Legal expenses trump cricket contracts in DDCA
Written by Nihal Koshie
| New Delhi |

Updated: April 19, 2020 12:06:40 am

New Delhi: DDCA secretary found guilty of indiscipline, misconduct DDCA has spent Rs 1.63 crore on authorized expenses over the past 4 months. (Express Photo Archive)

While its personal teaching and help workers watch for the remuneration on account of them, the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) has, over the past 4 months, paid Rs 1.63 crore to its legal professionals, standing counsel and ombudsman. This unusually high legal expenditure is due to the common inner disputes in the capital’s faction-ridden cricket physique. In some circumstances, the state affiliation has ended up footing the authorized invoice of each the DDCA teams concerned in a courtroom battle. One explicit lawyer has been paid Rs 45 lakh since November.

This is in distinction to the state of affairs of the coaches, different help workers and selectors, who’ve solely acquired guarantees of fee, at a time when they’re coping with the COVID-19-triggered financial hunch.

Delhi males’s group coach KP Bhaskar is to obtain Rs 24 lakh, whereas bowling coach Raj Kumar Sharma has a contract of Rs 20 lakh. Atul Wassan, who was the chief selector until December, confirmed that he hasn’t acquired a penny but. “I was told I would be paid 60 per cent of the amount due to me but till date I have not received any money from the DDCA,” Wassan mentioned.

A help workers member of the state group has been ready for his fee, the primary installment of which was to be paid in November, adopted by ones in December and February. “I am yet to receive even a single rupee. I have asked the DDCA about the delay. They have been promising to pay me. It is April now and nobody is responding. According to my contract, I should have got the full amount by the end of February,” the coach mentioned.

He is feeling the pinch this month as his employers — he has a day job — have delayed salaries due to the lockdown.

Those left in the lurch additionally embody masseurs, trainers, physiotherapists and group managers of senior and age-group groups fielded in varied competitions.

However, the authorized payments, operating right into a fortune, have been frequently paid.

The charges of DDCA ombudsman Justice (retired) Deepak Verma, the person who seems to be into complaints, has accounted for almost one-fourth of the authorized invoice. Since being appointed in late December, he has price the DDCA Rs 37.62 lakh.

READ | Cricket’s new jungle law: Survival of the richest

DDCA joint secretary Rajan Manchanda says the authorized payments have been excessive since November as a result of members are submitting circumstances on the drop of a hat and likewise hiring high legal professionals for petty issues.

“When certain procedures followed during the annual general body meeting of the DDCA were challenged in court, president Rakesh Bansal and secretary Vinod Tihara used the services of two senior lawyers to represent them in the High Court. The total bill raised by these two lawyers was Rs 41 lakh,” Manchanda mentioned.

“I have repeatedly asked the accounts department to furnish details of who paid these two senior lawyers but have got no reply. The previous ombudsman charged the DDCA Rs 27 lakh for the whole year. Why have the fees of the ombudsman been much higher for a period of just three months?”

When contacted, Justice Verma mentioned he was solely elevating payments as per the phrases and situations provided by the DDCA on the time of his appointment.

“As far as my payments are involved, it’s the DDCA which has provided me this. DDCA itself mentioned you may be paid Rs 5 lakh monthly as retainer payment and about Rs 6.5 lakh per listening to. A listening to takes about two hours.

But I’ve not charged DDCA for each listening to, just for these which take up a superb quantity of my time. My time can be cash,” Justice Verma mentioned. “Since I took over, there have been five or six hearings. I have not charged for all of them.”

DDCA member and former India all-rounder Kirti Azad raised the matter of authorized prices going by the roof in a letter to BCCI ombudsman Justice (retired) DK Jain.

READ | How cricket administrators see the game’s future

“The fact that DDCA employs a whole band of lawyers is ample proof of their priorities. Despite having an Ombudsman, people are running to various courts — lower as well as High Court — to get matters heard. I fail to understand why an Ombudsman’s office was necessary if everything was still to be decided in courts. As we have seen in Delhi, it was a time-tested tactic employed by DDCA office-bearers to engage detractors in lengthy and expensive court procedures. Since there never was any accountability, the management could waste time as well as DDCA’s money, on ‘friendly’ lawyers,” Azad wrote.

As far as delay in funds to teaching and help workers is worried, Manchanda mentioned that he had cleared cheques for fee however these haven’t been forwarded to those that need to be paid.

“I have not been able to follow up on why the support staff and coach were not paid as I have been kept in the dark,” the joint secretary mentioned. The feud throughout the state cricket affiliation has solely bought messier after the ombudsman debarred 4 officers, together with Manchanda, from participating in any ‘administerial’ or ‘financial’ work on Wednesday, after they claimed that the Apex Council had terminated the contract of DDCA standing counsel and authorized advisor Gautam Datta.

The ombudsman’s order acknowledged that Manchanda ‘has failed to produce as to how such a majority has been achieved because Apex Council consists of 10 members and whether the rest of the six members approved the said resolution is not known.’

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and keep up to date with the newest headlines

For all the newest Sports News, obtain Indian Express App.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Source by [author_name]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *