Lodha FAQs: Shirke can’t come in BCCI, ‘cooling off’ for Dada

Sacked BCCI Secretary Ajay Shirke cannot be Maharashtra Cricket Association’s representative in BCCI meetings, the Lodha committee made it clear on Thursday in a seven-point response to queries on the administrative reforms made mandatory for the Board.

There was not much to cheer for Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) president Sourav Ganguly either because come June, 2017, he will have to go for a compulsory ‘Cooling off’ of 3 years having completed three years at the state association as secretary and president.

It was also clarified that total tenure in cricket administration (state+BCCI) will be 9 years cumulative and not 18 years as it was mentioned earlier.

The administrative career of CAB treasurer Biswarup Dey also ends, as the post of an assistant secretary that he held for two years, will be deemed as an office-bearer’s post, which makes his cumulative state association tenure of 10 years.

The question pertaining to Shirke’s entry was the second among Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) while FAQ No 7 was directly related to Ganguly, whose name was doing rounds for the new BCCI president’s post. While he can be a BCCI president but it would only be for a few months if one interprets Lodha Panel’s answer properly.

Biswarup Dey’s claim that his assistant secretary’s post is a selected and not an elected one has been quashed as it is an office-bearer’s post as per CAB constitution.

The issues pertaining to elections in state associations and the answer makes it clear that if associations don’t have pending cases against them, they can go ahead with elections conforming to the new set of reforms. This question concerns Rajasthan CA and Hyderabad CA which are set to have their elections.

Another question was whether elections can be conducted for the Member Associations before the due amendments are made to their Constitutions/Bye-laws bringing them in line with the judgement.

The Answer: While there is no bar to the holding of elections (subject to orders of any court) if any election is held which is inconsistent with the committee’s report and the judgement of the Supreme Court, then the same will be treated as void and with no legal sanctity. This would also necessarily imply that such an election is supervised by an election officer as prescribed under the recommendations. It would be prudent in the circumstances for such elections to be conducted under the guidance of the administrators to be appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”