Indian Super League (ISL) franchise FC Goa, which was slapped a Rs 11 crore fine and their co-owners Shrinivas Dempo and Dattaraj Salgaocar banned for two and three seasons respectively, has challenged the order of the tournament’s regulatory commission.
FC Goa on Sunday filed an appeal before the ISL Appeals Commission challenging the order.
On May 5, the ISL Regulatory Commission took the decision after the conclusion of hearings in Mumbai relating to the controversy surrounding the scuffle between Chennaiyin FC’s Brazillian marquee player Elano Blumer and FC Goa officials after the ISL second season’s final in Margao in December last year.
As per the appeal copy, no opportunity was given to cross examine any of the witnesses and no opportunity was afforded to FC Goa to present evidence as to what actually transpired on December 20.
“The statement of the football legend, Arthur Antunes Coimbra (better known as Zico) as to what actually transpired on December 20 has been shut out and truth made a casualty,” the club has claimed.
FC Goa termed the order as “perverse, unlawful and in complete violation of principles of natural justice”.
In separate appeals filed by co-owners Salgaocar and Dempo, they have stated that neither were they party before the commission nor were they called upon to appear in the hearing of the complaints.
“Documents and complete unedited video footage of the incident from all the TV cameras in custody of a private TV channel has not been provided despite numerous requests,” it claimed.
The Club has also pointed out that the AIFF Appeals Committee has directed that status quo be maintained with regard to the hearings before the ISL Regulatory Commission.
“The sanctions imposed on FC Goa are unprecedented in the world of football, and also shockingly disproportionate, punitive in nature, absolutely arbitrary and without any basis in law or fact,” the appeal has said.
FC Goa on April 30 had challenged the jurisdiction of the ISL Regulatory Commission and prayed that it adjourn the hearing of the complaints before it sine die and maintain status quo until the AIFF Appeal Committee decides the issue of “double jeopardy and jurisdiction”.