Baroda Cricket Association election: Gujarat HC directs electoral officer to refrain from counting votes, declaring result

Ahmedabad: In an interesting twist to the election of members of the Baroda Cricket Association, the Gujarat High Court on Friday issued notice on a petition seeking disqualification of three candidates, including the sitting president and former cricketer Kiran More on the basis of a tenure-based rule, which states that any person holding a cumulative tenure of more than nine years will stand disqualified.

The bench of Justice Niral Mehta while holding that the petition was admissible issued notice and directed the electoral officer Varesh Sinha, an ex IAS officer, that counting of votes and publication of results shouldn't be made with prior permission from the court. The matter will be next heard on February 17. The court, however, refused to stay the election scheduled to be held on February 15.

The petition has been filed by members of BCA against its sitting president More, the noted wicketkeeper-batsman, ex chairman of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and ex national selector. Besides him, Amul V Jikar, Anant V Indulkar and Amar Petiwale are contesting for the posts of secretary, treasurer and councilors of BCA whose candidatures have also been challenged.

The petitioners-Pradeepsinh C Solanki and Ramchandra P Prajapati, both members of BCA- have moved the high court seeking a stay on the election slated to be held on March 15 and disqualification of the existing members' candidates including More.

The petitioners had submitted written objections on 20th January before electoral officer Sinha, seeking disqualifications as per Supreme Court judgment. However, he allegedly didn't grant any hearing or no order was communicated. Instead, he published the final list of candidates.

"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, this Court is of the view that if no interim protection is granted, the petition may become infructuous," the court stated in the order.

The lawyers representing the respondents including More contended that BCA was a registered trust which manages cricket limited to Vadodara district only. Since it doesn't perform public or sovereign functions, writ jurisdiction can't be invoked. However, the court rejected the argument. The court held that a comparative reading of clause (2) of MoA (memorandum of association) of BCA with the corresponding clause of the MoA of BCCI indicates similar objectives and purpose of controlling, regulating and improving 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.