V.M. BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against an order for allotment of plots from the Cross Maidan at Bombay to various respondents by the first respondent, which is the State of Maharashtra. The order of allotment impugned is that bearing G.R. No, CRM 1085/54893/SYS -1 dated July 15, 1986.

(2.) THE Cross Maidan is one of the few available open spaces in this metropolis and the openness of such spaces survives mainly on account of the vigilence of public spirited citizens bringing to the notice of this Court the persistent attempts made to take over the Maidan or parts thereof for non -recreational -cum -commercial exploitation. Bhandari, petitioner in W.P. No. 39,0 of 1987, claims to be the owner and publisher of a Hindi periodical titled 'Prachand'. On July 19, 1984 he addressed an application to the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Maharashtra, seeking permission to organise an exhibition of publications, the exhibition to be located in the entire Cross Maidan for a period of 3 months commencing from November 1, 1935 and ending with January 31, 1986. He was informed that the application had to be in the prescribed form and accompanied by a fee of Rs. 51/ -. Bhandari did the needful and was further informed that allotments would be made in the - month of January, 1985 and that this1 would be done on the basis of 'applications received serially'. Allotment of plots from Government Maidans, in particular the Cross Maidan, had generated controversy which in due course came before this Court in the form of Writ Petitions. One such Writ Petition was that bearing No. 1495 of 1985. On March 10, 1986, in an appeal against an interim order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Division Bench hearing the appeal expressed its dissatisfaction with the attitude of the State Government in regard to allotment of plots from Cross Maidan. It opined that allotments were being irregularly made without proper guidelines and presumably for 'collateral purposes', such purposes ranging right from favouritism to corruption. The State was called upon to explain how it was carrying out its obligations. This order was made on March 10, 1986 and on March 13, 1986, the State framed rules, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the March 1986 rules'. This having been done, on March 17, 1986, the Division Bench opined that the appeal before it did not survive. It was, however, made clear that the Bench had not applied its mind to rules nor stamped its approval about the rules' propriety or legality.

(3.) BHANDARI 's petition was lodged with the office on February 4, 1987. The first allottee viz. MMM was in occupation of the plot in the Cross Maidan from January 5, 1987 and its tenure was to expire on February 23, 1987. The MMM is not impleaded to this petition and till February 24, 1987 Bhandari did not show any earnestness about prosecuting the petition. It was on February 24, 1987 that the matter came up before Bharucha J. That learned Judge admitted the petition and the order passed by him reads thus: - Rule, Expedited. There appears, prima facie, to be disregard even of such guidelines as have been framed in regard to the allotment of the Cross Maidan. The guide -lines v -ere framed by the State Government by reason of a direction of a Division Bench of this Court. They do not meet the requirements of the direction. And, such as they are, they are breached. A perusal of an earlier affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government suggests that the petitioner's application was not even considered. A perusal of the present affidavit does not remove that impression. There are, it appears prima facie, breaches also in the allotment of two related bodies and, perhaps, in the matter of the collection of fees. The Cross Maidan is public property. Its allotment cannot be arbitrarily made. Where it appears to have been so made, it must be stopped. If the allottees, are innocent and suffer damage by reason of such stoppage, they must recover in a suit. Hence interim relief in terms of prayer (c). Prayer (c) sought an interim injunction to prevent the handing over of any portion of the Cross Maidan to respondents 2 to 6 or any of them.