Govt Not Decided On Renewing Turf Club Lease Or Making Theme Park At Mahalaxmi Racecourse: Bombay HC Accepts AG's Statement, Keeps Pleas Pending
The Bombay High Court has accepted the Maharashtra Government's statement on Thursday that they have not yet made a final decision about building a theme park or renewing the lease of the turf club on the 221-acre Mahalaxmi Racecourse.A division bench comprising Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata refused to immediately interfere with the Chief Minister's statement dated December 6, 2023,...
The Bombay High Court has accepted the Maharashtra Government's statement on Thursday that they have not yet made a final decision about building a theme park or renewing the lease of the turf club on the 221-acre Mahalaxmi Racecourse.
A division bench comprising Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata refused to immediately interfere with the Chief Minister's statement dated December 6, 2023, directing the Royal Western India Turf Club (RWITC), to hold an extraordinary general body meeting on January 31, 2024, and vote on a proposal for new terms of their lease. The lease of RWITC which runs the racecourse, expired in 2013.
"For our purposes today, what is relevant is the statement of the Advocate General...that the December 6 communication is not in itself a decision....Indeed, even if the proposal is made by the RWITC (to the government after the EGM), the decision that the Government may take, is still at large. The government has not committed to renewing the lease on the terms that are contained in the December 6, 2023 communication" the bench noted.
The court, however, also refused to dispose of the clutch of petitions which essentially seek to ensure the racecourse, situated in the heart of Mumbai city, remains an open space, and open to the general public. The petitioners had alleged that building a theme park/amusement park would be an environmental disaster and in violation of Section 91A(2)(b) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
Observing it could not pre-empt or ask the State to make a decision one way or the other, the court clarified all contentions were kept open.
"We are not to be understood as having rejected the petitioners' submissions or having rejected the proposal of the RWITC, nor have we accepted or rejected anything stated in the December 6, 2023 communication. All contentions are expressly kept open," it said.
It added that aspects concerning the renewal of the lease shouldn't be conflated with the public interest.
Arguments
The court was dealing with three petitions, two filed by individuals Satyen Kapadia and Zoru Bhathena and a third petition filed by a member of the RWITC. All three petitions assailed a communication following a meeting of the Chief Minister, BMC commissioner and RWITC.
Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas for Kapadia said that as per the minutes of the meeting, RWITC was to take a decision on a proposal by Hafeez Contractor on his vision for the racecourse land in an EGM and submit this as a proposal to the State Government.
It was decided that the 97 crore cost of shifting the stables and making the new stables would be borne by the State, the racetrack would be intact, the view of the racing track would be unhindered, and the existing stands would remain as it is.
Dwarkadas added that the theme park as of now is being planned on the central portion or 73 acres. "There is no clarity because the plan shows this to be a public park or garden. May be there would be a theme park there. The BMC commissioner (when he met members of the club) seems to be of the view that the central portion will be dug up and the height will be reduced by 8 feet, a garden will come up there and there will be a tunnel from there to the coastal road. I am only pointing out that as a citizen today we are concerned with maintaining this as an open space," he said.
Dwarkadas added that the concern was that the way the minutes of the December 6 meeting were worded, created rights and obligations which were reciprocal. He submitted that the minutes also gave the state power to nominate 50 members for lifetime membership.
However, Justice Patel said that with the Advocate General's statement that the December 6, meeting should not be considered a decision, the court had nothing to judicially review.
"RWITC's resolution is not above the statute," Justice Patel quipped. "You think we are bothered about life membership of RWITC? It is not possible to argue Mumbai has enough of open spaces."
Senior Advocate Harish Salve appeared for the BMC and submitted that there was no use in keeping the petitions pending.
After the court opined that State approval would be required if amendments were to be made to the DP plan, AG Birendra Saraf assured the court everything would be done in accordance with the law.
Justice Patel also said that as citizens or courts, there needs to be some level of confidence in the governance. And while there may be reasons for the growing mistrust, that beast need not be fed, he added.
Accordingly, the court refused to stay the RWITC's resolution, accepted the AG's statement and kept the petitions pending for administrative reasons.
Appearances – AG Birendra Saraf for the State, Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi and Anil Singh for the BMC, Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas for Petitioner No. 1, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai for Petitioners No. 2, Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam for Petitioner No. 3