Bombay High Court
The Board Of Control For Cricket In ... vs Ankeet Anil Chavan on 3 March, 2021
Bench: A.A. Sayed, Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar
k
1/4
14 ia 2527.20 in wp os.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2527 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3130 OF 2020
...
The Board of Control for Cricket in India ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Ankeet Anil Chavan ...Petitioner
v/s.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India ...Respondent
....
Mr. Suneel D. Mogre for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nikhil Sadhardam, Senior Counsel with Ms. Mahima Sinha for
Respondent/Applicant.
...
CORAM : A.A. SAYED &
MADHAV JAMDAR, JJ.
DATED : 03 MARCH 2021
P.C.:
1 The reliefs sought in the Interim Application taken out by the
Applicant/Original Respondent-BCCI in the disposed of Writ Petition (L)
No.3130 of 2020 filed by the Petitioner-Ankeet Anil Chavan are as follows:
"a) Pass an Order requesting the learned Ombudsman of
the Applicant (Original Respondent) to decide the Respondent's
(Original Petitioner) Representations within the fresh timelines as
directed by this Hon'ble Court as per the procedure adopted by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2424 of 2019 vide
order dated March 15, 2019;
b) In the alternative to prayer clause (a), grant the Applicant
(Original Respondent) a further period of 3 months from the date
K 1/4
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2021 20:37:02 :::
k
2/4
14 ia 2527.20 in wp os.doc
on which the present Application is allowed to formulate an
appropriate mechanism in accordance with the Constitution of the
Applicant (Original Respondent) to decide the Representations of
the Respondent (Original Petitioner)."
2 Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant-BCCI has pointed out
the judgment and order dated 15 March 2019 of the Supreme Court in S.
Sreesanth vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors., (Civil
Appeal No.2424 of 2019). The operative part of the said order reads as
under:
"61. In view of the foregoing discussion, we partly allow the
appeal in the following manner:
(i) The order dated 13.09.2013 of the disciplinary committee
only to the extent of imposing sanction of life time ban is set
aside.
(ii) The disciplinary committee of the BCCI may reconsider
the quantum of punishment/sanction which may be imposed on
the appellant as per Article 6 of the Anti-Corruption Code. The
appellant may be given one opportunity to have his say on the
question of quantum of punishment/sanction.
(iii) The disciplinary committee may take decision as
indicated above on the quantum of punishment/sanction at an
early date preferably within a period of three months from today.
(iv) Appellant shall await the decision of the disciplinary
committee and future course of action shall be in accordance with
the decision of the Ombudsman so taken. Parties shall bear their
own costs."
K 2/4
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2021 20:37:02 :::
k
3/4
14 ia 2527.20 in wp os.doc
By order dated 5 April 2019 the aforesaid order dated 15 March 2019 was
corrected by the Supreme Court, which order reads as under:
"Learned counsel for the applicant submits that some of
the functions of the disciplinary committee are now exercised by
the learned Ombudsman. The word 'Ombudsman' be read in
place of the 'disciplinary committee' in the operative portion of the
judgment dated March 15, 2019. The period as indicated in the
order be taken from the date of this order.
The miscellaneous application stands disposed of."
3 Pursuant to the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court, the
learned Ombudsman has decided the case of S. Sreesanth vide order
dated 7 August 2019.
4 On 15 September 2020, this Court while disposing of the Writ
Petition (L) No.3130 of 2020 had passed the following order:
". In short Mr.Mogre appearing for the petitioner wants
respondent to decide the petitioner's representation, copy
whereof is at Exh.E to the petition as expeditiously as possible.
Mr.Desouza states that he will advise his client to act on the
representation as expeditiously as possible. Original Application
was of 13th September 2019 and the reminder was of 16 th March
2020. Respondent had enough time to consider the
representation and take suitable decision. Therefore, we grant
time up to 31st October 2020 to the respondent to take a decision
on the representations made by the petitioner.
K 3/4
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2021 20:37:02 :::
k
4/4
14 ia 2527.20 in wp os.doc
2 It is made clear that no extension will be granted to the
respondent and it has been made amply clear to Mr.Desouza
because the representations have been pending for over ten
months. Mr.Desouza states that he will communicate the order to
the respondent. Statement is accepted.
3 Petition accordingly stands disposed."
5 Inasmuch as the Petitioner-Ankeet Anil Chavan claims parity with
the case of S. Sreesanth and it is submitted that unless there is a specific
order of referring the Representation of the Petitioner also to the learned
Ombudsman, the learned Ombudsman would not be able to consider and
decide the Representation, by consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties, we pass the following order:
ORDER
i) Learned Ombudsman, BCCI to decide the Representation dated
16 March 2020 of the Petitioner-Ankeet Anil Chavan ('Exhibit E' to the
Petition). Considering the age of the Petitioner, we request the learned
Ombudsman to decide the Representation expeditiously and preferably
within eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is paced before him.
ii) The Interim Application to stand disposed of accordingly.
(MADHAV JAMDAR, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)
K 4/4
