New Delhi, Nov 21:
Cricket boss N Srinivasan today moved the Supreme Court seeking his reinstatement as BCCI President contending that there was “absolutely nothing” in the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee report “incriminating” him in the IPL6 scam.
Simultaneously, India Cements, the company of which he is the Managing Director, has also pleaded with the court not to pass any adverse order against the firm that could lead to cancellation of the franchise of Chennai Super Kings.
Srinivasan, who filed his objections to the final report of the committee in an affidavit, said that he believed that the conclusion in the report clearly vindicates his stand all allegations made against him were “completely false, baseless and motivated out of malice”.
Further, the BCCI President-in-exile countered the findings of the panel that he along with four others Board officials did not take action against Individual 3 (player) despite being aware of his misconduct saying that the then President had dealt with the issue and he cannot be attributed with any inaction.
Srinivasan said he has been cleared of charges of betting, match fixing or scuttling the investigation. The only observation in the report is with regard to “minor incident” involving ‘Individual 3’ which is nothing incriminating, he said adding he may be allowed to resume his office as BCCI President from which he has been away for almost a year.
In a separate affidavit, India Cements, which owns Chennai Super Kings (CSK), contended that Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, who has been indicted in the report, is no way associated with the company.
It pleaded that any adverse order against India Cements could have “disastrous consequences” not only for the CSK but for the entire league, cricketers and those associated with the IPL.
Srinivasan referred to the responses filed yesterday by the BCCI and Ranjib Biswal, President of Orissa Cricket Association, in which they mentioned that the alleged violation of players code of conduct by ‘Individual 3’ was brought to the notice of then Board’s President Shashank Manohar and action was taken for the “minor incident”.
“I submit that other than this observation about me and the other Board officials with regard to the minor incidents involving ‘Individual 3’ there is absolutely nothing in the report incriminating me.
“I may add that the incident explained by Ranjib Biswal involving the supposed ‘Individual 3’ was not in relation to the IPL. Further, it was not in relation to any corrupt activity, betting, gambling, fixing of matches etc., but a minor incident.
“Under these circumstances, I may draw the attention of this court to the undertaking given by me and recorded in the order dated March 28, 2014 that I will not discharge my duties as President, BCCI till the the investigation is concluded. There is absolutely no reason for me to continue to stay away from my elected position in BCCI.
“I have already lost close to a whole year of my elected term on the basis of wholly false and motivated charges. I pray that that this court therefore discharge me from my undertaking and allow me to resume my office as President. I pray that this court pass an appropriate order in that regard,” Srinivasan said in his affidavit.
India Cements distanced itself from the findings on misdemeanour of Meiyappan saying he is “neither a shareholder nor a director nor an employee and has not drawn any salary, honorarium or compensation of any kind from CSK or from India Cements.”
“However, the material on the basis of which the probe committee has arrived at this finding that he (Meiyappan) is a team official has not been discussed in the report or disclosed to this respondent (India Cements),” the affidavit said.
The company said assuming without admitting that Meiyappan was a team official of CSK, the demands made by Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB), on whose petition the probe panel was set up, for disenfranchising the team for violation of franchise agreement is “wholly misplaced” since that provision of clause 11.3 only deals with the acts by franchisee itself or by a group company of the franchisee or by the “Owner” of the franchisee. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel