The Allahabad High Court has directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association (UPCA) and the state Sports Department to file affidavits on the now dissolved “The Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association” challenging the takeover of its assets and bank accounts.
In its petition, the dissolved association has also sought recognition.
It also pointed to the fact that the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, stated in January 2023 that the ministry concerned had not recognised any cricket federation in India. The association contended that if the government does not recognise any sports federation, the BCCI cannot claim itself to be the governing body of cricket in India. This question is to be answered in the affidavit as well.
A division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan on Monday directed all the respondents to file counter-affidavits on the petitioner’s contentions within four weeks. The bench also directed the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit in the next two weeks (after the four-week period).
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the association was dissolved in July 2005 as per the provisions of Section 13 of Societies Registration Act, 1860. Referring to the provisions of the Act, the counsel submitted that all assets, accounts and resources of the dissolved “The Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association”, should be transferred back to them.
The respondent’s (UPCA) counsel, however, argued that the petitioner cannot have recognition from the BCCI by merely having registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and it cannot be claimed that the dissolved association was performing functions in consonance with the “object and purposes” of the BCCl. On this, the petitioner submitted that what is to be seen regarding its formation is whether it complied with Section 1 (read with Section 20) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The petitioner’s counsel said “The Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association” was formed and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in October 1955. Though it was affiliated to the BCCI, no document was available to support this.
Story continues below this ad
On the other hand, UPCA was registered under the Companies Act, 1956, in July 2005, it was stated.
The petitioner’s contentions
— The bank account of the dissolved “The UPCA” is now being used by “UPCA” after its registration by fraudulently omitting the word “THE”, the petitioner’s counsel alleged.
— In a letter dated November 5, 2024, to the Union finance minister, outstanding dues of UPCA for tax evasion were stated to be Rs 90,71,99,981.68.
— UPCA office-bearers are holding posts in contravention of the decision dated August 9, 2018, of the Supreme Court passed in the BCCI and others vs. Bihar Cricket and others case.
Story continues below this ad
— A case under section 420 and 120-B of IPC was filed in 2019 in Chandauli district against office-bearers of UPCA and a charge-sheet was filed.
— “Sports” is a subject of the “State list of 7th Schedule of Indian Constitution and the Uttar Pradesh government has not formulated any policy for the development and promotion of cricket in the state. Since the BCCI is an autonomous body and is not under the purview of the National Sports Federation and the fact that the government does not recognise any national sports federation, the BCCI cannot claim itself to be the governing body of cricket in India.
— Disregarding the list of selected team players for participation in the Ranji Trophy Cricket Tournament for 2025-26 is against the objectives of the association.
— Despite giving a representation to the UP Ministry of State for Sports of Youth Welfare, no action has been taken to form a “state-level cricket team, which has been permitted by the BCCI in other states.
Story continues below this ad
— Whether the assets and liabilities of a dissolved society can be taken over by another entity which is subsequently registered or whether the assets of the dissolved association vest in the Uttar Pradesh government.
The court directed UPCA (respondent) not to make any changes to the immovable property and maintain a “strict statement of accounts” of its movable properties, including bank accounts and income. The bench listed the matter in the week starting April 13 for next hearing.
