Dakshinii Delhi Dharmik Ramlila Samiti (Regd.)Through Its President vs. Sports Authority Of INDIA (Sai) & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Dakshinii Delhi Dharmiik Ramlila Samiti, sought to book a venue at Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium for 22 days from October 5 to October 27, 2023. They had been organizing Ramlila at this venue since 2000. The petitioner was informed that the venue could be booked online 120 days prior to the event. Upon attempting to book, they discovered the venue was already booked by Respondent No. 4 for 43 days from September 26 to October 30, 2023. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4's booking was provisional and later confirmed for overlapping dates (October 5 to October 28, 2023) at a significantly discounted rate, which the petitioner argued was contrary to the established booking procedure and unfair. The Sports Authority of India (SAI) stated that Respondent No. 4 had booked the venue on June 19, 2023, and subsequently requested a discounted rate, which was approved by the Chairman, Governing Body Committee, citing Article 34(a) of SAI's Memorandum of Association. SAI also claimed the petitioner had received discounted rates in 2021.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's prayer to book the venue could not be accepted because Respondent No. 4 had initially booked it by following the 120-day prior booking procedure, the actions of Respondent No. 4 in altering the booking dates and the complicity of Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 in permitting this abuse of procedure were unacceptable. The Court found Respondent No. 4's act of booking for 43 days when only 23 days were required to be unfair and a clear abuse of the established procedure. The Court also noted that the commercial nature of Ramlila and Dussehra Mela events meant the State should not be deprived of its fees. Therefore, the Court directed Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 not to provide any discount to Respondent No. 4 and to recover the full booking amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- per day plus GST @ 18% plus the prescribed security amount. The Court acknowledged that this went beyond the petitioner's prayer but was necessary to prevent abuse of the procedure and address the complicity of the authorities. The Court cited Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of non-arbitrariness in State actions, referencing the Supreme Court's observations in cases concerning arbitrary actions and the need for fair play.

Key Issues

1. Whether the booking of the venue by Respondent No. 4, which involved an initial provisional booking for a longer duration (43 days) and subsequent alteration to a shorter, overlapping period (23 days) with a discounted rate, was arbitrary and violative of the principles of fairness and equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 acted arbitrarily and complacently in allowing Respondent No. 4 to alter the booking dates and benefit from a discounted rate, thereby potentially depriving other similarly situated entities of the venue? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 4 abused the booking procedure by initially booking the venue for an extended period and then shortening it to coincide with the petitioner's desired dates, effectively blocking them. They contended that this practice was unfair and arbitrary, and that the Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 aided in this unfair practice by confirming the booking at a discounted rate. The petitioner relied on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. Respondents' arguments: The respondents (SAI and others) argued that Respondent No. 4 had booked the venue by following the procedure of booking 120 days prior to the original date of booking. They also stated that the venue charges could be discounted at the discretion of the Governing Body and that the petitioner had also received discounted rates in the past. They relied on Article 34(a) of the Memorandum of Association of SAI for the discretionary power to grant discounts.