The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging the Bombay High Court's order which had disposed of a petition seeking directions to provide drinking water and other facilities to cricket players during practice or unofficial matches on public grounds in Mumbai.
“What kind of a PIL (public interest litigation) is this? Cricketers will take care if they are not provided toilets. Why an advocate should be bothered about it,” a bench of Justices A S Oka and A G Masih observed.The bench was hearing a petition filed by a lawyer, who had challenged the high court's June last year order disposing of his petition.
In his PIL filed before the high court, he had sought directions to the Mumbai Cricket Association and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to provide drinking water and other facilities to players during practice or unofficial matches on public grounds.
“Look at the photographs which you have annexed. Playing in these conditions, these grounds in Mumbai have given greatest cricketers,” the apex court observed.
The bench also asked the petitioner whether he was predominantly a cricketer or a lawyer.
“I am an practising advocate,” the petitioner, who was appearing in person, said.
The bench observed, “What kind of prayers are made in a public interest litigation. You want toilets to be provided to the cricketers in various grounds in Mumbai”. The top court said the high court was right in not entertaining the PIL at the instance of the petitioner.
“We concur with the view taken by the high court in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the impugned order,” the bench said, while dismissing the plea. In its order, the high court had said there was no reason given by the petitioner why the players cannot seek redressal of their grievance on their own.
“In these circumstances, the appropriate course of action would be to call upon respondent nos. 1 and 2 (Mumbai Cricket Association and BCCI) to consider the PIL as suggestions made and if it is feasible for them to do so, proceed to implement the same. We make it clear that our order is not to be construed as direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant relief as sought for by the petitioner but only as suggestions,” it had said.
The high court had also clarified that if and when this cause would be raised by any aggrieved player, the same would be considered on its own merits.
