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.
Nagpur
New Delhi
New Delhi
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
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 )
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 )
7. Union of India
Thr. Ministry of Finance )
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE &
OTHER PUSINE JUDGES OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY
The Petitioner respectfully submits as
under: -
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- That, the Respondent No. 5 is the Board of Control for
Cricket in
- 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.
- 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.
- The Respondent No.7 is Ministry of Finance of Government
of India
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 .
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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'.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- That, the Petitioner has procured all the relevant
information through his two RTI applications dated 11.04.2011 and
10.10.2011 respectively.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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
|
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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 am ounts
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 Delhi
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,
- 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.
- 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.
- That, this
- That, a court fee of Rs. 250/- is annexed
herewith.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 Court
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)
|
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- it is also
- s
- s
GROUNDS
a)
the attitude of the Respondent
No. 1
b)
c
c)
c
d)
c
- 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)
- s
