities or a person."

The cricketer in his civil writ, had sought quashing of the ban as well as Union Sports Ministry's notice to him seeking explanation why the Arjuna award conferred on him should not be taken back.

The BCCI had imposed a life ban on former captain Azharuddin and Ajay Sharma, while Jadeja and Manoj Prabhakar were banned for five years.

© PTI