Chandigarh to continue running tennis facilities; sports department to oversee operations, fee may be reduced

The UT administration on Friday told the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the tennis facilities in Chandigarh’s Sector 10 will continue to operate under the management of the UT Sports Department, with the existing infrastructure and coaching staff maintained.

The administration also indicated that the fees charged to trainees may be reduced in light of state budgetary allocations for sports.  The matter stands disposed of.

Related news: Chandigarh Sports Department takes over tennis complex

Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, UT Senior Standing Counsel Amit Jhanji clarified that the petitioners’ apprehensions regarding a reduction in the quality or quantity of coaching were “absolutely misconceived.”

Four additional coaches were to be provided, and two had already joined, maintaining the existing level of services for the roughly 400 trainees currently enrolled.

The statement came during the hearing of a public interest litigation regarding the training of young tennis players.

Among other things, the litigation raised concerns about the facilities for players training at the Sector 10 tennis stadium under the Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (CLTA).

Jhanji told the Bench that the lease had expired on September 10. He added that the consequence of lease termination under the Specific Relief Act was only damages.

The court, in any case, did not have the power to extend the term of the lease, which was a contractual obligation.

Besides this, there was also an arbitration clause. The court was also told that possession was taken over without any protest from the association itself.

Jhanji also told the court that an email from the Joint Director of Sports confirmed that the center would remain operational.

Trainees could avail themselves of the facilities by paying fees, with valid proof of enrollment. The administration indicated that fee structures might be revised to align with state budget allocations, as the society managing the courts generated income solely from trainees’ payments.

The Court observed that there was no reason to doubt the UT’s assurances regarding continuity of services. “We cannot go into all the nitty-gritty of how many coaches and their qualifications. If the facilities are not provided as assured, you can always come to us. Performance over the next one to two weeks will indicate if quality and quantity are maintained,” the Bench noted.

The UT further contended that the litigation appeared to have been initiated at the behest of the association and that any fear of a reduction in facilities was currently unfounded. The administration reiterated that the Sports Department would manage operations.