Chennai: In the BCCI Working Committee meeting held here on Saturday, the Board has decided to intervene in the Special Leave Petition filed in the supreme court in order to deal with the possible re-entry of banned former IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi into Rajasthan Cricket Association.
“The Working Committee meeting of the BCCI was held to decide the course of action to be followed to enforce the decision of the Members to expel Mr Lalit Modi. It was noted by the members that Lalit Modi had contested for the post of RCA president notwithstanding his expulsion by BCCI,” BCCI Secretary Sanjay Patel said in a release.
“The members decided that the BCCI must intervene in the SLP filed by Mr Rungta in the Supreme Court, challenging the Rajasthan Sports Act and get clarified the position of BCCI to enable the enforcement of its resolution passed on 25th September 2013 expelling Mr. Lalit Modi.” it said, and added, “subject to the decision of the Supreme Court, strict disciplinary action should be taken against the delinquent member while protecting the interest of the game in the state of Rajasthan.”
Earlier in the day, Modi’s lawyer Mehmood Abdi, who is also Ganganagar District Association president, had come here to present RCA’s case before the committee on how the banned former IPL commissioner was allowed to contest its elections, though Rajasthan is not a member of the WC.
Asked what the RCA would do if it is suspended by the BCCI, he said, “They don’t have the sanction (power) to do that. We are bound by Rajasthan Sports Code.”
Later, RCA claimed that Abdi was ill-treated and not allowed to attend the meeting. In an e-mail to BCCI Secretary Sanjay Patel, RCA Secretary K.K. Sharma sought an apology for the way Abdi was handled by the security personnel at the hotel where the meeting was held and for the embarrassment it caused to the state unit.
“I am completely distressed by the manner our representative has been treated. Minimum courtesy demands that you would place our request before the Working Committee and inform us if we are going to be permitted to present our case or not. If a decision has already been taken to prevent us from not allowing us to present our case, the same should have been conveyed to us earlier,” Sharma said.
“We would also seek an apology from the person who had instructed security (bouncers) to prevent our representative from entering the meeting room. Please note this could not have been the decision of Working Committee because our representative was prevented from entering the room before the meeting started. Please let us know your response immediately. We expect that minimum courtesy that is due to a full board member would be extended to us,” he added.
