Delhi High Court today asked a top official of DDCA and its advocate why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for making comments in a letter accusing Justice Mukul Mudgal of "deliberately and wilfully disobeying" judicial orders appointing him as an observer to oversee the functioning of the cricketing body.
The High Court was aghast as DDCA President S P Bansal and advocate Gautam Dutta, who has given legal opinion, were contemplating moving a contempt petition against Mudgal, retired Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, for allegedly breaching its order by overseeing the administration of the DDCA.
Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma took note of the submissions of Justice Mudgal's counsel that Bansal and Dutta have deliberately interpreted wrongly the interim orders relating to the former judge to show that he has only been asked to oversee the holding of matches at Ferozshah Kotla and was never assigned to interfere into other affairs of DDCA.
"Prima facie it amounts to contempt of court's order. It is aimed at obstructing the court's proceedings. Notice is issued to advocate Gautam Dutta and S P Bansal for their replies on as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for interpreting the court's order," the bench said.
The court also observed that it amounted to intimidating a person and the next man could also face such a situation.
Advocate Nitin Mishra, appearing for Justice Mudgal, placed before the bench the letters written yesterday by Bansal seeking legal opinion and the reply of Dutta sent this morning.
The bench made it clear that till its directions are not
implemented fully, Justice Sen shall continue as administrator and he shall be paid a remuneration of Rs one lakh per working day.
As part of its directions, the court asked Justice Sen to hold a meeting of the members of DDCA, before the end of March 2017, to amend the Articles of Association to bring in the changes suggested by Justice Mudgal and ordered by the bench.
"After the amendments are so carried out in accordance with the directions above, the administrator shall ensure that an annual general meeting is held, for the purpose of electing the executive and office bearers of DDCA in accordance with the amendment articles," the court said.
Justice Mudgal was appointed as administrator to oversee functioning of DDCA and the conduct of matches at the stadium after alleged irregularities in functioning of the cricketing body were pointed out by the authorities.
While appointing Justice Sen as the administrator, the high court clarified that contracts and processes adopted after appointment of the Mudgal committee shall not be disturbed till directions of the court are finally implemented and administration is handed over to the duly elected body.
During his tenure as the administrator, Justice Mudgal gave several reports which highlighted the various "deficiencies" in the functioning of the body, after which DDCA objected to the requirement of an administrator and also claimed that Justice Mudgal had overstepped his mandate.
The court, however, noted that DDCA had conceded to the Mudgal Committee recommendations with regard to tendering, accounts and finance, administration, ticketing and accreditation and ordered that these be adopted.
It also directed DDCA to "forthwith" implement the other recommendations, with regard to correspondence with affiliated clubs, process of selection of players, constitution of the selection committee and remuneration of coaches, to which the cricketing body was agreeable during the proceedings.
The court also directed DDCA to deposit in Delhi Police Martyrs' Fund the fee payable to Justice Mudgal as per his request and to place before the bench the proof of deposit within two weeks.
It also said that it will monitor and supervise the progress of the directions and listed the matter for further orders on April 21.
"In the meanwhile, it is open to the administrator to file periodic reports or seek such directions as are necessary having regard to various exigencies of the situation that may arise," the court said.
