The Madhya Pradesh high court on Thursday sought a reply within two weeks from the Rewa district administration after the latter allowed a Dussehra function to be held at TRS Government College’s Major Dyanchand Hockey and Athlete Sports Complex on October 11.
The Rewa administration granted the permission at a time when another PIL, relating a previous function held at the same sports complex, is pending before the high court.
An application was moved by the petitioner, raising objection over the permission granted to hold the function on Dussehra which was not a sports activity. The PIL raised the issue that on March 3, with prior permission of the Rewa district administration, a function was held on Saint Ravi Das’s birth anniversary and a mass marriage ceremony was held in which chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan was the chief guest.
The petitioner’s counsel Nityanand Mishra said granting permission to hold activities other than sports in the complex is contrary to the government’s circular issued on October 19, 2015 and the orders of the Supreme Court and the high court.
Mishra said the apex court had issued directives in the 1991 case of Jayalalithaa vs the Government of Tamil Nadu and others, and the MP high court in the 2010 case of Satish Kumar Verma vs State of Madhya Pradesh that sports complexes and playground shall not be permitted to be used for any activities unrelated to sports activities and action will be taken against the district collector or administration if permission is granted to hold activities other than sports activities.
{{/usCountry}}Mishra said the apex court had issued directives in the 1991 case of Jayalalithaa vs the Government of Tamil Nadu and others, and the MP high court in the 2010 case of Satish Kumar Verma vs State of Madhya Pradesh that sports complexes and playground shall not be permitted to be used for any activities unrelated to sports activities and action will be taken against the district collector or administration if permission is granted to hold activities other than sports activities.
{{/usCountry}}He argued the respondents, in their reply filed towards the PIL in a previous hearing, had mentioned that there is ban on holding any function other than sports activity in the sports complex, while the permission to hold the mass marriage ceremony was allowed, considering security reasons.