Back
Refuses To Reopen Twenty One Year Old Cricket Association Dissolution Dispute
The has dismissed a petition seeking a (CBI) probe into the long-standing financial and administrative arrangements of the (UPCA). A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan held that a challenge against a corporate transition dating back to could not be entertained after more than two decades, citing the principles of .
A Challenge to Two Decades of Governance
The petitioner, ‘The ’, sought to challenge the restructuring wherein the erstwhile —a society registered under the —dissolved itself to incorporate as a company under (now ).
The petitioner demanded that all assets, resources, and liabilities of the former society be transferred to it. Furthermore, the petition requested a ban on the current UPCA’s cricketing activities, a high-level inquiry into the ’s (BCCI) financial aid to the entity, and an investigation into whether the office bearers were acting in violation of governance norms formulated by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee.
Arguments from the Bar
The petitioner contended that the dissolution of the original society was procedurally flawed, arguing that it violated . It was specifically alleged that the state government was a contributor to the society and that, under the , the dissolution could not have occurred without the government’s explicit consent.
Conversely, the respondents, represented by the UPCA and the BCCI, submitted that the society had been validly dissolved through a resolution passed by over three-fifths of its members in . They emphasized that the UPCA has functioned as the recognized state body for two decades, fulfilling all BCCI mandates and -led reforms. They argued that the petition was an attempt to unsettle a finalized arrangement, noting that the incorporation had already been scrutinized and upheld by courts previously.
Legal Analysis and the ""
In its analysis, the High Court observed that the for dissolution had been followed. The bench noted that the State authorities failed to produce evidence that the government was a "contributor" to the society in a manner that would trigger the mandatory consent requirement under Section 13.
The Court held that the petitioner’s attempt to reopen the matter after was fundamentally flawed. It underscored that the petitioner could not demonstrate any statutory violation that would justify the court's intervention via its under Article 226 of the .
Key Observations
Highlighting the court’s rationale, the bench remarked:
*
"At this highly belated stage it cannot be said that ‘The UPCA’ was not dissolved as per the provisions of section 13 of the Act, 1860."
*
"The State has not been able to corroborate that there was a contribution or interest otherwise in the society in question, by the Government, therefore, its consent was not required."
*
"The matter is required to be given a
and since this Court has examined all the issues raised by the petitioner and no good grounds have been made out for interference... the
lacks merit and stands dismissed."
Final Ruling
The High Court dismissed the , upholding the legitimacy of the transition that occurred in . The bench clarified that if any stakeholders are aggrieved by the current management or affairs of the UPCA, they possess appropriate remedies under the , such as approaching the . By refusing to order a CBI probe or the constitution of a high-level committee, the court affirmed that the current administrative structure of cricket in Uttar Pradesh remains undisturbed, bringing a definitive end to the protracted dispute.
