Published: Feb 03, 2016, 11:29 AM (IST)
Edited: Feb 03, 2016, 11:29 AM (IST)
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) ombudsman Justice AP Shah has rejected an appeal of alleged conflict of interest against secretary Anurag Thakur as well as national selector Vikram Rathour. Shah said in his reply that he ‘fails to see any conflict of interest within the meaning of the rules’, asking the complainant Niraj Gunde to clarify his stand and specify the rule that could be applied to get clarity. It was earlier reported that Gunde, who claims to be a freelance journalist, had written to the BCCI ombudsman informing him about an alleged conflict of interest against Thakur and Rathour, saying that they have business relations since a very long time.
Gunde had alleged in his complaint that Thakur and Rathour and their respective families have common commercial and business interests, adding that Rathour was named a national selector when Thakur was holding key positions in the BCCI. ALSO READ: Sourav Ganguly-led CAB rejects 10 reccomendations of the Lodha Committee
According to the Indian Express, Shah wrote in his email, “It is alleged that Mr Thakur has had, at present and/or in the past, business connections with Mr Rathour, which allegedly have not been disclosed. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr Rathour was appointed in the Senior Selection Committee when Mr Thakur was the Jt. Secretary of the BCCI representing North Zone, and that he was re-appointed in November 2015, when Mr. Thakur was/is the Hon. Secretary of the BCCI. It is further alleged that Mr Thakur and Mr Rathour have certain financial/business connections in various companies. However, it appears to the Ombudsman that these companies have nothing to do with the BCCI or cricket.” ALSO READ: BCCI ombudsman seeks clarification on allegation of conflict of interest against its consultant
“The applicant nevertheless alleges that this situation pertains to a conflict of interest. After going through the rules for conflict of interest very carefully, the Ombudsman fails to see how the facts alleged would constitute any conflict of interest within the meaning of the rules,” Shah added.
Thakur was not happy with the complaint, as he said there was a pattern in which Gunde has been filing his complaints. He said earlier, “Me and Vikram’s family know each other for the last 4 decades. Our business has nothing to do with cricket. The ombudsman was not made to malign people by those who every other day are filing false complaints. There’s a very obvious pattern if you see the kind of people who are being dragged into this from Sharad Pawar, Sourav Ganguly, RP Shah and Vikram.”
Apparently, Gunde has replied to the BCCI ombudsman and referred to the case of “AK Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1969) 2 SCC 262”, and claims it was referred in the judgement given by Justice TS Thakur and Justice Khalifullah while they attended the case titled “Cricket Association of Bihar vs. BCCI and Ors”.
Gunde has also insisted that the “past relationship” between Thakur and Rathour was not in knowledge of any person in the BCCI, and it was he who brought up the complaint. He said in an email dated February 2, “Let me clarify at the outset that the issue of conflict of interest is directly connected with the duty of the conflicted person to disclose his handicap in exercising his discretion to decide this issue, whether it be in a collective forum or as an individual.”
“That conflict can lead to exercise of influence in a subtle, discreet and seamless manner is incontrovertible. When both have business interest, can it truly be expected that Shri Anurag Thakur would be totally dispassionate when it comes to cricketing affairs? Leave alone whether he was or was not, can it be said that the process in which he participated could be seen to be fair and clean, particularly when he deliberately chose to hide this relationship with the candidate from BCCI?” Gunde added.
