Mumbai:The BCCI on Thursday rejected embattled Lalit Modi's contention that the April 26 IPL Governing Council meeting was illegal and made it clear that it would go ahead with the meeting as per schedule.
"It is his view point, everybody is entitled to their viewpoint," BCCI president Shashank Manohar said when asked what he thinks about Modi's contention that the meeting was unauthorised.
The BCCI also disagreed with Modi's stand that secretary N Srinivasan could not convene the Governing Council meeting merely because he is part of an IPL franchise.
"It is not a question of owner. He (Srinivasan) is not calling the meeting as an owner of the team and in the board constitution, the secretary is the convenor of all meetings," Manohar said.
"Whether there is conflict of interest is not an issue because Mr Srinivasan, when this issue had cropped up, had sought the permission of Mr Sharad Pawar, who was the president of the board then.
"Mr Pawar had granted him permission to bid and it is not Mr Srinivasan who is bidding, it was India cement which is bidding and after his bid was accepted it was confirmed by the general body," he added.
Monahar also said while BCCI was aware of Srinivasan's stakes, it was unaware that Modi's relatives and friends had stakes in the franchise and deals.
"Mr Srinivasan was a declared bidder. If Modi and his relatives had a share in any of the franchises, he ought to have declared it at the meeting. I was not a member of Governing Council then. He ought to have told everybody," he said.
Modi had questioned the legality of the Governing Council meeting on April 26 saying that he alone had the power to convene such a meeting by virtue of being the IPL chairman.
Modi wanted the meeting to be convened on May 1 as he wanted time to compile all the documents and prepare his defence. There is intense speculation that the Governing Council will pass a resolution to oust Modi in Monday's meeting irrespective of whether the IPL Commissioner attends the meeting or not.
Manohar also said he had asked Modi not to disclose the details of all the franchises because there were serious breach of obligation between the Kochi Franchises and the board and they were contemplating legal action.
"The original contract for eight team were signed in January 2008. I was not a member of the Governing council then. Now for the first time on April 11 Modi leaks by twitter the names of Kochi franchises," Manohar said.
"After the names are leaked, I get a communication from Venugopal (of Kochi franchise) around 10:30 at night, saying that there is a confidentiality clause in the contract that has been signed between the Kochi Franchise and the board and there is a serious breach of obligation on the part of the board.
"He says in that communication we will be contemplating to take legal action in this regard. Because of that communciation, I told Modi to keep quiet with regards to the new franchises," he added.
Manohar said before disclosing the stakeholders, they have to see the documents during the Governing Council meeting and if necessary legal opinion will also have to be sought.
"The media pounced on Mr Modi and so wisdom dawned on him on April 14 when he sent that mail, saying we should disclose the names of all franchises which he had not disclosed since January 2008. To that I replied, in view of the letter from Venugopal, that there are legal implications in this regards.
"We have to look at the documents which we have never seen in our life and that's why we will discuss all issues in the Governing Council meeting because, if required, we have to take legal opinion in that regard," he said.
Manohar said he had the support of BCCI and Modi himself had earlier agreed not to divulge the details but now he is selectively leaking mails.
"The other members of the Governing council also supported me and finally Mr Modi selectively leaks the mail. He had sent a mail that we will do accordingly. So he himself agreed to me when I had sent that mail to him.
"As I said, it is fine for him to leak the mail. Things which you have not done for two years, 10 days would not have made any difference. If the Governing council meeting would have been held, the issue could have been discussed and decided," he added.