In Public Interest Litigation concerning Shivaji Park, Mumbai, the court considered petitions seeking public access and regulation of the ground. Reviewing affidavits disclosing historical tenancies and available open spaces for various sports, the court found no case for relief and disposed of the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ospil15
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.15 OF 2014
Shri C.R.Jaya Sukin
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and another
...Petitioner
...Respondents
Mr.Rahul S. Kadam for the Petitioner
Ms P.H.Kantharia, GP for the respondent No.1
Ms Trupti Puranik for BMC.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
P.D.NAIK, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 17, 2016
P.C.:
1The learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the petitioner has not given any instructions
even before passing the order dated 16th January 2014
and thereafter. This PIL concerns Shivaji Park at
Dadar, Mumbai. Prayers (A) to(C) of this petition
read thus:
“(A)That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ, Direction, Order under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950
and its Public Interest Jurisdiction thereby
directing Respondent No.2 Commissioner and
its agents that “Shivaji Park” being a public
ground, be kept open for unhindered access
and use of the public at large for their
ospil15
2
sports activities.
(B)That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ, Direction, Order under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950
and its Public Interest Jurisdiction thereby
directing Respondent No.2 Commissioner and
the Corporation to frame, display and
implement proper rules, regulations and
guidelines regarding use of “Shivaji Park”
ground by the public at large.
(C)That this Hon'ble Court further be pleased
to direct the Respondent No.2 Commissioner to
take appropriate action against the illegal
cricket coaching clubs and/or to restrain
them from illegally occupying the entire
“Shivaji Park” ground amongst them for the
Cricket Coaching and from disallowing any
other general public from using the same.”
2The contention raised in this PIL in substance
is that, essentially Shivaji Park is a ground which
practically in its entirety is occupied by the
Cricketers' playing the game of cricket. It is his
contention that some of the clubs are illegally
occupying the Shivaji Park ground. The submission
is that considering the present user of Shivaji Park
ground, the members of the public are prevented from
using Shivaji Park ground.
3 ospil15
3There is an affidavit in reply filed by Anant
Sonu Gengaje, Administrative Officer (Estate), G/N
Ward of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. In the
affidavit, it is stated that total area of Shivaji
Park is approximately 1,40,000 sq yard. He states
that vacant land tenancy has been granted by the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation to some of the clubs
which relate to the year 1937. The details of the
vacant land tenancies created are also set out.
4As far as Bengal Club is concerned, it is
pointed out that the same will be governed by the
order passed by this Court on 5th October 2013 in PIL
No.116 of 2009. In paragraph 7 of the said
affidavit, the Administrative Officer has stated
thus :
“7I say that apart from the vacant land
tenancies with structures and the area of
pitches allotted to the vacant land tenancies
the remaining part of the Shivaji Park ground
even whole VKT is only in respect of open
spaces is available for public at large for
sport activities and other activities
permissible as per law. There are various
sports which are played like gymnastics,
indian games, kabbaddi, khokho, football,
hockey tennis etc.”
5A chart has been annexed to the affidavit
giving list of the pitches and structures at Shivaji
Park and names of the holders of the vacant land
ospil15
4
tenancies.
6There is another affidavit filed by Ms Priya
Salunkhe, Administrative Officer (Estate), G/North
Ward, Mumbai Municipal Corporation. It is
reiterated that apart from playing cricket, there
are other sports which are played like Gymnastics,
Indian games, Kabbadi, Khokho, football, hockey
tennis etc.
7We have perused the earlier orders passed by
this Court and in particular order dated 16th
December 2014 which reads thus:
“1 Petitioner to make a specific averment in the additional affidavit giving material particulars for the obstruction caused by the Cricket Clubs or by any vacant land tenants. Affidavit to be filed within two weeks.2 Stand over till 6th January 2015.”8After the said order, the petitioner has not
filed any additional affidavit.
9Considering the stand taken by the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation in both the affidavits, we
find that no case is made out for grant of any
relief. By accepting the statements made in the
affidavits, PIL is disposed of.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant public interest litigation petitions demanding unhindered public access to Shivaji Park.
Whether to direct the Municipal Corporation to take action against illegal cricket coaching clubs occupying the park.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.R. Jaya Sukin
State of Maharashtra
A.S. Oka
P.D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court