Can't control what ICC is saying over Ferozshah Kotla issue:HC

The Delhi High Court today told the DDCA it "cannot control" what ICC is saying over the issue of lack of completion certificate for the old house club of Ferozshah Kotla ground which may lead to shifting of the semi-final match of World T20 from here.
A bench of justices S Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru also clarified to the cricketing body that requisite clearances for hosting the match would be subject to the compliances and DDCA should talk to International Cricket Council (ICC) about it.
"We cannot control what the ICC is saying. You (DDCA) have to take it up with the ICC. You tell this to ICC. It has nothing to do with this court," the bench told the counsel appearing for Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA).

Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing DDCA, then told the bench he would withdraw the petition which sought a direction to South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) to issue the requisite certificate for the R P Mehra block.
Sethi also told the bench that DDCA would make appropriate representation on the issue after which the petition was "dismissed as withdrawn".
Justice Mudgal, appointed by the high court to oversee the functioning of DDCA, has asked the cricketing body not to sell tickets of semi-final match for R P Mehra block, having a capacity of around 2,000, and that it be used only for the broadcasters and the media.

During the hearing, Sethi told the bench that ICC has taken an objection to it and is saying that if any of the blocks remain vacant then the semi-final match would be shifted to other venue.

"Justice Mudgal says that let it (R P Mehra block) be occupied by press and commentators only. We have no problem with it but the ICC says that if the block would not be entirely occupied then the semi-final match may be shifted," Sethi told the court adding that media and commentators cannot fill the entire block.
When the lawyer said DDCA has no problem with what Justice Mudgal was saying, the bench said, "your only problem is the ICC."

Meanwhile, eight directors of DDCA, including its Vice
President Chetan Chauhan and Treasurer Ravinder Manchanda, who had sought to intervene in the matter, have supported the recommendations and sought their immediate implementation.
The bench, which is hearing DDCA's 2010 plea for an occupancy certificate from South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) to hold matches at the stadium, would hear further arguments in the matter on September 27.
Advocate Nitin Mishra, representing Justice Mudgal, had earlier told the bench that the retired judge does not wish to continue as observer of DDCA as he has other commitments.
He had said if the court requests, then Justice Mudgal would continue in the position.

In its submissions, the DDCA claimed that after the popularity of the game soured, some ex-cricketers had started their cricket academies and "relentlessly lobbied and pushed to accommodate their own wards and players who were representing such academies."
DDCA said much of its problems arose out of the multiple administrative structure of governance in Delhi.
It also claimed that the task assigned to Justice Mudgal was specifically to supervise the matches but he "went on to make recommendations on selection process which was definitely beyond the scope, extent and jurisdiction of the committee".
"That being so, the procedural infirmity thus potentially vitiates the report of the committee so far as the areas and issues covering selection process, affiliation of clubs, appointment and remuneration of coaches, constitution of sports working committee, selection committee etc in particular are concerned," it said.

On July 11, Justice Mudgal had submitted a report pointing out various deficiencies in DDCA and observed that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) being the parent body has to ensure that the Delhi cricketing body was "transparent in its functioning".
It had also given several recommendations, including scrutiny by BCCI of the current state of affairs in DDCA and strengthening of its "accounts wing".
The report had pointed to deficiencies in tendering, accounts and finance, administration, promotion of cricket and selection of players, ticketing and accreditation and suggested various measures to bring down these shortcomings.
The Delhi high court had constituted Justice Mudgal committee in the backdrop of alleged irregularities in the functioning of the DDCA.