Allahabad High Court refuses CBI probe into BCCI’s ‘financial links’ with UP cricket body

“This Court is of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioner to issue directions to ban UPCA or for investigation by CBI, is absolutely baseless; and is essentially a private dispute, concerning succession of property of a dissolved society… This Court declines to issue any direction pertaining to ban, investigation by CBI or to constitute a High Level Committee to inquire into the matter of alleged affiliation and financial aid given by BCCI to UPCA,” the court said on August 3.

The case stemmed from a challenge to the 2005 transfer of the assets, liabilities and functions of the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, to the present UPCA, a company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now Section 8). The petitioner contended that the original society had not been lawfully dissolved and questioned BCCI’s continued recognition and financial support to UPCA.

Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan said the challenge sought to unsettle a 21-year-old arrangement that had attained finality. (Image enhanced using AI)

Legality of 2005 transition

The petitioner argued that the dissolution of the original society violated Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act and that the transfer of its assets to the newly incorporated company was illegal. It contended that the Uttar Pradesh government’s consent was mandatory before dissolution as it had contributed to the society.

The petitioner also sought transfer of the assets to itself, a ban on UPCA’s cricketing activities, a CBI probe into the alleged misuse of the former society’s assets, an inquiry into BCCI’s affiliation and financial aid to UPCA, and an inquiry into whether UPCA office-bearers were continuing in office contrary to the Supreme Court‘s cricket governance reforms.

The respondents, including UPCA and the BCCI, countered that the society had been validly dissolved through a resolution passed by over three-fifths of its members in September 2005 and that UPCA had since functioned as Uttar Pradesh’s recognised cricket body.

They also relied on earlier proceedings before the Allahabad and Delhi High Court, where UPCA’s incorporation had not been disturbed.

No to reopen 21-year-old dispute

Agreeing with the respondents, the high court found no legal basis to reopen the controversy after more than two decades. It held that the original society stood dissolved after more than three-fifths of its members passed a resolution on September 3, 2005, transferring its assets, liabilities and functions to the newly incorporated company in accordance with the statutory framework.

The bench noted that no dispute over the disposal of the society’s property was ever raised before the competent civil court and that the 2005 resolutions had never been challenged before any court. It also observed that earlier proceedings before the Allahabad High Court and the Delhi High Court had proceeded on the basis that the erstwhile society had already been incorporated as a company.

Rejecting the state government’s objection that its consent was required for the dissolution, the court held there was no evidence that the government had contributed to the society. The bench observed that the state authorities “could not demonstrate their contribution or interest in the society”, making government consent unnecessary.

It also noted that no effective action had been taken for nearly 21 years after the society informed the deputy registrar of its dissolution, observing that “much water has flown in the last two decades, which is another reason for us to decline any interference”.

Transfer of assets upheld, other reliefs rejected

• Dismissing the writ petition, the bench said, “The matter is required to be given a quietus.”
• The high court also upheld the transfer of the society’s assets, liabilities and functions to the present UPCA, holding that Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act did not bar a society from transferring its assets to a company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act.
• It noted that UPCA had functioned as the BCCI-recognised cricket body for Uttar Pradesh for over two decades, implemented the Supreme Court-mandated Justice R M Lodha Committee reforms, and continued to enjoy full membership and voting rights in the BCCI.
• Having upheld the legality of the 2005 transition, the court also refused to direct the BCCI to transfer liabilities to the petitioner, holding that no writ of mandamus could be issued.

It added that any grievance relating to the company’s affairs could be pursued before the National Company Law Tribunal under the Companies Act, while the petitioner was free to seek BCCI affiliation under the applicable rules or approach the state government on issues relating to cricket development.