Senior BCCI official Parikh found to be in conflict of interest

A senior official in BCCI operations, Mayank Parikh, has been asked to either resign from his position in the board or to "wind up" his six cricket clubs in Mumbai by BCCI's ethics officer-cum-ombudsman Justice (retd) DK Jain. Parikh was the subject of a conflict of interest complaint related to Rule 38(4) of the BCCI constitution, which prevents individuals from holding more than one of the 16 posts listed within.

The complainant, Sanjeev Gupta, had alleged that Parikh's role in the BCCI and his ownership role in his clubs were conflicting posts under sub-sections (l) and (p) of the rule.

Justice Jain's order said that by virtue of Parikh's position in the BCCI, he held a sway over the Mumbai Cricket Association and therefore on the monetary and other benefits to those six clubs, which are run by his family members. The ethics officer also found that despite his "alleged snapping of links" with the clubs, that Parikh "continues to be the alter ego of the six clubs."

"For all the aforesaid reasons, I am convinced that on the facts at hand, a case of conflict of interest as enshrined in the Rules is made out. Accordingly, it will be open to the BCCI to grant an opportunity to Mr. Mayank Parikh to either himself resign from the post of the Manager, BCCI or to wind up all the Clubs in question forthwith or by taking any other steps, which shall ensure that the situation of conflict of interest is resolved to the satisfaction of the BCCI," the order dated July 21 said.

The complaints were filed in July and August last year, and were followed by Parikh appearing in front of Justice Jain around the same time that Rahul Dravid was summoned for a conflict complaint - also filed by Gupta, who recently stepped down as a member of the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association.

Gupta had filed a conflict complaint against Virat Kohli earlier this month that is being reviewed, and previously against against Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman as well. In each of those instances, the ethics officer had served notices based on the complaints, but the former cricketers were eventually cleared.