PCB submits comments on LCCA petition to LHC

Lahore, Sept 28: The dissolved Pakistan Cricket Board structure and management were repugnant to its own constitution as contained in a 1995 notification issued by the federal government under the Sports Development Ordinance, 1962, the PCB ad hoc committee and its chairman said in their report and para-wise comments on the Lahore City Cricket Association petition challenging the board's and its own supersession.

The report and comments were submitted by Advocate Ali Sibtain Fazli in the court of Justice Faqir Mohammad Khokhar, who adjourned further proceedings till Oct 6. The judge declined a fresh request by LCCA counsel Hamid Khan that the dissolved management be restored or that the ad hoc set-up be put under restraint pending the hearing of the petition.

The position taken by the committee and its chairman, Mujibur Rehman Khan, is entirely different from the one adopted by the ministry of sports in its comments submitted earlier. The ministry justified the July 17 dissolution notification by the PCB patron (President Muhammad Rafiq Tarar) on ground of mismanagement, betting and match-fixation allegations, misconduct of captain Wasim Akram and other cricketers and the board management's indifference and inaction.

The ad hoc committee, on the other hand, has taken the plea that an entirely new organization was to be created in 1995 following withdrawal of a 1978 notification establishing the Pakistan Cricket Control Board (PCCB) and issuance of a new one to set up the Pakistan Cricket Board. It was not a change of nomenclature only and the new board was not stipulated to be a successor to the BCCP.

A new membership was to be enrolled and granted affiliation under the 1995 notification. A new general body was to be constituted to elect a new council. But the PCB continued with the old structure and pre-existing organizations. The old management failed to act on the 1995 notification and had to be replaced by an ad hoc set-up to give effect to the new constitution and raise a new structure in accordance with it. The ad hoc arrangement will come to an end after creation of new bodies in accordance with the 1995 rules.

As for the LCCA and other associations, they were PCB members by virtue of their membership of the BCCP. They were never granted affiliation by the PCB. Immediate suspension of membership is a pre-requisite for appointment of an ad hoc committee in terms of Article 37 of the 1995 PCB constitution. Quite a few associations have since been restored and are run by sub-committees as required by the constitution.

Insofar as the petitioner LCCA is concerned, it never bothered to submit a list of the clubs affiliated with it to the board despite repeated requests. A show-cause notice has already been issued to its previous management.

A prior notice or hearing was not feasible as there was every apprehension of the association manipulating its record and accounts. A notice has since been issued and the petitioner management is at liberty to rebut the charges against it.

The comments asserted the validity of the patron's dissolution notification and of all subsequent steps taken by him or the committee. It denied any delegation of power by the patron, who appointed an ad hoc committee and authorized it to co-opt members. Under Article 41 (3) of the PCB constitution, the ad hoc committee assumes the power of the general body as well as of the council, the comments claimed.