Rajiv Boolchand Jain vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3476 Del

             *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

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

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'