A day after Mumbai Cricket Association president Vilasrao Deshmukh said that the managing committee has left it to him and other office bearers to deal with the five-year ban on actor Shah Rukh Khan from entering Wankhede Stadium, another official on Tuesday stated that the matter was not on the agenda of the meeting on Monday.
"It was a regular meeting to discuss routine issues. The matter of reviewing any decision taken earlier was not on the agenda of the meeting. Any decision taken earlier stands," senior official and MCA treasurer Ravi Savant said.
Deshmukh told reporters on Monday that the Shah Rukh Khan issue needs to be resolved on an urgent basis.
"A meeting of the committee was convened to discuss routine matters, but this matter of Shah Rukh Khan was raised by some members. It was decided to leave it to the president and office-bearers to get more details about what transpired yesterday," he said.
Asked when he intends to sit with his office-bearers to discuss the matter further, he said, "We want to resolve the issue at the earliest. There is no point inkeeping it hanging."
Surrounded by his wife and kids, Shah Rukh had said on Sunday night after KKR's maiden IPL title-triumphin Chennai, "I want to apologise to the kids for my misbehaviour at MCA. I apologise to all who saw me differently. I shouldn't have behaved in that manner. But today my team has won, so I guess, all you fans should forgive me. We have won at last."
However, in clear variance to what Deshmukh indicated, other MCA sources had said on Monday itself that there is no change in the five-year ban imposed on the Bollywood star on May 18,two days after Shah Rukh's skirmish with the security personnel and officials of the MCA after KKR's victory over Mumbai Indians at the Wankhede Stadium.
"As far as we are concerned nothing has changed and nothing has been communicated to us (from Shah Rukh's side).As and when something comes, we will see," a source said.
Another MCA source indicated that a formal communication from the KKR co-ownerwas awaited and its officials had learnt about the public apology he had voiced only through the newspapers.
"Wedon't know what had happened. Certainly we would need something on paper (in order to review the earlier decision)," the source said.