New Delhi [India], September 4 : The Delhi High Court has prima facie flagged an apparent inconsistency in the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board’s (DUSIB) implementation of its policy framework while hearing a dispute over the cancellation of a ground booking for a Shri Krishna Janmashtami Mahotsav in Mangolpuri.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that, prima facie, despite a new policy having come into force, DUSIB appeared to have continued following the old policy and charging the concerned applicant under the earlier framework.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Food and Supply Bar Association challenging the cancellation of its booking for the Ramleela Ground at Kala Mandir Park, Mangolpuri, where it proposed to organise a Janmashtami Mahotsav.
While recording the rival submissions, the Court directed DUSIB to consider the petitioner’s request for allotment of the land afresh and take a decision before the scheduled festival.
The High Court noted that an email dated August 24, seeking cancellation of the booking, had admittedly been received from the petitioner’s email ID, following which permission for use of the venue was cancelled.
However, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that the Janmashtami festival was scheduled for Friday, the Court directed DUSIB to reconsider the request for allotment of the land in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and policy.
The Court also took into account that the venue had been booked by the petitioner until September 4, 2026, and that after cancellation of the booking, it had not been allotted to any other person. It was further undisputed that the petitioner had already deposited Rs.4 lakh.
A significant issue before the Court concerned the policy being followed by DUSIB.The petitioner placed on record an order passed by DUSIB on August 22, 2025, which, according to the association, had been issued under the old policy even though a new policy had already been formulated on August 14, 2025.
Recording the submissions, the Court observed that, prima facie, it appeared that despite the new policy having come into force, DUSIB continued to follow the old policy and charge the concerned applicant accordingly.
DUSIB, however, submitted that some time was required for implementation of the new policy and also pointed out that the petitioner’s application had been filed before the new policy came into force. The Court said this aspect would be considered on the next date of hearing.
DUSIB maintained before the Court that permission had been granted to the petitioner only for use of 1,000 square metres of land.
The petitioner, however, relied upon a circular issued by the DDA Land Disposal Department dated April 27, 2016, which provides that land falling under Category-I(c) may be used for functions relating to Ram Leela, Janmashtami, Durga Puja, Dussehra and Navratri.
The circular also provides for regulated joy rides, swings, eating stalls and similar activities traditionally associated with such functions, subject to prescribed limits.
According to the circular relied upon by the petitioner, such activities may occupy up to 25 per cent of the total booked area or 2,500 square metres, whichever is less.
Another dispute arose regarding the very nature of the booking made by the association. Counsel for DUSIB submitted that the petitioner had made an online booking for a community hall through the e-auction portal. DUSIB relied upon documents and an undertaking to contend that the premises were to be used for organising marriages, social, cultural and religious functions, fairs, exhibitions and cultural events upon payment of licence fee.
The petitioner, however, disputed this stand, arguing that the e-auction portal itself referred to “community halls/open spaces and parks” and that the amount paid by the association was towards booking of an “open space”.
The Food and Supply Bar Association (Regd.), through its General Secretary and advocate Kamal Chauhan, had approached the High Court alleging arbitrary cancellation of its booking for organising a Shri Krishna Janmashtami Mahotsav at the Ramleela Ground in Kala Mandir Park, Mangolpuri.
According to the petition, the association had booked the ground from August 23 to September 4, 2026. It claimed to have deposited approximately Rs.4 lakh towards land and booking charges, besides Rs.28,000 towards electricity-related charges.
The association stated that substantial expenditure had already been incurred on lighting, electrical arrangements, decorations, installation of gates, joy rides, swings and stalls.
According to the plea, officials of DUSIB’s Raja Garden Division subsequently began interfering with the programme. The association alleged that on August 26, it was informed that the booking had been cancelled on the basis of a written application purportedly submitted by the petitioner.
However, the association denied having submitted any request for cancellation. It contended that the cancellation was sought to be carried out without prior notice, an opportunity of hearing or its consent.
The petitioner also sought production before the Court of the alleged written application on the basis of which the booking was cancelled, along with the complete booking records, payment details, official notings and relevant correspondence.
The association told the High Court that it was not seeking exemption from any statutory or safety requirements. It undertook to comply with conditions concerning fire safety, electrical safety, fitness of joy rides, crowd management, sanitation, security and public safety.
The petitioner maintained that even if any installation or activity was found to be unauthorised, action should be taken in accordance with law and prescribed procedure.
While issuing the direction for fresh consideration of the allotment request, the High Court kept the writ petition pending for consideration of the other issues raised during the hearing.