JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. Mr. Mahendra Kumar Mohanty, the Petitioner, brings forth this Public Interest Litigation, challenging the membership criteria stipulated in the notice issued by Respondent No. 2, Delhi Development Authority [“DDA”], for the Qutab Golf Course located in Mehrauli, Delhi [hereinafter, “public notice”]. He takes issue with an apparent disparity in membership provisions, specifically the subscription charges, between applicants from the government sector and those from the private sector.

The Petitioner’s case

2. Petitioner is an accomplished athlete, having accolades to his name in various national-level championships. A few years ago, he was introduced to golf, and in a short span of time, he developed deep admiration for the sport. Over time, he honed his skills to achieve an impressive handicap of around ten. His dedication to the sport and remarkable performance were recently recognized when he clinched the 15th Hindu College OSA tournament and 1st Northend Super Golf series, held at Qutab Golf Course. His association with sports makes him keenly interested in the membership of the Qutab Golf Course, which is a public facility managed entirely by the DDA – a government authority. The Golf Course, established on a vast expanse of government land and maintained using government resources, offers membership tenures to both government employees and general public.

3. Membership fee discrepancy: The crux of the Petitioner’s grievance hinges on the exorbitant membership fees of the Qutab Golf Course. There is a steep difference in the prevalent fee structure for government employees and private individuals. He emphasizes the apparent inequality by referencing to the following fee break-up mentioned in the public notice:

2. 3 Years Rs.5.31 lacs Rs.2,124/-

4. Misuse of public resources: The Petitioner contends that utilization of the allotted public land and government funds for the benefit of a select group of elite government servants and private individuals is antithetical to the broader principles of public policy. Such practices, he argues, stand in stark contrast to the objectives outlined in various National Sports Policies. The overarching intent of the government’s sports policies, such as the National Sports Development Code, Fit India Movement and Khelo India, is to foster widespread public participation in sporting activities. These policies aim to achieve a dual goal – promoting sports as a mass activity while also nurturing excellence at the highest echelons. The afore-mentioned initiatives demonstrate government’s commitment to enhancing India’s sports culture, right from the grassroots through structured talent identification and nurturing.

5. Legal precedent: It is contended that the impugned notice runs afoul of the directives of the Supreme Court of India elucidated in the case of Krishan Lal Gera v. State of Haryana.1 In this case, the Apex Court critically examined the issue of a sports stadium being misappropriated for activities unrelated to sports. The Court observed that sports stadia cannot be used for personal enrichment or for serving the interests of a privileged few. Reliance is further placed on order dated 13th July, 2023 of this Court in Prem Nath Vasistha v. Union of India and Ors.2

1 (2011) 10 SCC 529. 2 W.P.(C) 7540/2020.

Respondent’s contentions

6. Mr. Sanjay Katyal, representing the DDA, vehemently contends that the current petition is a stark misuse of the judicial process. He underscores that the fee stratification across different categories possesses clear and discernible rationale and does not transgress the tenets of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which guarantees equality before law. Mr. Katyal points out that the diff