Concessions to government employees in membership fee of golf course not arbitrary: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that providing concessions to government employees in the membership fee of Qutab Golf Course does not automatically amount to arbitrariness [Mahendra Kumar Mohanty Vs. Union Of India And Anr]..The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that such differential pricing is not a concept alien to our society, when it comes to clubs and recreational spaces.“A simple disparity in the fee structure, providing concessions to government employees, does not automatically translate into arbitrariness,” the Court said.Such distinction between government employees and private persons is based on intelligible differentia and is constitutional, the Court said. The Court, therefore, dismissed a petition challenging the disparity in membership fee of Qutab Golf Course for government and private employees. The public interest litigation (PIL) petition was filed by athlete Mahendra Kumar Mohanty..The Court said the distinction is a result of variation in salary and resources available to government employees, as compared to privately-employed persons. It also rejected the argument that such facilities are exclusively reserved for ‘elite government servants’.While observing that determination of membership fee of a golf course depends on factors like operational costs, maintenance and other logistical considerations, the Court said,“It is crucial to recognize that the sport in discussion – golf – demands meticulous and regular maintenance of its courses, which undeniably requires substantial resources. These upkeep necessities inevitably lead to the levy of high membership or user fees”.The PIL challenged the membership criteria issued by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the Mehrauli-located golf course..The division bench said Mohanty’s submissions seemed to heavily endorse the notion that the facilities should be availed at no cost since the golf course is established on government land.However, it said the fixed membership charges are not arbitrary but aimed to strike a balance between providing top-notch facilities and maintaining them.“The mere fact that the DDA falls under the aegis of the government does not absolve it from financial practicalities. Generating revenue, in this case through membership fees, is indispensable to ensure that the golf course remains in prime condition and continues to offer premier facilities to its members,” the Court observed.The petitioner appeared in person. Advocate Ajay Digpaul, Amit Gupta, Kamal Digpaul, Swati Kwatra, Saurabh Tripathi, Vikramaditya Singh and Ghanshyam Jha represented the Union of IndiaStanding Counsel Sanjay Katyal and Advocate Nihal Singh represented the Delhi Development Authority.[Read Judgment]