MUMBAI: Questioning the hit to the state exchequer, Questioning why the State exchequer must suffer, the Bombay high court on Friday lambasted the Board of Control for Cricket in India (Band the state government over non-payment and non-recovery of security dues respectively, for two Indian Premier League (IPL) season matches played at Navi Mumbai and Nagpur in 2010 and 2011. Six matches were played at DY Patil Stadium and three at Jamtha Stadium.
A division bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice A P Bhangale was were hearing a public interest litigation by Santosh Pachalag which said that saying the BCCI had availed of over 3,300 police personnel who were drawn from other police commissionerates and districts for matches played in the two cities. Navi Mumbai and Nagpur.
While the Navi Mumbai police sent a bill of Rs 5.65 crore, the Nagpur police sent a bill of Rs 2.3 crore. But the BCCI paid only Rs 47.53 lakh to the Navi Mumbai police and Rs 20 lakh to the Nagpur district police. The petitioner's Pachalag's advocate Ganesh Sovani argued that no effort was made for dues' recovery. to which the judges of the dues of protection money.
The judges questioned the BCCI over its non-payment. "You are a profit-making body. Why can't you pay up?" asked Justice Khanwilkar. BCCI's advocate Birendra Saraf said replied that the protection amount sought was much higher compared to other places, adding that the stadium owner and franchisees were also under obligation to pay. these dues.
The couert also asked the statewhy it had not recovered the duesamount. was not recovering the amount.
"Why are you not recovering? (Rs) 5 crore is not a small amount. Is it a 5-year plan for recovery?'' asked Justice Khanwilkar. The judges said that with the delay of over two years, the BCCI woudl also have to pay interest. could also not cannot escape the liability of interest payment. to pay interest on delayed payment.
"Who sent the requisition request? Whoever has to pay, has to pay with interest now," Justice Khanwilkar said. In their order the judges noted, "The state exchequer should not be made to suffer on account of a dispute between the stakeholders, and especially when the best security has been provided." They have allowed the BCCI to make a representation by March 4 2013 to the home department secretary, Home Department who will decide on the matter after considering the petitioner's views. The matter will come up for hearing again on March 13.
A division bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice A P Bhangale was were hearing a public interest litigation by Santosh Pachalag which said that saying the BCCI had availed of over 3,300 police personnel who were drawn from other police commissionerates and districts for matches played in the two cities. Navi Mumbai and Nagpur.
While the Navi Mumbai police sent a bill of Rs 5.65 crore, the Nagpur police sent a bill of Rs 2.3 crore. But the BCCI paid only Rs 47.53 lakh to the Navi Mumbai police and Rs 20 lakh to the Nagpur district police. The petitioner's Pachalag's advocate Ganesh Sovani argued that no effort was made for dues' recovery. to which the judges of the dues of protection money.
The judges questioned the BCCI over its non-payment. "You are a profit-making body. Why can't you pay up?" asked Justice Khanwilkar. BCCI's advocate Birendra Saraf said replied that the protection amount sought was much higher compared to other places, adding that the stadium owner and franchisees were also under obligation to pay. these dues.
The couert also asked the statewhy it had not recovered the duesamount. was not recovering the amount.
"Why are you not recovering? (Rs) 5 crore is not a small amount. Is it a 5-year plan for recovery?'' asked Justice Khanwilkar. The judges said that with the delay of over two years, the BCCI woudl also have to pay interest. could also not cannot escape the liability of interest payment. to pay interest on delayed payment.
"Who sent the requisition request? Whoever has to pay, has to pay with interest now," Justice Khanwilkar said. In their order the judges noted, "The state exchequer should not be made to suffer on account of a dispute between the stakeholders, and especially when the best security has been provided." They have allowed the BCCI to make a representation by March 4 2013 to the home department secretary, Home Department who will decide on the matter after considering the petitioner's views. The matter will come up for hearing again on March 13.