local residents, sports persons and children
for sports and recreation. Allowing the
function would mean rendering it inaccessible
to all those people not only for the day in
question but also for some days both before
and after, for preparation of the ground and
for a subsequent clean-up. To my mind, the
city's public open spaces such as Shivaji
Park should be allowed to be used only for
theirdesignatedpurposes,andthe
exceptions, if any, should be few. It is to
be noted that the other functions such as
Republic Day and Maharashtra Day are both
secular, State organized functions. Though
Section 37A of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act,1966 contemplates use of
such grounds for religious purposes, as Mr.
Nair points out, that does not mean that
every single religious or non-secular
proposal must be accepted. Were that so, then
every single religious group would be
entitled to demand such permission as of
right. A Court must always test where the
greater public interest lies. In the case of
the Shivaji Park ground, I find it difficult
to accept the proposition that the public
interest lies with groups such as the
petitioners.Thereservationsand
designation of our open spaces exist for a
reason. Applications such as these are
against the intent of those reservations. A
Court must remember that, after all, these
