Mumbai: The Bombay high court has restrained, until further orders, the state irrigation department from renewing its agreement with the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA) to provide water for use in its stadiums.
Therefore, the state authorities will not supply any water to the MCA for the six matches that were transferred from Chennai to Pune. The stay was imposed when the court observed that the MCA has been using water under the category of industrial purposes since 2012.
The court said that IPL does not fall under the industrial category, nor does the MCA have any industries. Therefore, it directed the state not to renew water supply agreement with MCA till its final order.
A division bench comprising of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice R. I. Chagala was hearing a PIL filed by the NGO, Loksatta Movement, which objected to water supply for the IPL. The petition was filed in the year 2016 raising concerns over water usage for ground management during IPL when the state was facing acute drought.
In April 2016, the high court had directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to shift all IPL matches to be held in Maharashtra post April 30, outside the state due to the severe drought condition.
During the last hearing, MCA counsel Gorwadkar informed the court that after the HC order in 2012, it had entered into an agreement with the state government to bring out 2.5 lakh litre water everyday from the Pavana dam in Pune to maintain the stadium.
The period of the same agreement is over now and the draft for renewing the agreement is ready.
The court then asked for the agreement and observed that state has categorised the water for the stadium into industrial category. “State has put you (MCA) under a wrong category.
Since 2012, you have been using water under industrial purposes category. And the IPL is definitely not industrial activity” said the court.
The court was also informed that agreement period was over in the month of February 2017 but MCA is using Pavana dam water till date without renewing the agreement.
The court then asked the state when it was going to finalise the agreement. Since there was no answer given from the state, the court directed the state not to renew agreement till final order of the petition.
