Bombay HC Asks State To Explain Why It Waived Off Arrears Of Rs 14.8 Crores Owed By Organisers For Police Protection Provided During IPL

The Bombay High Court on Thursday criticised the Maharashtra Government for waiving Rs. 14.8 crores in arrears owed by the Indian Premier League (IPL) organisers for police protection provided during IPL matches, since 2011.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar pulled up the State for its decision, orally observing, "You will keep increasing water charges from slum dwellers..but won't charge from these organisers. BCCI is the richest cricket body globally. That's how they have become rich."

The bench was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the State Government's decision to retrospectively reduce the rate of police protection provided during the IPL matches. The PIL was filed by RTI Activist Anil Galgali.

The petitioner stated that through a circular issued on June 26, 2023, the State Government reduced the security charges of IPL organisers with retrospective effect from 2011. The petitioner contended that the State's decision to waive the arrears was causing a loss to the public exchequer.

The Court remarked that it did not find any rationale on the part of the State to not only reduce the fees for police protection but also to waive the arrears against the match organisers.

"We do not find any rationale of State government to have not only reduced the fee but also to have waived arrears against the organisers," the judges said.

It thus directed Advocate General Birendra Saraf, to assist the court in the instant case. A further directive has been issued to the State to file a detailed affidavit providing reasons for waiving the arrears.

It also directed the Additional Chief Secretary of State Government to file an affidavit disclosing the total arrears of cricket match organisers from 2011 till date. Further, to provide the efforts made by the State to recover arrears from organisers.

Case title: Anil Galgali v Comr of Police (PIL/54/2024)

(With inputs from Narsi Benwal)