DDCA opposes appointment of administrator

DDCA today objected in Delhi High Court to the appointment of any person or committee to oversee its affairs, saying it was a company and such administrators were appointed only for "sick" firms.
The Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) told the court that there was already a machinery in place under the Companies Act to supervise its functions and no administrator can be appointed.
The High Court had constituted Justice Mukul Mudgal committee in the backdrop of alleged irregularities in the functioning of DDCA.
Alleging "nepotism" in the cricket body, the Delhi government had sought a committee to be set up to oversee day -to-day operations of DDCA.

The government also sought that the CBI probe into allegations of corruption against DDCA be monitored by the court, alleging that there has been diversion of public funds by the DDCA.
Refusing to order monitoring of CBI probe by the court, a bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma reserved its verdict on DDCA's 2010 plea for an occupancy certificate from South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) to hold matches at the Ferozshah Kotla stadium.

While reserving its verdict, the bench observed that permissions would be "tricky" because of the stadium's R P Mehra block, which is allegedly unauthorised, as it is near a protected monument.

The court was also not in agreement with the setting up of a panel of cricketers to oversee functioning of DDCA, as suggested by Delhi government, saying there was no need to go for a "radical structural change" by creating a new entity when an organisation was already there.
It, however, said "there needs to be reforms" before the elections happens.
The court also said the ongoing arrangement, under which Justice (retired) Mukul Mudgal was overseeing functioning of DDCA, will continue till the judgement is pronounced.
During the arguments, Delhi government said most of the
recommendations of the Justice R M Lodha committee were accepted by the Supreme Court and made applicable to all state cricket bodies which were members of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

It said the recommendations, like BCCI having only a nine member apex council to oversee its affairs and an age limit of 70 years for them, should be applicable to DDCA also.
Delhi government also said the practice of proxy voting has compromised the electoral process of DDCA and added that the cricket body has to account for the public money it got through BCCI and earned from matches at the Kotla stadium.
DDCA, in its arguments, said the terms of reference for functioning of the Mudgal panel had already been established and cannot be transgressed by the committee.
It also said that till now, BCCI has not implemented the Lodha committee recommendations as directed by the apex court.