The Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) on Monday decided to approach the Supreme Court against implementing the recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha committee on streamlining the functioning of the Indian cricket board.
The decision was taken by the MCA’s managing committee which met here on Monday. The MCA contends that there are several difficulties in implementing the Lodha committee’s recommendations which make them unfeasable.
“In a meeting of the managing committee of the Mumbai Cricket Association to discuss the far ranging consequences of the Lodha Committee’s recommendations, it was unanimously decided that the Mumbai Cricket Association would file an intervention application before the Supreme Court and highlight the difficulties and inconsistencies in the report,” the MCA said in a statement.
“Accordingly, the members unanimously authorised Joint Honorary Secretaries and Vice President Ashish Shelar to seek appropriate legal advice and file necessary applications before the Court,” it added.
The Lodha committee was constituted by the Supreme Court to clean up cricket administration in the country in the wake of the corruption and match-fixing scandal in the Indian Premier League (IPL). The committee has mentioned several far reaching steps in its report to the apex court that may have far reaching changes in India cricket.
One of the recommendations of the Lodha panel of limiting age of BCCI officials to 70 will directly affect MCA chief Sharad Pawar as he is 75 years old.
The recommendation of ‘one state, one vote’ will also hit the MCA hard as there are four units affiliated to the BCCI from the state of Maharashtra. These are MCA, Maharashtra Cricket Association ( headquarters in Pune), Vidarbha Cricket Association (Nagpur) and the Mumbai-based Cricket Club of India.
Several other state associations have also opposed the Lodha panel recommendations including Bengal, Delhi and Saurashtra.
The BCCI had convened a special general meeting here on February 19 to discuss the Lodha panel recommendations which decided to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court against their implementation.