Concessions To Government Employees Does Not Automatically Translate Into Arbitrariness: Delhi High Court Cites Intelligible Differentia
The Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the membership criteria for the Qutab Golf Course in Delhi, issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) stating that the disparity in membership fees was not arbitrary but based on intelligible differentia, considering salary differences and available resources. Petitioner had specifically objected to the disparity in membership provisions, including subscription charges, between government sector and private sector applicants.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula held that “A simple disparity in the fee structure, providing concessions to government employees, does not automatically translate into arbitrariness. This distinction is based on intelligible differentia, rooted in the variation in salary brackets and resources available to government employees, as compared to their privately employed counterparts.”
The Petitioner is an accomplished athlete who developed an interest in golf and has achieved an impressive handicap. He was keenly interested in Qutab Golf Course's membership, which is managed by the government authority DDA.
Advocate Sanjay Katyal appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner argued that using public resources for the benefit of a select group is against the principles of public policy and contradicts national sports policies that aim to promote widespread participation in sports. The DDA argued that the fee structure was rational and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They highlighted the financial challenges faced by the Golf Course and the need for differential pricing to ensure its sustainability.
The Court's analyzed that the petition was based on shaky grounds. It was noted that maintaining a golf course demands substantial resources, justifying the fees. The Court also dismissed the petitioner's argument that facilities should be available at no cost, as it doesn't align with practical realities.
“This perspective is not entirely aligning with the practical nuances of the matter. It is crucial to recognize that the sport in discussion – golf – demands meticulous and regular maintenance of its courses, which undeniably requires substantial resources.”
The Court held that the fixed membership charges were not arbitrary but a result of thoughtful deliberation, aiming to strike a balance between providing top-notch facilities and maintaining them.
“The mere fact that the DDA falls under the aegis of the government does not absolve it from financial practicalities. Generating revenue, in this case through membership fees, is indispensable to ensure that the golf course remains in prime condition and continues to offer premier facilities to its members.”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Mahendra Kumar Mohanty v. Union of India & Anr., [2023:DHC:6222-DB]
Click here to read/download Judgment
