His team gets SC nod, Dalmiya doesn146;t

But taking note of the irregularities in the recent board elections, pointed out by the NCC, the Bench observed: 8216;8216;If we are satisfied, we may order holding of fresh elections for the board.8217;8217;

After hearing the BCCI, Delhi District Cricket Association DDCA, NCC and D C Agashe, representing the Maharashtra Cricket Association MCA, the Bench fixed the final hearing for October 26 and passed an interim direction staying the HC order.

Taking into account the alleged irregularities in the election of Ranbir Singh Mahendra as the BCCI president and the apprehension that Dalmiya would become patron-in-chief, the Bench said: 8216;8216;In the meanwhile, Dalmiya is restrained from getting elected/ appointed as the patron-in-chief.8217;8217;

Appearing for BCCI and DDCA, senior advocate A M Singhvi contended that the NCC had no locus standi to move a petition against the board and the HC committed error by entertaining it and passing orders restraining the newly-elected board from functioning.

He said the board8217;s undertaking before the HC was that it would not disqualify any person from contesting for the post of president and the undertaking had not been violated.

However, senior advocate Fali S Nariman, appearing for MCA8217;s D Agashe who was disqualified from voting, alleged that his client was allowed to vote in favour of Dalmiya for the post of patron-in-chief on September 12 but disqualified from voting on September 29 in the elections for the post of president.

He said the Bombay HC order, as Dalmiya himself understood, did not debar Agashe from voting and accused Dalmiya of playing 8216;8216;preferential politics8217;8217;.

Appearing for NCC, senior advocate Harish Salve alleged that serious irregularities took place during the elections as representatives of two cricket associations 8212; Maharashtra and Rajasthan 8212; were unfairly debarred from voting.

Drawing the court8217;s attention to the tie in the votes polled by both Sharad Pawar and Mahendra, he said if the two representatives were allowed to vote 8216;8216;it is anybody8217;s guess as to who would have become the president8217;8217;.

Salve also cited that if Agashe, because of the Bombay HC order, was not allowed to vote in the BCCI elections, then a similar order passed by the Company Law Board operated against DDCA and its representative should also not have been allowed to vote.

The Bench observed that 8216;8216;the facts may be in your favour, but it also prima facie appears that the HC could not have acted in writ jurisdiction to pass such an order.8217;8217;

Stating that 8216;8216;everything is not alright with BCCI but everything is not right also with the HC order,8217;8217; the Bench added that 8216;8216;if satisfied, we may direct fresh elections for the board.8217;8217;

Taking a serious view of the manner in which BCCI elections were held in Kolkata, the HC on October 8 had restrained the newly-elected BCCI members from functioning and appointed retired SC judge, Justice Mohan, as interim administrator to run the affairs of the board.

Salve pointed out the manner in which the BCCI had respected the HC order by ordering 8216;8216;complimentary off8217;8217; for all its employees across the country on October 9, when Justice Mohan went to assume charge as administrator.

He said the BCCI8217;s plea that its selection committees for players and umpires would also come to a standstill was unfounded as the HC had only restrained the board and not its selection committees from functioning.