KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Wednesday directed the federal inter-provincial coordination secretary, chairman and director general of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) and others to file their respective replies in a petition seeking court directions for formation of new cricket board and its new constitution.
Petitioner ex-captain Rashid Latif, represented by advocate Abdul Sattar Pirzada, challenged the PCB constitution and appointment of the director-general and security officer, who were also cited as respondents in the petition.
A division bench headed by Justice Maqbool Baqar put off the hearing to Feb 21 directing the respondents to also provide the copies of their respective comments to the petitioner’s counsel before the next hearing.
On Wednesday, advocate Taffazul Haider Rizvi, filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent PCB chairman, its DG and the security adviser and requested the court for adjournment to enable him to file the comments of his clients.
The petitioner stated that impugned PCB constitution gave unfettered powers to the president of Pakistan being its patron to appoint the chairman, who otherwise ought to be appointed by way of election amongst representatives of the cricket associations or members of the region in order to ensure complete transparency.
He submitted that since the PCB chairman was appointed by the patron without any criteria or electoral process, the patron had unfettered powers to appoint members of the governing board that comprised chairman, five representatives of regions, one representative of service organisations having played first-class cricket, six technocrats and two former Test cricketers.
Hence, the former skipper said, in essence the patron could pick and choose members of the governing board without any electoral process whatsoever in complete contravention of Articles 4 and 8 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
He submitted that the PCB was established through the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962. He said that the current PCB constitution came into effect in 2007 vide the powers conferred upon federal government through the Ordinance 1962.
The petitioner stated that the post of director-general was created and filled in illegally as even the impugned constitution did not define any such post.
The petitioner further prayed to the court to direct the federal government to establish a new board and new constitution in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 3 and 4 of the Ordinance 1962.