The National Capital Territory (NCT) Cricket Association and I have been following up on various frauds happening in the Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA ) over the years. But, what takes the cake is the ease with which the same set of office bearers have been returning to office, year after year. We have been repeatedly pointing out the corrupt practices adopted by the management and certain office bearers with regard to rigging the executive committee elections year after year, but to no avail.
In the recently released CD of mine I showed how farcical these elections are. Even the dictators of Pakistan and some African countries cannot pull off such devious acts. DDCA is a licensed company under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and is governed by the licensing conditions which form its basic structure and these are incorporated in the Memorandum itself. Yet, a mere reading of the Memorandum of Articles of the Association of the DDCA will clearly show that Article 37 permits voting by proxies which is in consonance with Section 176 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 105 of the Companies Act, 2013. A perusal of the aforesaid sections empowers any member of a company to attend and vote at a meeting of the company and to appoint another person (whether a member or not) as his proxy to attend and vote instead of the member. It clearly mandates that the person appointing proxy on his behalf has to authorise and name a particular person in the instrument of the proxy by clearly mentioning his name, duly authorizing the proxy to attend the meeting and vote on his behalf.
The aforesaid provisions as contained in the Companies Act, 1956 are being misused by a set of members who by violating the aforesaid provisions of the Act, which was inserted so as to facilitate more members to attend the meeting and to cast their votes in favour or against a resolution, have managed to control the affairs of the DDCA for the last 35 years. A few members by using their clout as members of the executive committee have indulged in unscrupulous practices like distribution of free passes and other freebies and enticed the members of the DDCA to issue them blank proxy forms. This form has no name as to who the member is appointing as a proxy and it only contains the signatures of the members.
Such proxy forms have been misused by filling up the name of the proxy holder after obtaining a blank form from the member and by following such practice, proxy forms are being filed by a particular member. For instance in the election held to constitute the executive committee for the year 2011-12 CK Khanna filed 864 proxy forms, SP Bansal filed 130, Arun Jaitley filed 164 and Rakesh Bansal filed 612, Ravi Jain filed 213 , Vivek Gupta filed 143, Ravinder Manchanda filed 310, Manjeet Singh filed 247, Subhash Sharma filed 109 , NK Batra filed 11, Rajneesh Aggarwal filed 102 and Ganga Prasad Gupta filed 210 number of proxies in their names, amongst others.
A perusal of some of the aforesaid proxy forms, which were filed, clearly showed that the hand writing, the signatures, the column of the name of the proxy holder and date of issuance did not match at all. Furthermore, 864 proxy forms as filed by CK Khanna showed the name of only one proxy holder i.e. himself.
Upon scrutiny of the proxy forms filed by all the members, it was further brought on record by the election officer that there were three instances in 2012 and six instances in 2013 wherein blank proxy forms bearing no signatures of the concerned member of the DDCA were filed by a particular member. This clearly highlighted how the whole system of proxy forms, which were to fulfill a particular purpose, has been squarely abused by a set of office bearers of the DDCA.