The Bombay High Court on Thursday rapped a district level cricket player seeking directions against Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA), BCCI and civic bodies for hygiene facilities like toilets, water & medical assistance on all public grounds.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik said that "cricket was not our game" and the priority would be to ensure there is water in villages.
Adjudicating the PIL, the court further asked asked the petitioner to explain if bodies like MCA and BCCI would come under the definition of state for directions to be passed against them.
"Do you know Aurangabad gets water once a week. Why don't you bring water from your home? You want to play cricket which is not our original game from India. First let us ensure villages in Maharashtra get water," the CJ said.
The petitioner, Rahul Rajendra Prasad Tiwari said both MCA and BCCI are passing the buck, whereas it was their statutory duty to provide these facilities. Moreover, even dressing rooms should've been provided, he said.
"Are these not luxuries? Many villages are not getting water. You are fortunate your parents can buy jazzy cricket bats, abdomen guards...If they can buy you all these, they can buy litres and litres of water. Don't try to gain popularity by filing these PILs. If you are a cricketer go play well. Manage these things yourself."
The bench added that it was hearing matters concerned with people's fundamental right to live, like unauthorised constructions, Chiplun floods...still this matter was taken up for hearing.
The court then asked the petitioner in person that while he was talking, had he performed his fundamental duties under Article 51A of the constitution.
"You are talking about fundamental rights, what have you done to discharge your fundamental duty under 51A of the Constitution?"
What have you done for people of Aurangabad, the chief asked, adding that this was at the bottom of the list for the government.
The bench said it was the MCA's responsibility but asked the petitioner to show it comes under the court's writ jurisdiction. The bench suggested the petitioner consult a senior advocate.
"You are not understanding our questions," the CJ added.
It is the petitioners case that a fee is collected by the cricket association or the civic body every time a ground is booked for practice therefore the facilities must be provided.
During the last hearing a co-ordinate bench of the High Court comprising
Justices AK Menon and MS Karnik had
asked the BCCI, MCA and civic bodies to file their replies observing that basic facilities must be provided.
The matter was circulated before the CJ's bench on Thursday merely to correct a factual error in the previous order.
"Your next big star might come from a public ground. So many bright children are playing on public grounds," the court had said during the last hearing.
