Muthiah has no locus standi to challenge any decision by BCCI
BCCI said its former President A C Muthiah was just trying to malign current Cricket Board Secretary N Srinivasan regarding the amendment to BCCI regulations and his ownership of an Indian Premier League franchise while also holding a post in the game's governing body.Updated: Feb 03, 2009, 15:09 IST
BCCI on Tuesday said its former President A C Muthiah was just trying to malign current Cricket Board Secretary N Srinivasan regarding the amendment to BCCI regulations and his ownership of an Indian Premier League franchise while also holding a post in the game's governing body.
In similar counter affidavits in response to a suit filed by Muthiah in the Madras High Court in December last, the BCCI alleged that the former president "is only interested in maligning the second respondent (Srinivasan) and is otherwise not prejudiced by the amendment in any manner".
In the suit Muthiah had sought to set aside an amendment to BCCI regulations excluding the IPL and T20 Champions League from the purview of clause 6.2.4 which said "no administrator shall have direct or indirect commercial interests in the matches or events conducted by the Board".
Muthiah had also sought an injunction restraining Srinivasan from functioning as Board Secretary and President of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association for acquiring the franchise of Chennai Super Kings by India Cements Ltd of which he was Managing Director. The Board at its Annual General Meeting on September 27 last had amended the clause.
Charging that Muthiah appeared to be bent on somehow discrediting Srinivasan even if it meant tarnishing the image and reputation of the BCCI, Chief Administrative Officer Ratnakar Shetty in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Cricket Board, termed as 'totally' false the allegation that Srinivasan prevailed upon other officer bearers of the board to introduce the amendment.
Denying another allegation that the amendment was illegal and opposed to public policy and an abuse of power, the Board contended that "expression of the democratic will of the members cannot amount to malafide abuse of power nor can the applicant be allowed to set the standards of public policy".