Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

57. It is alleged that the object of the Marketing Committee was to make evaluation and not to undertake any decision.

58. In paragraph - 23 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the BCCI it is stated that the allegations made against the then President of the BCCI are baseless and motivated and have been made to cause prejudice. It was denied that the petitioner paid an amount of US $2 0 million as part payment of the bid amount.

59. In paragraph - 25 of the counter affidavit filed by the BCCI it is stated that since the India - Australia series was to commence from 06.10.2004, and the writ petition was being heard by the Bombay High Court, in the larger interest to resolve the impasse and to ensure that the said important series was not cancelled as threatened by the International Cricket Council and Australian Cricket Board, a workable suggestion was offered to both the parties to submit any amount over and above the sum of US $ 308 million in sealed covers before the Bombay High Court and the highest offerer would then be given the contract. It is further alleged that Zee sought time to consider the said offer, and ultimately on 14.09.2004 refused to accept the same. It is further alleged that thus the allegations that the said offer of the BCCI was "re-bidding" or that the petitioner "won the bid" on 14.0 7.2004 or that the petitioner was chosen for the award on 05.09.2004 are false and baseless.

105. It may be noted that the bids were opened at Bombay on 14.08.20

04. The two highest bidders namely, Zee, which made a bid of US$ 260.76 Million and ESPN, which made a bid of US$ 230 Million, were both found to be ineligible, because they did not possess the two essential requirements for eligibility namely,

(i) In house production unit, and

(ii) Previous experience in live telecasting of International Cricket in their own right and not as a sub-licensee.

106. Clause-2 of the Invitation to Tender issued by the BCCI states: -

130. The Bombay High Court had granted an order of status quo on 15.0 9.2004 and in this situation, the BCCI was left in a quandary, since time was pressing in view of the forthcoming India-Australia series, and hence it decided to cancel the tender process and decided to produce and telecast matches on its own, being the event owner, and it also decided that the said matches would be shown live and relayed on the terrestrial network of Doordarshan. The BCCI informed the Court that the production would be done by Taj TV Limited (Ten Sports) on behalf of BCCI, and telecasting internationally would be done by Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. on revenue sharing basis and by Prasar Bharti through National and Terrestrial network live in India. The BCCI stated that the whole procedure for organizing equipment for telecast of the matches, involves a minimum time frame of three weeks as two planeloads of sophisticated and technical equipment have to be brought and set up at the match venues to enable the telecaster to get the advertisements organized and in place. Since time was pressing, the tender process was cancelled as stated above. We find nothing mala fide or illegal in the action of the BCCI in doing so.

132. The learned single Judge in paragraphs 95 and 103 of his judgment has made much of the involvement of Price Waterhouse Coopers and the mala fides of BCCI. It may be mentioned that the BCCI has stated in paragraph 26 of its counter affidavit that they were not aware of the fact that Price Waterhouse Coopers was the auditor of ESPN. Had it known this it would not have involved the said auditing firm in the matter at all.

133. Paragraph - 26 of the BCCI's counter affidavit states:-