In a batch of letters patent appeals filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge the correctness of the judgment dated 04-10-2023 passed by the Single Judge, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the Sports Authority of India and its officials failed to act in a fair manner and noting the circumstances of the matter, refused to interfere with the impugned judgment.
In the present matter, both Dakshinii Delhi Dharmik Ramlila Samiti (DDDRS) and Shree Ram Dharmik Ramlila Samiti (SRDRS) sought permission to host Ramlila and Dussehra Mela celebrations in an open space adjacent to the Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium (JLN Stadium), which is managed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI).
DDDRS claimed that it had been organizing Ramlila at the venue consistently throughout the years and that a request was made to SAI for booking said venue for 22 days, i.e., from 05-10-2023 to 27-10-2023. However, by a letter dated 13-02-2023, DDDRS was informed that the booking had to be made through the online portal 120 days before 05-10-2023. Upon attempting to proceed with an online booking, DDDRS learned that SRDRS had already booked the venue for 43 days from 18-09-2023 to 30-10-2023, with a payment of Rs. 11,800/ as opposed to the actual rental charges of Rs. 2,25,000/- plus GST for a single day.
DDDRS submitted a representation to SAI, alleging arbitrariness and expressing its wish to book the said venue for 22 days at the applicable tariff. Upon no reply, DDDRS approached SAI again and was informed that the provisional booking was confirmed in favor of SRDRS for 23 days, i.e., from 05-10-2023 to 28-10-2023.
Aggrieved, DDDRS filed a writ petition seeking directions to SAI to book the venue in their favor. This was disposed of by way of the impugned judgment, which directed SAI not to give any discount to SRDRS and to recover the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- plus GST, along with the security amount.
The Court perused the brochure containing the tariff rates and noted that, if the booking is for more than 15 days, the concessional tariff for non-sporting events at the venue is Rs. 1,50,000/- plus GST at 18%, along with a security deposit and energy charges as per actual consumption.
The Court found it evident that there was no specific power to grant any discount or concession for non-sporting events. It was noted that the venue could be booked through the online portal only 120 days before the event date, but even though SRDRS had already booked the venue on 16-06-2023 for 34 days, their booking was permitted to be modified and reduced to 24 days.
The Court stated that every action of the State must be informed by fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness, and that State actions must conform to the standards of fair play and equality. The Court found that it was evident that there was a divergence in the stands of the parties. It was held that once the initial booking was requested to be altered, DDDRS should have been given an opportunity, and SRDRS should have been required to apply afresh for booking the said venue. The Court found that the conduct of SAI did not reflect fairness.
It was held that SAI and its officials had failed to act fairly in granting a concession in the absence of any enabling power, thereby depriving DDDRS of an opportunity to book the venue. It was noted that SRDRS had already deposited the amount. Hence, the Court refrained from interfering with the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeals.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s) – Mr. Kunal Mittal, Mr. Rakshit Gupta, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Himanshi Singh, Ms. Priya Khurana, Dr. Monika Arora, Mr. Subhrdeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anamika Thakur, Mr. Abhinav Verma
For Respondent(s) – Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Himanshi Singh Ms. Priya Khurana, Dr. Monika Arora, Mr. Subhrdeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anamika Thakur, Mr. Abhinav Verma, Mr. Kunal Mittal, Mr. Rakshit Gupta
