Mahalaxmi racecourse: Not preventing state govt from decision on theme park proposal, says Bombay HC, keeps challenge pending

“..We don’t even know what the result of the EGM will be or how the voting will take place. Members may have their own views. They will express them and the results will speak for themselves,” the HC noted.

The HC was hearing three pleas by city resident Satyen Kapadia and environmental activist Zoru Bhathena that challenged the directions issued in the December 6, 2023 meeting held between Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Commissioner and office-bearers of RWITC, to develop the said land as public garden/theme park. Another petitioner Dinshaw Rusi Mehta, member of RWITC, sought that no EGM be held and no e-voting be conducted

The petitioners sought the said land be maintained in its present form as open spaces without any restriction to access to the public.

A bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and Kamal R Khata also cautioned the state government to take a step back and ponder over why petitions were coming to court ‘early on’ with apprehension of violation of environmental norms and fundamental rights prior to the decision.

“We are not saying there is a failure of government but there is a perception about the governance and we do not want to reinforce that perception at all… This has nothing to do with the ruling party. As citizens or courts, we have to have a certain level of confidence in administration, executive and the governance process and it has to be kept alive…” Justice Patel orally remarked.

The bench noted that as per December 6 communication, there were directions to RWITC to conduct EGM to consider various terms and conditions for renewal of its lease for the racecourse that expired in 2013. It noted the earlier lease for managing the entire 211 acre-racecourse area, however the proposal is made to reduce the same to 120 acres with 91 acres to be allotted for the park.

Saraf submitted that the proposal required RWITC’s decision because it was once the lessee of the entirety of the land. He said the decision of either the RWITC or of the state government ‘cannot be forestalled by a writ court.’

He added that even if the proposal was passed by the general body of the RWITC, the decision that the government may take is still entirely at large. Saraf argued that the government has not committed to renew the lease on terms that are contained in December 6 communication and therefore the petitions are ‘entirely premature at this stage” and aggrieved persons can take legal recourse once final decision is taken. Senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi for BMC, which owns the part of land along with the state government adopted Saraf’s submissions.

“We are not to be understood as having rejected the Petitioners’ submissions nor having rejected the proposal by the RWITC nor having accepted nor rejected anything stated in the December 6, 2023 communication,” the bench clarified and noted that it has kept pending the contentions of all parties.

It kept the petitions pending for ‘administrative convenience’ and granted liberty to parties to apply for hearing of the matter.