IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11994 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.02.2011 Shaheed-E-Azam S.Bhagat Singh New Sports Club. (Regd.) Giaspura, Ludhiana and others. ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed seeking interference with resolution dated 18.08.2009 (Annexure P-20) of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, whereby a Mini Rose Garden was planned to be built on land covered by Khasra No. 102, Khatauni No. 714, Hadbast No. 261, village Giaspura, Tehsil West, Ludhiana. According to the respondents, there was an earlier decision to construct a sports stadium on the said land which decision has been implemented CWP No. 11994 of 2010 [2] partially and construction work had begun on the stadium. In this regard, a reference has been to the document enclosed as Annexure P-2 wherein it is recorded that a sum of ` 24 lacs (approximately) has already been incurred in connection with the work pertaining to the stadium. No interim restraint was issued by the Court while entertaining the writ petition. It appears that the respondents had gone ahead with the proposed mini rose garden during the pendency of the writ petition. The latest status report dated 14.02.2011 filed by the Superintending Engineer of the Municipal Corporation indicates that the Mini Rose Garden has already been developed and the total expenditure incurred is close to Rs. 2 Crores. In view of the said event that had occurred during the intervening period, the Court is of the view that, at this stage, no direction for construction of the stadium on the same plot of land where the rose garden has been developed can be issued. However, in the status report dated 14.02.2011, the Superintending Engineer of the Corporation has given details of the alternative places where sports events pertaining to the village can and are being organized. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that though it may be too late in the day to order for the construction of the sports stadium, as in the meantime the mini rose garden has been developed., there is ample evidence of misuse of public money in the developmental work pertaining to the rose garden. Specifically, learned counsel has pointed out that at the time CWP No. 11994 of 2010 [3] of execution of the initial work of the stadium in the year 2001, the land had been filled up and levelled and therefore, the expenditure incurred under the same head as shown in the status report dated 14.02.2011 wold require investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further pointed out that there is an alternative plot in Indira Colony where a sports stadium can be built up. He has, accordingly, prayed for appropriate directions in the matter. In so far as the first issue is concerned, we are afraid that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we cannot assume the role of a fact finding authority in respect of expenses incurred in developing the rose garden and go into the issue whether such expenses were justified or not. If the petitioners have any grievance in this regard, they should approach the appropriate forum/authority with the requisite materials. In so far as the feasibility of construction of a stadium in the alternative site at Indira Colony is concerned, no direction can be issued to the State to build a sports complex/stadium either on the land identified by the petitioners or on any other land. Whether there should be a stadium and if so in what location is a matter that has to be decided by the Executive arm of the Government and not by the Courts. As conscious citizens, who aspires to advance public interest, it is always open for the petitioners to approach the concerned authority with the request for construction of a sports stadium in such alternative plots as may be available and suitable. CWP No. 11994 of 2010 [4] If such an approach is made by the petitioners, the same would be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with the norms and parameters which may be applicable to like situations. Beyond the above, no further direction, in our considered view, will be justified. PIL accordingly shall stands disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 17.02.2011 'ravinder'