ssp 1 WP(L) 2866 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2866 OF 2011 Jagrut Nagrik Manch and Anr. .....Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.Mahendra Ghelani a/w Mr.Neil Mandevia, Mr.S.P.Nalawade, Mr.Nimesh Bhatt, Mrs.Mugda Deshpande i/by Nivit Srivastava, for the petitioners. Ms.Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP, for the respondent No.1. Ms.Kiran Bagalia, for respondent No.2. Mr.S.D.Rupawate with Mr.S.J.Pawar, for the Intervenor. Mr.H.B.Holmagi, for the Intervenor. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 23 rd DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. The above petition is filed by one Jagrut Nagrik Manch, which is a unregistered entity, challenging the decision taken by the respondent No.2 – M.M.R.D.A., by which permission is granted for organizing the public gathering/meeting at MMRDA Ground, situated at Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, by charging usual commercial rent which comes to `11,31,678/-. The petitioners were also asked to give security deposit of `7,61,500/- which is refundable one. It is prayed that the respondent No.2, which is a Government Body, should allow the petitioners to organize the said meeting/gathering free of ssp 2 WP(L) 2866 of 2011 charge. It is prayed that one Anna Hazare, who is going to hold a fast for three days from 27th to 29th December, 2011, the respondent No.2 being a Government Institution, should permit the public meeting on the MMRDA ground and permit Anna Hazare to hold fast without charging any fees from the petitioners. The said prayer is made in the prayer clause of the petition. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that since the petitioners are going to hold public gathering/meeting which is in the public interest and since large population of the country is supporting the agitation of the petitioners, in public interest, the respondent No.2 should also help the petitioners by giving the said ground without charging any money. During the course of hearing, it is argued that in any case, the petitioners is a social institution and the MMRDA ground should be made available at a subsidized rate without charging commercial rate. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that looking to the nature of the programme which the petitioners want to undertake on this ground and since it is in the public and national interest, the respondent No.2 should provide this facility for organizing the meeting by either free or by charging nominal rent. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 in her submissions, contended that the petitioner No.1 is not a registered ssp 3 WP(L) 2866 of 2011 association and therefore, the respondent No.2 cannot take any cognizance of the same in view of the policy framed by them. This matter was heard for some time before the lunch break and at that time, counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners are willing to organize the said meeting at Azad Maidan. But, since the capacity of the Azad Maidan is small one and since the petitioners are expecting more than one lakh people to join the said public meeting, if all the gates of the Azad Maidan are opened, then only it is possible to organize such public gathering. Learned AGP on this issue, wanted to take instructions as to whether the all the gates of the Azad Maidan can be opened or not. 4. At the time of hearing, it is pointed out by her that the Deputy Director, Sports and Youth Services, has refused to give permission to hold meeting at Azad Maidan on the ground that it may spoil the cricket pitches. It is submitted by the learned AGP that the petitioners have not obtained permissions from the relevant authorities, such as Mumbai Cricket Association and Mumbai School Sports Association and therefore, no such permission can be granted. 5. In so far as the averments of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 should give the MMRDA ground free of costs or at a subsidized rate, in our view, such a issue is not justiciable so far as the Court of law is concerned. During the course of hearing, some Advocates ssp 4 WP(L) 2866 of 2011 have tried to intervene in the matter on behalf of their respective clients, including NGOs and pointed out that the said agitation is a political one and it is made at the instance of someone. This Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot come to the conclusion that meeting which the petitioners is going to organize, is in the public interest or whether it is a politically motivated agitation, especially when some NGOs are of the opinion that it is not in the national interest and therefore, the respondent No.2 being the Government Body, should not give permission without charging any rent. This Court cannot pronounce upon the aforesaid aspect in any manner. 6. Mr.Holmagi appearing for the Intervenor, submitted that when the Parliament session is in force, such type of parallel meeting may amount to hamper the proceedings of the parliament and the said agitation cannot be said to be in public interest or in national interest. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even though the Parliament session is in progress, the citizens can still agitate and try to persuade the members of the parliament about the views and opinion of the public. In our view, it is not necessary for this Court to examine this aspect, as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not required to say as to whether the agitation/programme which is to be carried out by some people of this Country, is in the national ssp 5 WP(L) 2866 of 2011 interest or not or whether the decision of the respondent No.2 in charging commercial rent for agitation is justified or not. Suffice it to say that the prayer made by the petitioners that the MMRDA ground should be made available free of charge cannot be accepted by this Court, for which there is additional reason that the petitioner is not even a registered trust and even though, application for the registration is pending, the said organization has taken birth only at last month. Whether the cause of the petitioners is genuine or not, is the question which is to be considered by the appropriate authority who is required to give permission for such public gathering/meeting. Infact, the respondent No.2 has already granted permission by charging appropriate rent for organizing the said programme. 7. In our view, this is not a case in which this Court can compel the respondent No.2 to give permission to the petitioner’s Manch free of charge or by charging nominal rent and it cannot be said that it is such a national event that the petitioners have undertaken, by which the respondent No.2 is required to consider whether such ground should be given free of charge. 8. Counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that the petitioners are also getting donations from the people at large. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would like to ssp 6 WP(L) 2866 of 2011 prefer appropriate application through a registered Association. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that if such an application is made, the respondent No.2 is willing to consider the same in an appropriate manner. We make it clear that whether the respondent No.2 should consider the application of the petitioners in an appropriate manner or not, is left to the discretion of the respondent No.2 and we are not expressing any opinion in this behalf. 9. Similarly, this Court cannot ask the concerned authorities to open all the gates of the Azad Maidan, as it may create traffic problem and may lead to law and order situation and this aspect is safely required to be left to the discretion of the competent authority. If any registered organization prefers any application, it is for the concerned authority to take decision in accordance with law and as deemed fit and we do not express any opinion as to whether the programme which the petitioners are organizing, is in the public interest or not. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the the petitioners are engaged in the social activities since last three years, for which he relied upon averments made in the petition and being a social organization, their case falls within the policy framed by the respondent No.2. Since except some averments, there is no concrete material placed on record pointing out that the petitioner is actively associated with the ssp 7 WP(L) 2866 of 2011 social activities since last three years and when it is not the registered organization, this Court cannot set aside the order granting permission by asking the petitioner to pay regular rent prescribed for such event. 11. As indicated earlier, this Court cannot compel the respondent No.2 to give the said ground at a subsidized rate and it cannot be said that in every case, the respondent No.2 is bound to give concessional treatment. Ultimately, the respondent No.2 is required to consider the application of the petitioners on its own merits and it not the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has passed the order arbitrarily and without application of mind, especially when the petitioner is not a registered institution. 12. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)