Akansha Upadhyay
Published on – 29 November 2022 at 22:51 IST
The Bombay High Court has upheld the removal of former Ranji player and ex-India Under-19 captain Kiran Powar from the Apex Council of the Mumbai Cricket Association and also upheld the one-year ban on her from playing cricket.
A division bench of Justice SV Gangapurvala and Justice RN Ladda passed the order on a petition filed by Powar, who challenged the MCA’s ethics officer’s decision to hold him guilty of “conflict of interest”.
Powar is the brother of Indian women’s cricket team coach Ramesh Powar. December 28, 2021 (Retd) Justice VK Tahilramani found a “conflict of interest” on two counts based on a complaint by Deepan Sunderlal Mistry as the ethics officer of the MCA.
Firstly, soon after Powar’s appointment as an Apex Council member, his brother was appointed as the head coach for MCA. Second, Powar was on contract as the cricket coach of Goregaon Sports Club (GSC) while he was a member of the Apex Council. GSC will participate in MCA’s tournament, hence the conflict.
Before the High Court, Powar claimed that he was not required to disclose any of the above. His lawyer informed the High Court when the complaint was filed, Ramesh was no longer the coach of any Mumbai team and even Powar was no longer the coach at GSC, therefore the conflict of interest ceased to exist.
But MCA’s Advocates AS Khandeparkar and Vikas Varekar submitted that the ethics officer is empowered to pass the order under Rule 39(3) of the MCA constitution. Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) R.M. Lodha was part of the committee’s recommendations, which were ratified by the Supreme Court in the BCCI case, on a series of cricket reforms in administration.
The High Court noted that Powar was appointed to the Apex Council In October 2019. However, he failed to declare that his brother was appointed as a coach for MCA between 2017-18 and that his (brother’s) Name was under consideration.
“The Petitioner did not declare his conflict of interest and became the Apex Council Member. The Petitioner did not maintain the transparency as is held by the Ethics Officer cum Ombudsman,” the High Court noted.
“…being an Apex Council member, a person would be in an influential position in matters of selection, therefore it cannot be said that the Ethics Officer’s decision was perverse for HC to interfere,” the bench observed. “It cannot be said that the punishment imposed and/or the order passed is shockingly disproportionate for this court to intervene,” it added and disposed of the plea.
Case Title: Kiran Rajaram Powar v. Mumbai Cricket Association