Pune: The All India Tennis Association’s (AITA) electoral officer on Saturday rejected the objections of Somdev Devvarman and Purav Raja, who challenged the legality of the electoral roll, claiming several members were in breach of the National Sports Governance Act (NSGA) and the national federation’s recently amended constitution.Devvarman and Raja, who have also filed a contempt petition in the Delhi High Court against AITA interim president Chintan Parikh and secretary Sunder Iyer, claimed that 13 members on the draft electoral roll were in violation of the 70-year age cap, tenure restrictions regarding the cooling-off period and maximum three-term limit, and conflict-of-interest provisions.Rajeev Sharma, the electoral officer (EO), however, noted that the rules governing the three issues applied only to those contesting the polls and not to voters.“The objectors have not pointed out as to which provision of the constitution of AITA, the NSGA, or the National Sports Bodies Rules (sic) has been violated … As the plain text of the said provision reads, the same is only for ‘contesting’ or ‘seeking nominations’, and not attracting for ‘voting’. The stage of ‘contesting’ and ‘seeking nominations’ has not yet arisen,” Sharma wrote while overruling the objections raised by the two former India players.Yet, the EO’s decision comes a day after the Delhi High Court, while hearing the players’ contempt petition, reiterated that the outcome of the AITA election would remain subject to its final order.“When we requested the court to make that as part of the written order, the judge said it is understood and was not required,” Rahul Mehra, counsel for Devvarman and Raja, told TOI on Saturday.“There are 13 people in the (draft) electoral roll who are aged above 70,” Mehra said.The court also said, according to Mehra, that the AITA’s interim office-bearers “must cooperate” with the administrator, Justice (Retd.) Gita Mittal, until further orders.In their petition, Devvarman and Raja cited Mittal’s latest report to the court, which alleged that the interim office-bearers had refused to share information regarding the finances of AITA and the AITA Trust, and had kept her out of the election process, including the appointment of the EO.Mittal had specifically pointed out Parikh’s remark in a media report that Sep 30 was the last day of her mandate and that the court had not extended it.“Court had issued notice in contempt. It will further pass order on the basis of statement of AITA. On our application for appointment of auditors on financial discrepancies, the court said, ‘after the election, if required we will extend the tenure of the administrator’,” a member of Mittal’s legal team said.The next hearing in the case is set for January 19.EO TURNS DOWN LAWYER’S APPEAL FOR PROBEMeanwhile, the EO set aside a slew of other challenges while publishing the electoral roll, chief among them being an appeal from Naresh Chandra Gupta, a lawyer from Chhattisgarh, seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities by one of the office-bearers and the dissolution of the interim committee.Sharma said investigating financial irregularities fell outside his purview and that the interim committee had come into existence as the result of a High Court order.The Jharkhand association had appealed to bar Goa and Rajasthan from taking part in the elections, arguing that the decision to promote them from associate members to affiliate members with voting rights was taken at the AGM on Sep 30 without the matter being listed on the agenda, thereby raising concerns over the fairness of the election process.Parikh had said that Goa and Rajasthan had completed the required two-year period as associate members to become eligible for affiliate membership and that the decision was taken unanimously during the AGM. Parikh added that Jharkhand, having not attended the AGM, could not raise objections later.Sharma sought responses from the two units by Nov 12 and said he would decide on the appeal on Nov 14, the day filing of nomination for the election starts.
