Relief for N Srinivasan as court dismisses PIL

This was done keeping in mind only these two tournaments.

The petitioner alleged that it was only after this amendment that the former BCCI president, who is owner of India Cements, became eligible to own CSK. These rules were amended to benefit CSK owned by India Cements, the company owned by Srinivasan, the PIL said.

The PIL also challenged the amendment to Clause 15, which pertains to zone-wise rotational policy of nominating the BCCI board president, saying it was revised. The changes were made to facilitate Srinivasan’s re-election, it added.

Verma had, therefore, sought the formation of an independent Governance Review Committee to look into the rules and regulations of the BCCI.

Justices Anoop V Mohta and N M Jamdar listened to the arguments all day long before observing that it was difficult for them to interfere in a writ jurisdiction.

“The amendments cannot be tested by the petitioner on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and, with no material placed on record, no case is made out to interfere in the amendments,” observed the judges.

‘Proxy Interest Litigation

Calling it a “proxy interest litigation”, the likes Iqbal Chagla, Janak Dwarkadas and Mahesh Jethmalani, senior counsels, who appeared for the respondents including the BCCI and Srinivasan, sought that the PIL be dismissed with “punitive costs”.

The atmosphere turned heated when CAB’s counsel Dr Birendra Saraf questioned the notice received by him from the respondents’ lawyers asking for disclosure of source of his fee. Dr Saraf felt the move was in bad taste. He argued that the amendments were not carried out in a responsible manner and not in the interest of public at large.