HCA heavyweights under the hammer
In a jolt to Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) heavyweights the Telangana High Court on Tuesday rejected their pleas to stay the proceeding against them in the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Court.
Former president Arshad Ayub, secretary N. Shivlal Yadav and office-bearers D. S. Chalapathi, Naresh Sharma, John Manoj, P. Yadagiri, Syed Moizuddin, Surender Agarwal, R. Devaraj were among those accused of corruption in allotting developmental works of the Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium at Uppal, Hyderabad.
Justice K. Lakshman of Telangana High Court dismissed the three petitions filed by these accused, who sought to quash the FIRs registered against them by ACB and to stay the trial proceedings at ACB court.
ACB had registered three cases against the accused, who are allegedly involved in misappropriation of funds with regards to construction works of RGICS at various stages.
The construction cost was estimated at `31 crore (the successful bidder had quoted `30,26,55,587) but over a period of time the cost was enhanced to `108 crore. Also, the bidder did not comply with the agreed terms, majorily non-fitting of fire fighting system and non construction of fire pump house.
There were irregularities in selling of tickets, investment of `83 lakh on three playgrounds at Mathrusri Engineering College, Qutubullapur and Osmania University. Irregularities have been found even in the installation of floodlights at the Stadium.
There are specific allegations that the committee has paid `910 for each bucket chair, whereas in the open market the cost is
`450. The committee has paid an amount of ` 2.7 crore excess by taking huge kickbacks from the supplier, the court observed.
Cases were registered in
2016, 2017 and 2020 by Aijaj Ali Qureshi, secretary of Shalimar Cricket Eleven Club and C. Babu Rao Sagar, secretary of Sagar Cricket Club, following
● High Court rejects pleas of several former and current office-bearers to stay graft proceedings against them in ACB Court.
which ACB authorities had investigated and filed a chargesheet against the accused. The trial was going on at ACB courts.
Meanwhile, the accused persons approached High Court seeking to quash the cases against them and to stay the proceeding in the trial court.
The accused contended being Managing Committee Members of HCA they never discharged their functions as public servants. Therefore, the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not attract against them. HCA never received any aid or grant from the Government and therefore, it is not a public authority and the accused are not public servants. The offences alleged against the accused under the provisions of the PC Act are not maintainable.
ACB Counsel submitted that there is an aid from the Government to HCA including providing of land on lease (23 acres at a nominal rent of `1 lakh per annum) and grants from 1963-1981. Therefore, it is a State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and provisions of PC Act are applicable.
The accused, being Managing Committee Members of the said Association, discharged public duties and therefore, they are public servants in the eye of law.
“Prima facie, there are serious allegations against the petitioners herein. However, whether the HCA has received any aid or financial assistance, whether the office bearers of HCA have discharged public duty and whether they are the public servants as defined under the provisions of the PC Act is a question of fact and triable issues. The same will be decided during the course of trial. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence by leading evidence. Thus, the said issue cannot be decided in the present proceedings,” the order read.