FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS [FAQS] – 6.9.2016

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

The Committee has received a series of emails and letters carrying queries and representations from State Associations, members and former players. As most of these queries would apply to the BCCI and all Associations, in order to clarify the manner of implementation of the recommendations in its Report, the following first list of FAQs and the responses thereto have been prepared.

  1. Do the disqualifications from being elected as a Councillor/office bearer as stated in Rule 6(5) and Rule 14(3) apply to State/Member Associations as well?

YES. THESE DISQUALIFICATIONS WILL APPLY TO THE STATES IN LIGHT OF RULE 3(b)(1)(5) READ WITH RULE 14(3) AS WELL AS PAGES 74 & 80 OF THE REPORT.

  1. Whether the expressions “Councillor” in Rule 14(3) and “BCCI” in Rule 14(3)(f) are to be read as applied as “Members of the Governing Body” and “State Association” respectively.

YES. THESE EXPRESSIONS WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE GOVERNING BODY MEMBERS OF THE STATES. “BCCI” IN THE CONTEXT OF 14(3)(f) WILL BE DEEMED TO BE THE RESPECTIVE STATE ASSOCIATION.

  1. Does “charged under penal law” mean a chargesheet being filed by the police, or charges being framed by a court of law?

AS A RESULT OF THE AMENDMENT MADE TO RULES 6(5) AND 14(3) BY THE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT DATED 28.8.2016, CLAUSE (g) HAS BEEN INSERTED IN BOTH PROVISIONS TO READ – “HAS BEEN CHARGED BY A COURT OF LAW FOR HAVING COMMITTED ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE”.

  1. Will charges framed only after 18.7.2016 be considered?

THE DISQUALIFICATION WILL APPLY TO THOSE AGAINST WHOM CHARGES HAVE BEEN FRAMED PRIOR TO 18.07.2016.

  1. For the disqualifications to apply, whether the past period of service as office bearer would apply, i.e. Will 9 year periods be calculated with effect after 18.7.2016, or will past terms also be considered?

ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS CUMULATIVELY COMPLETED A PERIOD OF 9 YEARS AS AN OFFICE BEARER OF A STATE ASSOCIATION STANDS DISQUALIFIED FROM CONTESTING ELECTIONS OR HOLDING A POST IN THE ASSOCIATION.

THIS WILL APPLY TO ANY PERSON AS OF THE DATE OF THE ELECTION, AND WILL INCLUDE PERIODS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT (18.07.2016).

IF ANY PERSON HAS COMPLETED 9 YEARS AS AN OFFICE BEARER (WHETHER THROUGH CONSECUTIVE OR SEPARATE TERMS; WHETHER IN ONE POST OR ANOTHER) OF THE STATE ASSOCIATION BY OR BEFORE 18.07.2016, SUCH PERSON STANDS DISQUALIFIED.

  1. How exactly does the 9 year disqualification period on a Councillor/office bearer work?

IF THE PROSPECTIVE COUNCILLOR / OFFICE BEARER HAS HELD ANY OF THE FIVE OFFICE BEARER POSTS AT THE BCCI AND THE CUMULATIVE PERIOD OF ALL THOSE TENURES IS 9 YEARS OR MORE, HE IS DISQUALIFIED FROM CONTESTING FOR ANY POST AGAIN.

 

AT THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS, IF THE PROSPECTIVE OFFICE BEARER HAS HELD ANY POST OF OFFICE BEARER OF THE STATE ASSOCIATION, AND IF THE CUMULATIVE PERIOD OF ALL THOSE TENURES IS 9 YEARS OR MORE, SUCH PERSON IS DISQUALIFIED FROM CONTESTING FOR ANY POST AGAIN.

  1. Does the 9 year limit apply only to holding Councillor/office bearer posts at the BCCI?

YES. THIS DISQUALIFICATION IS ONLY TO ENSURE THAT NO PERSON WILL HAVE MORE THAN 9 YEARS AS COUNCILLOR / OFFICE BEARER OF THE BCCI.

  1. So a person who has held an office bearer post in a State for 9 years or more is still eligible to be a Councillor/office bearer of BCCI?

YES. THE 9 YEAR BAR APPLIES EITHER TO OFFICE UNDER THE BCCI OR SEPARATELY IN STATE ASSOCIATIONS. THE PERIOD AS OFFICE BEARER UNDER THE STATE SHALL NOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE PERIOD AS OFFICE BEARER OF THE BCCI AND VICE VERSA. THEREFORE, TECHNICALLY ONE INDIVIDUAL CAN BE AN OFFICE BEARER AT THE STATE ASSOCIATION FOR 9 YEARS AND SEPARATELY AN OFFICE BEARER / COUNCILLOR AT THE BCCI FOR ANOTHER 9 YEARS, SUBJECT OF COURSE TO THE COOLING-OFF PERIOD AFTER EACH TERM.

  1. For example, can a person be a State Association Secretary for 3 years, and then immediately following that tenure, or within 3 years thereof become a BCCI Councillor/office bearer?

THE COOLING-OFF PERIOD APPLIES AFTER EVERY 3 YEARS AS AN OFFICE BEARER, WHETHER AT THE STATE ASSOCIATION OR THE BCCI. DURING THE COOLING-OFF PERIOD OF 3 YEARS, NO OFFICE BEARER / COUNCILLOR POST MAY BE HELD BY THE INDIVIDUAL EITHER AT THE BCCI OR THE STATE ASSOCIATION.

  1. If a person is presently holding an office-bearer post after having been elected in 2015 or 2016, can he contest the elections to either BCCI or the State Associations which are to be conducted as per the timelines by November-December 2016?

IF THE INCUMBENT HAD NOT OCCUPIED ANY POST EITHER AT THE BCCI OR IN A STATE ASSOCIATION IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ELECTION OF 2015 OR 2016, THEN HE MAY CONTEST THE ELECTIONS TO BE HELD AS PER THE TIMELINES. IN THOSE ASSOCIATIONS WHERE ELECTIONS ARE DUE, INCUMBENT OFFICE BEARERS ARE INELIGIBLE TO CONTEST BECAUSE THE COOLING OFF PERIOD WILL COMMENCE.

  1. If a candidate for an office-bearer post has already completed 7 years as an office-bearer, can he contest for a further post (the term of which is 3 years) which will take him beyond the 9 year limit?

YES, HE CAN. HE REMAINS ELIGIBLE AS OF THE DATE OF THE ELECTION. HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF RULE 14(5), HE SHALL DEMIT OFFICE UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE MAXIMUM 9 YEAR PERIOD.

  1. Similarly, if a candidate for an office-bearer post is 68 years old, can he contest for a further post (the term of which is 3 years) which will take him beyond the 70 year age limit?

YES, HE CAN. HE REMAINS ELIGIBLE AS OF THE DATE OF THE ELECTION. HE SHALL HOWEVER CEASE TO HOLD THE OFFICE UPON TURNING 70 YEARS OF AGE.

  1. If a State Association has posts of “Advisor”, “Assistant Secretary”, “Patron”, “Deputy Treasurer”, etc., will they be considered as Office Bearers?

FOR THE PURPOSES OF UNIFORMITY, AS PER THE NEW NORMS, THERE SHALL ONLY BE THE FOLLOWING 5 OFFICE BEARER POSTS IN ANY ASSOCIATION: PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT, TREASURER, SECRETARY AND JOINT SECRETARY. THERE SHALL BE NO OTHER POST BY WHATSOEVER NAME.

  1. Can an office bearer of a State Association who is not eligible to contest the next election function as a CEO or similar managerial post after making amendments to the Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Association?

WHILE THE POSITION OF AN OFFICE BEARER IS NOT ONE OF EMPLOYMENT, BUT A POSITION OF GOVERNANCE, THE POST OF CEO IS A FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT.

AS PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS, RULES HAVE TO BE FRAMED FOR THE ELIGIBILITY, QUALIFICATIONS, APPOINTMENT AND TENURES OF THE CEO AND MANAGERIAL STAFF. IT IS ONLY AS PER THESE RULES THAT THE APPOINMENTS MAY TAKE PLACE.

  1. In Associations where there are disputes regarding the eligibility of members, or where the members’ register is not properly maintained, what recourse is available?

AS PER PAGE 74 OF THE REPORT READ WITH RULE 33(3), THE ELECTORAL OFFICER SHALL BE CHARGED WITH RESOLVING DISPUTES CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY OF VOTING MEMBERS. ANY COMPLAINT MAY BE REFERRED TO THE ELECTORAL OFFICER. IF HOWEVER, THE ISSUES CONCERNED IS WIDER THAN MERE ELECTORAL ISSUES, THEN THE REFERENCE WOULD BE TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSOCIATION’S OMBUDSMAN.

  1. What are the amendments which have to be carried out to the Bye-Laws / Regulations of the State Associations by 30.9.2016?

AS PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE READ WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 18.7.2016, THE MINIMUM AMENDMENTS TO BE CARRIED OUT TO THE BYE-LAWS / REGULATIONS OF THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS BY 30.9.2016 ARE:

  • Deletion of all provisions enabling holding of posts for more than 9 years.
  • Restriction of Office Bearers to only the following five posts: President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary and Joint Secretary; Delete provisions for all other posts.
  • Amendment of the term/tenure of Office Bearer to be 3 years.
  • Insertion of a cooling-off clause, which bars previous office bearers either at the BCCI or the State Association from contesting the succeeding Office Bearer elections or having a second consecutive term.
  • Amendment to the composition of the Governing Body to include at least one woman, representatives of the players and a nominee of the Accountant General of the State.
  • Amendment to the Membership clause to automatically grant membership to interested former international cricketers from the State provided they have not already opted for membership of another Association.
  • Insertion of a clause barring voting by proxy.
  • Insertion of disqualifications from being an Office Bearer as stated in Rule 14(3) of the Rules read with the Judgment of the Supreme Court.
  • Insertion of Clauses for appointment and functioning of the Ombudsman, Electoral Officer and Ethics Officer. These may be in line with Rules 40-41, 32-33 and 38-39 of the proposed BCCI Rules.
  • Insertion of provisions for transparency as per Rules 34-36 (financial) and 37 (others) of the proposed BCCI Rules as well as Pages 76-77 of the Report.
  • Insertion of a provision that removes the social club (if any) from the management and control of the Association.
  • Adoption of the Agents Registration Norms carried in Annexure C to the Report and as applicable to players in States.

 

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS [FAQS] – 6.9.2016”

  1. In Hyderabad Cricket Association ,as per the existing bye laws the Managing committee consisted of total 22 members all elected by the General body comprising of 217 affiliated clubs Of which 10 are called office bearers(president, 5 Vice Presidents, Secretary,2 joint secretaries and a treasurer) and 12 members are called as Executive committee members .

    Will the Executive Committee Members who are also elected by the General body and had also completed the tenure of 9 years and more through consecutive or seperate terms as on the date of next elections also be treated as office bearers and shall not be eligible to contest election in future as they also served the management committee of the association for more than 9 years as elected members on par with the office bearers and had equal weightage in decision making on par with the office bearers in the managing committee
    Please clarify

    Like

    1. No.The executive committe members differ from office bearers.Their continuance cannot be equated with continuance of office bearers.The executive committe members donot suffer intelligibility clause.

      Like

      1. As a matter of fact the fundamental aspect is to describe eligibility to get elected to theBCCI and Statebodies, subject to the caps fixed by justice Lodha.Any member rises to those levels,only if he is member at the bottom ie district level.If a district member is above 70,he will be in conflict to be in Statebody,consequent upon in BCCI.Hence I believe the districts fundamentally involve changes as per Lodha committee,except the club’s pattern as the district’s have clubs allthrough.
        So,if I am not incorrect and subject to correction States shall start identfying it’s district units at the earliest as per Lodha committee caps, to be in state unit,to participate in elections in BCCI

        Like

      1. http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/deloitte-audit-report-exposes-financial-mess-in-bcci-affiliates/298162
        outlook

        07 MARCH 2017Last Updated at 2:01 PM

        Deloitte Audit Report Exposes Financial Mess In BCCI Affiliates

        Exposes large scale irregularities in accounts books of the state associations
        QAISER MOHAMMAD ALI

        The damning Deloitte audit report, which has exposed widespread financial irregularities inside the BCCI’s affiliate associations, seems to be having its desired effect.

        The Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) has taken a note of the scathing report, accessed by Outlook, and is said to mulling action after getting to know the scale of the financial irregularities mentioned in the tell-all individual reports of each state association.

        A team of auditors from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu gave the CoA, headed by former CAG Vinod Rai and comprising finance expert Vikram Limaye, MD and CEO of IDFC Ltd., a presentation a couple of weeks ago in Delhi.

        Being experts at number crunching, Rai, who during his tenure as CAG had disclosed both the Coalgate and 2G Scams a few years ago, and Limaye naturally looked beyond the black-and-white text and tried reading between the lines in the Deloitte reports. They as well as their two other committee colleagues — noted historian and never-say-die cricket fan Ramchandra Guha and former India women’s captain Diana Edulji — felt there was still more to it that had found its way into the report.

        Sources close to the CoA say what made them take the report with a pinch of salt was the auditors’ negative remarks against almost all the associations who did not cooperate with the special team constituted to undertake the first-of-its-kind, pan-India exercise. These associations essentially stonewalled their bid to dig out the truth about their financial dealings. Prominent among the units that refused to cooperate fully include Jharkhand, Orissa, Assam, Gujarat, and Goa.

        In their multiple reports, the auditors have mentioned that associations either refused to show them the relevant contracts, fixed deposit receipts, documents, MoUs, bills, vouchers, receipts etc. or they were not available. They also emphasise that many associations are not maintaining the fixed assets register – mandatory for every big organisation – or wrote accounts books with a pencil or accepted bills presented on plain paper or favoured their known ones in tender process. In several instances, the auditors noted the differences in the amounts of money that the BCCI has given associations and what they claim to have received.

        For example, the auditors point out the bizarre act of overruling duly audited accounts by the Gujarat Cricket Association. “The audited financial statements duly signed by office-bearers was superseded subsequently with a correct version due to an inadvertent error in the balance sheet resulting in certain differences in the older version.”

        It is learned that even as the CoA studies the report, it is not entirely happy with what it has in its hands. Considering the associations’ instances of defiance mentioned above, there is thinking among some members of the committee, that it would be prudent to conduct a fresh audit of the state associations.

        While the other CoA members are not speaking to the media, Guha made an exception to make a general comment on the Deloitte report. “We have seen the report. A presentation has been made to us by Deloitte. There are multiple reports. We are aware of the situation and we will try and do the best we can,” Guha tells Outlook, stressing that he too has taken a decision to not to speak on his committee’s decisions.

        If the CoA members, who are in no hurry to implement the reforms as they would like to do a good job of the responsibility given, eventually decide to order a fresh audit of the associations, they would have a solid, valid reason. In this context, it is crucial to note that former BCCI president Shashank Manohar’s order of the audit in October 2015 was his own initiative – and that is what the CoA may also point out.

        There was no order from any court to do so, though at the time the BCCI was under the Supreme Court hammer and had coping with the public wrath for its mismanagement, particularly in financial matters. Manohar wanted to cleanse the opaque system. Under the circumstances, it was perhaps the best step that he could take in his bid to make the state officials transparent and accountable, and restore the BCCI’s image somewhat.

        But Manohar then left the BCCI and became ICC chairman. The circumstances changed quickly, and soon the Supreme Court debarred president Anurag Thakur, who had since replaced Manohar, and secretary Ajay Shirke in January. While the BCCI’s entire focus was now on saving its own skin in the Supreme Court, there was no one to take action on the Deloitte report.
        Therefore, it is only natural for the CoA to study the report and probably take action. It is important to note that his committee has the mandate of the Supreme Court to govern until the Lodha Committee recommendations are implemented in the BCCI and its affiliates, followed by elections. Thus, it has enough powers and it has taken complete command of the Board, as seen in its several directives to the state associations, including seeking information on their qualified/disqualified administrators.

        Since the committee derives its strength from the highest court of the country, it thus has the power to order a fresh audit. Its present priority, however, will obviously be to ensure that the ongoing Test series with Australia is conducted smoothly – and there’s no repeat of the Pune pitch fiasco – and the high-stake IPL in April-May.

        During all this, the committee is taking a hard look at Deloitte report and may take a decision on whether it should go for a re-audit, say sources. After all, the reforms will start from the state associations, which are members as well as the electorate of the BCCI. If the administration in states is not in order, transparent, and implement the Lodha Committee-drafted constitution reforms can’t take place in true sense.

        “It [contents of the audit report] may be just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe a lot of the material that’s really relevant was not divulged to the Deloitte audit team. There may a good chance that re-audit may be ordered. That it would be in order. A lot of people have been asking for it,” said the source aware of the developments. “After all, Vinod Rai is an expert in this field – auditing. If he feels there are loopholes somewhere or some other things need to be probed he may ask for it.” And, as seen by Outlook, there are indeed many grey areas stressed in the Deloitte reports.

        One of the root causes of the state associations’ ‘I-don’t-give-a-damn’ attitude towards financial matters, including maintenance of account books, is that the BCCI never tried to make them accountable for the huge grants/funds they have been doling out year after year (see the graphic alongside), particularly since the advent of the lucrative IPL in 2008. All this is due to the Board’s vote politics and a majority of former office-bearers’ keenness to perpetuate their reins. This, despite giving huge amounts to its affiliates over the years.

        It was only after the Supreme Court took a tough stand over this issue and asked the BCCI to furnish details of the money it had distributed to the states and how the states have spent it that the Board asked the associations to get the audit done on their own (the Deloitte audit was ordered separately). Earlier, a majority of officials in the associations had been splurging the money the way they wanted, many times on themselves, as is enumerated by the Deloitte report.

        While trying to impress upon the Supreme Court that the BCCI had been taking a tough stand against its affiliates vis-à-vis financial accountability, former BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur in a sworn affidavit, submitted in May 2016, actually ended up admitting that some states had not been getting their accounts audited. In his affidavit, he cited the Gujarat Cricket Association (GCA), headed by BJP president Amit Shah, as an example.

        “If not submitted, the disbursement is withheld until such submission. For example, disbursements to the GCA were withheld in FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 due to non-submission of audited accounts. However, once it submitted is (sic) audited accounts, Rs.86.66 crore (being its aggregate entitlement for FY 2011-12, FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14) was disbursed to it in FY 2013-14,” said Thakur. However, Gujarat alone is not guilty; there are many of its ilk that get away with murder, so to say.

        Despite the Supreme Court and the CoA wielding the stick, some officials and associations are still trying their best to impede the impending reforms by taking legal recourse. Many of them have moved applications in the Supreme Court, basically on two issues: the supposed confusion over administrators’ tenure (whether it is nine years each at the BCCI and the states, or nine years altogether), and the fear that ICC chairman Manohar’s bid to treat all member countries at par would significantly reduce BCCI’s share from the ICC. The next hearing in the Supreme Court is on March 27.

        Those in favour of reforms charge that certain officials’ worry over likely reduced share from ICC is a “put on” act and is actually a bid to prolong their rule by taking attention away from the main issue – reforms in Indian cricket.

        “BCCI officials keep saying that if the ICC pays India less, players would suffer. But most people don’t know – not even the players, perhaps – that not even a penny that comes from the ICC is shared with players. So whether or not BCCI gets more money or less from the ICC, it would make no difference to players,” said an official.

        “For example, when the Champions League Twenty20 tournament was discontinued in 2015 the BCCI received a compensation of Rs.1,607.58 crore from the broadcasters STAR Sports. Not a penny of this money was shared with players. Both the public and players have to understand all these things,” he pointed out. “Why doesn’t the BCCI include the income from the IPL and ICC’s distribution as part of the 26 per cent of the gross revenue that it shares with players?”

        Currently, the 26 per cent players’ share only includes income from media/TV rights and jersey logo deal.

        This ICC issue is closely linked with the reforms in the BCCI and its affiliates. The ICC is expected to take a final decision in April, but the implementation of reforms in India may take many more months, going by the pace at which this Supreme Court case has been progressing and the state associations trying to take legal recourse to, as many experts allege, delay implementing the Lodha Committee’s recommendations. Until these cases get disposed off quickly, uncertainty will continue to affect Indian cricket.

        Below are some of highlights of the Deloitte Audit Report (the figures against the state associations’ names, in parenthesis, are the amounts they received from BCCI between 2010-11 and 2014-15, as per a BCCI affidavit submitted in Supreme Court):

        Baroda (Rs.154.92 crore)
        • Land at Kotambi purchased for Rs.13.95 crore from seller who himself purchased the property just a month before for Rs.10.95 crore.
        • Advance of Rs.4.17 crore paid for buying land at Sarkarda at risk; litigation is on.
        • Memorabilia worth Rs.96 lakhs in silver coins issued to all 2,300 members.

        Uttar Pradesh (Rs.123.52 crore)
        • Rs. 21.52 crore, including Rs.3 crore for proposed building, spent in acquiring land in Unnao, near Kanour, for a stadium. Now, UPCA plans to sell it.
        • UPCA took Green Park Stadium on a 30-year lease at a yearly rent of Rs.1 crore, but the state government too is using it.
        • No practice of inviting open tenders awarding purchase/service contracts.

        Haryana (Rs.120.65 crore)
        • Close to its Lahli stadium, 21.06 acres land bought for Rs.10.74 crore (@ Rs.51.01 lakh/acre while in 2013-14 the collector rate was Rs.25 lakh/acre) between 2010-2014 for another stadium.
        • Land in Sultanpur, Yakubpur, Sondhi and Beed in Haryana purchased at a premium of 50%-230% over collector rates and exchanged with Reliance Haryana SEZ’s 9.84-acre land in Lohat.

        Jharkhand (Rs.196.23 crore)
        • Non-refundable Rs.15.85 crore premium paid for leasehold land in Ranchi not being amortized over the lease period.
        • Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited sub-leased 31.70 acres land in Ranchi to JSCA for a stadium for a Rs.15.85 crore premium. HECL now wants to evict JSCA as it wants to build a star hotel inside the stadium; litigation on.

        Kerala (Rs.176.16 crore)
        • Rs.27.08 crore spent on purchasing 23.65-acre marshy mangrove land in Edakochi in 2009-10 for building a stadium. Case is in the High Court.
        • Rs.3.36 crore spent on purchasing land in Thodupuzha. It’s under litigation.
        • Rs.85 lakh paid to United Kingdom’s architectural firm Hopkins without formal agreement.

        Orissa (Rs.186.64 crore)
        • Rs.2.38 crore loss to OCA Club since its inception in 2013-14.
        • Rs.3.5 lakh worth of 70 tonnes organic manure purchased every month from Indian Plant Seeds for Barabati Stadium/gardens, no utilisation records maintained.
        • Rs.5.41 crore deficit in organising men’s and women’s tournaments, despite reimbursements by the BCCI.

        Hyderabad (Rs.156.67 crore)
        • At least Rs.114.95 crore worth of financial irregularities from 2000-2012 alleged by Anti Corrpution Bureau.
        • Rs.2.03 crore demand from the electricity department for electricity theft.
        • Land in Mehboobnagar and Nizamabad purchased for Rs.1.51 crore for constructing stadiums, but IT Dept attached them in 2015-16 for not paying tax.

        Goa (Rs.141.30 crore)
        • Fixed assets, including a ground at Sanguem, capitalised at Rs 6.2 crore, mired in controversy.
        • Alleged misappropriation of Rs.2.87 crore received from BCCI between 2006-2008.
        • Rs.4.47 crore paid to Uday Joshi & Asso on design & consultancy; work not shown to auditors.
        • Officials spent Rs.43 lakh on watching IPL games in 2014-15 under ‘Cricket Promotion Expenses’.

        Gujarat (Rs.157.23 crore)
        • GCA purchased cricket balls (Rs.42.45 lakh) and staff uniform (Rs.1.73 lakh) from two firms in which officials were “interested” in (2012-13 to 2015-16).
        • Audited financial statements for 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 not provided and AGMs not held. Office-bearers’ term had expired in 2011-12.
        • Significant IT demand of Rs.37 crore from 2006-07 to 2012-13.

        Himachal Pradesh (Rs.134.28 crore)
        • HPCA, a society, changed to a company on Oct 1, 2012, but it had registered a company with exactly same acronym (Himalayan Players Cricket Asso) was incorporated in 2005. After becoming a company, HPCA became Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association.
        • Total tax demand of Rs.18 crore pending, but no provision or entry is made in the books.

        Saurashtra (Rs.158.89 crore)
        • Transactions with association members and their family: Rs.84,000 ex-gratia, Rs.66,000 for mobile phone, Rs.85,000 for mobile bill for 2014-15 and car along with petrol expenses amounting to Rs.14 lakh given to secretary Niranjan Shah.
        • \

        Assam (Rs.216.15 crore)
        • Contract for Barsapara Stadium floodlights given for Rs.9.87 crore; actual cost was Rs.12 crore. It got a Rs.6.50 crore loan @ 9.25% against two fixed deposits (maturity value Rs.8.47 crore) for paying Service Tax (Rs.3.30 crore) and contractors (Rs.3.20 crore).

        Bengal (Rs.224.18 crore)
        • Non-payment of Eden Gardens lease rentals for four years is Rs.3.24 crore while Rs.66 lakh was spent on celebration of 199th Test of Sachin Tendulkar in 2013-14 and Rs.58 lakh on 150th anniversary of the stadium.

        Tamil Nadu (Rs.193.42 crore)
        • Lease of Chennai’s Chepauk Stadium pending renewal, after the 20-year lease expired on April 19, 2015. Additional lease rental demand of Rs.28.99 crore received by the TNCA for Chepauk. Three stands (12,000 seats) of Chepauk sealed for being constructed without CMDA’s permission.

        Mumbai (Rs.191.57 crore)
        • 19 Corporate Boxes at Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai, allotted without tender process. MCA offers subsidised tickets to Garware Club House, which can charge their members extra. Rs.1 crore donated to Mahrashtra CM’s drought relief fund, though there’s no such provision in its bye-laws.

        Maharashtra (Rs.183.89 crore)
        • Rs.64 lakh spent on guard dog services and Rs.26 lakh to contractors for house-keeping services without tenders/evaluation. No written contracts defining roles for 30 contractors/consultants and 12 employees.

        Karnataka (Rs.183.57 crore)
        • Rs.2.03 crore incurred on software not in use. It includes the ERP/cricketing software/cognitive e-play software. Association spent Rs.1.21 crore for telecasting Platinum Jubilee celebrations.

        Punjab (Rs.178.14 crore)
        • Fixed deposits of Rs.15 crore in the name of president and treasurer. Punjab and Chandigarh police’s bill of Rs.31.64 crore is being contested. Post facto approval of Rs.1 crore paid to Punjab State Cancer and Drug Addiction Treatment Infra Fund.

        Delhi (Rs.163.60 crore)
        • DDCA’s most controversial project is Ferozeshah Kotla Stadium’s renovation. The initial contract was of Rs.24 crore in 2004, but cost has escalated to approx. Rs.141 crore without the stadium being complete, still.

        Madhya Pradesh (Rs.158.08 crore)
        • Purchase of 12.43 hectares of land at various rates, ranging from Rs.30 lakh to Rs.2 crore per hectare.
        • Income Tax has imposed Rs.490 lakh penalty. Rs.18.44 lakh spent on 100th birthday celebrations of late cricketers CS Nayudu, MM Jagdale and Syed Mushtaq Ali.

        Vidarbha (Rs.150.25 crore)
        • VCA Club House has made a loss of Rs.5.82 crore in the last three years. Significant amount of off balance-sheet exposures (service tax and police bandobast): Rs. 21.48 crore on March 31, 2015.

        Tripura (Rs.106.01 crore)
        • Contrary to its bye-laws, Rs.148.37 crore kept in fixed deposits with state co-operative and gramin banks. The association paid, under protest, only Rs.2.61 crore out of Rs.7.11 crore Income Tax demand in 2012-13.

        Rajasthan (Rs.118.67 crore)
        • An ad-hoc body is managing the RCA affairs after suspending the body for electing suspended Lalit Modi its president on May 6, 2014. Since then cricketers have been most hit while BCCI has stopped funds.

        Andhra (Rs.139.83 crore)
        • Spent Rs.3.06 crore on its Diamond Jubilee Celebrations in 2014 while 100 silver mementos worth Rs.27 lakh distributed without receipt information. NGT imposed Rs.96.40 lakh fine for cutting trees.

        Jammu and Kashmir (Rs.36.83 crore)
        • Some former J&KCA office-bearers facing inquiry for alleged misappropriation of Rs.24.64 crore (A PIL filed in the state has put the figure at around Rs.40 crore). A case is on in the High Court. Currently, the state sports minister heads J&KCA, defying Lodha panel’s recommendations.

        Chhatisgarh (Rs.10.01 crore)

        Railwys (Rs.5.52 crore)

        Services (Rs.4.92 crore)

        Meghalaya (Rs.2.52 crore)

        Cricket Club of India (Rs.2.11 crore)

        Sikkim (Rs.0.62 crore)

        Nagaland (Rs.0.04 crore)

        Manipur (Rs.0.02 crore)

        Sources: Deloitte Audit Report and a BCCI affidavit in Supreme Court. Bihar, National Cricket Club, and Arunachal Pradesh did not receive funds from 2010-11 to 2014-15, as per the BCCI affidavit.

        Like

  2. Kindly confirm and through light on the below mentioned summary points for state units .

    1- State units – Government Servants ( barred from contesting Office Bearer Elections ) – Definition of Government servant includes only IAS , IPS Officers Or all Public servants , Kindly confirm.

    2 – State Units No Proxy Voting – The state Association shall not have proxy voting. Only individual members to have the right to vote and contest office bearer election subject to disqualification clauses. ( Report – page number 98 etc )

    3- State Units Apex Body / Managing Committee in all 9 Members – 9 members to be in the Apex body / managing committee of the State Units , term of 3 years for elected ,( Report – page number 111-112 )

    3.1 – President ( Through Election )

    3.2- Vice President ( Through Election )

    3.3- Secretary ( Through Election )

    3.4- Joint Secretary ( Through Election )

    3.5 – Treasurer ( Through Election )

    3.6 – Nominee of CAG state Unit ( Through mandatory Nomination )

    3.7 – One member among the voting members ( Through Election )

    3.8 – One Male Member from Players Association ( Through Election )

    3.9- One Female Member from Players Association ( Through Election )

    4 – State Units Office Bearer Dis Qualifications ( Report – page number 111-112 )

    (a) Is not a citizen of India;

    (b) Has attained the age of 70 years;

    (c) Is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind;

    (d) Is a Minister or Government Servant;

    (e) Holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from cricket;

    (f) Has been Office Bearers of state Units for a cumulative period of 9 years;

    (g) Has been Charged by court of law for having committed any criminal offence.

    (h) – cooling-off clause, which bars previous office bearers either at the BCCI or the State Association from contesting the succeeding Office Bearer elections or having a second consecutive term.

    (i) He/ she shall cease to hold office on completion of 9 years.

    (j) He/ she shall cease to hold office on completion of age of 70 years

    (k) Any vacancy in the elected Councillor, filing of vacancy by elections at a Special General Body meeting of the state units convened by the Secretary for that purpose within 45 days.

    5 – State Units representative to BCCI to be elected in the AGM. ( Report – page number 107 ) . ( Kindly confirm , whether there is any cap of maximum term for an individual to represent State units to BCCI)

    6 – State Units 9 Committees & all the members to be elected in the AGM – AGM ( Report – page number 54 , 123 to 132 )

    “ The Electoral Officer will also be responsible for conducting elections to the Committees under the Rules “ ( Report – page no – 54 )

    “ In case of any dispute or objection as to candidacy, disqualification, eligibility to vote, or the admission or rejection of a vote in the elections to the Apex Council, the Players’ Cricket Association or any of the Committees, the Electoral Officer shall decide the same and such decision shall be final and conclusive “. ( Report – page no – 136 )

    A – THE STANDING COMMITTEES – ( Report Page number – 123-124 )

    A.1- The Senior Tournament Committee ( 5 Members )

    A.2- The Tours, Fixtures & Technical Committee ( 5 Members , 3 members played minimum 25 first class matches )

    B – THE Cricket COMMITTEES – ( Report Page number – 125-131 )

    “ No person who has been a member of a Cricket Committee for a total of 5 years shall be eligible to be a member of a Cricket Committee.” ( Report Page number – 131 )

    B.1 – The Men’s Selection Committee ( Above age group 22 Years ) ( 3 Members played Test Cricket OR In case of No former Test Cricketer then Member played minimum 25 first class matches , life time tenure of 5 years , committee will appoint the coach & all the supporting staff )

    B.2 – The Junior Cricket Committee (Upto age group 22 Years ) ( 3 Members played minimum 25 first class matches ,life time tenure of 5 years , committee will appoint the coach & all the supporting staff )

    B.3 – The Women’s Selection Committee ( 3 Members played for India Or In case of No former Indian Player then Member Played first Class Cricket, life time tenure of 5 years , committee will appoint the coach & all the supporting staff )

    B.4 – The Women’s Cricket Committee (3 Members Played first Class Cricket, life time tenure of 5 years , committee will appoint the coach & all the supporting staff )

    B.5 – The Differently-Abled Cricket Committee ( Only former Differently-Abled Players, 3 Members played for India Or In case of No former Indian Player then Member Played first Class Cricket, life time tenure of 5 years , committee will appoint the coach & all the supporting staff )

    B.6 – The Cricket Talent Committee – ( 3 Members , Only former Players who have played at least 20 First Class games and have the highest level of coaching certification shall be eligible to appointed to this Committee , life time tenure of 5 years)

    C – THE UMPIRES COMMITTEES – ( Report Page number – 132-133 )

    C.1 – THE UMPIRES COMMITTEE (3 Members, former International umpire from India. In the event of such a person not being available, any umpire who has officiated in at least 25 First Class matches shall be eligible to be appointed. No person may be a member of this Committee for more than 5 years )

    7 – State Units Conflict Of Interest – ( Report – page number – 53,143-144 )

    It is clarified that no individual may occupy more than one of the following posts at a single point of time except where prescribed under these Rules:

    a. Player (Current)
    b. Selector / Member of Cricket Committee
    c. Team Official
    d. Commentator
    e. Match Official
    f. Administrator / Office-Bearer of BCCI
    g. Electoral Officer
    h. Ombudsman& Ethics Officer
    i. Auditor
    j. Any person who is in governance, management or employment of a Franchisee
    k. Member of a Standing Committee
    l. CEO & Managers
    m. Office Bearer of a State Unit
    n. Service Provider (Legal, Financial, etc.)
    o. Contractual entity (Broadcast, Security, Contractor, etc.)
    p. Owner of a Cricket Academy

    As far as incumbents are concerned, every disclosure mandated under Sub-Rule (3) may be made within 90 days of the Effective Date & all office bearers to give disclosure with in 15 days from taking any office .

    8 – State Units Website – – Except Selection Process, Every details to be uploaded on MPCA website & on payment of Reasonable fees copies of all the details to be Provided to anybody. ( Report – page number 57, 75 to 77 )

    9 – State Units to Have One state One Stadium – State Units to have many grounds for divisions & districts and not to build any second stadium.( Report – page number 76- -78 )

    10 – State Units awarding matches on Rotational Basis – All Test Centers shall be awarded Tests on a rotational basis without any repetition until the entire cycle is complete, and all One Day Internationals and Twenty/20 matches shall be similarly rotated among all International Centers in such a manner that no State shall host more than one match (regardless of format) on a single tour. (Report – page number 124 )

    11 – State Units Free Complimentary Passes In no event press passes / complimentary passes to be more than 10% of the entire seating capacity in any particular category of Pavilion benches & Galleries & Boxes .For example there in an approved stadium there are total 10,000 pavilion seats then 10 % of it 1,000 max can be free passes & accordingly for other categories. (Report – page number 139-140 )

    12 – State Units The CEO FIXED TERM OF 5 YEARS – CEO of B.C.C.I and State Units not to Hold post for more than 5 years . No Position to become permanent post of Power (Report – page number -34-35-77 )

    13 – State Units AGM – to adopt CHAPTER THREE: MEETINGS OF THE GENERAL BODY ( Report – page number 106-108 )

    14 – State Units appointment & functioning of Ombudsman , Ethics Officer , Electoral officer – ( Report – Rules 40-41, 32-33 and 38-39 )

    15 – State Units Auditor & Accounts & Transparency – ( Report – Rules 34-37 & page number -76-77 )

    16 – State Units automatic Membership to International Players – The Association shall grant automatic membership to former international players hailing from the State. ( Report – page number 98 )

    Like

    1. Respected,
      Sir,
      Your excellent work is appreciated in getting reforms to the cricketing society in India.
      I would like to clarify that does the Vice President post at BCCI level comes
      Under the ambate of office Bearer as such the BCCI amended By Law Posted on Website states as fallows ::

      “The election of the Office Bearers and Vice Presidents shall be held at the Annual General Meeting of the Board. The Office Bearers and Vice Presidents so elected will hold office for three years.”

      The aforesaid requires your clarification

      At State level if the post for executive committee member elected for period for 2014-2016 shell be under cooling period clouse or not for the coming election period of 2016-2019
      If the timeline Stepulated by you for Carrying out Amendments, conducting elections etc. For all the state level Units and if it is not complied by state associations what would be the legal position of the association and its members

      Regard

      S.N. Veerender Singh

      Like

      1. At the out set if Iam correct,there shall be no elections to any post in BCCI unless the list of permanent members is ratified by the steering committee appointed ie Lodha committee.There shall be one vice-president along with President,secretary,treasurer and joint-secretary.So the virtually BCCI has to initially submit eligible list of members who are permanent members and associate members along with bye-laws amended in the lines of bye-laws as annexed to vol 1 of the report.
        Only on compliance of the Lodha committee recommendations ie not only implementing for itself but also getting amended bye-laws from State units,that too with in stipulated time,the BCCI cannot resume future work.As of now it can review past.
        In so far as the State units whici fails to comply with lodha reforms in time ,they will not be recognized as affiliated unit of BCCI resulting in not getting yearly subvention which it is getting around 25 crores and their teams cannot participate designated board tournments.

        Like

  3. 1- State Units member, who has completed 9 years as office bearer of the state unit or has attained the age of 70 years , is he / she eligible to be the member of standing committees, cricket committees , umpires committee of the state units . Kindly Confirm.

    2 – State Units member other then in the capacity of elected officer bearer, has completed 9 years as part of Managing committee of the State Unit either as nominated office bearer or as representative , is he / she eligible to contest office bearer post. whether that term will also be counted into total term of 9 years . Kindly Confirm.

    3 – State unit Member ,who has completed 9 years as office bearer of state unit or has attained the age of 70 years, can be a employee or can get goods & service contracts from state unit / BCCI . Kindly confirm.

    4 – State unit Member, who is receiving monetary benefit as a coach , manager or in any other capacity from state units / BCCI will be eligible to vote in the state units elections or will be non eligible . Kindly confirm.

    5 – State unit Member , who is a employee or on contract of goods & services with state unit / BCCI will be eligible to vote in the state units elections or will be non eligible . Kindly confirm.

    6 – State unit member can not or can receive any monetary benefit from state unit other then TA/DA as a office bearer /coach / manager / selector etc . Kindly confirm .

    Like

  4. Please clarify whether an incumbent EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER elected by the General body along with 10 office bearers (president, 5 Vice Presidents, secretary , 2 joint secretaries and a treasurer ) and has already served the managing committee of state association for more than 9 years cumulatively or seperately earlier as an executive committee member is eligible to contest the elections to the state association to be conducted as per timelines in November, 2016

    Also please clarify whether an incumbent executive committee member of a state association elected to the managing committee for the first time in September,2014 to serve a 2-year term can contest the elections to be conducted as per timelines in November,2016

    Like

    1. Intially one must differ office bearer with executive committee member.Once we get such clarification,there is no term of office to executive committee member.He can contest to office.How ever now it is clarified office bearers are 5 from the permanent members and term of office is 3 years.
      2.The recent answer to this is the term of Two years be amended to 3 years.The present incumbent of 2 years office cannot contest as he will complete 4 years or 5 years as case may be.I feel the incumbent office bearer shall go into cooling of period this term

      Like

      1. State Units Apex Body / Managing Committee/ Executive committee, in all 9 Members – 9 members to be in the Apex body / managing committee of the State Units , term of 3 years for elected ,( Report – page number 111-112 ).

        1 – President ( Through Election )

        2- Vice President ( Through Election )

        3- Secretary ( Through Election )

        4- Joint Secretary ( Through Election )

        5 – Treasurer ( Through Election )

        6 – Nominee of CAG state Unit ( Through mandatory Nomination )

        7 – One member among the voting members ( Through Election )

        8 – One former Male Member from Players Association ( Through Election )

        9- One former Female Member from Players Association ( Through Election )

        Like

  5. Respected,
    Sir,
    I am highly obliged for your earlier clarification. As such I have another query regarding::
    If a Person appointed as a coach and simultaneously a government/Bank employee, Is he Entitled for contractle amount or not as there is ambiguity at the state level on appointment of coach who are a government/ Bank employee who is been paid TA/DA only please clarify.

    Is the person who was Vice President prior to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18/7/2016 at BCCI comes under the ambate of present office bearer of BCCI.

    Regard

    S.N.Veerender Singh

    Like

    1. so far as a public servant is concerned,the service rules basically,do not allow parallel employment in the nature of contractual/salary employment.Hence any one who is intending to serve as a coach ,first shall get permission to be a coach subject the service rules of his employment,but not supposed to work for earning.Than he may work as coach but on the approved limited permission granted by his employer.
      So far as the permissability of vice president of BCCI to contest,he is deemed office bearer of out going office bearers,as such he falls with in ambit of compliances of Lodha committee

      Like

      1. Respected,
        Sir
        I am obliged for all your clarifications given earlier. Further there is another clarification regarding which the present question .

        If the person is an ex Ranji player working for the bank and is been appointed as coach for the state association team , is he entitled for match fees like other match referees and umpires who most of them are also Govt servants /Bank employees get match fees and applicable TA/DA paid by BCCI/State Level.

        Secondly the player who are presently playing for Ranji trophy and other domestic level matches of BCCI/State Level and simultaneously working as Govt/Bank employees are paid match fees and Applicable TA/DA. As such is the aforesaid rule applicable to the coaches appointed at the BCCI/State level.

        Regards,
        S.N.Veereneder Singh

        Like

  6. Kindly clarify whether Government servants apart from civil servants I.e IAS, IPS etc are eligible to contest for office bearers of affiliated units as well as BCCI.
    Are elected managing committee members other than office bearers of affiliated units eligible to contest after completion of 9 years tenure? Further kindly clarify whether cooling period is applicable to them or not?

    Like

    1. There will be only in all 9 members in State Units Apex Body / Managing Committee/ Executive committee –( Report – page number 111-112 ) subject to confirmation from Hon’ble Apex Court Committee .

      1 – President ( Through Election )

      2- Vice President ( Through Election )

      3- Secretary ( Through Election )

      4- Joint Secretary ( Through Election )

      5 – Treasurer ( Through Election )

      6 – Nominee of CAG state Unit ( Through mandatory Nomination )

      7 – One member among the voting members ( Through Election )

      8 – One former Male Member from Players Association ( Through Election )

      9- One former Female Member from Players Association ( Through Election )

      Like

  7. I’m a Central Govt employee appointed as manager of women cricket team of my state. Is there any restriction by Supreme Court Committee on receiving TA/DA for outside state matches from my association. Please clarify whether I can continue or not since I’m receiving TA/DA.

    Like

    1. I believe the civil servants ie IAS,IRS,IFS etc are brought under the embargo by Lodha reforms.Though initially it was refereed to be applicable to all public servants it was later restricted to civil servants. However since you are a coach ,only requirement is the permission of your appointing authority and you shall not be financially enriched against employment rules.To receive TA&DA is not,according to my view is not violation of your employment and you also may not fall under prohibited as per Lodha committee

      Like

  8. As per 16th FAQ clarification given by committee related to insertion of a clause barring voting by proxy, in this regard further clarification is required.
    For example In an affiliated unit of the BCCI if a member holds the post of Secretary for more than five private clubs, is he eligible to give proxy?

    Like

    1. State Units No Proxy Voting – The state Association shall not have proxy voting. Only individual members to have the right to vote and contest office bearer election subject to disqualification clauses. All the clubs , institutions voting power will be null & void , only individual members will have voting power .( Report – page number 98 etc ), subject to confirmation from Hon’ble Apex Court appointed committee .

      Like

    2. As a matter of fact the fundamental aspect is to describe eligibility to get elected to theBCCI and Statebodies, subject to the caps fixed by justice Lodha.Any member rises to those levels,only if he is member at the bottom ie district level.If a district member is above 70,he will be in conflict to be in Statebody,consequent upon in BCCI.Hence I believe the districts fundamentally involve changes as per Lodha committee,except the club’s pattern as the district’s have clubs allthrough.
      So,if I am not incorrect and subject to correction States shall start identfying it’s district units at the earliest as per Lodha committee caps, to be in state unit,to participate in elections in BCCI

      Like

      1. Kindly confirm ,

        As per media reports presently no state unit of BCCI is following Hon’ble Apex court appointed committee 2 timelines , First , dated 9th August 2016 ( Point number 2- 9 , 11 ) & Second , dated 28th August 2016 ( Point number – 1 & 4 ) and mail dated 2nd September 2016.

        In such a case , as per media reports , where already almost 2 months from in all 6 months have passed by , now Hon’ble Apex court appointed committee in its next meeting dated 26th September 2016 may decide to file status report in Hon’ble Apex court in last week of Sept 2016 so that Hon’ble Apex court may pass the immediate order appointing Hon’ble Justice Lodha Committee as adhoc panel to implement the verdict in BCCI & its State Units as per the timelines given by the committee by having their temporary office at BCCI Headquarter In Cricketing Centre Mumbai.

        Since there is no stay granted on the verdict till now hence committee will leave no stone un turn to implement & safe guard the sanctity of the verdict in toto & will take all the necessary & quick action under the direction & guidance of Hon’ble Apex court .

        Time is running away but sadly inaction of BCCI & its state units to implement the timelines will only allure to further & unnecessary trouble for them . “ There is no second inning “ .

        Regards

        Like

      2. what may liekly to happen,the BCCI tactically did not represent the review petetion ,said to have been returned for certain technical compliances.It appears,intially befor completion of 30 days from the order ie from 18-7-2016,BCCI has filed review petetion on 16-8-2016.It is as mentioned above,as appeared in media,the returned Review shall be represented after complying the objections with in 28 days as per rules .
        while coming to actual scenerio,both BCCI and State bodies adament to intiate leave apart to implement the Supreme court judgement and kept quiet for the reasons best known to them.In accordance with the statutary steps as designed,by Supreme court, Lodha committeee has swung into action swiftly has directly addressing the Statebodies ,a time bound programmes.
        Now at this juncture,the BCCI hoping interfearence of ICC, which plan bombarted when ICC made it clear of its noninterfearance .In another angle trying to rescue act from proposed sports Act which is applicable only to Governement.However it wants to surrendedr its autonomy,still BCCI has to amend its bye-laws,again which amounts to Contempt,since any amendment to BCCI bye-laws shall not go beyond proposed bye-laws by Lodha committee. Thus now only hope in all despire is getting review petetion tabled before the same bench ofwhich rendered the erlier judgement.Still there is another twist in this tale.Justice Ibrahim Khalifulla who was among the chief justice retired ,the chief justice will nominate another judge to sit along with him.Even then there will be no hearing of the Review,as per the practice,it will be a chambers affair,where the two judges will consider the Review petetion .
        On the other hand Aditya verma has already filed a contempt case aganistAnurag thakur,Shirke and justice Jhatju for cntempt of court for lebelleous allegations made aganist Justice system and for making oersonal allegations made on the chief justice.
        We are in for a great climax,in the legal terminalagy :wheels of justice may run slowly but run surely

        Like

  9. Respected,
    Sir

    If the person is an ex Ranji player working for the bank and is been appointed as coach for the state association team , is he entitled for match fees like other match referees and umpires who most of them are also Govt servants /Bank employees get match fees and applicable TA/DA paid by BCCI/State Level.

    Secondly the player who are presently playing for Ranji trophy and other domestic level matches of BCCI/State Level and simultaneously working as Govt/Bank employees are paid match fees and Applicable TA/DA. As such is the aforesaid rule applicable to the coaches appointed at the BCCI/State level.

    Like

  10. Respected Sir,

    Please clarify this query;

    Eligibility criteria for candidates to contest for election of Office Bearer – At the DISTRICT Cricket Association;

    – Is the candidate NOT eligible to contest for election if that person has not attended 3 AGM’s ??
    Is it STILL mandatory ??

    – if a person is an office bearer or NOT an office bearer of a full member and duly proposed & seconded by full member and NOT attended 3 AGM’s ?? Is the person eligible to contest ??

    In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for reforms in indian cricket under the supervision of Justice Lodha Committee, How these kind of old mandatory rules justified ??

    Thanks & Regards.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s