No notice told applicants when the window to apply would open, the Delhi High Court noted, and a Ramleela ground went to the organisation that applied first; the Court has now found that first come first serve policy unreasonable and ordered annual guidelines.
New Delhi: Describing the first come first serve policy followed for allotting public grounds for Ramleela as “marred with blemishes” and something that cannot be countenanced, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) to frame comprehensive guidelines every year. It has not disturbed the existing allotment of the ground for the 2026 festivities [Ray of New Beginning Foundation v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Others].
The petition, W.P.(C) 14615/2026, was disposed of by Justice Amit Mahajan. The foundation behind it had held Ramleela at the Chunk-C Ground, Shivaji Place, Raja Garden, in 2023 and 2024. It said the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) policy gives preference to previous organisers, yet DUSIB allotted the ground to another organisation that applied earlier, on a first come first serve basis.
Why the race was uneven
The Court pointed out that “no notice or publication was released delineating the specific window for preferring an application”. It held:
“the policy creates an unequal race for information.”
It added that “a person with privileged access to administrative information may obtain an advantage”, and that the policy “runs the risk of creating a de facto monopoly”.
Previous organisers: a limited preference, not a right
“To eliminate de facto monopoly, a previous organizer with satisfactory compliance record may receive a limited preference but no automatic right to grant of allotment. If competing eligible applicants exist, preference may not extend beyond two consecutive years.”
The guidelines DUSIB must frame
DUSIB must carry out a reasoned review of the applicable instructions and frame comprehensive guidelines each year, ensuring, among other things, that:
(a) at least ninety days before the first scheduled event date, an annual site-allocation notice is published, identifying the available grounds, booking dates, restrictions and charges, and specifying when applications open and close, the eligibility conditions, evaluation criteria, tie-break procedure and how objections may be filed;
(b) applications for a site and booking period are ordinarily received within one predetermined window, with a short supplementary window if a site remains unallocated;
(c) where two or more eligible applicants compete for the same site, a comparative assessment is made using a predetermined, published scoring matrix or other published criteria;
(d) a grievance-redressal mechanism is provided, and the timetable is designed so that final allotment and the ordinary grievance process are completed sufficiently before the event begins.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Allows Ram Lila in UP School Playground, Halts Allahabad High Court Ban
Nothing changes for this year’s festivities
The petitioner got no immediate relief. The Court held that cancelling the existing allotment and shifting the ground for the ongoing 2026 festivities was not feasible. Its directions, it clarified, are prospective: they do not alter the terms of the policies applicable to the 2026 season or decide any applicant’s rights under them.
From a race to a comparison
Public grounds are a scarce facility, and a rule that rewards whoever files first can turn on who learns of the booking window earliest rather than who is best placed to hold the event. By requiring a published window, published criteria and a time-bound grievance process, the order moves allotment from a race to a reasoned comparison, while limiting how long an incumbent organiser can keep the benefit of continuity.
Case Title: Ray of New Beginning Foundation v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Others [W.P.(C) 14615/2026]
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Vikas Tripathi, Mandavi Pandey and others for the petitioner; Advocates Anuj Chaturvedi, Yashita Jain and Ashok Kumar Bhaskar for DUSIB; Standing Counsel Manika Tripathy for DDA