IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.853 of 2010 1. BIHAR CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AN ASSOCIATION (FORMELY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1860) AND AFFILIATED TO THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA HAVING ITS PRESENT OFFICE AT PALIKA MARKET, ASHOK RAJPATH, P.O. BANKIPORE, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTT.- PATNA-800006, THROUGH ITS HONY, SECRETARY AJAY NARAYAN SHARMA S/O LATE KUMAR NARAYAN SHARMA R/O CHOUDHARY TOLA, P.S. SULTANGANJ, DISTT.- PATNA 2. AJAY NARAYAN SHARMA S/O LATE KUMAR NARAYAN SHARMA R/O CHOUDHARY TOLA, P.S. SULTANGANJ, DISTT.- PATNA, PRESENT WORKING AS SECRETARY, BIHAR CRICKET ASSOCIATION Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE ART, CULTURE AND YOUTH DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, ART, CULTURE AND YOUTH DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE BIHAR STATE SPORTS AUTHORITY, MOINUL HAQUE STADIUM, RAJENDRA NAGAR, PATNA-800 016 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR-CUM-SECRETARY 4. THE DIRECTOR-CUM-SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE SPORTS AUTHORITY, MOINUL HAQUE STADIUM, RAJENDRA NAGAR, PATNA- 800 016 5. THE MANAGER, MOINUL HAQUE STADIUM, RAJENDRA NAGAR, PATNA- 800 016 ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyabit Bharti For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kr.Singh, A.C. to A.A.G-2 4 25.2.2010 Petitioner is the only affiliated and recognized Cricket Association in Bihar representing Board of Cricket Control of India. It has the responsibility of conducting training, tournament and selection of cricketers at different level. In Bihar, there are no private stadium available in particular in Patna there is one stadium, which is controlled by sports authority of Bihar and maintained by Govt. of Bihar being Moinul Haque Stadium. Petitioner being affiliate of BCCI receives huge amount of money and equipments, which even the State 2 Government cannot afford for the purposes of training and holding tournament. Petitioner thus wants to utilize this Moinul Haque Stadium but they have been resisted at every juncture and prevented from carrying out their activities on one pretext or the other. Hence the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the reason is not far to look. It is a clash of Titan and that is the reason why the entire machineries were against the petitioner instead of trying to encourage this association, who could train, sponsor youngster from Bihar to enter national/international arena , which obstruction is a retrograte step . For long it had been seeking and praying for space to store sophisticated equipments. The same is not provided. At times, they offered to maintain it at their cost the said stadium throughout the year, which was most un welcome .Their applications to hold tournament on one pretext or the other were rejected or not acted upon. The tournaments were under the aegis of BCCI still they were not permitted to be held in Bihar. Now, when they were holding Under 19 Cricket Tournament , their applications were kept pending and ultimately stadium was allotted to Chief Minister Tournament to which petitioner cannot and did not take any objection, the stadium being of the State Government and the tournament being of the Chief Minister. They were before this Court even before that and their application with money paid in advance with the sports authority. Various people came subsequently and were allowed to use the stadium. Now, after the Chief Minister tournament 3 is over they wanted stadium for a long period for training and tournament. Their applications are there from before. Subsequently additional money was also paid. They have already been paid substantial money in advance which is lying with the respondents. Still no decision is being taken, when on 18.2.2010 this Court directed the respondents to consider and take decision on the applications of the petitioner filed earlier and to furnish details of pending applications for allotment, curiously several applications were received that evening itself for different period in between the period, as sought for by the petitioner. They were simple applications with no money. Petitioner’s application with the respondents since December with the money in advance was left with cold storage. Other people were accommodated on different dates. Petitioner was never asked to apply for different dates. These facts have been noticed only to show that a State, which should encourage sporting activity and encourage activity which throw up people at national level or international level is doing everything either by its action or by its inaction to see that the petitioner is unable to conduct itself in sporting manner. The State behaves in a most unsporting manner. I may just notice the petitioner’s averment that no other sports grounds is being allotted to the petitioner. Pursuant to order of this Court ,by the 1st supplementary counter affidavit a chart has been enclosed by the respondents ,which speaks volume about the manner in which the authority is conducting itself. I can only quote from what the Apex Court has said in the 4 case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma –v- State of Punjab since reported in AIR 2001 SC 2524: “ 14. It is interesting to view the present day bureaucrat politician relationship scenario. “ A bureaucratic apparatus is a means of attaining the goals prescribed by the political leaders at the top. Like Alladin’s lamp, it serves the interest of whosoever wields it. Those at the helm of affairs exercise apical dominance by dint of their political legitimacy....... The Ministers make strategic decisions. The officers provide trucks, petrol and drivers. They give march orders. The Minister tells them where to go. The officers have to act upon instructions from above without creating a fuss about it. (Effectiveness of Bureaucracy, the Indian Journal of Public Administration, April-June, 2000 at p. 165.) 15. In the system of Indian Democratic Governance as contemplated by the Constitution senior officers occupying key positions such as Secretaries are not supposed to mortgage there own discretion, volition and decision making authority and be prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law.” I can say no better in the fact situation. In view of the aforesaid facts, it would be seen that the petitioner being the earliest applicant with money for the period for which it now seeks Moinul Haque stadium, it is entitled to be allotted the same, the period being 12.3.2010 to 30.6.2010. I see no reason why it cannot be so allotted the stadium and I direct accordingly in the hope that betterment of sport would get the better priority over non sport issue and once allotment is made no further hindrance is created. In order to avoid future controversy I further direct that the authority would not entertain any application for any purpose unless it is accommopanied by Bank draft meeting full monitory commitment for the period the stadium is sought. 5 In the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that the rates fixed are too low and government is deciding to revise the same. I do not know the purpose for making such statement because fixing rate is the prerogative of the State where Court has little to do. If they think it is too low, it is for them to revise to an appropriate level and the Court has nothing to do in that matter. In the end it was submitted on behalf of the State that various enquiries are pending against the petitioner at different level. As they are pending, this Court cannot comment upon it except that unless something is concritised against the petitioner, the application of petitioner has to be acted upon. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions and observations. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)