Dismissed

Sachin Sumant Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Bombay HC17 Oct 2019PIL/93/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposed of PIL petition contesting exclusion of public from a plot reserved as a recreational ground. Court directed no exclusive times for any activity and prohibited sports academies, mandating strict public garden use.

What did the court decide?

Directing no exclusive times for any activity; prohibiting sports academies; land must be used strictly as a public garden.

Sachin Sumant Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(9)-PIL-93-16.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.93 OF 2016

¶3

Sachin Sumant Chavan ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶4

Ms. Vrushali Mendad i/by Mr. Harshad Sathe, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶5

Mr. Abhay Patki, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. K. H. Mastakar, Advocates for Respondent No.2 – MCGM.

¶6

Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶7

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 17^th OCTOBER, 2019

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1] Under an agreement for adoption of the plot reserved as recreational ground M/s. Venus Cultural Association has been licenced land referred to in the Indenture. The Indenture clearly refers to the land to be used for recreational purpose and is open to use by all members of the society. The only right in favour of the M/s. Venus Cultural Association is as per clause 9 of the Indenture. The other clauses stipulate the obligations of the Trust. Thus, the Trust is entitled to the limited right as per clause 9 of the agreement.

¶10

2] The grievance in the Petition is that the Trust is not permitting unhindered access to the members of the public and under the garb of promoting cricket uses the ground as a Cricket Coaching Academy charging between ₹ 4,500/- to ₹ 11,000/- from various

¶11

BGP. 1 of 2

¶12

(9)-PIL-93-16.doc .

¶13

clubs who use the pitch on the ground and at that time entry to the general public and children is prohibited.

¶14

3] The response by 3^rd Respondent denies said fact pleaded against it in the Petition.

¶15

4] The Petitioner has not filed any document showing that the 3^rd Respondent is charging fee from clubs to use the ground for cricket matches.

¶16

5] The photographs filed along with the Petition show that the 3^rd Respondent has put up a board at the ground. The board is by the Venus Sports Academy and informs the viewer that regular cricket coaching from 7:00 am to 9:00 am and 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm every Tuesday to Friday would be available. This gives some clue of restricting the right of the members of the society to use the ground.

¶17

6] We dispose of the Petition directing no exclusive times for exclusive activity would be fixed by the 3^rd Respondent. No sports academy would be permitted by the 3^rd Respondent to carry out any organized activity. The land in question would be strictly used as a public garden in terms of the Indenture between the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents.

¶18

7] No costs.

¶19

Balaji G. Panchal

¶20

Digitally signed by Balaji G. Panchal Date: 2019.10.17 16:49:50 +0530

¶21

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

BGP. 2 of 2

Sachin Sumant Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Sumant Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naosherwan Mohammad Yusuf Vs the State of Maharashtra (through the Commissioner of Police for Gr. Mumbai)

Anantrao Dagdu Garde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Bajirao Sudam Pradnyavant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janardhan Shankar Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Jan Prabodhan Sangh Vs Union of India and 11 Others

Shri Ramlinga Sidhram Kavchale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Ramlinga Sidhram Kavchale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Pandurang Ghadigaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Naosherwan Mohammad Yusuf Vs the State of Maharashtra (through the Commissioner of Police for Gr. Mumbai)

Dr.(Mrs.) Jessy Shaji Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anantrao Dagdu Garde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Grace Gharunda Vs Naina Fernandez and 2 Ors.

Girni Kamgar Karmchari Niwara and Kalyankari Sangh, through Its Secretary, Hemant B. Raul Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

M/S. Indcap Securities and Anr. Vs Harinarayan Bajaj