Lalit Modi could have received his first reprimand from the then Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Shashank Manohar way back in March 2010,but former India captain Sunil Gavaskar,then a member of the Governing Council,requested that the reprimand not be recorded. The incident finds a mention in the BCCI disciplinary committees report,which is to be tabled at the Special General Meeting in Chennai on September 25. Also Read: BCCI panel finds Modi guilty of indiscipline,life ban likely
BCCI vice-president Arun Jaitley,former IPL chairman Chirayu Amin and BCCI’s finance committee chairman Jyotiraditya Scindia are on the committee.
Manohar had received written complaints from various prospective bidders,including the Dainik Jagran group and the Sahara Group objecting to the highly onerous and unreasonable conditions being incorporated in the final tender. The new clause for two new teams in 2009 had asked that the bidder should have a net worth of $ 1 billion and has to give a bank guarantee of Rs 460 crores. Also Read: Shashi Tharoor’s shielded name of sweat equity holder,says Modi
However,the BCCI later cancelled the tender and issued a new one to allow more bidders to pick IPL teams.
After the BCCI president had reprimanded Modi for incorporating the onerous and unreasonable conditions in the ITT (invitation to tender),Gavaskar the report says on receipt of the draft minutes of the Governing Council meeting dated March 7,2010,requested that the word reprimand should not be recorded as Mr. Modi had already informed the media and the bidders that he was rapped by the president on the same.
When contacted on Tuesday,Gavaskar did not comment on the issue. While not legally binding,reprimands are considered to be conclusive,wherein all parties admit and accept that a mistake has taken place and is recorded,which in turn means that the guilt is established and a punishment is due,and final.
Once the term reprimand is removed from the minutes of a meeting of a governing body,it means that the decision is inconclusive,left open and can be challenged in the future. It also means that the mistake has not been placed on record,hinting that the guilt is left unproven.
According to the report,Modi had contended that since the word reprimand used in the 7.3.2010 meeting was later removed,charges of misconduct on account of insertion of the two clauses in the ITT lacked merit.
According to the report,the BCCI countered that although at the request of Gavaskar,the word reprimand was deleted,it stands established that Modi had incorporated two onerous conditions in the final ITT that were not present in the draft ITT as approved by the Governing Council on 17.12.2009.
The BCCI had argued that the incorporation of the unreasonable conditions in the final ITT without approval of the Governing Council was unauthorized and constituted a gross misconduct,thus ascertaining guilt.
Gavaskar,as a governing council member,was paid Rs 1 crore annually.