da apostebet： The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) today justified thefive-year ban on cricketer Ajay Jadeja in the Delhi High Court oncharges of match fixing, and said “there were plethora of evidenceagainst him”
11-Jul-2001The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) today justified thefive-year ban on cricketer Ajay Jadeja in the Delhi High Court oncharges of match fixing, and said “there were plethora of evidenceagainst him”.”There were plethora of evidence against him, some of them oral, onthe basis of which action was taken,” counsel for the BCCI K KVenugopal told Justice Mukul Mudgal while replying to Jadeja’s civilwrit petition challenging the imposition of ban on him.Questioning the very maintainability of the petition, the BCCI counselsaid no remedy through civil writ under Article 226 lies against theBoard as it was not a statutory body. Nor is it performing anyfunction of the state, he said.”BCCI is an independent body constituted under the SocietiesRegistration Act and if the petitioner (Jadeja) feels aggrieved forany of its action, or breach of contract, he can file a suit fordamage as no case for violation of fundamental rights under Article226 of the Constitution can be made out against the Board,” he said.Venugopal said the High Court while hearing a civil writ by formercricketer Mohinder Amarnath a few years ago against the BCCI, hadruled that the Board is not a statutory body. Amarnath had laterwithdrawn his petition, he said.Jadeja’s counsel P P Malhotra alleged that the BCCI’s action againsthis client was “malafide” as it was based on the CBI report, whichneither recommended any action against the players nor had specifiedany offence against them.”The CBI report itself stated that no offence is made out against theplayers under IPC, Malhotra said.The BCCI counsel said, the Government in an affidavit filed before aBench headed by Chief Justice, hearing a PIL seeking probe into thethe functioning of BCCI, had also said that the Board was not astatutory body.As the court asked what is the status of Indian team when itrepresents the country abroad, Venugopal said “selection of players ismade by the BCCI independently on the basis of merit and Governmenthas no say in it.”BCCI as a registered society, has its affiliation to the InternationalCricket Council (ICC). Every player selected by the Board has to signa contract with it.”Even if a player feels that the contract is breached by such a kindof action by the Board, the only remedy for him will be to claimdamages through a civil suit,” he said.Jadeja’s counsel said that BCCI investigator, K Madhavan had drawn hisconclusion about his client’s “involvement” in match fixing only onthe basis of the CBI report, which had not specified any chargeagainst the players.Madhavan had not afforded any opportunity to Jadeja to cross examinethe witnesses, nor was he supplied any document. Such an action on hispart was against natural justice as well as the Commission of InquiryAct, he said.”CBI had relied upon the telephone bills of some persons whom Jadejadid not even know. If he had a conversation with an anonymous callerwho had contacted him, how can he be held responsible. Is aconversation on phone when someone contacts you an offence,” Jadeja’scounsel asked.The propriety demanded that CBI should have confronted Jadeja with thedocuments including the telephone bills while probing the matter, hesaid.