Kerala High Court Asks Petitioner To Approach Lodha Committee On Kochi Tuskers' Inclusion In IPL 1

The Kerala High Court, on Friday (August 4), asked a petitioner to approach former chief justice of India RM Lodha-led three member committee to seek the next course of action after his demand of reinstating the now-defunct Kochi Tuskers Kerala in the 2018 edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL).

The Kerala-based franchise, which was admitted into the IPL in 2010, played its first and only season in 2011 as the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) terminated its contract after an internal dispute among co-owners resulted in the franchise defaulting on submitting the 10% bank guarantee of the total franchise fee ahead of the season. The BCCI had justified its claims by stating that several reminders sent to the franchise didn’t elicit a response.

The petitioner, however, feels that the board had wrongly terminated the contract of the Kochi Tuskers Kerala and as a result, Kochi lost the lucrative opportunity of hosting the IPL matches.

“BCCI is yet to pay around Rs 1,200 crore, which includes interest, that was ordered in arbitration proceedings by Justice Lodha and the Kochi Tuskers Kerala team is being arbitrarily kept out of the tournament,” the petition stated.

Not only that, the petitioner also said that by not including the team in the IPL, the BCCI is not only engaging in injustice but also causing huge revenue loss to the state government in the form of tax. And with the recent negotiations between the franchise owners and the BCCI not giving a concrete outcome, the petitioner moved the high court only to see the judicial body asking him to approach the Lodha Panel.

“All these and any other grievance the petitioner has could more appropriately be dealt with by the Chief Justice RM Lodha Committee and if the said committee has any difficulty and/or reservation in examining the said issues, the same can be forwarded to the appropriate forum in BCCI itself. But surely, at the first instance this court would be reluctant to interfere in the matte while considering a PIL,” the court said in its order.