Lalit Modi hasn’t sought judicial review so far © AFP

New Delhi: Mar 2, 2013

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on Saturday told a Delhi court that no “injustice” is being done to sacked IPL commissioner Lalit Modi in the ongoing inquiry against him on an Indian Premier League (IPL) bidding issue and he has not yet challenged the proceedings of disciplinary committee.

The BCCI made the submissions on a plaint filed by Modi against the Board, its President N Srinivasan, disciplinary committee members Arun Jaitley, Jyotiraditya Scindia and others seeking a declaration from the court that the committee is “biased” against him and has not conducted the proceedings so far in a “fair and transparent” manner.

Senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, who appeared for BCCI, said it is a “serious charge” that the Board is manipulating the proceedings before the disciplinary committee and if it is so, Modi should have sought a judicial review of the inquiry proceedings but he has not done it so far.

“It is a serious charge against the Board. If gross injustice is done to a person at this stage, he will challenge it but he (Modi) has not done so,” Subramaniam told Additional District Judge Ruby Alka Gupta.

He argued the proceedings before the disciplinary committee are going on from 2010 and since then, Modi has not challenged it but “what prompted him to do it just two days before next hearing there”.

Modi’s counsel Abhishek Singh, however, sought an interim injunction restraining BCCI from proceeding against his client before the committee comprising Jaitley and Scindia.

The court, however, refused to give any injunction to Modi and fixed the matter for further hearing of arguments on March 11.

The court asked the BCCI and its officials to file their replies on the plaint by the next date of hearing.

The court had on February 27 issued summons against BCCI, its President, its Administrator Shashank Manohar, Scindia, Jaitley and another disciplinary committee member Chirayu Amin. Except Scindia and Manohar, summons were served upon all the other defendants who had appeared before the court through their counsel.