A hotel bill amounting to Rs
1.56 crore that the BCCI refused to pay in 2010 tells the story of IPL’s
Lalit Modi days, with a guest list including top politicians such as
Vasundhara Raje of the BJP and Shashi Tharoor of the Congress.
From January 1 to April 30, 2010, the IPL chairman made the ‘Club’ suite (Room No 9132) of the Four Seasons Hotel in Mumbai his base, instead of operating from the BCCI office in the same city.
Raje and Tharoor, who had no direct connection to cricket at that point, stayed at the hotel during the IPL with the expenses billed to the league. Raje stayed in a Deluxe Sea View Room (No 3202) on March 11 and checked out on March 13. Her room was charged Rs 19, 719.
Tharoor, meanwhile, stayed in the Deluxe Sea View Room (No 1906) on March 12, checking out the next morning. His room was charged Rs 25,612. The IPL season opener was on March 12 at the DY Patil Stadium in New Mumbai.
Swaraj Kaushal, the husband of BJP’s senior leader Sushma Swaraj, too finds a mention in the bill with his day’s stay billed to IPL at Rs 13,163.38. While Swaraj confirmed his stay at Four Seasons, Tharoor and Vasundhara didn’t respond to queries from The Indian Express.
When asked about the bill, Smriti Khandelwal, director of marketing, Four Seasons Hotel, Mumbai, said, “We as a hotel have privacy policies that govern us and hence we shall not be in a position to disclose the information as requested.”
The bill, first reported by The Indian Express, also shows the presence of designer Tarun Tahiliani at Four Seasons along with a number of luminaries from across the globe, including maharanis, world-famous photographers, stand-up comics, top lawyers, art entrepreneurs, beauty queens, models and security experts.
Modi has been billed for a little over Rs 1 crore for the two rooms he booked for himself during the four-month period.The bills, though marked to the IPL, weren’t honoured by the BCCI. The Four Seasons Hotel subsequently sent a detailed bill to the BCCI under the label ‘Mr Lalit Modi and his guests’.
M P Pandove, the BCCI treasurer at the time, confirmed that the board received the bill, and that it wasn’t paid. “I was the treasurer from 2008 to 2011, and to my knowledge these bills neither reached my office nor were they paid. Nothing was cleared,” he told The Indian Express.
According to Pandove, BCCI norms specify that all hotel bookings first go through the board secretary’s office for approval before they are sent to the treasurer’s office. Former BCCI president N Srinivasan was the BCCI secretary in 2010.
“As far as I remember, the bills got rejected either at the secretary’s office or by the board’s working committee. I don’t think they ever got any approval,” he added.
When asked why Modi was allowed to operate from a five-star hotel suite instead of the BCCI headquarters in Mumbai, Pandove claimed that he did not have any knowledge of the issue.
“The BCCI HQ is in Mumbai but the office-bearers can work from their independent offices. Back then, the secretary was working out of Chennai, the treasurer out of Mohali and the joint-secretary out of Indore. I don’t know whether Modi took permission from the board president or decided to work out of the hotel on his own. I was only the treasurer then,” said Pandove.
'Cong trying to hide its failure': BJP's reply to Chidambaram's tirade on Lalit Modi controversy
Former finance minister P
Chidambaram on June 17 tore apart the government’s defence of foreign
minister Sushma Swaraj for helping ex-IPL boss Lalit Modi get UK travel
documents, evoking a sharp response from the ruling Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) camp that termed his allegations 'baseless'.
The
senior Congress leader asked a set of seven questions, saying the NDA
regime twisted rules and regulations, and laughed away Modi’s
allegations that the UPA had hounded him out of the country out of
political vendetta.
He
demanded the Centre release correspondence between him and the UK
chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne to clear the air amid a
snowballing controversy.
“The conduct of Ms
Sushma Swaraj, the external affairs minister, in facilitating the issue
of a travel document to Mr Lalit Modi when his passport stood cancelled
and he was avoiding an enquiry by the ED raises a number of important
questions,” Chidambaram told reporters in Chennai.
Swaraj
has kicked up a storm after admitting that she helped axed Indian
Premier League (IPL) chief Modi get travel papers in London on
“humanitarian” grounds as his cancer-stricken wife was due to undergo
surgery in Portugal.
In reply
to Chidambaram, the BJP accused him of making "baseless" allegations
against Swaraj to hide the "failures" of the UPA government to initiate
action against the former IPL chief.
"Congress,
during the UPA regime, had enough time to act against Lalit Modi but
did not do so. It is now trying to put the blame on BJP. Congress is
trying to hide its own failures," BJP national secretary Shrikant Sharma
said in Delhi. Alleging that the Congress was responsible for a large
number of scams, Sharma said it had "no moral right" to question the BJP
and talk about corruption.
Top
BJP ministers have thrown their weight behind Swaraj. But the scandal
has hurt the party as it prepares for Parliament’s monsoon session with
key bills on the line.
Chidambaram questioned why the
BJP-led government did not appeal against a Delhi high court verdict
restoring Modi’s passport to him.
The
Regional Passport Officer (RPO) in Mumbai had revoked Modi’s passport
on March 3, 2011, at the request of the Enforcement Directorate (ED)
that is probing Modi’s alleged financial impropriety in the cash-rich
IPL. Though a single judge of the Delhi HC upheld the revocation, a
division bench of the HC had on August 27, 2014, reversed the decision
and restored his passport.
The
RPO, Mumbai, which was the main respondent in the case, comes under the
MEA, which has chosen not to challenge the verdict so far. However, it
can still move the Supreme Court against the order.
As
per SC rules, a high court verdict can be challenged before the top
court within 90 days. Beyond this limitation period, appeals filed have
to be “accompanied with an application for condonation of delay”.
So,
the government can now challenge the verdict that gave Modi his
passport back. However, before that, the ED must approach the external
affairs ministry and point out fresh grounds for overturning the
division bench verdict, sources said.
Chidambaram
questioned why the BJP government, which came to power in May last
year, did not challenge the decision in the SC as normally a reversing
decision is always challenged in a higher court. He said the government
should ensure that Modi returns to India to face the probe by ED on
various charges, including money laundering.
The
ED made the passport revocation request after the former IPL boss
failed to appear before the department despite repeated summons in
connection with its investigations.
Here are the seven questions Chidambaram asked:
1.
Why is the government, despite repeated demands, not releasing the
letters exchanged between the finance minister, India, and the
chancellor of exchequer, UK?
2.
If the EAM was inclined to facilitate Mr Lalit Modi’s travel to
Portugal on humanitarian grounds, why did she not advise Mr Lalit Modi
to apply to the Indian High Commission in London for a temporary travel
document to enable him to visit Portugal alone for a limited period? Why
did she feel that Mr Lalit Modi, an Indian citizen, should have a UK
travel document rather than an Indian travel document?
3.
Why did the EAM not insist that Mr Lalit Modi should first return to
India as a condition for issue of a temporary travel document on
humanitarian grounds?
4. When
the division bench of the high court set aside the cancellation of Mr
Lalit Modi’s passport, who took the decision not to file an appeal to
the Supreme Court? Was the ED, at whose instance the passport had been
cancelled, consulted in the matter? Furthermore, who took the decision
to issue a fresh passport to Mr Lalit Modi? Will the government make
public the file notings on the subject?
5.
A passport is a document to travel. To stay in a foreign country, one
requires a visa or a permit from that country. Has the government of
India lodged with the UK government its objections to the grant of a
long term visa or residency permit to Mr Lalit Modi who has refused to
appear before the ED?
6. Mr
Lalit Modi now has an Indian passport. He is an Indian citizen subject
to Indian laws. What steps has the government taken since the issue of a
fresh passport to enforce the summons issued by the ED?
7.
What is government’s answer to Mr Lalit Modi’s wild charge that his
life will be in danger if he returned to India? Is the NDA government
incapable of protecting an Indian citizen who is required by the ED to
appear for an enquiry
Comments