The
Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging the Bombay High Court's
order which had disposed of a petition seeking directions to provide drinking
water and other facilities to cricket players during practice or unofficial
matches on public grounds in Mumbai.
"What
kind of a PIL (public interest litigation) is this? Cricketers will take care
if they are not provided toilets. Why an advocate should be bothered about
it," a bench of Justices A S Oka and A G Masih observed.
The
bench was hearing a petition filed by a lawyer, who had challenged the high
court's June last year order disposing of his petition.
In
his PIL filed before the high court, he had sought directions to the Mumbai
Cricket Association and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to
provide drinking water and other facilities to players during practice or
unofficial matches on public grounds.
"Look
at the photographs which you have annexed. Playing in these conditions, these
grounds in Mumbai have given greatest cricketers," the apex court
observed.
The
bench also asked the petitioner whether he was predominantly a cricketer or a
lawyer.
"I
am an practising advocate," the petitioner, who was appearing in person,
said.
The
bench observed, "What kind of prayers are made in a public interest
litigation. You want toilets to be provided to the cricketers in various
grounds in Mumbai".
The
top court said the high court was right in not entertaining the PIL at the
instance of the petitioner.
"We
concur with the view taken by the high court in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the
impugned order," the bench said, while dismissing the plea.
In
its order, the high court had said there was no reason given by the petitioner
why the players cannot seek redressal of their grievance on their own.
"In
these circumstances, the appropriate course of action would be to call upon
respondent nos. 1 and 2 (Mumbai Cricket Association and BCCI) to consider the
PIL as suggestions made and if it is feasible for them to do so, proceed to
implement the same. We make it clear that our order is not to be construed as
direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant relief as sought for by the
petitioner but only as suggestions," it had said.
The high court had also clarified that if and when
this cause would be raised by any aggrieved player, the same would be
considered on its own merits.