DIMAPUR, APRIL 7 (AGENCIES): The Supreme Court on Tuesday lashed out at the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for paying peanuts to North East state associations. While hearing the BCCI’s affidavit on the implementation of the Lodha Panel recommendations, the court felt that money was being allocated to some of the full-member associations without maintaining any parity.
A report in the New Indian Express said that after being affiliated in 2009, the state bodies of Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland have allegedly received only `50 lakh from the BCCI.
The report quoted an official of the Nagaland Cricket Association as stating: “They were supposed to pay us regularly. But, we haven’t received any funds after 2009.”
In a hearing that lasted close to an hour-and-a-half, the apex court said BCCI was disbursing funds to state associations without any particular mechanism, and pointed out 11 associations which were yet to receive any funding.
The 11 member associations listed out by the court are the Cricket Club of India, Railway Sports Promotion Board, Services Sports Control Board, National Cricket Club (Kolkata), Arunachal Pradesh Cricket Association, Meghalaya Cricket Association, Chhattisgarh State Cricket Sangh, Manipur Cricket Association, Nagaland Cricket Association, Bihar Cricket Association and the Jammu and Kashmir Association.
The Times of India reported the BCCI clarifying that there is no cricket played in the northeastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland and these states have never made any attempts to nurture the game or make an attempt to bring about any cricketing activity in their respective regions.
So far, none of the northeastern states have come forward alleging any ignorance on part of the BCCI.
Meanwhile, the BCCI has formed a New Area Development Committee, and its first meeting was held on Sunday.
The committee, which has appointed Meghalaya Cricket Association joint secretary Naba Bhattacharya as its coordinator, has decided to focus on the North-east and the Union Territories. The board’s move however is being considered as a ‘late response.’
