New Delhi: Delhi High Court has held that DDA’s “first come, first served” policy cannot be the sole criterion for allotting public grounds for Ramlila and other cultural or religious events in the capital, saying such an approach may result in unequal opportunities.Asking Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) to review its existing allocation process and come out with comprehensive annual guidelines for ground allotments, Justice Amit Mahajan in a recent order noted that just being the earliest applicant does not necessarily possess the strongest claim to a public facility.HC also cautioned that the “first come, first served” approach might create an “unequal race for information”, favouring applicants with privileged access to administrative details about ground availability.The court was dealing with a petition by an organisation assailing the rejection of its application for the Chunk-C Ground at Shivaji Place in west Delhi’s Raja Garden, intended for its annual Ramlila Dussehra Mahotsav.Though the court declined to annul the current allotment or reassign the ground for the 2026 festivities, it directed authorities to implement a transparent and structured process for future allocations.It mandated the publication of an annual site-allocation notice at least 90 days prior to the first event, detailing available grounds, booking schedules, eligibility criteria, evaluation benchmarks, applicable charges and procedures for objections. Applications for the same site and booking period should be accepted within a common and pre-determined window.Where multiple eligible applicants request the same ground, their claims must be evaluated through a pre-established and publicly disclosed scoring matrix or other transparent criteria, the court said. The guidelines should also specify a grievance redressal mechanism and ensure allotments and grievance resolutions are completed well before the event dates, HC added.The court cautioned against creating monopolies by repeatedly allotting the same ground to organisations that had hosted festivities there in previous years. While acknowledging that continuity and experience may be relevant, it emphasised these factors should not determine outcomes if competing claims exist.An organisation with a satisfactory compliance record may be afforded limited preference, but such preference “cannot create an automatic right to allotment”, it added.
