Mudgal Report: Former BCCI president Shashank Manohar says postponing AGM against the rules

Manohar, who headed BCCI from 2008 to 2011, said the date of the AGM can’t be altered once decided.

By: Express News Service | Kolkata | Updated: November 15, 2014 10:07:51 am
Shashank-Manohar_AP_M Former BCCI president is a staunch critic of N Srinivasan who is now currently the ICC chairman. (Source: AP)

Former BCCI president Shashank Manohar has flayed N Srinivasan, while saying that the constitution of the Indian cricket board doesn’t allow a postponement of the Annual General Meeting once the date has been decided by the working committee. This follows the Supreme Court’s disclosure that four individuals connected to Indian cricket, including ICC chairman and BCCI’s sidelined-president N Srinivasan, have been named in the Mudgal report.

“During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the names of N Srinivasan, Sundar Raman, (Gurunath) Meiyappan and Raj Kundra are disclosed. This means that the said persons are prima facie indicted in the report,” said Manohar in a release.

“Mr Srinivasan, the president of BCCI has been prohibited from participating in the functioning of the Board since the last several months.

In spite of being prohibited, he continues to run the Board, which is amply evident from the Board functioning,” he added.

Manohar, who headed BCCI from 2008 to 2011, said the date of the AGM can’t be altered once it is decided by the working committee.

“The working committee meeting (in September) fixed the date of the AGM as of November 20 probably hoping that the names of Mr N Srinivasan and Meiyappan would be cleared. However, it appears that during today’s hearing, as soon as the names of Srinivasan and Meiyappan were disclosed, the counsel for the Board made a request for the postponement of the AGM and elections scheduled to be held on November 20. Once the date of the AGM is fixed by the working committee, the same could not and cannot be altered by any office bearer.

“It is thus evident that the instructions given to the Board counsel are only with an intent to suit Mr Srinivasan as that would ensure he still remains a back seat driver. The moot question that needs to be answered is that who gave the Board counsel instructions to plead for postponement of the AGM? The second question that comes to mind, if the investigation/hearing pulls on for several years, then will the Board keep functioning under the same set up?”

Start your day the best way
with the Express Morning Briefing

For all the latest Sports News, download Indian Express App