- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. We had passed an order on 27th September, 2013 in the interlocutory application that the proposed Annual General Meeting of the Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) may be held on 29th September, 2013 as scheduled and election in the Annual General Meeting may also be held and in case the Respondent No. 2 (N. Srinivasan) is elected as President, he will not take charge until further orders.
(2.) After the aforesaid order, the Annual General Meeting of the BCCI as well as the election in the Annual General Meeting were held and the Respondent No. 2 was elected as the President. Considering the fact that in PIL Petition No. 55 of 2013 which was filed by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner had challenged the constitution of the Probe Committee comprising two retired Judges of the Madras High Court and the Bombay High Court in the impugned order had held the constitution of the Probe Committee as ultra vires the IPL Rules and considering the fact that the Respondent No. 2 has been re-elected as the President of the BCCI, we need to constitute a Probe Committee for inquiring into the allegations of betting and spot-fixing against Gurunath Meiyappan, who happens to be the son-in-law of the Respondent No. 2, as well as the team owner of IPL Franchisee Rajasthan Royals.
(3.) Without casting any aspersion on the two retired Judges of the Madras High Court who constituted the earlier Probe Committee, and considering the fact that the Mumbai Police has submitted the charge sheet against Gurunath Meiyappan, we are of the view that a Probe Committee comprising members who can function independently of the BCCI and its President (Respondent No. 2) should be constituted for probing the allegations referred to in the PIL Petition filed before the Bombay High Court.;