The SC said that the CoA was wrong in stating a person can't serve more than nine years cumulatively in the offices of the board © Getty
The Supreme Court, on Friday (March 24), directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay Rs. 2.5 crore in contractual dues to Himachal Pradesh State Association (HPCA) to ensure the smooth functioning of the forthcoming fourth Test between India and Australia in Dharamsala, according to reports.
HPCA had sought money from the BCCI for holding the fourth Test according to the the agreement with the board. However, the CoA had indicated to the Supreme Court the amount that the HPCA had in its coffers.
The CoA had said: "HPCA had an amount of Rs. 6,26,92,755/- in current/savings accounts and deposits as on March 31, 2016 and a further amount of Rs. 59,44,30,724/- was remitted by BCCI to HPCA between April 2016 and October 2016. This is without including an additional amount of Rs. 16.73 crores that was remitted on October 1, 2016 and has been directed to be kept in a term-deposit subject to further directions of this Hon'ble Court."
The Supreme Court also said that the CoA was wrong in stating that a person can't serve more than nine years cumulatively in the offices of the board and its member bodies. The SC clarified that a person who has served for a period of nine years in a state association/member body can work as an office-bearer in the BCCI for nine more years and vice versa.
As per the Lodha Committee reforms this relates to office-bearers who could get elected for three terms of three years each but cannot enjoy successive terms. The interpretation of this order was subject of much confusion before the Lodha committee issuing a clarification stating that "one who has been the office bearer of a state association for nine years is disqualified from returning to cricket administration, either at the BCCI or at any state association."
The Committee of Administrators (CoA) had urged the Supreme Court to intervene, maintaining that the various State Associations of the BCCI were non-compliant in relation to the implementation of the Lodha Committee reforms. As a result of strong resistance from numerous cricket associations, CoA had published letters from the state associations, disclosing their reasons to not do so. Most of the state bodies didn't submit any undertakings or affidavits sought by the governing committee.
(More follow)
© Cricbuzz
