New Delhi, October 9
The Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI), placed in a piquant situation by a Madras High Court order restraining its new President Ranbir Singh Mahendra and other office-bearers from taking charge, today moved the Supreme Court seeking its stay.

The BCCI said the immediate effect of the interim stay granted by the High Court would be that the board’s selection committee and the umpiring committee would not be able to select the team and the third and fourth umpires for the ongoing Test series against Australia.

BCCI counsel Radha Rangaswamy filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court Registry but she could not succeed in convincing the apex court to take up the matter for urgent hearing today. The Registry listed it for October 11.

The board has named Chennai-based Netaji Cricket Club (NCB) and the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA) as respondents in the SLP, on whose petition the Madras High Court had passed the interim order, while hearing their petition challenging the election of Mr Mahendra and other BCCI office-bearers on September 29.

It contended that if the High Court’s order was given effect to and acted upon, “the entire game of cricket at the national and international levels would come to a standstill...as the Administrator (appointed by the HC) under rule was not authorised or capable of selecting the team.”

The High Court yesterday had taken serious view of the manner in which the BCCI elections were conducted and Mr Mahendra was elected President with outgoing President Jagmohan Dalmiya’s “casting” vote when the former was tied with Maharashtra strongman Sharad Pawar.

The High Court had appointed a former Supreme Court Judge, Justice S. Mohan, as BCCI Administrator for the interim period.

But reports from Mumbai said when he went to the board office today to take charge, he found its office locked and was told by the watchman that the staff had taken casual leave yesterday.

The BCCI, in its SLP, claimed that the Vice-President re-elected in the September 29 elections “continues to hold the office in terms of BCCI Rule 20(iii) and as such the new office-bearers have not yet assumed charge”, and therefore, there was no question of their being restrained from holding it.

The board said in such circumstances the appointment of the Administrator could not be justified “as the board elected on September 29 remains in office since the annual general meeting is yet to be terminated.”