बीसीसीआई के खिलाफ प्रतीक चिन्ह और नाम (अनुचित प्रयोग निषेध) एक्ट में शिकायत

सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता अमिताभ और नूतन ठाकुर ने बोर्ड ऑफ कंट्रोल फोर क्रिकेट इन इंडिया (बीसीसीआई) के खिलाफ प्रतीक चिन्ह और नाम (अनुचित प्रयोग निषेध) एक्ट 1950 की धारा 5 में भारत सरकार को दो शिकायतें भेजी हैं. ये दोनों शिकायतें सक्षम प्राधिकारी के रूप में उपभोक्ता मामला विभाग के निदेशक (आतंरिक व्यापार डिविजन) को भेजी गयी हैं. इनमें पहली शिकायत बीसीसीआई द्वारा नाम में इंडिया शब्द के प्रयोग और दूसरा बीसीसीआई की क्रिकेट टीम के लिए “टीम इंडिया” शब्द के प्रयोग से सम्बंधित है.

अमिताभ और नूतन के अनुसार इस एक्ट की धारा 3 में बिना सक्षम प्राधिकारी के अनुमति के कई प्रतीक चिन्ह और नामों का प्रयोग गैरकानूनी है, जिसमे इंडिया शब्द भी शामिल है. बीसीसीआई तामिलनाडू सोसायटीज रजिस्ट्रेशन एक्ट 1975 के तहत पंजीकृत एक संस्था है जिसने हमेशा यह कहा है कि वह स्वतंत्र और स्वायत्त संस्था है जिसका सरकार से कोई लेना देना नहीं है. इसके बावजूद वे बिना किसी अनुमति के इंडिया शब्द का बार-बार प्रयोग करते हैं, जो इसे सरकारी संस्था समझे जाने को भ्रमित करता है. अतः उन्हें इस एक्ट की धारा 5 में दण्डित किया जाए.

To,
Director (Internal Trade Division),
Department of Consumer Affairs
Room No: 312 A, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi
E-mail: dirit-ca@nic.in
Fax No: 23385821
Name and Address of complainants  —                                     

    Amitabh Thakur, age about 45 years, son of Sri T N Thakur, r/o- 5/426 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 94155-34526

    Dr Nutan Thakur, age about 40 years, wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur, r/o- 5/426 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 94155-34525       

Name of the accused —-

    Sri Sanjay Jagdale, Honorary Secretary, Board Of Control For Cricket In India, "Cricket Centre" Wankhede Stadium, 'D' Road, Churchgate, MUMBAI – 400 020, Phone : 022 – 2289 8800, Fax : 022 – 2289 8801 E-mail : bcci@vsnl.com/ cricketboard@gmail.com   

Application of complaint

Under section 5 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, police station Gomti Nagar, Luckow for use of word “India” by a private association/body Board Of Control For Cricket In India (BCCI, for short)

Respected sir,

We Amitabh Thakur, age about 45 years, son of Sri T N Thakur, r/o- 5/426 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 94155-34526, Education- B Tech, religion Hinduism, profession- Government Service and Dr Nutan Thakur, age about 40 years, wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur, r/o- 5/426 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 94155-34525, Education- MA, P Hd, D Litt, religion Hinduism, profession- Social Service do hereby humbly pray before you hereunder-

    That there is an Act promulgated by the Indian Parliament named the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, which extends to the whole of India, and also applies to citizens of India outside India.
    That as per section 2(a) of this Act- “emblem means any emblem, seal, flag, insignia, coat-of-arms or pictorial representation specified in the Schedule.”
    That as per section 2(c) “name includes any abbreviation of a name.”
    That as per section 3. Prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names-“Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, use, or continue to use, for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent, or in any trade mark or design, any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government.”
    That as per section 5, any person who contravenes the provisions of Section 3 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.
    That as per section 6, no prosecution for any offence punishable under this Act shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of any officer authorised in this behalf by general or special order of the Central Government.
    That there is a Schedule attached to this Act formed as per provisions of Sections 2 (a) and 3 of the above Act
    That Item 7 of this Schedule talks of-“Any name which may suggest or be calculated to suggest-(i) the patronage of the Government of India or the Government of a State; or (ii) connection with any local authority or any corporation or body constituted by the Government under any law for the time being in force
    That as per the Annexure II (Guidelines under Item 7 of the Schedule to Emblems And Names ( Prevention Of Improper Use) Act, 1950) presented on the website of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and CS, Government of India-“The name will attract the provisions of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 under item 7 of Schedule, if:(1) it is identical with the name of any society/corporation or local body which has been set up by the Government of India or State Government under any law for the time being in force. (2) it gives the impression of the patronage of Central Government or State Government. For example, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is a registered body under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation. Any name beginning with the words “Indian Council of” may mislead the public that it is patronized by the Government. (3) it too nearly resembles a name of body corporation or local authority set up by Government under any law for the time being in force. For example, Indian Institute of Mass communication is an autonomous body under Ministry of Communication. Names like Institute of Mass Communication may give the impression that the said society is also patronized by the Central Government. Here it should be kept in view whether any other body carrying same kind of activities with similar name is in existence. (4) it connotes Government’s participation or patronage unless circumstances justify it. Certain words in a name may give the impression of Government’s patronage. Such words are National , National Institute of, – National Council of, University, Indian Institute of, Indian Council of, etc. This list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
    That there is a body/association calling itself , Board Of Control For Cricket In India (BCCI, for short) with its contact address, "Cricket Centre" Wankhede Stadium, 'D' Road, Churchgate, MUMBAI – 400 020, Phone : 022 – 2289 8800 Fax : 022 – 2289 8801 E-mail : bcci@vsnl.com/ cricketboard@gmail.com
    That its website is http://www.bcci.tv/bcci/bccitv/index
    That naturally the name BCCI (i.e Board Of Control For Cricket In India) is against the legal provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Clearly the word “India” at the end of the name BCCI suggests the patronage of the Government of India. So here we find an example of a body which says it has nothing to do with the Union of India and yet so conveniently uses the word “India” at the end of its name showing absolute patronage of the Government of India. Thus, this private body is committing an offence, that too with great impunity and openness.
    That this is because in India, the Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports is the nodal ministry related with the development and control over sports affairs in India, which acts through various National Sports Federations (NSFs). It has granted recognition to many NSFs, but the list of the NSFs granted recognition by the Department of Sports does not contain the sport of Cricket or the BCCI.
    That in its Counter Affidavit to Writ Petition No (PIL-Civil) No 3153/2012 filed in the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench, filed by Sri A K Patro, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of India, the Ministry has accepted in that they have been requesting BCCI to get recognized as a National Sports Federation (NSF) but BCCI is not paying any attention to it.  In this affidavit filed by the Ministry, it is said that there are presently 51 recognized NSFs . BCCI had also made a request on 05 February 2011 to get recognized as a NSF. But when the Sports Ministry sent a letter in April 2011 asking BCCI to submit its acceptance to the Government guidelines on age and tenure limits of their office bearers, BCCI never replied back. BCCI did not inform the Ministry about the steps taken for prevention of age fraud and for eradication of doping. It also did not share information regarding mode of selection and selectors of National teams.
    That as per the Ministry’s affidavit, though BCCI does not take direct financial assistance but the State provides crores of assistance through Income Tax and Customs duty exemptions. Many State Cricket associations have been provided land at cheaper rates. Thus the Ministry agreed to our submission that BCCI shall get recognized as a NSF but the BCCI regularly refuses to get any official recognition and hence as on date (21/05/2013) it is a non-recognized completely private association/body.
    That yet this private body uses the word “India” with its name and claims and actually acts as the controlling authority for the game of Cricket in India.
    That as per the records, the BCCI is a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. In terms of its Memorandum of Association, its objects, inter alia, are to control the game of Cricket in India and to resolve the disputes and to give its decision on matters referred to it by any State, Regional or other Association, to promote the game, to frame the laws of cricket in India, to select the teams to represent India in Test Matches and various others and to appoint India's representative or representatives on the International Cricket Conference and other Conferences, Seminars, connected with the game of cricket.
    That interestingly while the Government of India wants to give a formal recognition to BCCI, on the other hand, BCCI has always been contending that it is a private body registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 which has nothing to do with the Union of India.  In Zee Telefilms Ltd. & another vs Union Of India & Others (Writ Petition (civil) 541 of 2004 along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20186 of 2004 presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Sri K.K. Venugopal, the Counsel for BCCI went to the extent of saying- “Though in the field of Cricket it enjoys a monopoly status the same is not conferred on the Board by any statute or by any order of the Government.
    That in the above-mentioned Writ Petition No (PIL-Civil) No 3153/2012 filed by the two complainants against the Ministry and BCCI, where among the various issues raised by the petitioners, one is also as regards the use of the word “India”.
    That through its order dated 26/04/2012, the Hon’ble High Court issued the following order-“We have heard petitioner in person and learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Dr. Ashok Nigam, assisted by Shri Alok Mathur, learned counsel on record.  
    This writ petition (PIL) has been filed by an I.P.S. Officer and his wife in personal capacity.  
    The public cause which they have tried to high light relates to facilities provided by the State to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short 'the BCCI') without any return or exercise of administrative control over the activities of Organization.  
    According to petitioner no.2 who argued in person, the BCCI is using facilities and enjoying privileges provided by the State without being accountable for its activities before the Government and the people.  
    She contends that though it is our national policy to promote the sports-sector but it appears that there is absolutely no return to public exchequer for the money spent on providing infrastructure and logistic support to the BCCI. Further according to petitioners this country can not afford the luxury of huge expenditure from tax payers' money without any return.  
    In view of all the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Solicitor General of India prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file affidavit of the Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, Government of India, (Respondent No.1) with complete details regarding the total expenditure incurred on providing infrastructure and logistic support to the BCCI in past five years and the return, if any, to the public exchequer in respect thereof. The affidavit shall also indicate the amount spent on other sports, indoor as well as outdoor, including Hockey etc. during participation in international tournaments etc. in order to get a comparative view of the money spent and return received in terms of money as well as achievements to justify the expenditure.  
    Prima facie, the above submissions of petitioners in person appear to carry force, and thus deserve consideration.  
    Issue notice to respondent no.2.”
    That thus the Hon’ble Court seemed to prima facie agree with the submissions presented by the complainants saying that- “Prima facie, the above submissions of petitioners in person appear to carry force, and thus deserve consideration.”
    That they also ordered the respondent No 2, BCCI, to be issued notice but the BCCI has not responded so far, which only seems to add up to its culpability and gives impetus to the complainant’s arguments.
    That the Hon’ble High Court order does not come in any way in further proceeding with the issue being brought before you for consideration and appropriate adjudication.
    That in above circumstances, when the BCCI has nothing to do with the Government of India and is a completely independent private body, yet its use of the word “India” in its name seems to an offence under the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and since it has been said that any complaint relating to the violations of the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 may be reported to officers named there, hence this complaint is being presented before you for immediate necessary action please.
    That the complainants shall always be available for any further assistance/hearing directly or through their representatives in this matter

PRAYERS

 

That in the light of the above facts, we make the following two prayers-

        To prosecute the above named accused Sri Sanjay Jagdale, Honorary Secretary, Board Of Control For Cricket In India, "Cricket Centre" Wankhede Stadium, 'D' Road, Churchgate, MUMBAI – 400 02 as the representative of the Board Of Control For Cricket In India for deliberately, intentionally and persistently using the word “India” for its carious cricket teams (of test matches, one day etc) while calling them “Team India” in a self-styled manner against the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950
        To kindly immediately issue an order restricting the accused Sri Sanjay Jagdale, Honorary Secretary, Board Of Control For Cricket In India, "Cricket Centre" Wankhede Stadium, 'D' Road, Churchgate, MUMBAI – 400 02 as the representative of the Board Of Control For Cricket In India from using the word “India” for its carious cricket teams (of test matches, one day etc) while calling them “Team India” in a self-styled manner against the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 so as not to use the word “Team India” as long as and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, with the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government

 

Lt No- IRDS/BCCI/Name/01      Yours,
Dated-21/05/2013
       (Amitabh Thakur)(Nutan Thakur)
         5/426, Viram Khand,  
         Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
         # 94155-34525
        amitabhthakurlko@gmail.com ,    
        nutanthakurlko@gmail.com

 

Copy to- Assistant Economic Advisor, Department of Consumer Affairs, Room No: 307 A, Shastri Bhavan,

New Delhi  E-mail: asttea1-ca@nic.in Fax No: 23385821

 
Enclosure- 1. Copy of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court order dated- 26/04/2012

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH  
 
?Court No. – 1  
 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. – 3153 of 2012  
.  
 
Petitioner :- Amitabh Thakur & Another [P.I.L. Civil]  
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. Min. Of Youth Affairs &Sports &Anr  
Petitioner Counsel :- Amitabh Thakur In Person  
Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.  
.  
.  
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.  
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.  
Order (Oral)  
We have heard petitioner in person and learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Dr. Ashok Nigam, assisted by Shri Alok Mathur, learned counsel on record.  
This writ petition (PIL) has been filed by an I.P.S.Officer and his wife in personal capacity.  
The public cause which they have tried to high light relates to facilities provided by the State to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short 'the BCCI') without any return or exercise of administrative control over the activities of Organization.  
According to petitioner no.2 who argued in person, the BCCI is using facilities and enjoying privileges provided by the State without being accountable for its activities before the Government and the people.  
She contends that though it is our national policy to promote the sports-sector but it appears that there is absolutely no return to public exchequer for the money spent on providing infrastructure and logistic support to the BCCI. Further according to petitioners this country can not afford the luxury of huge expenditure from tax payers' money without any return.  
In view of all the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Solicitor General of India prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file affidavit of the Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, Government of India, (Respondent No.1) with complete details regarding the total expenditure incurred on providing infrastructure and logistic support to the BCCI in past five years and the return, if any, to the public exchequer in respect thereof. The affidavit shall also indicate the amount spent on other sports, indoor as well as outdoor, including Hockey etc. during participation in international tournaments etc. in order to get a comparative view of the money spent and return received in terms of money as well as achievements to justify the expenditure.  
Prima facie, the above submissions of petitioners in person appear to carry force, and thus deserve consideration.  
Issue notice to respondent no.2.  
List the matter on 17.05.2012.  
Order Date :- 26.4.2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To,
Director (Internal Trade Division),
Department of Consumer Affairs
Room No: 312 A, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi
E-mail: dirit-ca@nic.in
Fax No: 23385821
Name and Address of complainants  —                                     

    Amitabh Thakur, age about 45 years, son of Sri T N Thakur, r/o- 5/426 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 94155-34526

    Dr Nutan Thakur, age about 40 years, wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur, r/o- 5/426 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 94155-34525       

Name of the accused —-

    Sri Sanjay Jagdale, Honorary Secretary, Board Of Control For Cricket In India, "Cricket Centre" Wankhede Stadium, 'D' Road, Churchgate, MUMBAI – 400 020, Phone : 022 – 2289 8800, Fax : 022 – 2289 8801 E-mail : bcci@vsnl.com/ cricketboard@gmail.com   

 

 

 

Application of complaint

Under section 5 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, police station Gomti Nagar, Luckow for use of the words “Team India” by Board Of Control For Cricket In India,

 

Respected sir,

 

We Amitabh Thakur, age about 45 years, son of Sri T N Thakur, r/o- 5/426 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 94155-34526, Education- B Tech, religion Hinduism, profession- Government Service and  Dr Nutan Thakur, age about 40 years, wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur, r/o- 5/426 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 94155-34525, Education- MA, P Hd, D Litt, religion Hinduism, profession- Social Service  do hereby humbly pray before you hereunder-

    That there is an Act promulgated by the Indian Parliament named the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, which extends to the whole of India, and also applies to citizens of India outside India.
    That as per section 2(a) of this Act- “emblem means any emblem, seal, flag, insignia, coat-of-arms or pictorial representation specified in the Schedule.”
    That as per section 2(c) “name includes any abbreviation of a name.”
    That as per section 3. Prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names-“Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, use, or continue to use, for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent, or in any trade mark or design, any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government.”
    That as per section 5, any person who contravenes the provisions of Section 3 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.
    That as per section 6, no prosecution for any offence punishable under this Act shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of any officer authorised in this behalf by general or special order of the Central Government.
    That there is a Schedule attached to this Act formed as per provisions of Sections 2 (a) and 3 of the above Act
    That Item 7 of this Schedule talks of-“Any name which may suggest or be calculated to suggest-(i) the patronage of the Government of India or the Government of a State; or (ii) connection with any local authority or any corporation or body constituted by the Government under any law for the time being in force
    That as per the Annexure II (Guidelines under Item 7 of the Schedule to Emblems And Names ( Prevention Of Improper Use) Act, 1950) presented on the website of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and CS, Government of India-“The name will attract the provisions of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 under item 7 of Schedule, if:(1) it is identical with the name of any society/corporation or local body which has been set up by the Government of India or State Government under any law for the time being in force. (2) it gives the impression of the patronage of Central Government or State Government. For example, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is a registered body under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation. Any name beginning with the words “Indian Council of” may mislead the public that it is patronized by the Government. (3) it too nearly resembles a name of body corporation or local authority set up by Government under any law for the time being in force. For example, Indian Institute of Mass communication is an autonomous body under Ministry of Communication. Names like Institute of Mass Communication may give the impression that the said society is also patronized by the Central Government. Here it should be kept in view whether any other body carrying same kind of activities with similar name is in existence. (4) it connotes Government’s participation or patronage unless circumstances justify it. Certain words in a name may give the impression of Government’s patronage. Such words are National , National Institute of, – National Council of, University, Indian Institute of, Indian Council of, etc. This list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
    That there is a body/association calling itself , Board Of Control For Cricket In India (BCCI, for short) with its contact address, "Cricket Centre" Wankhede Stadium, 'D' Road, Churchgate, MUMBAI – 400 020, Phone : 022 – 2289 8800 Fax : 022 – 2289 8801 E-mail : bcci@vsnl.com/ cricketboard@gmail.com
    That its website is http://www.bcci.tv/bcci/bccitv/index
    That other than using the word Ondia in its name against the  legal provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, BCCI (i.e Board Of Control For Cricket In India) also frequently uses the word “Team India” for its various cricket teams like test cricket, one day internationals, Twenty-20 etc. For instance on its website it says-“ 'Team India' underwent a 'baptism by fire' from 1932 to 1952 before opening its account in Test cricket. The fifth and final Test of the 1951-52 series against England at Chennai was won by an innings and eight runs.”
    That the word “India” attached to the various cricket teams of BCCI suggests the patronage of the Government of India. So here we find an example of a body and its cricket team which says it has nothing to do with the Union of India and yet so conveniently uses the word “India” with the cricket teams showing absolute patronage of the Government of India. Thus, this private body self-styled “Team India” is committing an offence, that too with great impunity and openness.
    That this is because in India, the Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports is the nodal ministry related with the development and control over sports affairs in India, which acts through various National Sports Federations (NSFs). It has granted recognition to many NSFs, but the list of the NSFs granted recognition by the Department of Sports does not contain the sport of Cricket or the BCCI.
    That in its Counter Affidavit to Writ Petition No (PIL-Civil) No 3153/2012 filed in the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench, filed by Sri A K Patro, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of India, the Ministry has accepted in that they have been requesting BCCI to get recognized as a National Sports Federation (NSF) but BCCI is not paying any attention to it.  In this affidavit filed by the Ministry, it is said that there are presently 51 recognized NSFs . BCCI had also made a request on 05 February 2011 to get recognized as a NSF. But when the Sports Ministry sent a letter in April 2011 asking BCCI to submit its acceptance to the Government guidelines on age and tenure limits of their office bearers, BCCI never replied back. BCCI did not inform the Ministry about the steps taken for prevention of age fraud and for eradication of doping. It also did not share information regarding mode of selection and selectors of National teams.
    That thus the Ministry agreed to our submission that BCCI shall get recognized as a NSF but the BCCI regularly refuses to get any official recognition and hence as on date (21/05/2013) it is a non-recognized completely private association/body.
    That yet the cricket team of this private body uses the word “India” with its name which is against the provisions of the above Act.
    That as per the records, the BCCI is a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
    That interestingly while the Government of India wants to give a formal recognition to BCCI, on the other hand, BCCI has always been contending that it is a private body registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 which has nothing to do with the Union of India.  In Zee Telefilms Ltd. & another vs Union Of India & Others (Writ Petition (civil) 541 of 2004 along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20186 of 2004 presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Sri K.K. Venugopal, the Counsel for BCCI went to the extent of saying- “Though in the field of Cricket it enjoys a monopoly status the same is not conferred on the Board by any statute or by any order of the Government.
    That in the above-mentioned Writ Petition No (PIL-Civil) No 3153/2012 filed by the two complainants against the Ministry and BCCI, where among the various issues raised by the petitioners, one is also as regards the use of the word “Team India”.
    That through its order dated 26/04/2012, the Hon’ble High Court issued the following order-“We have heard petitioner in person and learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Dr. Ashok Nigam, assisted by Shri Alok Mathur, learned counsel on record.  
    This writ petition (PIL) has been filed by an I.P.S. Officer and his wife in personal capacity.  
    The public cause which they have tried to high light relates to facilities provided by the State to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short 'the BCCI') without any return or exercise of administrative control over the activities of Organization.  
    According to petitioner no.2 who argued in person, the BCCI is using facilities and enjoying privileges provided by the State without being accountable for its activities before the Government and the people.  
    She contends that though it is our national policy to promote the sports-sector but it appears that there is absolutely no return to public exchequer for the money spent on providing infrastructure and logistic support to the BCCI. Further according to petitioners this country can not afford the luxury of huge expenditure from tax payers' money without any return.  
    In view of all the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Solicitor General of India prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file affidavit of the Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, Government of India, (Respondent No.1) with complete details regarding the total expenditure incurred on providing infrastructure and logistic support to the BCCI in past five years and the return, if any, to the public exchequer in respect thereof. The affidavit shall also indicate the amount spent on other sports, indoor as well as outdoor, including Hockey etc. during participation in international tournaments etc. in order to get a comparative view of the money spent and return received in terms of money as well as achievements to justify the expenditure.  
    Prima facie, the above submissions of petitioners in person appear to carry force, and thus deserve consideration.  
    Issue notice to respondent no.2.”
    That thus the Hon’ble Court seemed to prima facie agree with the submissions presented by the complainants saying that- “Prima facie, the above submissions of petitioners in person appear to carry force, and thus deserve consideration.”
    That they also ordered the respondent No 2, BCCI, to be issued notice but the BCCI has not responded so far, which only seems to add up to its culpability and gives impetus to the complainant’s arguments.
    That the Hon’ble High Court order does not come in any way in further proceeding with the issue being brought before you for consideration and appropriate adjudication.
    That in above circumstances, when the so-called self-proclaimed “Team India” (cricket teams of BCCI) have nothing to do with the Government of India and they are completely independent private bodies, yet its use of the word “India” in their names (Team India) seems to an offence under the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and since it has been said that any complaint relating to the violations of the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 may be reported to officers named there, hence this complaint is being presented before you for immediate necessary action please.
    That the complainants shall always be available for any further assistance/hearing directly or through their representatives in this matter

 

 

PRAYERS

 

That in the light of the above facts, we make the following two prayers-

        To prosecute the above named accused Sri Sanjay Jagdale, Honorary Secretary, Board Of Control For Cricket In India, "Cricket Centre" Wankhede Stadium, 'D' Road, Churchgate, MUMBAI – 400 02 as the representative of the Board Of Control For Cricket In India for deliberately, intentionally and persistently using the word “India” for its carious cricket teams (of test matches, one day etc) while calling them “Team India” in a self-styled manner against the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950
        To kindly immediately issue an order restricting the accused Sri Sanjay Jagdale, Honorary Secretary, Board Of Control For Cricket In India, "Cricket Centre" Wankhede Stadium, 'D' Road, Churchgate, MUMBAI – 400 02 as the representative of the Board Of Control For Cricket In India from using the word “India” for its carious cricket teams (of test matches, one day etc) while calling them “Team India” in a self-styled manner against the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 so as not to use the word “Team India” as long as and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, with the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government

 

Lt No- IRDS/BCCI/Name/02      Yours,
Dated-21/05/2013
       (Amitabh Thakur)(Nutan Thakur)
         5/426, Viram Khand,  
         Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
         # 94155-34525
        amitabhthakurlko@gmail.com ,    
        nutanthakurlko@gmail.com

 

Copy to- Assistant Economic Advisor, Department of Consumer Affairs, Room No: 307 A, Shastri Bhavan,

New Delhi  E-mail: asttea1-ca@nic.in Fax No: 23385821

 
Enclosure- 1. Copy of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court order dated- 26/04/2012

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH  
 
?Court No. – 1  
 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. – 3153 of 2012  
.  
 
Petitioner :- Amitabh Thakur & Another [P.I.L. Civil]  
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. Min. Of Youth Affairs &Sports &Anr  
Petitioner Counsel :- Amitabh Thakur In Person  
Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.  
.  
.  
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.  
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.  
Order (Oral)  
We have heard petitioner in person and learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Dr. Ashok Nigam, assisted by Shri Alok Mathur, learned counsel on record.  
This writ petition (PIL) has been filed by an I.P.S.Officer and his wife in personal capacity.  
The public cause which they have tried to high light relates to facilities provided by the State to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short 'the BCCI') without any return or exercise of administrative control over the activities of Organization.  
According to petitioner no.2 who argued in person, the BCCI is using facilities and enjoying privileges provided by the State without being accountable for its activities before the Government and the people.  
She contends that though it is our national policy to promote the sports-sector but it appears that there is absolutely no return to public exchequer for the money spent on providing infrastructure and logistic support to the BCCI. Further according to petitioners this country can not afford the luxury of huge expenditure from tax payers' money without any return.  
In view of all the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Solicitor General of India prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file affidavit of the Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, Government of India, (Respondent No.1) with complete details regarding the total expenditure incurred on providing infrastructure and logistic support to the BCCI in past five years and the return, if any, to the public exchequer in respect thereof. The affidavit shall also indicate the amount spent on other sports, indoor as well as outdoor, including Hockey etc. during participation in international tournaments etc. in order to get a comparative view of the money spent and return received in terms of money as well as achievements to justify the expenditure.  
Prima facie, the above submissions of petitioners in person appear to carry force, and thus deserve consideration.  
Issue notice to respondent no.2.  
List the matter on 17.05.2012.  
Order Date :- 26.4.2012
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *