“We’re in a real dilemma over whether to go ahead with restrictions or shift it to Bengaluru because of the time constraint we are facing”, said a top BCCI official, adding: “The final decision will be reached by tomorrow (Wednesday) for sure”.
Advertisement
It has resulted in no tickets being sold in that part of the stadium and Justice Mukul Mudga – appointed by the Delhi High Court to operate on behalf of the DDCA – refusing the ICC permission to put up branding across the stand in question. You (DDCA) have to take it up with the ICC.
On March 17, the ICC sent a letter to the BCCI, the tournament host, asking for a clarification on whether the Mehra Block was available completely.
As a matter of precaution, the BCCI and ICC have asked Bangalore and Mohali to stand. At one stage, they had even considered Kolkata as an alternative.
Speaking to media, DDCA Treasure Ravinder Manchanda said, “We were given time till Sunday evening to get clarity over the RP Mehra block”.
Justice Mudgal says that let it (RP Mehra block) be occupied by press and commentators only.
“The DDCA’s executive members along with a top ICC official and ICC’s legal advisor have arranged a meeting with Justice Mudgal for Wednesday morning”. You knew about the consequences of the action which you have taken.
When Sethi said SDMC has already granted occupancy certificate to the DDCA, the bench said, “It is clear that occupancy certificate for the R P Mehra block was not granted”.
A stand which houses the media and broadcasters, as well as VIP seats, has only managed ad hoc clearances over the years because it is close to the Kotla Baoli heritage site.
Referring to the prayer sought by the DDCA, the bench said, “What you will do it is entirely up to you”.
The concerned block has not been given the required clearances by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation and the Archaeological Survey of India.
Advertisement
During Monday’s hearing, Rahul Mehra, the Delhi government’s senior standing counsel, told the court that DDCA was aware of this fact when the matter was heard by the division bench and this issue should have been raised there.
