Delhi High Court: In a case wherein the petitioner approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to book the venue, Open Space near Gate No. 2 Parking Area, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (‘venue in question’), in favour of the petitioner for a period of 22 days at the prevalent and applicable tariffs as mentioned on the website of Respondent 1 and to set aside the booking confirmed by Respondent 4 which, according to the petitioner, was contrary to the procedure laid down by Respondents 1, 2 and 3 for booking of the venue in question, Subramonium Prasad, J.*, held that no person could be allowed to violate the procedure of booking the venue by showing that they required the venue for a longer duration and later turn around and change the dates; such practice was unfair and could not be permitted. The Court further held that the prayer made by the petitioner could not be accepted as the booking done by Respondent 4 was by following the procedure, however it was not expected from Respondent 1 that they could let anyone abuse the procedure established for smooth functioning of the Authority by permitting Respondent 4 to alter their dates of booking and that too at a discounted rate.
Background
The petitioner was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to organize the Ramlila and Dussehra Mela celebrations in the area of South Delhi. The petitioner submitted that it started organizing Ramlila and Dussehra Mela and had been holding the events at the venue in question since 2000. The petitioner had sent a letter dated 05-01-2023 and e-mail dated 09-01-2023 to Respondents 1, 2 and 3 to book the venue for conducting Ramlila and Dussehra Mela Celebration for the year 2023 from 05-10-2023 to 27-10-2023. Respondent 2 informed the petitioner that the venue could be booked through online portal 120 days prior to the date of the event. The petitioner later discovered that the venue had already been provisionally reserved for a period of 43 days from 18-09-2023 to 30-10-2023 by Respondent 4 at a nominal amount of Rs.11,800 against the actual rental charges of Rs. 2,25,000 plus, GST for a single day.
Pointing out the arbitrariness in exercise of provisional booking in favour of Respondent 4, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondents, wherein, the petitioner stated that it requested and undertook to book the venue in question for 22 days at the prevalent and applicable tariffs. It was stated that when no reply was received by the petitioner, it again approached Respondent 2, who informed that the provisional booking had been confirmed in favour of Respondent 4 for a period of 23 days, i.e. from 05-10-2023 to 28-10-2023, which were exact dates for which the petitioner had sought the booking of the venue in question. It was submitted that the Chairman, Governing Body Committee of Respondent 1, after considering Article 34(a) of the Memorandum of Association of Sports Authority of India, confirmed the booking of Respondent 4 at the discounted rate of Rs. 1,50,000 for the entire period of 23 days.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the procedure to book the venue was only through the online portal of Respondent 3, and any person who intended to book the venue could do so by logging into the portal 120 days prior to the actual date of the event. The Court noted that Respondent 4 booked the venue in question on 19-06-2023 from 26-09-2023 to 30-10-2023, when in reality it needed the venue only from 05-10-2023 to 28-10-2023. Thus, the Court held that no person could be allowed to violate the procedure of booking the venue by showing that they required the venue for a longer duration and later turn around and change the dates; such practice was unfair and could not be permitted.
The Court opined that Respondent 4 had stealthily booked the venue in question at first by advancing the date of booking the venue to 43 days so that no other Committee could book the venue and had then shortened the duration of booking to 23 days. The Court further opined that Respondents 1, 2, and 3, appeared to have aided Respondent 4 to ensure that the petitioner was deprived of the venue and the procedure adopted by Respondent 4 for booking the venue, to which Respondents 1, 2 and 3 were a party, was unfair, and Respondents 1, 2 and 3 ought not have been a party to this unfair and arbitrary procedure. The Court stated that activities during the festive period of Ramlila and Dussehra Mela were no longer merely social but has assumed a commercial colour and for the same Respondent 4 should pay the entire amount plus GST for each day for the duration for which the venue was booked.
The Court opined that the granting of discount to Respondent 4 under Clause 34(a) of the Memorandum of Association of the Sports Authority of India would be squarely hit by Article
The Court held that Respondent 4 had abused the procedure by booking the venue in question initially for 43 days and then altered the booking period to 23 days, with the ulterior motive of ensuring that no other Committee could book the venue for that period and unfortunately, the State had factually approved the procedure and been complicit in such unfair practice. The Court held that the prayer made by the petitioner could not be accepted as the booking done by Respondent 4 was by following the procedure, however it was not expected from Respondent 1 that they could let anyone abuse the procedure established for smooth functioning of the Authority by permitting Respondent 4 to alter their dates of booking and that too at a discounted rate.
Thus, the Court disposed of the petition and directed Respondents 1, 2, and 3 to not to provide any discount to Respondent 4 and recover the full booking amount along with GST and security deposit.
[Dakshinii Delhi Dharmik Ramlila Samiti (Regd.) v. Sports Authority of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6194, Judgement dated 04-10-2023]
*Judgement authored by — Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Sumant De, Mr. Kunal Mittal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Senior Advocate; Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Nakul Nirwan, Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Aditya Pushbal Kahnna, Mr. Aditya Arhiya, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
I value the DHC’s position on forestalling the maltreatment of scene booking methodology for Ramlila and Dussehra festivities. Guaranteeing fair access and adherence to laid out conventions is critical for keeping up with agreement during widespread developments. Praise to the experts for maintaining the standards of reasonableness and inclusivity.