Last Updated:
The court sided with the authority, pointing to the poor condition of facilities and noting that the petitioner had not adequately maintained the stadium
The bench clarified that the foundation was free to raise its grievances before an arbitrator.
The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority’s (NOIDA) decision to terminate its agreement with the Physical Education Foundation of India (PEFI) for the management of the Noida Cricket Stadium, citing lapses in maintenance and hygiene.
A division bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Vinod Diwakar dismissed the foundation’s writ petition on August 11, observing that the dispute falls within the ambit of arbitration under the contract terms and that there was no ground to invoke the court’s writ jurisdiction. The bench, however, allowed the petitioner to pursue its claims before an arbitrator.
Recommended Stories
The controversy relates to a 15-year licence agreement executed on September 24, 2021, under which PEFI was entrusted with operating and maintaining the cricket stadium in Sector 21, Noida. The contract, effective from July 2021, required the operator to pay NOIDA either Rs. 1,00,000 or 30 per cent of the revenue generated from the facility, whichever was higher.
In July 2024, NOIDA issued a show-cause notice, accusing the foundation of neglecting its contractual duties, particularly in maintenance work. By October 2024, the licence was cancelled. That decision was challenged in court, and the high court quashed it in December 2024 on the grounds that the foundation’s reply had not been considered. The matter was remitted to NOIDA for a fresh decision.
Following the order, the foundation submitted a detailed response in March 2025. But on May 27, 2025, NOIDA once again terminated the agreement. The authority cited continued neglect of hygiene and basic facilities at the stadium, including toilets and washrooms that were described as being in shabby condition since the foundation took charge in 2021.
Appearing for the petitioner, the counsel argued that the termination was arbitrary and contrary to Clause 5.8 of the agreement, which required NOIDA’s prior written consent for major repairs. The foundation claimed it had repeatedly sought permission to install floodlights and seating arrangements but was ignored. It further alleged that NOIDA created third-party interests in the facility in violation of the agreement.
On the other hand, NOIDA’s counsel maintained that the foundation was responsible for day-to-day upkeep, seating, lighting and smooth functioning of the stadium under Clauses 4.1 and 5.2 of the agreement. The authority said the operator had failed to discharge these obligations, resulting in financial losses and poor utilisation of a facility built to international standards.
The court sided with the authority, pointing to the poor condition of facilities and noting that the petitioner had not adequately maintained the stadium. Stressing that Clause 5.4 of the contract provided a dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration, the bench held that a writ petition was not the appropriate remedy.
“The instant writ petition has no merit under Article 226 of the Constitution,” the court said while dismissing the plea.
At the request of the petitioner’s counsel, however, the bench clarified that the foundation was free to raise its grievances before an arbitrator and that the court’s observations would not prejudice such proceedings.
About the Author
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
view comments
- Location :
Prayagraj, India, India
Read More
