Bombay High Court upholds year-long ban on cricketer Kiran Powar for conflict of interest – India Today

The Bombay High Court on Monday upheld a year-long ban on cricketer Kiran Powar for conflict of interest.

The bench hearing the petition consisted of Justices SV Gangapurwala and RN Laddha.

By Vidya : The Bombay High Court has upheld an order of the ethics official and ombudsman of Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) barring an under-19 ex-Ranji player, Kiran Powar, from being involved in the game of the cricket whatsoever for one year.

The bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala and RN Laddha was hearing a petition filed by 46-year-old cricket coach Powar. He played for Ranji Trophy and led the India team of cricket Under-19 team in the year 1994-95. Powar was a member of Apex Council of MCA, nominated by the Indian Cricketers’ Association.

A cricketer, Deepan Mistry had filed a complaint with ethics officials and ombudsman of MCA alleging that Powar was guilty of “conflict of interest” as per the constitution of MCA. According to Mistry, Powar was appointed as a Coach by Goregaon Sports Club (GSC) while his brother Ramesh Powar was appointed as a Coach.

The Ethics Officer cum Ombudsman allowed the complaint thereby removing Powar from his post as a member of the Apex Council of MCA. While Powar was barred for a period of one year from the involvement in the game of cricket, The Ethics Officer cum Ombudsman allowed the complaint thereby removing Powar from his post as a member of the Apex Council of MCA.

The Bench in its order observed that the being a member of the Apex Council, a person would be in a position of influence in matters of selection as the Cricket Improvement Committee has to reports its recommendation to the apex council.

Further, Powar did not declare his conflict of interest when he was member of the Apex Council Member and did not maintain the transparency, noted the bench, while adding that hence it could not be said that the decision of the Ethics Officer for perverse for the Court to intervene.

“The Ethics Officer has come to the conclusion that the conflict is intractable. The conflict could not have been resolved through disclosure and recusal. The conflict of interest of the respondent is not tractable. There is no full disclosure. If the petitioner would have made disclosure, then conflict of interest of disclosure may have been tractable,” the bench said.

The Bench also could not agree with the submission that there was no reason to debar Powar from involvement in the game. It said that the ethics officer had powers to debar persons for a specific reason if the conflict was not tractable.

“The Ethics Officer has not debarred the Petitioner for life from involvement in the game of cricket but for a limited period of one year. No further penalty is imposed upon the Petitioner though the Ethics Officer had powers to do so. No further disqualification is also directed against the Petitioner,” the order read.

In the end, the Bench concluded that the punishment imposed was not so shockingly disproportionate requiring the Court’s intervention. “It cannot be said that the punishment imposed and / or the order passed is shockingly disproportionate for this court to intervene. In light of above, no interference is called for,” the bench said while disposing off the petition.