Special Correspondent
What began as a ₹6.5 crore stadium agreement has, over the years, spiralled into claims touching nearly ₹69 crore. But beyond the escalating financial stakes, a far more troubling question now confronts the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA): where is the original agreement itself?
For years, the debate around the Uppal Stadium deal has largely revolved around its commercial terms and the prolonged litigation that followed. However, the focus has now shifted to something far more fundamental—the apparent absence of original records relating to the agreement with Visaka Industries Limited. Several stakeholders have indicated that key documents tied to this deal were not readily traceable within HCA’s records for a considerable period. If true, this is not a mere administrative oversight. Agreements involving major public sporting infrastructure are expected to be meticulously preserved and easily accessible, particularly when they become the subject of arbitration and court proceedings.
This issue has now been formally raised from within the association. Former HCA Secretary T. Shesh Narayan, in a written communication to the Chief Executive Officer, has demanded comprehensive disclosure regarding the association’s handling of the Visaka dispute. His letter calls for the entire sequence of events to be placed in the public domain, covering arbitration proceedings, court battles, and all decisions taken along the way.
The demands outlined are both specific and significant. They include a complete timeline of arbitration and litigation, details of payments made to legal counsel representing HCA, disclosure of final payments made to Visaka Industries pursuant to judicial or arbitral orders, identification of individuals authorised to sign vakalaths on behalf of the association, and the General Body approvals that sanctioned these legal actions. The letter also seeks clarity on whether the required approvals from the Single Member Committee were obtained before appeals against High Court orders were escalated to the Supreme Court. At its core, the demand is simple: place every relevant document on record.
Beyond documentation, the communication raises deeper governance concerns that refuse to fade away. It calls for the circulation of minutes from the General Body meeting held on 29 June 2025 to all member clubs. It also questions the circumstances surrounding a subsequent adjourned meeting, where as many as 57 member clubs were reportedly denied participation, seeking clarity on the authority under which such a decision was made. In a member-driven body like HCA, these are not procedural trivialities—they strike at the very legitimacy of institutional decision-making.
The concerns do not end there. If records relating to the original agreement were indeed difficult to locate, what efforts were made by successive office bearers to retrieve or reconstruct them? Once the dispute escalated into high-stakes litigation involving tens of crores, was the association’s legal defence pursued with the rigour and institutional commitment such a case demanded?
Responsibility, however, does not lie solely with the past. The present Apex Council of the HCA must now address these mounting concerns. When litigation exposes the association to substantial financial liabilities, stakeholders are entitled to expect complete documentation, a robust legal strategy, and full transparency regarding both financial exposure and institutional decisions. Anything short of this only fuels further suspicion within the cricketing community.
In this context, the former Secretary has also called for all relevant documents to be uploaded on the HCA website, enabling member clubs and stakeholders to independently review the chain of decisions. Such transparency is no longer optional—it is increasingly the norm. Institutions like the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the International Cricket Council (ICC) have, in varying degrees, moved toward publishing financial statements, annual reports, and governance decisions in the public domain. Transparency curbs speculation; secrecy only amplifies it.
At its heart, this issue goes beyond contracts and courtrooms. Sports bodies like the HCA are custodians of institutions built on public trust, government support, and the aspirations of countless young cricketers. Agreements tied to such assets must be backed by clear documentation, preserved records, and accountable governance. When disputes surface years later—and when foundational records appear to be missing—the matter ceases to be merely legal. It becomes institutional.
The questions raised by T. Shesh Narayan ultimately converge on a simple, non-negotiable principle: place every document, approval, and financial record related to the Uppal Stadium agreement in the public domain. Because when institutions entrusted with public sporting assets are confronted with controversy, their credibility rests on one thing alone—sunlight.
