1/22 PILL/33/2016 BDPPS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.33 OF 2016 Loksatta Movement & Anr. ¼... Petitioners. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Others ¼...Respondents. --- Mr. D. H. Mehta, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Arshil Shah, Ms. Ankita Verma, Dhaval Mehta, a/w Rima Paradkar i/b D. M. Legal Associates, for the Petitioners. Mr. Rohit Deo, Acting Advocate General, a/w Ms. Geeta Shastri, Addl. G.P., Mr. A.B. Vagyani, GP for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S. S. Pakale a/w Trupti Puranik, for the Respondent ± BMC. Mr. S. B. Pawar a/w Swati Sawant, Nikita Jacob i/b S. K. Legal Associates, for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni for Respondent No.5. Mr. Rafique Dada, Sr. Counsel a/w Indranil Deshmukh, Ms. Ayesha Talpade i/b M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, for Respondent No. 6 (BCCI). Mr. Rafique Dada, Sr. Counsel a/w A. S. Khandeparkar, V. V. Warerkar i/b Warerkar & Warerkar, for Respondent No. 7. Mr. Vineet Naik, Sr. Counsel a/w Sukand Kulkarni, for Respondent No. 8. BombayMr. Vedchetan Patil, for Intervenor High ± Gournet Renaisance Court Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Milind Sathe, Sr. Counsel a/w Firdosh Pooniwala, Ms. M. D© Souza i/b A. S. Dayal & Associates, for Intervenor / Applicant (India Wins Sports Pvt. Ltd.). Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Counsel with Mr. Nimay Dave with Mr. Yogendra Singh i/b Ans Legal for New Rising Promoter Pvt. Ltd. [Rising Pune Supergiants) ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2016 19:34:44 ::: 2/22 PILL/33/2016 Dr. Sanjay LakhePatil, Applicant/ Intervenor present. Mr. S.N. Pillai for Intervenor/Applicant CORAM: V. M. KANADE & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE: 13th April, 2016 P.C.:- (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. Dada the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.6 and 7, Mr. Milind Sathe, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenor ± Indiawin Sports Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Dwarkadas, the learned Senior Counsel for the Intervenor - New Rising Promoter Pvt. Ltd and Mr. Vineet Naik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.8. We have also heard Mr. Deo, the learned Acting Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel for the Corporation. Application for intervention also has been filed by one Dr. Sanjay LakhePatil and the learned Counsel Mr. S.N. Pillai and we have also heard them. Bombay2. Petitioner No.1 claims High to be a Non-Profit Court and voluntary Association which has undertaken various social movements. Petitioner No.2 is also a Non-Profit and voluntary Association registered with the Registrar of Societies, Hyderabad. Both these Petitioners have filed this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2016 19:34:44 ::: 3/22 PILL/33/2016 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate writ, order and direction directing Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 to alter their Venue of IPL, 2016 and hold their games outside the Maharashtra. Petitioners are also seeking further directions to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take appropriate steps and follow the provisions of the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005 (For short ªMWRRA Act, 2005º) and for other consequential reliefs. 3. Mr. Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners were constrained to file this Petition after they came to know that almost 60 lakhs liters of water was being used for maintaining cricket pitches in Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur. He submitted that Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 propose to hold IPL matches at three Venues in Maharashtra viz. Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur. He submitted that it is a common knowledge and common ground that State of Maharashtra is going through a worse kind of drought and is facing acute water shortage as the level of water in Dams is depleted to a considerable extent and in Marathwada most of the lakes have dried up and dam water also is not available since the last year. Same is the case of water level in Vidarbha and Pune. He invited our attention to the statistical data which has been Bombaygiven by the Petitioners in this High Petition. He submitted Court that such kind of use of water for maintenance of pitches is clearly violative of Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the provisions of the MWRRA Act, 2005. He submitted that use of ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2016 19:34:44 ::: 4/22 PILL/33/2016 water for maintaining pitches on such a huge scale is also in breach of the State Water Policy which has been framed under Section 2(x) of the MWRRA Act, 2005. He submitted that the State Water Policy has been framed on the guidelines provided in National Water Policy, 1987 and 2002 and which has been reformulated in 2003 and 2011. He invited our attention to Clause 4.0 of the said State Water Policy. He then submitted that use of water on such a huge scale definitely has an impact on agriculture of the State. This water could be utilized for non-potable use in the drought affected areas. 4. Mr. Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners therefore submitted that this Court may issue appropriate writ, order and direction directing Respondents 6 to 9 to shift their Venue outside the Maharashtra. 5. A detailed affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Respondent No.6 on 7th April, 2015 and further affidavit has been filed on 12th April, 2016. The State Government also has filed a reply dated 12th April, 2016. Corporation has filed its reply through the Assistant Engineer, Water Works, dated 12th April, 2016. Similarly, Respondent No.8 ± The Maharashtra Cricket Association also has filed their reply dated Bombay12th April, 2016. Mr. Dada, High the learned Senior CounselCourt also has tendered further affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.6 affirmed on 13th April, 2016. ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2016 19:34:44 ::: 5/22 PILL/33/2016 6. The matter came up for hearing on 5th April, 2016 when we had directed the State Government to file their reply. We had also heard Respondent No.6 on that date. Thereafter the matter was again heard on the next two days and on 7th April, 2016 when no reply was filed by the State Government, we had directed the State Government and the Corporation to file a detailed affidavit-in-reply informing the Court on certain aspects namely:- (i) State Government shall make an inquiry and find out whether water which is supplied for the benefit of maintaining pitches for IPL matches is potable or non-potable. (ii) What is the stand of the State Government regarding IPL matches which are held in Maharashtra which is presently facing acute water shortage and whether any permission of the State Government was sought before organizing these matches. Bombay(iii) Whether theHigh State Government Court proposes to take any steps for curbing the use of 40 to 60 lakhs litres of water for maintaining the pitches and whether they ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2016 19:34:44 ::: 6/22 PILL/33/2016 propose to impose any ban on holding these IPL matches in Maharashtra. (iv) The policy which the State has formulated for the supply of potable and non-potable municipal water to the people in Mumbai, Thane and Kalyan and also other parts of Maharashtra. (v) Whether there is any contingency plan prepared by the State Government in the event further scarcity of water is created on account of delayed monsoon. (vi) Whether any inquiry is made by the State regarding the source of water which is made available to the Tankers, which provide water at a huge premium all over Maharashtra and particularly to the Stadiums where IPL matches are held. Bombay(vii) Whether the HighState proposes to issue Court any order of requisition in respect of all wells and bore-wells situated in Mumbai and other adjoining Cities. ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2016 19:34:44 ::: 7/22 PILL/33/2016 (viii) Corporation also to file an affidavit and inform this court the source of water which is made available to the Tankers, which provide municipal water in the City of Mumbai. (ix) Whether the State Government proposes to impose any restriction on the use of water during marriage ceremonies, receptions and other functions such as IPL matches which are being held in the month of April and May, 2016. 7. We had declined to grant any ad-interim relief claimed by the Petitioners on that date by observing that the Petition was filed just couple of days before the first match was to be held and we did not think it fit and proper to grant any stay to the match which was being held on 9th April, 2016 but we had suggested that Respondent No.6 and those Franchises who are organizing these matches to reconsider the situation in its proper perspective and take a decision. The matter Bombaywas then adjourned to 12 th April, High 2016. Court 8. On 12th April, 2016, we heard all the Counsels at length. It was pointed out to us on that date that one of the Franchises viz. KPH ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2016 19:34:44 ::: 8/22 PILL/33/2016 Dream Cricket Pvt.