Modi demands reconstitution of Disciplinary Panel

Mumbai: Suspended IPL Chairman Lailt Modi on Tuesday demanded disbandment of BCCI’s disciplinary committee, which will probe his alleged regularities in the running of the Twenty20 league, and said retired Supreme court judges should look into his case.

In his legal notice to the Cricket Board, Modi has asked for removal of one of the panelists - IPL’s interim chairman Chirayu Amin - contending that he cannot be a member as he was one of the investors in the consortium which failed in its bid for buying one of the two new IPL franchises - Pune and Kochi.

Modi has made BCCI president Shashank Manohar, secretary N Srinivasan and the three members of the Disciplinary panel as respondents in his notice.

The other members of the Disciplinary panel are Arun Jaitley and Jyotiraditya Scindia, who was chosen unanimously as a replacement for Manohar, after he recused himself from the panel.

Terming the presence of Amin in the panel “unfortunate”, the notice issued on behalf of Modi by his legal counsel said that the suspended IPL chief had disclosed publicly that the T20 League’s interim chief was “an investor who formed a part of the Pune consortium that made an unsuccessful bid for the two franchises this year.”

Saying none among Amin, Manohar and Srinivasan disclosed the fact that the Amin was an investor in the Pune consortium even when he was appointed as IPL’s interim Chairman on April 26, the notice has claimed it was Modi who made the revelation on June 4 through the media.

Charging that BCCI president Manohar had not only suppressed this information but also initially denied it, the notice claimed it was only subsequently after realising the denial “would hold no water” did Manohar admit that Amin was part of the consortium that submitted the Pune bid.

To protect Amin, Manohar had said that the former had submitted a letter to him with a copy to Srinivasan “disclosing his interest and stating that approval of the BCCI would be obtained, should the bid be successful and should he invest in the company to be formed by the consortium members (of which he formed part),” the notice claimed.

“This explanation was false. This explanation was also not only fanciful but also an afterthought. It is interesting to note that such letter has never seen the light of day till date. This is simply because none existed. Should it now belatedly come forth, our client will have good reason to believe that it has been falsified to support the false case put forth,” Modi said in the notice.

Amin’s belated admission after being named as the IPL’s interim Chairman “shows that it was clearly intended that he would be a part of the ultimate franchisee and its corporate structure, right from the beginning,” the notice said.

“The suggestion that a person would form a part of a consortium and submit a bid only to drop out upon the bid succeeding, strains credibility,” the notice added.

“The explanation also overlooks the fact that the bid document and the clarifications issued, permitted successful bidders to form a new company to hold and better manage the franchisee. This company however had to be formalised by the members of the consortium. The shareholders of the franchisee company were necessarily to be the members of the consortium, which had successfully bid,” it said.

“Such an explanation was even put forth is indicative of the impunity with which persons having the blessings of the Honorary Secretary and the Honorary President, can function”, the notice said.

It also mocked that a show cause notice was issued to Modi by the two BCCI functionaries “for much lesser allegations, in respect of the formal/technical and transient disconnect between the bidders and the franchisee.”

“The argument that at the stage of submitting bids no intimation to Board was required and that the approval of the Board would be required only when investing in the franchisee company, is therefore absurd,” the notice said.

The notice also claimed Amin did not “want to make his involvement known and that this being exposed” the BCCI president and secretary “have attempted to shield him, in the manner described above.”

Claiming Amin’s disclosure about his investment to the BCCI president and secretary as “a clear afterthought”, the notice said that the former had agreed to become the IPL’s interim Chairman before disclosing his interest in the Pune consortium to the BCCI or the IPL’s Governing Council.

“An alleged private disclosure to the Honorary President and the Honorary Secretary, with no disclosure to the BCCI or even the IPL Governing Council or our client (who was then the Chairman of the IPL), clearly indicates a desire to conceal,” the notice said.

The notice also questioned the authenticity of the “so-called communication” by Amin as there was no e-mail trail of it which was the normal means of communication among the Governing Council’s members.

“The so called communication sent by Mr. Amin is not authentic. Normally, communications amongst various members of the Board and the Governing Council took place through e-mails and there is no e mail trail presented by Mr. Chirayu Amin which would show that this letter was in fact sent by him to the Honorary President or the Honorary Secretary. Besides their word, there is nothing,” the notice said.

The notice also denied Manohar’s explanation given on June 5 that Amin became a member of the Pune consortium by heeding to the suggestion of Modi and that Amin was rewarded despite his involvement in the failed bid.

“What made matters worse is that on 5th June 2010 the Honorary President came out with an even more far fetched and absurd explanation stating that Mr. Chirayu Amin had become a member of the Pune consortium at the instance of our client: neither Mr. Amin nor our client had claimed this.

“This was yet another attempt to justify the non disclosure, by Mr. Amin and shift the blame on our client for the mis-doings of Mr. Chirayu Amin,” the notice said.