IPL 2013: Police security charges too high for IPL, says BCCI

BCCI has requested that charges should be based on the actual deployment of policemen © Getty Images (File Pic)

Mumbai: Mar 6, 2013

Terming the charges levied by police for security during IPL matches played at DY Patil Stadium in neighbouring Navi Mumbai in 2010 as “excessively high”, the country’s premier cricket body BCCI has urged the Home Secretary of Maharashtra to fix reasonable rates, comparable to those charged by other states.

BCCI has said this in a representation to Home Secretary dated March 4, following directive of Bombay High Court.

The High Court is presently hearing public interest litigation filed by Santosh Pachlag regarding non-payment of over Rs 5 crore by BCCI to the state police on account of security for IPL matches played at D Y Patil Stadium.

BCCI had earlier told the HC that Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) had approached Home Minister R R Patil on the issue, but in vain. The court said it may approach the Home Secretary again.

In its representation, BCCI has requested that charges should be based on the actual deployment of policemen.

BCCI has further said that it is not liable to pay the charges, but agreed in the interest of the sport. Moreover, the requisition for police deployment from 2011 onwards have been made by the respective IPL franchises. Even in international matches, the request for deployment of policemen is made by State Associations.

The cricket board has said that charges for 2010 season are to be paid by D Y Patil Academy administration, while for 2011 such charges are to be paid by Sahara Adventure Sports Ltd, the owners of Pune Warriors India.

The PIL states that BCCI is causing a loss to the state exchequer by non-payment.

In response to BCCI’s representation, petitioner Pachlag has written to the Home Secretary through his lawyer Ganesh Sovani that IPL and BCCI can not be separated.

According to Pachlag, BCCI can not distance itself from payment owed to the state. Further, he states that norms for provision of such security are laid down in a circular dated December 10, 2010, issued by Ambalal Verma, the then Additional Director General of Police, and BCCI has not challenged it.

BCCI, which had earlier paid Rs 47.53 lakh, did not raise the issue of excessive charges then, nor did it say it was making the payment `under protest’, he has said.

The High Court had said on March 2 that Home Secretary should decide on the BCCI’s representation by March 11; the matter would come up before the High Court on March 13.