HC refuses to stay RWITC meeting to consider CM’s proposal for theme park at racecourse

The Bombay high court on Thursday declined to stay the proposed extraordinary general body meeting of Royal Western India Turf Club (RWITC), scheduled for January 30, to consider chief minister Eknath Shinde’s proposal to set up a theme park on 120 acres of the Mahalaxmi racecourse land.

“We are not inclined to pre-empt the decisions that may be taken by the general body of the RWITC or by the state government,” said a division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata. The bench clarified it has not prevented the state from making an appropriate decision regarding the racecourse land.

The bench was hearing separate petitions filed by businessman Satyen Kapadia, Dinshaw Rusi Mehta and activist Zoru Bhathena, who had challenged a communication, purportedly issued by the chief minister on December 6, instructing RWITC to hold such a meeting.

The CM, according to the petitioners, proposed to extend the lease of the remaining 91 acres for the racecourse.

Advocate general Birendra Saraf told the court that the December 6 communication is not a decision, but a proposal and required RWITC to decide because it was once a lessee of the entire land.

“Many things are possible,” Saraf said. “The proposal may not even be approved by the RWITC. It may be approved but the ultimate decision will be made by the state government. A decision either by the RWITC or the state government cannot be forestalled by a writ court.”

The petitioners argued that the decision regarding development of a theme park was arbitrary, capricious, and illegal, and the racecourse is one of the few remaining large open spaces in the city.

The petitioners referred to the meeting held on December 6 under the chairmanship of Shinde and was attended by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) chief Iqbal Singh Chahal and RWITC office bearers, where “the decision” was allegedly taken to construct a theme park at the racecourse.

Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, who represented one of the petitioners, presented minutes of the meeting to indicate that the RWITC would decide in the upcoming meeting a proposal by a contractor and submit it to the state government. Dwarkadas expressed concern about the ambiguity surrounding the proposed theme park’s location and plans, particularly regarding the central portion of the racecourse.

However, Saraf emphasised that the December 6 meeting’s outcome was merely a proposal, subject to the state’s approval, and reassured the court that once a decision was made, the petitioners could approach the court.

Similarly, senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the BMC, reiterated that since this was not a final government decision, no legal remedy could be sought at this stage.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Patel said with the advocate general’s clarification that the December meeting was not a decision, there was nothing for the court to review judicially.

The court also chose not to dismiss the petitions that apprehended that under the garb of theme park constructions might come up on the racecourse land and this would deprive the city of the last major patch of open space.