HC orders Vengsarkar’s Academy to remove tents, bowling machine

The bench, however, allowed him to keep road rollers and nets on the ground during night hours. The sight screens have been permitted to be kept only on the 30 by 40 square yard pitch and not elsewhere.

The judges also appointed an officer of the court to supervise the activities of Academy and check whether it was using the ground as per the directives laid down by the court. The petitioners were given liberty to move the court by way of urgent relief even during vacations if they found that the Academy was not adhering to the guidelines of the court.

The PILs, filed by Oval Cooperage Residents Association, Oval Trust, Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) and city resident Dr Navin Parikh had alleged that Vengarskar’s academy had altered the basic form of the maidan by misusing public property and had also not followed the guidelines laid down by the court earlier on the use of the ground.

The Academy, they alleged, was using an entire Southside of the ground as its personal property, keeping rollers and nets on it even after the training sessions were over. It was further alleged that sight screens were used to give the Academy members privacy on a public ground.

Some members of the Academy had also moved the court as intervenors in the matter and demanded some more facilities.

Vengsarkar had filed an affidavit denying the allegations of misuse of the public ground. He also refuted allegations that earlier court directives had been violated. The cricketer claimed that the guidelines had been substantially adhered to.

His Counsel CR Dalvi, however, prayed that some of the guidelines laid down by the court earlier were difficult to follow and should be relaxed. Bowling machines and sight screens should be allowed to be kept in one corner of the ground as it was cumbersome to remove them. However, the court did not consider his plea.

In keeping with the directives of the court, the former skipper appeared in person before the bench on March 22 to reply the allegations levelled by the petitioners.

Four years back another petition had made a similar allegation about damage caused to the ground by the Academy which employed a gardener for trimming the grass and even constructed temporary toilet for his stay there.

The court had then framed certain guidelines for use of Oval maidan and directed Vengsarkar’s institute to follow them strictly. Accordingly, the court had been assured that the institute would observe strict compliance thereof, the petitioners contended.

Dr Parikh filed another petition recently alleging that the ground was being damaged due to temporary structures put by the former skipper’s institute. He said public grounds were rare in the city and damaging them in contravention of court orders was not justified.