DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

SAI dragged to court for granting concession for Ramlila

Vinayak Padmadeo New Delhi, November 14 A concessional booking for Ramlila has landed the Sports Authority of India officials in the soup. The SAI under the provision of ‘public function’ had given a concession of over Rs 55 lakh to...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Vinayak Padmadeo

Advertisement

New Delhi, November 14

Advertisement

A concessional booking for Ramlila has landed the Sports Authority of India officials in the soup. The SAI under the provision of ‘public function’ had given a concession of over Rs 55 lakh to the Shree Ram Dharmik Ramlila Committee for a booking of 23 days to hold Ramlila in the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium premises. However, a rival body, the Dakshini Delhi Ramlila Committee, approached the Delhi High Court citing unfair practices.

Justice Subramonium Prasad in his October 4 verdict had criticised SAI for allowing “anyone abuse the procedure established for smooth functioning of the authority by permitting the Respondent No 4 to alter dates of booking from 43 days to 23 days and that too at a discounted rate”. Further, Justice Prasad directed the SAI to recover the full amount of Rs 2.25 lakh plus 18% GST per day and the security amount.

Advertisement

Interestingly, before this judgment, the SAI’s Governing Body, which is headed by Sports Minister Anurag Thakur, had decided to waive the charges that amounted to Rs 55,58,000. The SAI claims that it has recovered the amount.

However, the matter is not over as the Dakshini Delhi Ramlila Committee has filed a contempt proceeding against the Shree Ram Dharmik Ramlila Committee and SAI to force the rival party to pay the full dues.

SAI deputy director general Shiv Sharma said: “We have been giving concessions to such events as it involves the general public. In fact, they reduced the booking days on our request. As per our approved tariff the amount due is less than what the petitioner is claiming.”

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Classifieds tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper