The Bombay High Court on Thursday restrained the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from taking any further steps to alter the reservation of the Neville D’Souza football ground at Bandra Reclamation from a playground to an exhibition centre.
Miffed with the civic body for approving the proposed change in reservation despite promising earlier in court that status quo would be maintained until the petition challenging the alteration was heard, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad said, “We have a bigger issue where the majesty of law is at stake. If elected authorities are going to jeer at the courts, it is very bad.”
As reported by HT earlier, the 8,450-square-metre plot, owned by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada), was reserved for a convention and trade fair centre in 1983. Around fifteen years ago, it was leased out “temporarily” to the Mumbai Football Association (MFA); the BMC subsequently marked it as a recreation ground in the Development Plan (DP) 2034 since a football ground was in existence.
On August 10, during the hearing of the plea, the BMC had sought time to file its affidavit and had orally assured the court that the status quo would be maintained. But on August 18, the BMC’s general body moved ahead with the proposal in breach of its earlier assurance, the MFA informed the court and sought an urgent hearing.
When the petition came up for hearing on Thursday, senior advocate Zal Andhyarujina and counsels Akshay Doctor, Pradeep Mane and Anoj Menon, representing the MFA, submitted that when the BMC’s general body asked if there was any stay on altering the reservation, it was told that there was no stay.
In response, senior advocate Girish Godbole, appearing for the BMC, claimed that municipal commissioner Ashiwini Bhide was not informed of the earlier hearings and the oral assurance given to the court on August 10 to maintain status quo. The civic administration would consider moving a proposal before the general body to recall its August 18 resolution until further hearings, he noted.
The bench, however, rapped the BMC, saying just because its oral assurance before the court went unrecorded in the formal order, it could not back down from its position.
