The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the Indian Institute of Architects, Navi Mumbai Center, challenges the allocation of land originally designated for a Government Sports Complex in Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai, for commercial purposes by CIDCO. The PIL asserts that CIDCO's 2016 tender allocating part of the sports complex land for residential and commercial use violates the original purpose. Additionally, it contends that the State Government's proposal to move the sports complex to Nanore in Raigad district, a rural area 115 km away, is impractical and undermines the intent of creating a sports hub in Ghansoli.

The PIL seeks cancellation of CIDCO's land reallocation, reinstatement of the land for its original purpose, and quashing of the government's decisions to shift the complex. The petition emphasizes the importance of maintaining the land for sports infrastructure, aligning with global trends where sports play a significant role in national development. It also calls for establishing a committee to oversee the sports complex project and ensure compliance with planning regulations.

Critique of State Government's Actions

• Paragraph 105: The court finds the State Government's 21-year delay in developing the sports complex inappropriate and the recent decision to shift the complex illogical and unconstitutional.
• Paragraph 106: The court observes that sports policies should not remain on paper and criticizes the State Government's lack of priority in developing sports facilities.
• Paragraph 107: The court criticizes the nebulous approach of both the State Government and CIDCO towards the importance of sports in modern times.

Importance of Sports in Society

• Paragraph 108: References an article by Vijay Kumar Singh on the historical and contemporary importance of sports in civilization and its professional and business aspects.
• Paragraph 109: Cites an article by Kanwal DP Singh and Harshita Singh on the significance of sports for developing countries and the impact of hosting international sporting events.
• Paragraph 110: Discusses the judicial opinion on sports facilities, citing a High Court of Jammu and Kashmir decision on the importance of sports and related infrastructure.

Relevant Judicial Decisions

• Paragraph 111: References the Supreme Court case Krishan Lal Gera vs. State of Haryana, emphasizing that sports facilities are for public benefit and should not be converted for private recreational clubs.
• Paragraph 112: Asserts that sports facilities should be used for their intended purpose and not for commercial exploitation.
• Paragraph 113: Cites the Supreme Court case K. Murugan vs. Fencing Association of India, highlighting sports' role in developing good citizens.

Court's Conclusion and Order

• Paragraph 114-115: Summarizes the court's findings on the importance of effective and free sports facilities and the State Government's initial positive step in proposing the sports complex.
• Paragraph 116: Issues the court's order, quashing the State Government's decision to shift the sports complex, directing CIDCO to hand over the land to the State Government, and setting aside the allotment of the plot to respondent no. 5.
• Paragraph 117: Allows the petition and orders accordingly, with no costs.
• Paragraph 118: Grants a stay on paragraph 116(ii) of the order for four weeks at the request of CIDCO and the State Government's counsel.