Navi Mumbai Police vs BCCI

964 Viewed Journalist Jaspal Singh Naol 0 respond

Story Published in NEWSBAND By Jaspal Singh Naol

NAVI MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday has issued a notice to Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The Court has asked the board to respond on Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleges that the board has failed to pay over Rs5 crore to Navi Mumbai Police towards security provided for Indian Premier League (IPL) matches played at DY Patil stadium in Nerul in the year 2010.
A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice NM Jamdar were hearing a PIL filed by one Santosh Pachalag claiming that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), owed Rs5,17,73,238 to Navi Mumbai police.

Just three days before the season of IPL 2012 was to start, a public interest litigation was filed in the Bombay High Court against the organisers BCCI for failure to pay over Rs five crore to police for security provided for matches played in Navi Mumbai`s D Y Patil stadium in the previous seasons. The Petitioner Santosh Pachalag has claimed that BCCI owes Rs 5,17,73,238 to Navi Mumbai police. This has raised the great concern of security of the cricket lovers.
“During the 2010 edition, six matches were held at the D Y Patil stadium between March 12 and April 25. In all, 3,345 police personnel were deployed at the stadium. As Navi Mumbai police was short-staffed, personnel from Pune and Satara districts were also deployed,” the PIL, likely to come up for hearing this week, states.
A circular dated January 14, 2010 of Additional Director General (Administration) of Maharashtra police had directed all police commissioners and district superintendents of police to recover security expenses during matches from BCCI.

“Navi Mumbai police, on November 8, 2010, sent a bill of Rs 5,65,26,238 to BCCI. However the cricket body paid only Rs 47,53,000, stating that it had paid the Nagpur police only this much and hence would not pay more,” the petition claims. It further alleges that “the deputy commissioner of police of Navi Mumbai had till May 2011 done communication with BCCI seeking payment of the arrears, but in vain. But thereafter the police too kept quiet” alleged petition states.
“IOt may be surprising but true that several offences were registered against the organisers during the IPL matches for causing public nuisance and noise pollution. But to the dismay is the fact that nothing is being done regarding these offences,” the petition states.
The petition seeks direction to the police to recover the arrears, and says till then no security should be provided for the upcoming IPL matches which are to begin from April 4. The bench after issuing notice to BCCI has posted the matter for hearing on April 4, the first day of the match.
It is also been said that due to the non payment of the Navi Mumbai Police, the BCCI must have not taken up the DY Patil Stadium for this season.  But now that the matter is with the Court, it might become difficult for the organizers to find a way out.  
However, this has put the residents of the state and the visitors in a big twist with respect to their safety. It is only the D Day that will decide as to whether the cricket lovers will receive the worlds best policemen safety or will they have to rely on the private security forces.

Please Find Below the PIL 



IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DISTRICT: THANE

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.                        OF 2012.
       
                                        In the matter of non performance
Of its duties on the part of the Navi Mumbai Police in the recovery of bills sent by it to the BCCI towards providing police security to the IPL matches held at Dr. D.Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai during IPL 2010 & 2011 editions.
                                               

In the matter of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
                                                        &
In the matter of Article 21 of Constitution of India.

                &
In the matter of Article 226 of Constitution of India.
               
Santosh Shrikrishna Pachalag                        )
Age: 42 , Occupation: Service               )
Residing at : A – 702, Suyog Arcade       )
Sector 23                                           )
Jui Nagar                                           ) … Petitioner
Navi Mumbai – 400 705                        )
                                V/s.
1. Commissioner of Police                     )
    Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate  )
    CBD Belapur                                   )
    Navi Mumbai – 400 716                    )

2. Director General of Police                  )
    Of Maharashtra State (DGP)              )
    Having its office at :                                 )
    Old Council Hall                               )
    Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg                )  … Respondents
    Mumbai – 400 005                           )


3. State of Maharashtra                        )
    Thr’ Additional Chief Secretary (Home))
    Mantralaya                                     )
    Mumbai – 400 032                           )

4. Commissioner of Police                     )
    Nagpur – 440 001                            )

5. Board of Control for Cricket in India    )
    A Society registered under the           )
    The Tamil Nadu Societies                  )
    Registration Act  – 1929                    )
    Having its administrative Office          )
    Wankhede Stadium                          )
    ‘D’ Road                                                 )
    Churchgate                                     ) … Respondents
    Mumbai – 400 020                           ) 

6. Union of India                                         )
     Thr. Ministry of Sports                     )
     504, B – Wing Shastri Bhavan          )
     New Delhi – 110 001                       )

7. Union of India                                         )
     Thr. Ministry of Finance                   )
     New Delhi – 110 001                       )
TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE &
OTHER PUSINE JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

The Petitioner respectfully submits as under: –

  1. That, the Petitioner is an activist and a public spirited person residing at Jui Nagar, Navi Mumbai, in the Thane District in the State of Maharashtra at the address mentioned above in the title of the petition.

  1. That, the Petitioner is greatly involved lot of activities concerning the social upliftment of downtrodden people and who has a carved a niche for himself in the public life of Navi Mumbai by the dint of sheer hardwork backed by lot of thinking and planning in whichever tasks he has under taken.

  1. That, the Respondent No. 1 is the Commissioner of Police, and hence of unit Commander of Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate Mumbai as contemplated under the provisions of The Bombay Police Act – 1950 and is accountable to the Director General of Police, Government of Maharashtra for all its actions.

  1. That, the Respondent No. 2 is the Director General of Police Government of Maharashtra who is having supervisory powers over the Respondent No. 1, as per the police hierarchy contemplated under the provisions of The Bombay Police Act – 1950.



  1. That, the Respondent No. 3 is the Additional Chief Secretary of Government of Maharashtra to which the Respondent No. 2 reports on the various affairs pertaining to the policing, police administration, etc.

  1. That, the Respondent No. 5 is the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter for the sake of brevity be referred to as the ‘BCCI’) which is a society registered under the provisions of ‘The Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act – 1929’, having its head quarters at Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai.

  1. That, the Respondent No. 5 is the Commissioner of Police Nagpur, an in-charge of the entire police force carved out for the Nagpur Police Commissionerate and who also reports to the Respondent No. 2, i.e. Director General Police of Maharashtra State.  

  1. That, the Respondent No. 6 is the Ministry of Sports of Union of India and it is purely made as a ‘Proforma party’ and no specific relief and / or directions are sought or prayed against it.

  1. The Respondent No.7 is Ministry of Finance of Government of India

  1. That, as a member of the International Cricket Council (ICC), it has the authority to select players, umpires and officials to participate in international events and exercises total control over them. Without its recognition, no competitive cricket involving BCCI-contracted Indian players can be hosted within or outside the country.

  1. That, the Respondent No. 5, i.e. BCCI is a body, which officially represents Indian nation in the cricketing world which selects a team to enable the India to participate in the various formats of the game of cricket like, five days Test cricket, one day international (ODI) etc.

  1. That, of late, the Respondent No. 5 has also started a newly created concept of T – 20 cricket matches by hosting the tournaments in the name and style of ‘Indian Premier League’ (for the sake of brevity hereinafter be referred to as IPL) at the various cricketing stadia all over the country, which amongst other venues also included Dr. D. Y. Patil Stadium situated at Nerul, Navi Mumbai, falling in the municipal limits of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation.

  1. That, for the purpose of record it is mentioned that all the IPL – T 20 games are fought between the private franchised teams and no national teams are involved in the same.

  1. That, though there is an ICC T – 20 world cup tournament which is organized after every two years, the IPL – T – 20 games the scores are not taken into consideration in the first class career of the participating cricketers, as they do not play as a party of the country labeled team.

  1. That, it is also placed on record that all the IPL T- 20 games are purely commercial venture and nothing is played as a part of any ICC laid international obligation, like the Test Cricket and the allied games between two cricket playing teams sponsored by the officially recognized boards of those member countries of the ICC.  

  1. That, the Respondent No. 5 has the ‘exclusive rights’ or a monopoly in hosting and organizing IPL tournaments in which lots of teams participate not as a ‘national team’, but which bears the city tags like: Mumbai Indians, Chennai Super Kings, Royal Challenge Bangalore, Dare Devils Delhi, etc., in which the international cricketers are roped in by way of an auction of the player and the player choose to play from any such team which offers him the highest bid.

  1. That, the Petitioner submits that T – 20 cricket has derived a phenomenal interest all over the world as the game is over inside four hours to be on higher side and it has added more flavour and an excitement to the glorious game of cricket of which Indian cricket is terribly crazy .

  1. That, as hosting and organizing of matches obviously involves an assemblage or gathering of crowds at the venues where the cricket matches are organized be these of any type, viz. a Test match stretching upto five days, an ODI consisting of 50 – 50 over game for both the sides and for the 20- 20, i.e. T – 20 matches as well. In order to maintain the ‘public order’ it becomes imperative on the part of the organizers to deploy adequate number of police force not only during the period in which the matches are held, but few days or hours earlier to keep the crowd under control and to avoid any untoward incident due to which even a law and order could get affected.

  1. That, as per the provisions of The Bombay Police Act – 1950 and also according to various rules, regulations and guidelines laid down in the Police Manual which is in the force in the State of Maharashtra, the police authorities are entitled to charge the hosts or the organizers of any such event for which its security is requisitioned.

  1. That, there is a table of fees involved which is charged to the host or the organizer, depending the kinds of police personnel which are deployed or derived from the police hierarchy.

  1. That, as per the circular dated 14.01.2010 issued by the Additional Director General (Administration) of Maharashtra Police on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, all the Police Commissioners (CPs) and the District Superintendents of Police (DSPs) have been directed to recover the protection money and the arrears thereof from the concerned persons on priority basis. Marked & annexed hereto as the Exh.’A’ is the copy of the circular dated 14.01.2010 issued by the Addl. DG (Admn) of Maharashtra Police.  

  1. That, as per the normal procedure adopted through out the state the concerned police department, which could be a Police Commissionerate or the District Superintendent of Police levies a bill or bills on the organizer who seeks or avails the services of the police machinery as a protection on the individual basis and also for the maintenance and observance of the ‘public order’ which is common parlance is also known as ‘Police bandobast’.

  1. That, it is also contemplated that once the hosts or the organizers receives the bill or bills from the police department, then they are supposed to clear of the bills by the manner and mode prescribed in the bills and in the stipulated period of time, if it is mentioned so in the bill.

  1. That, the Respondent No. 5 had hosted Indian Premier League (IPL) matches for the year 2010 and 2011 at various cricket stadia which are associated with the various participating teams and as such couple of games were also organized or hosted at Dr. D. Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai.          

  1. That, for the peaceful conducting of the matches or the IPL games at Dr. D.Y. Patil Stadium at Nerul, Navi Mumbai, the Respondent No. 5 had requisitioned the police force from the Respondent No. 1, i.e. Commissioner of Police for two years in a row, i.e. for IPL 2010 and IPL 2011 games that were hosted at the said stadium.

  1. That, after the conclusion of IPL 2010 and IPL 2011 games at Dr. D. Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai the Respondent No.1, sent the bills raised by it for providing the police personnel from time to time and the charges were levied in these bills as per the standard or common rates which were in force on those dates.

  1. That, the Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate is divided in two zones and three divisions and there are as many as sixteen police (16) stations and thirty two (32) chowkies under its jurisdiction. Since, it is practically impossible to provide and deploy the requisite police force for the smooth conducting of the IPL games, it became imperative for the Respondent No. 1 to procure the police personnel from the neighbouring police commissionerates and districts as well and as such the police personnel even from the far flung places like Satara, Kolhapur, etc. were also requisitioned by the Respondent No. 1 as a part of the deployment for the two IPL tournaments mentioned hereinabove.

  1. That, the Respondent No. 1 being in charge of one particular commissionerate has no powers to procure the police personnel from other police commissionerates or the District Police, which is admittedly and understandably done through with the assistance and guidance of the Respondent No. 2, i.e. Director General Police of Maharashtra.

  1. That, the Respondent No.1 had pressed into service a protection force of the police personnel of various ranks from its hierarchy for five matches that were organized by the Respondent No. 5 at Dr. D.Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai for which an amount of Rs. 3,94,78,188/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Seventy Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighty Eight only) was charged. Marked & annexed hereto as the Exh.’B’ is the copy of the chart provided by the Respondent No. 1 in response to RTI query in the tabulation format.

  1. That, these seven matches of 2010 inaugural tournament at Navi Mumbai stadium were held on 12.03.2010, 28.03.2010, 20.04.2010, 21.04.2010, 22.04,2010, 24.04.2010 and 25.04.2010 out of which barring the first match for other four matches, the police personnel were deployed in a double shift, with each shift consisting of eight hours. 

  1. That, it is also important to note that that for these 2010 edition games in all 3,345 personnel of various ranks were made available by the Respondent No. 1 for providing the police protection to those games. It is also placed on record that the inaugural edition of IPL 2010 at Dr. D. Y. Patil Stadium, Navi Mumbai was a peaceful and an incident free affair for which Respondent No. 1 and all sub ordinate police officials deserves a kudos for the same.  
  2. That, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ) of the Respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated CP / NM / Accounts / IPL / 100 / 2010 dated 17.04.2010 addressed to the Respondent No. 5 had demanded an amount of Rs. 1,70,48,050/- (Rs. One Crore Seventy Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Fifty only) for providing the police protection of its police personnel for IPL 2010 games that were organized on 12.03.2010 and 28.03.2010 D.Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai.

  1. That, thereafter the Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ) of the Respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated CP/NM/Accounts/IPL/6210/2010 dated 08.11.2010 had freshly communicated to the Respondent No. 5 and demanded an amount of Rs.  3,94,78,188/- (Rs. Three Crores Ninety Four Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighty Eight only) for provided the police protection of its personnel for the IPL T – 20 games that were organized at Dr. D.Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai on 21.04.2010, 22.04.2010, 24.04.2010 and 25.04.2010.     

  1. That, in the said letter dated 08.11.2010, the DCP (HQ) had called upon one Mr. Sundar Raman, the CEO, of DLF – IPL -3, Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai to pay in all the amount of Rs. 5,65,26,238/- (Rs. Five Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight only) forthwith for providing the security for the six games mentioned in it. An identical letter being a reminder dated 24.10.2011 was sent by the DCP (HQ) of the Respondent No. 1 to the Respondent No. 5 calling upon him to pay the balance protection amount. Marked & annexed hereto as the Exh.’C’ is the copy of the letters Dt.08.10.2010 & 24.10.2011 sent by the Respondent No. 1 through its DCP (HQ) to the Respondent No.5. (COLLY)

  1. That, the Respondent No. 5, vide its communiqué bearing No. BCCI / HQ / 47 (B) / 1678 / 2011 dated 13.04.2011 had sent across to the Respondent No. 1 a cheque of Rs. 47,53,000/- (Rs. Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only) for providing protection to the six matches of which the dates were mentioned in the same.

  1. That, the said letter written by one Prof. R.S. Shetty, the Chief Administrator Officer of BCCI had contended in his letter that an amount of Rs. 47, 53,000/- (Rs. Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only) was being calculated @ Rs. 7,92,166.67 (Rs. Seven lakhs Ninety Two One Hundred Sixty Six and Paise Sixty Seven only) which in the line with that was charged by the Maharashtra police for the matches held in Nagpur during IPL 2010. Marked & annexed hereto as the Exh.’D’ is the copy of the covering letter Dt. 13.04.2011 sent by the Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent No. 1 enclosing the cheque.

  1. That, after the phenomenal success of IPL – 2010 edition at Dr. D. Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, the Respondent No. 5 had organized IPL – 2011 edition matches though seven (7) in number, one more than previous edition of 2010 tourney, in a big way.
  2. That, for the games played during the IPL 2011 edition at Dr. D. Y. Patil Stadium, Navi Mumbai, the Respondent No. 5 requested the Respondent No.1 to organize police bandobust for all the seven games to be played and this time the Respondent No.1 had procured the man power practically from all its branches and also from outstation places which also included the police personnel from :-
a)   Zone – I
b)   Crime Branch
c)   Traffic Branch
d)   State Reserve Police Force (SRPF) – 3 companies
e)   Bomb Disposal Squad
f)    QRT (Quick Response Team)

Marked and annexed hereto as Exh. ‘G’ is the set of various letters, tabulations sent by the officers sub ordinate to the Respondent No. 1 detailing the break up of police personnel of various departments for IPL 2011 games. (COLLY).

  1. That, it is not out of place to mention here that one SRPF company is headed by one officer of the Police Inspector and such company consists of three (3) battalions which includes 36 consists personnel which are headed by two Police Sub Inspectors, thus one company consists of 120 personnel. In effect means, that 360 SRPF personnel were also pressed into service for 2011 IPL games.

  1. That, the Petitioner has procured all the relevant information through his two RTI applications dated 11.04.2011 and 10.10.2011 respectively.

  1. That, the Petitioner is filing in court the copies of the various documents obtained by him by taking recourse to ‘The Right to Information Act – 2005’ from the various Public Information Officers of the Respondent No.1. Marked & annexed hereto as the Exh.’E’ is the copies of the RTI applications made by the Petitioner to the PIO of the Respondent No. 1 on11.04.2011 and 10.10.2011 06.12.2011 respectively.

  1. That, information gathered by the Petitioner from the Respondent No.1 vide RTI indicates the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Head Quarters) of the Respondent No. 1, vide his letter bearing NO. CP / NM/ Accounts / IPL / 6210 – Dt. 08.07.2011 had intimated to the CEO of the Respondent No. 5 their office has received an amount of Rs. 47, 53,000/- (Rs. Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only)from the Respondent No. 5 on 13.04.2011. However, the balance was not then received and hence it was called upon the Respondent No. 4 to clear off the amount at the earliest since their office was being constantly asked by the Superior Office and also from the Government. Marked & annexed hereto as the Exh.’F’ is the copy of the letter Dt. 08.07.2011 sent by the DCP (HQ) of the Respondent No. 1.

  1. That, as there was no response from the Respondent No. 5 though its DCP (HQ) Navi Mumbai the Respondent No. 1 vide its letter Dt. 24.10.2011 intimated to the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent No. 5 through its then incumbent DCP about the total amount of the bill of Rs. 5,65,26,238 /-  (Rs. Five Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight only) and that only Rs. 47,53,000/- (Rs. Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only)was paid by it hence balance money be paid to it at the earliest.

  1. That, the Petitioner who had filed one more RTI application on 05.12.2011 to the PIO of the Respondent No. 1 indicates, that the Respondent No. 1 had not raised any such bill at all for the IPL 2011 editions, to the Respondent No. 5 for the providing the protection of the police personnel for the IPL 2011 matches, till 01.01.2012, the when an RTI reply was sent to the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 1.

  1. That, the Petitioner has also sought an information under The RTI Act – 2005 about the bills raised by the Respondent No. 1 on Respondent No. 5 towards the protection provided for the IPL – 2011 edition matches and crave leave to refer and rely upon the same, as and when he gets it, the same.

  1. That, the Petitioner had sought an information from the Respondent No. 1 about the offences that came be registered five offences against the organizers of the Respondent No. 5 for the commission of offences 188, 290, 291 of Indian Penal Code during IPL 2010 the details of which are as follows. :-

Sr.
No.
Name of Police Station
Number & Date of Lodging of
FIR
Sections Involved
Name of the Accused.
1.
Nerul
37 /
22.04.2010
188, 290 and 291 of IPC
Sunder Raman, CEO of  BCCI & ors.
2.
Nerul
38/
23.04.2010

As above.
Sunder Raman, CEO of BCCIs
3.
Nerul
39 / 25.04.2010

As above.
Sunder Raman, CEO of  BCCI & ors.
4.
Nerul
41 /
26.04.2010

As above
Sunder Raman, CEO of  BCCI & ors

According to the knowledge and information of the Petitioner, in the above matter charge sheets have not yet been filed even after the commission of offence almost 22 to 23 months back.  Marked & annexed hereto as Exh. ‘H’ is the copies of the FIRs lodged at Nerul Police Station of the Respondent No.1 against the CEO of Respondent No.5 (COLLY).

  1.  That, the Respondent No. 1 has also lodged offences under sections 33 (1) / 131 of The Bombay Police Act – 1951, for the indecent behaviour of the cheer girls pressed into service by the Respondent No.5 at the match venue.
Sr.
No.
Name of Police Station
Number & Date of Lodging of
Police Non Cognizable
Case No.
Sections Involved
Name of the Accused.
1.
Nerul
102 /
16.03.2010
33 (1) and 131 of The Bombay Police Act – 1951.
Sunder Raman, CEO of  BCCI.
2.
Nerul
207/ 17.04.2010

As above.

As above.

Marked & annexed hereto as Exh. ‘I’ is the copies of the Police NCs lodged by the Nerul Police Station of the Respondent No.1 against the CEO of Respondent No.5 (COLLY).

  1. That, a careful study of all that information that has been generated by invoking the RTI reveals lot of things concerning the lackadaisical attitude of the Respondent No. 1 when it comes to recovery of the bill amounts from the Respondent No. 5, which has a direct and / or an indirect bearing on the policing, law and order, police welfare, etc.

  1. That, the Petitioner submits that the reply forwarded by the Sr. PI Nerul Police Station to the PIO of Turbhe Division indicates the investigation of the crimes lodged by Nerul Police Station in April 2010 against officials under section 188, 290, 291 of IPC of the Respondent No. 5 were pending under investigation. Hence, the charge sheet could not be sent to the concerned Magistrate.  Marked & annexed hereto as Exh.’J’ is the copy of the RTI reply Dt. 04.01.2012 forwarded by Sr. PI of Nerul Police Station to PIO of Turbhe Division to further forward it to the Petitioner.  

  1. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent No. 1 to 2 in recovering the money that due for the year 2010 and 2011 IPL editions and overall handling of the matters connected therewith including the investigation of the crimes, the Petitioner as a conscious citizen of this country, prefers this public interest litigation against the Respondents for seeking appropriate directions for the following amongst the grounds: –

GROUNDS

a)   that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have collectively failed to enforce on the Respondent No. 5 for the payment of arrears of protection fees levied on it for the IPL 2010 edition and also even in raising the bills on the Respondent No. 5 as on 06.01.2012, as per the information available with the Petitioner,

b)   that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to perform their duties to act in accordance with the circular dated 08.11.2010 (Exh. ‘A’) which pertains to the recovery of the protection money @ amounts that are due from the private individuals and / or the bodies or the organizations even with retrospective effect,

c)   that, failure to recover an amount of Rs. 5,17,73,238/- (Rs. Five Crores Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Two Thirty Eight only) as the balance, due and payable money by the Respondent No. 1 to 3 amounts to ‘dereliction of duties’  which has in effect caused a loss to the ‘State Exchequer’,

d)   that the Respondent No. 1 even failed to demand the balance protection money from the Respondent No. 5 Rs. 5,17,73,238/- (Rs. Five Crores Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Two Thirty Eight only) and its entire approach in handling the whole issue is like a ‘kid glove’ treatment,

e)   that, even the letters dated 08.10.2010 and 08.07.2011 addressed to the Respondent No. 5 are purely of casual or of formality nature and the concerned officers of the Respondent No. 1 have not taken efforts or otherwise spelt out the precise amount that was due and payable on account of protection money due for the IPL – 2010 editions,

f)    that, these letters dated 08.10.2010 and 24.10.2011 (Exh. ‘B’ and Exh.’C’) merely mentions the total bill raised of Rs. 5,65,26,238/- (Rs. Five Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight only) and that the Respondent No. 5 has paid only an amount of Rs.5,65,26,238/- (Rs. Five Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight only) being due and payable and that it has paid Rs. 47,53,000/- (Rs. Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only)  toward it to the Respondent No. 1,

g)   that, it is intriguing to note what prevented the concerned officers of the Respondent No. 1 from specifically quoting in no  uncertain terms the figure of Rs. 5,17,73,238/- (Rs. Five Crores Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Two Thirty Eight only) that was due and payable on account of arrears of IPL 2010 matches, 

h)   that the very attitude of the Respondent No. 1 in recovering the dues for the IPL – 2010 editions is of utmost casual nature and as a matter of formalities,


i)     that the easy going nature of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in handling the issue of recovery of 5,17,73,238/- (Rs. Five Crores Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Two Thirty Eight only) for the as arrears of protection moneys of IPL – 2010 editions is manifested from the fact, after the receipt of a cheque of Rs. 47,53,000/- (Rs. Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only) from the Respondent No. 5,  in which it has taken recourse to pointing out the equivalent amount of money being paid to the Commissioner of Police Nagpur, for the IPL -2010 matches where six (6) number of matches were played,

j)    that, the Respondent No. 5 while dispatching a cheque of Rs. 47,53,000/- (Rs. Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only) has virtually taken an indirect stand that since it has paid Rs. 47,53,000/- (Rs. Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only)  for six (6) games at Nagpur, it was not bound to pay anything more than that, which is nothing but a hell bent attitude on the part of the Respondent No.5 ,

k)   that there is no seriousness involved in handling the matter or issue concerning the providing and recovering the protection fees by the Respondent No. 1  from the Respondent No. 5 is that even as the IPL – 2011 editions got over in May, 2011 no efforts were made by the Respondent No. 1 till December, 2011 end to levy or raise the bill and / or sending any specific letter quoting the precise amount to the Respondent No. 5 of which the Respondent No. 1 individually as a head of the commissionerate and the Respondent No. 2 & 3 as the supervisory authorities owe an explanation about the same,

l)      that the casual, lethargic non – serious attitude of the officers of the Respondent No. 1 is not just confined to the recovery of the balance of protection money, but the same is also extended to in investigating the crimes that came to be lodged in April 2010, as the charge sheets in respect of the same could not be sent due non completion of the investigation (Exh.’J’).

m) That it also needs to be appreciated that even as large number of police personnel (more than 3000 +) were deployed, still the offences came to be registered against the organizers of the game by the Respondent No. 1 under ‘The Environmental Protection Act –  1986’, section 290 of Indian Penal code, etc. for the indecent behaviour of ‘cheer girls’. That, the Petitioner craves leave to file relevant documents in that regard in due course of time,

n)    that easy going attitude of the government machinery towards the organizers of the IPL i.e. BCCI is not confined to the Government of Maharashtra alone, as the Union Government too had extended a largesse to the IPL i.e. BCCI when it came to the levying of the income tax on it. The Petitioner understands that the Union of India through its Ministry of Finance, New Delhihad not levied any tax on the earnings out of IPL – 2010, but on the contrary BCCI was exempted from paying the same.

o)   the Petitioner submits that a bad precedent is being set by the government of the day to extend largesse or the concessions to the organizers of the IPL tournament, i.e. the Respondent No. 5, which is having wide range of ramifications, since the deployment of a police strength in such a large number, when the Navi Mumbai police itself is suffering short of 20 % of man power of its total strength,

p)   that the non payment of such huge amount of balance protection money would also affect the ‘welfare of the police’ who are otherwise deprived of many basic facilities and amenities at the police stations for want of woeful and inadequate infrastructure, 

q)    that it also needs to be appreciated that large number of police personnel are drawn or procured from the far flung places like Pune, Kolhapur, etc. for deploying them for the IPL – 2010 and 2011 matches at Dr. D. Y. Patil Stadium and such police personnel who are requisitioned from far away places to do the duty of couple of hours during the match hours (since IPL matches fetch the results in less four hours), their non availability at their original place of posting causes severe problems due to their absence from those places as such personnel are required to report a day or two in advance,

r)    That it is also pertinent to note that in a cricket crazy country like India where public give priority to the game, rather than their own food, welfare, pleasure, its, such kind of shortage of manpower is unaffordable as an absence of large number of police personnel can have direct and / or indirect bearing on the ‘law and order’ problem,

s)   That it also needs to be appreciated that even as large number of police personnel (more than 3000 +) were deployed, still the offences came to be registered against the organizers of the game by the Respondent No. 1 under ‘The Environmental Protection Act –  1986’, section 290 of Indian Penal code, etc. for the indecent behaviour of ‘cheer girls’.

t)    That suffice to say that these many offences are taking place under the very noose of the police escort @ protection by the organizers of the game, who refuse to pay the bills raised by the very police department,

u)   That if the attitude of the Respondent No. 5 in taking the Respondent No. 1, i.e. State for ride is no curbed, it will continue to behave so in such irresponsible manner in future editions of IPL as well, no matter at which venues these games are played,

v)   That, the Petitioner being the citizen of India has a ‘right of safety & security’ as a fundamental right and he can feel it threatened if the large number of police personnel are drawn for the protection of these matches we are meant for barely four hours on the higher side for which police personnel are pressed into service for two days or so,  

w)  that  the Petitioner also feel that if the officers of the Respondent No. 1 fail to complete the investigation of the crimes committed by the officials of the Respondent No. 5 even in twenty – odd months (i.e. just less than two years), then it would send a different message through out the country, as cash rich organization and its officials are getting a differential treatment in comparison with other  common man in this country,

x)   that the concerned investigation officers of those crimes registered in April 2010 against the IPL Officials and their superior officers also owe an explanation to this Hon’ble High Court as to why the investigation could not be completed in as many as 20 + months period of the crimes registered at Nerul Police Station as referred above,

y)   that an accountability needs to be fixed on those police officers who are responsible for the investigation of the crimes referred above against the IPL Officials for their failure to complete the investigation even after the lapse of 20 + months period,

z)   that guidelines needs to be laid down by this Hon’ble High Court for the manner in which the recovery of the moneys due to the Government department like the Respondent No. 1 be done and in how much stipulated time,

aa)               That, the Respondent No. 1 be also directed not to provide any further protection to the matches hosted by the Respondent No. 5 at Dr. D. Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai or to any other venue in the State unless and until the dues for the year 2010 and 2011 clear to the Respondent No. 1 are cleared off,

  1. That, the Petitioner submits that he has filed this PIL as a socially conscious citizen and he has no personal interest involved in the matter. The Petitioner is separately swearing an affidavit to that effect.

  1.  That, the cause of action to file this petition arose, when the Petitioner for the time heard about the lapses on the part of the Respondent No. 5 in not clearing off the dues on account of the protection moneys of 2010 season, last year in June, 2010 when he received a reply from the concerned PIO of the Respondent No.1.

  1. That, this Hon’ble Court has a jurisdiction to admit, entertain and dispose of the petition, which filed as a ‘Public Interest Litigation’.

  1. That, a court fee of Rs. 250/- is annexed herewith.

  1. That, the Petitioner is reserving his right to add, alter, delete, amend any portion of this petition, as and when required and also when some more information which he has sought under the RTI concerning the issue involved is forthcoming.

  1. That the Petitioner crave leave to file additional documents as and when he gets the same from the concerned PIOs of the Respondent No. 1 in response to his RTI applications, which are still pending.

  1. That, the Petitioner has not filed any such writ petition in any other Hon’ble High Court in the country or an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, seeking identical relief.


  1. That, the Petitioner therefore prays that : –

a)   that this petition be treated as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ and be numbered accordingly,

b)   that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and / or an appropriate order directing the Respondent No. 1 to 3 for taking appropriate steps for the recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 5,17,73,238 / – (Rs. Five Crores Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight only) being arrears @ balance of the protection money due for the IPL 2010 edition matches and also for the IPL matches 2011 games held at Dr. D. Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai in such manner as it may deem feel fit and proper,

c)   that this Hon’ble High Court may also be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to 3 not to provide any police protection to the games that would be organized by the Respondent No. 5 not only at Dr. D. Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, but any where in the State of Maharashtra unless the money due on account of IPL 2010 and 2011 games are duly paid,

d)   that the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to order that a senior level officer be appointed for finding out the lackadaisical or casual attitude on the part of the Respondent No. 1 in not taking concrete or firm steps for the recovery of the balance due amount of Rs. 5,17,73,238 / – (Rs. Five Crores Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight only) for the IPL 2010 games and also to find out why even the bills for the IPL 2011 matches held at Navi Mumbai were not sent till December 2011 – January, 2012,

e)   that the responsibility be fixed on the erring officers  and they be dealt with as per the provisions of law,

f)    that the modalities or the guidelines be set by this Hon’ble High Court as to the manner in which the police machinery be made available for the bodies @ institutes for the big events where large number of crowd is expected to gather and how the guidelines mentioned in the circular dated 14.01.2010 issued by the Respondent No.2 be enforced on the erring parties, who refuse to pay the protection moneys, be them an individual and / or bodies, institutes, organizations, etc.

g)   that the cost of the petition be awarded to the Petitioner,

h)   any other relief as the Hon’ble Courtmay deem fit and proper may kindly be granted in the interest of justice,
Mumbai:
Dated: 16.03.2012                               __________
                                             Petitioner
VERIFICATION

I, Santosh Shrikrishna Pachalag, Age: 42, Occupation: service, residing at : Navi Mumbai, the Petitioner hereinabove state that the contents of the Para No. 1 to ____ are the facts which I believe the same to be true, while the contents of the Para No. ___ to ____ are the legal submissions and the contents of the Para No. 58 are the prayers @ relief sought by me, which I believe to be true and correct.
Sworn in this on this 16th day of March, 2012 at Mumbai before the Notary Public.

    Filed in court
    On 16.03.2012.
                                                            (Petitioner)
    (Ganesh Sovani)
    Advocate for Petitioner














Tabulation of IPL matches held for the year
2010 & 2011
At D. Y. Patil Stadium, Nerul, Navi Mumbai.

Sr. No.
IPL matches held
For the year 2010
IPL Matches held
For the year 2011
1.
12.03.2010
10.04.2011
2.
29.03.2010
13.04.2011
3.
21.04.2010
17.04.2011
4.
22.04.2010
27.04.2011
5.
24.04.2010
04.05.2011
6.
25.04.2010
16.04.2011
7.

19.05.2011
Total
   Six games  (6)
Seven games (7)

  1.  That, the Respondent No. 1 through its Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Navi Mumbai had sent a bill bearing No. 6210 dated 08.11.2010 to the Respondent No. 4, i.e. Chief Executive Officer of BCCI at Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai of Rs. 5,65,26,238/- (Rs. Five Crores Sixty Five lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight only) towards providing the police personnel for the six IPL tournaments matches that Rs. 47,53,000/- was received and hence he called upon the Respondent No. 4 to pay the balance amount at the earliest.

  1. That,  from the information received by the Petitioner through the RTI it is revealed that the Respondent No. 4 had paid only an amount of Rs. 47,53,000/- (Rs. Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only) thus thereby keeping an amount of Rs. 5,17,73,238 /- (Rs. Five Crores Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight only).

  1. That, the Petitioner also learns that the Respondent No.  1 through the DCP (HQ) had sent a letter bearing No. PA / NM / IPL / 3851 / 2011 Dt. 08.07.2011 to the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent No. 1 intimating him about the bill raised of Rs. 5,65,26,238/- and that an amount of Rs. 47,53,000/- has been only paid by it (Respondent No. 4) to the Respondent No.1 and that the balance amount was not paid till then, i.e. at the time of sending that letter.

  1. That, that the RTI  formation gathered by the Petitioner also reveals that the Respondent No. 1 through its DCP (HQ) had sent a second reminder bearing No. NIL , dated 24.10.2011 to the Chief Executive Officer of the BCCI, Mumbai reiterating to all has been mentioned in the earlier letter dated 08.07.2011 and called upon to pay the balance protection amount immediately. 

  1. it is also   

  1. s

  1. s
GROUNDS

a)   the attitude of the Respondent No. 1
b)   c
c)   c
d)   c
  1. the Petitioner states that as the Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate is understaffed with a sanctioned strength of 1,923 police personnel, but having filled up only 1,516  posts, thereby making  a short fall of 407 posts which makes almost 20 % of sanctioned strength.

a)    
  1. s


     

Single content advertisement bottom
Don't miss the stories follow Navi Mumbai Lifestyles and let's be smart!
Loading...
0/5 - 0
You need login to vote.
prev-next.jpg

ACTION ALERT : NAPM calls for writing to President for cancellation of Koodankulam Projects

prev-next.jpg

ISLAM-MUSLIMS-MEDIA

Related posts
Your comment?
Leave a Reply