Gujarat HC restrains vote counting in Baroda Cricket Assoc election

In a significant development in the election process of the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA), the Gujarat High Court on Friday directed the electoral officer to refrain from counting votes or declaring results without prior permission of the court, even as it refused to stay the polls scheduled to be held on February 15.
The bench of Justice Niral Mehta issued notice on a petition seeking disqualification of three candidates, including the sitting president and former cricketer Kiran More, on the ground of a tenure-based rule. The rule stipulates that any individual holding a cumulative tenure of more than nine years in office would stand disqualified.While holding that the petition was maintainable and raised substantial issues, the court directed electoral officer Varesh Sinha, a former IAS officer, not to proceed with the counting of votes or publication of results without obtaining prior approval from the court. The matter has been posted for further hearing on February 17.
The petition has been filed by BCA members Pradeepsinh C Solanki and Ramchandra P Prajapati against the candidature of More — a noted wicketkeeper-batsman, former chairman of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and former national selector — as well as other contestants including Amul V Jikar, Anant V Indulkar and Amar Petiwale, who are contesting for the posts of secretary, treasurer and councilors of the association.
According to the petitioners, written objections were submitted on January 20 before the electoral officer seeking disqualification of certain candidates in light of a Supreme Court judgment governing tenure restrictions in cricket administration. However, they alleged that no hearing was granted nor was any order communicated to them. Instead, the final list of candidates was published.“The controversy raised in the present petition pertains to acceptance of nomination of private respondents in the context of tenure-based disqualification, which goes to the root of the matter. If no interim protection is granted, the petition may become infructuous,” the court observed in its order.
Counsel appearing for the respondents, including More, argued that the BCA is a registered trust managing cricket activities limited to the Vadodara district and does not discharge public or sovereign functions. On that basis, it was contended that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked.The court, however, rejected this contention. It observed that a comparative reading of Clause (2) of the Memorandum of Association (MoA) of BCA with the corresponding provision of the MoA of the Board of Control for Cricket in India reveals similar objectives relating to control, regulation and improvement of the quality of the game.“Once the objects and purposes are identical in nature, the functions performed to achieve such objects cannot be distinguished merely on the basis that BCCI operates at the national level whereas BCA operates at a district or State level,” the court held.The election process will go ahead as scheduled, but the counting of votes and declaration of results will remain subject to further orders of the High Court.

(State Correspondent)