DELHI COURT UPHOLDS FEE CONCESSIONS FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AT GOLF COURSE

NEW DELHI

The Delhi High Court recently held that granting concessions to government employees regarding the membership fees at the Qutab Golf Course does not automatically constitute arbitrariness.

A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasised that differential pricing is not a novel concept in our society, particularly in the context of clubs and recreational spaces.

The division bench affirmed that a mere difference in the fee structure, which offers concessions to government employees, should not be hastily labelled as arbitrary. Such differentiation between government employees and private individuals is grounded in intelligible distinctions and aligns with constitutional principles.

In response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by athlete Mahendra Kumar Mohanty, challenging the disparity in membership fees at the Qutab Golf Course for government and private employees, the Court ruled in favour of maintaining the distinction. The Court underscored that this distinction arises from variations in salaries and resources available to government employees compared to their privately-employed counterparts. Additionally, it rejected the argument that these facilities are exclusively reserved for ‘elite government servants.’

The Court acknowledged that determining the membership fee for a golf course involves considerations such as operational expenses, maintenance costs, and logistical factors. It emphasised the need to comprehend that golf, as a sport, demands meticulous and regular maintenance of its courses, necessitating substantial resources. These maintenance requirements inevitably result in the imposition of higher membership or user fees.

The PIL had challenged the membership criteria set by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the golf course located in Mehrauli. The division bench addressed Mohanty’s contentions, which seemed to advocate for the notion that these facilities should be accessible at no cost, given that the golf course is situated on government land. However, the Court maintained that the fixed membership charges are not arbitrary. They are designed to strike a balance between providing top-notch facilities and ensuring their ongoing maintenance.

The Court emphasised that the fact that the DDA operates under the government’s auspices does not exempt it from financial practicalities. In this context, generating revenue through membership fees is essential to guarantee that the golf course remains in optimal condition and continues to offer premiere facilities to its members.