The Secretary of Saurashtra Cricket Association Mr. Niranjan Shah had filed a personal intervention application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded his arguments, within the same judgment, oddly recorded that no individual Petitioner had filed any application complaining about the violation of the personal individual rights under the Constitution. On this basis, Shri Niranjan Shah has requested the Hon'ble Supreme Court to clarify its position. Mr. Niranjan Shah is represented by Ashwin Shanker, Adv. This fact as recorded in para 66 on page 109 of the order. “For instance, Shri Niranjan Shah, Applicant in Interlocutory Application No. 24 is more than 70 years old but has held the office of the Secretary of the Saurashtra Cricket Association for more than four decades”. It was respectfully requested that the following sentence in para 54 on page 85 be deleted since it is factually incorrect. “We say so, firstly because no citizen has come forward in the present proceedings or in the earlier round to complain of the violation of any fundament right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Secondly and more importantly, because....”. Similarly it was humbly invited that the following capitalised sentence in para 61 on page 100 be obliterated since it is unseemly.. “….. That being so, the grievance sought to be made on behalf of the citizens who have formed the State Association does not stand scrutiny. NO MATTER NONE OF THOSE ON WHOSE BEHALF THE ARGUMENT IS
ADVANCED IS BEFORE THIS COURT TO MAKE SUCH GRIEVANCE”.
Despite a request for a review, the Hon'ble Supreme court has given no reasons why it thought that there was no incongruity. The paradox remains in force.