Eden Gardens Not A Public Space, Rules Calcutta High Court In Landmark 1996 World Cup Tax Dispute
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Calcutta High Court held Eden Gardens is not a public place, dismissing KMC’s Rs 51 lakh tax demand on CAB. Court ruled public access must be unrestricted to qualify as a ‘public space’.
Kolkata: Today, on June 24, the Calcutta High Court recently ruled that Kolkata’s iconic Eden Gardens Stadium is not a public space under the law, while also dismissing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s (KMC) demand for Rs 51 lakh from the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) as advertisement tax.
The case was decided by a Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Kaushik Chanda.
The Court noted that neither the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 nor the General Clauses Act, 1897 clearly defines what qualifies as a “public space”.
However, the judges gave a logical explanation of the term. They observed that even if the term is understood in its general or natural meaning, a public space should be a place that is freely open to everyone.
The Court remarked,
“In other words, any member of the public must have access to that place without any restriction. Nobody’s permission should be required for visiting such a place.”
The judges further elaborated that the moment any conditions are imposed for entry, the nature of the space changes. It is no longer a public place in the legal sense.
The Court stated,
“It explained that as soon as conditions are imposed on members of the public for having access to a place, that place ceases to be a public place.”
Referring specifically to Eden Gardens, the Bench said it cannot be considered a public place simply because it is large or has hosted massive crowds.
the Court clearly said,
“Keeping in mind the aforesaid discussion, would one be justified in describing the Eden Gardens Stadium as a public place? In our opinion, the answer must be in the negative… CAB [Cricket Association of Bengal] can deny permission to anybody to enter the Stadium even on a day when a match is on and the person is willing to pay for the ticket. The members of the public do not have an absolute or unrestricted right of access to Eden Gardens. Just because Eden Gardens Stadium can accommodate a huge number of people, maybe close to a lakh, that would not per se make the Stadium a public place,”
The Court made it clear that just because a place is visited by many people or is physically large, that alone cannot define it as public. The only real factor is whether access is unrestricted.
the Bench concluded,
“The only criterion must be whether or not the members of the public have an unrestricted right of access to that place. Applying this test, Eden Gardens Stadium cannot be held to be a public place,”
This judgement came in the context of a long-standing dispute over a Rs 51 lakh tax demand raised by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
The demand was made for advertisements displayed inside and outside the Eden Gardens Stadium during the inauguration ceremony and semi-final match of the 1996 Cricket World Cup.
Back in April 2015, a single judge had already ruled that the KMC’s tax demand from the CAB was illegal.
The Division Bench upheld that decision, finding that the tax could not be levied since Eden Gardens is not a public place and the CAB had control over who could access it.
The Court also pointed out that the demand was not legally valid on other grounds as well, apart from the question of whether Eden Gardens is a public place.
the Court ruled in its final verdict,
“In view for the aforesaid we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement and order. The appeal and the connection application are, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs,”
On the legal representation front, Senior Advocate Alak Kr Ghosh, along with Swapan Kr Debnath, Sima Chakraborty, and Susmita Saha Dutta, represented the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.
On the other side, the Cricket Association of Bengal was represented by Senior Advocates Jaydip Kar, Samrat Sen, and advocate Kaushik Mandal.
Case Title:
The Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors v The Cricket Association of West Bengal & Ors
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Murder
