Court questions BCCI on IPL dues to Navi Mumbai police
In view of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Bombay high court, regarding dues to be paid by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to the Navi Mumbai police for providing security during the 2010 Indian Premier League (IPL) matches, the court has said that if the claim is valid, the board will have to pay.
In view of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Bombay high court, regarding dues to be paid by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to the Navi Mumbai police for providing security during the 2010 Indian Premier League (IPL) matches, the court has said that if the claim is valid, the board will have to pay.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by Santosh Pachalag claiming that BCCI owes Rs 5,17,73,238 to Navi Mumbai police.
The petition has cited a reply received under the RTI act which shows that out of the amount billed to BCCI by the Navi Mumbai police, which stands at Rs 4,72,83,575, the board has paid only Rs 47,53,000 so far.
According to the petition, the dues liable to be recovered pertain to the security arrangement provided by the Navi Mumbai police during the 2010 edition of the IPL. Security was provided for six matches that were held at the D Y Patil stadium between March 12 and April 25.
The petition states that 3,345 police personnel which include personnel from Pune and Satara districts, as Navi Mumbai police were short-staffed, were deployed at the stadium.
Petitioner’s lawyer Ganesh Sovani argued that security should not be provided for the current IPL until all the dues are cleared.
Sovani also argued that the board’s stand that they paid a lesser amount for the matches held at Nagpur, are not valid.
The court pointed out that charges might differ in different cities when BCCI counsel said that they had paid the amount in the line of what was charged in Nagpur. However, BCCI counsel submitted that it is not as if they are not ready to pay.
While directing the BCCI to file a reply, the court has asked the state to find out and reply on the criterion on which the charges are fixed.