*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 1st August, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 7800/2013
RAJIV BOOLCHAND JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. B.S.
Shukla & Ms. Noor Ahmad, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. R.S. Rana, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rahul Bakshi, Advs. for R-2&3.
Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. R.
Rangaswamy, Mr. Raman Kumar & Mr. Prateek Chadha, Advs. for R-4.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. Though this petition filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeks,
(i) a direction to the Government of India to establish a monitoring and regulatory agency for controlling functioning of State Departments of Sports as also the autonomous organizations under W.P.(C) No.7800/2013 Page 1 of 3 the Department of Sports, Government of India, to protect rights of sportspersons;
(b) a direction to the Government of India, Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs to hold an inquiry through the CBI into the working of the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs, Haryana;
(c) a direction to the Government of Haryana to ensure that Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai, District Sonepat, Haryana concentrates on producing world-class sportspersons rather than just excelling in academics;
(d) a direction to the Government of India to make rules for the functioning of autonomous bodies for sports development under its jurisdiction, and;
(e) a direction to the Government of India to declare that Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a National Sports Federation and to take its charge and control.
but upon going through the petition, we find the pleadings therein to be largely relating to the alleged malfunctioning in the Motilal Nehru W.P.(C) No.7800/2013 Page 2 of 3 School of Sports, Rai, District Sonepat, Haryana and in the working of the Department of Sports, Haryana and qua which we are of the considered view that the appropriate Court to exercise territorial jurisdiction would be the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh and not this Court.
2. We are also of the view that the petition suffers from multiplicity of issues raised, each of which is such as to be requiring individual attention.
3. We therefore in exercise of our discretion, deem it appropriate not to entertain this petition as a PIL but grant leave and liberty to the petitioner to if so desires, on the aspects within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, file separate petitions on the various issues addressed therein.
4. The petition is disposed of.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 01, 2014 'gsr' W.P.(C) No.7800/2013 Page 3 of 3