LexRACING PROMOTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED versus DR. HARISH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1608 : 2025 INSC 252 Racing Promotions Private Limited v. Dr. Harish & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 2755-2758 of 2025) 20 February 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in modifying the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between a private party and a governmental authority in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Headnotes† Scope of Judicial Review – Matters concerning contractual relationship of the State or its instrumentality with private participation, particularly regarding scope and ambit of work and finances – Scope of judicial review limited – Issues such as mutual obligations, including the apportionment of expenditure that contracting parties must bear – Beyond the scrutiny of the High Court in a PIL – Impugned directions of the High Court set aside – Appeals partly allowed: Held: Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Appellant, a private party, and Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu (SDAT), the nodal governmental authority, to conduct Formula 4 motorsport racing – PIL filed in High Court raising several objections against event – High Court vide impugned order decided not to interfere with the government’s policy decision but issued directions modifying the terms of the MoU – Held, once the High Court was satisfied that the decision to hold the event was a policy matter, it could not have proceeded to interfere in the terms of the MoU – Issues such as the mutual obligations of the contracting parties, including the apportionment of expenditure are beyond the scope of judicial review in a PIL – Direction to government to conduct such sports events on its own ignores the principle of public-private partnership adopted by governments as a matter of good governance – Impugned directions cannot be sustained in law. [Paras 18-23] * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1609 Racing Promotions Private Limited v. Dr. Harish & Ors. Case Law Cited Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. [2005] 3 SCR 666 : (2005) 6 SCC 138; Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India [2013] 3 SCR 508 : (2013) 7 SCC 1; Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India [2019] 10 SCR 932 : (2020) 16 SCC 489; Orissa State Financial Corporation v. Narsingh Ch. Nayak (2003) 10 SCC 261; Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. v. Jagmander Singh [2006] 2 SCR 169 : (2006) 2 SCC 598; General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain [1966] 3 SCR 500 : AIR 1966 SC 1644; Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd. [2013] 4 SCR 331 : (2013) 5 SCC 470; Shree Ambica Medical Stores v. Surat People’s Coop Bank Ltd. [2020] 3 SCR 359 : (2020) 13 SCC 564; Venkataraman Krishnamurthy v. Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 4 SCC 230 – referred to. List of Acts Contract Act, 1872. List of Keywords Scope of Judicial review; Public-private partnership; Contractual obligations; Public Interest Litigation; Matter of policy. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 2755-2758 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP Nos. 33687, 33741, 33911 and 33914 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: A.D.N Rao, Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Advs., Ms. Theepa Murugesan, Kaushal Kishor, Ms. Sanya Bhatia, Gaurav Singh. Advs. for the Respondents: Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., D.Kumanan, Ms. Deepa S, Sheikh F Kalia, Veshal Tyagi, Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhishek Mohanty, C. Paramasivam, Ms. Adviteeya, Rakesh K. Sharma. 1610 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals arise out of an order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Madras High Court disposing of various writ petitions filed as public interest litigations (‘PILs’) against the conduct of Formula 4 racing in the city of Chennai, Tamil Nadu, in which the following directions were issued: “22. Accordingly, this batch of writ petitions are disposed of, with the following directions (i) The Formula 4 Race proposed to be conducted in the Chennai Racing Circuit is permitted to be held on the dates to be decided by the State Government in consultation with the stakeholders (ii) The State Government shall ensure that the street race in the 3.7 km as stipulated, shall be carried on, with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.