Opening Of Malls Can't Be Compared With Outdoor Sports Activities: Delhi High Court
Opening Of Malls Can't Be Compared With Outdoor Sports Activities: Delhi High Court
The Court was dealing with a petition against the banned on outdoor sports activities amid the third wave of COVID-19. New Delhi: The restricted opening of malls and cinema halls cannot be compared with the outdoor sports activities as the former provided employment to people associated with that industry, the Delhi High Court observed Thursday refusing the outdoor sports activity amid COVID-19 pandemic. Justice V Kameswar Rao closed the petition after taking note of the fact that the review meeting of DDMA is scheduled for Friday. He said the DDMA should be allowed to do its work. The bench observed that there was no reason to continue the petition when the DDMA was scheduled to hold its meeting on February 4 to review the situation of pandemic. The Court was dealing with a petition against the banned on outdoor sports activities amid the third wave of COVID-19. It said that DDMA was looking into it and a direction for allowing these activities cannot be at the behest of the petitioner who wants to play. Counsel for the petitioner Atul Singh argued that there was no reason why outdoor no-contact sports activity cannot be permitted when cinema halls, malls, restaurants, yoga etc were allowed to operate at 50 per cent capacity. He also argued that there was a decline in the number of COVID-19 cases and the positivity rate is going down and the ban on outdoor sports activity affected the sportspersons. The bench said, ''The petitioner wants to play. Comparison sought to be made with malls etc has to be seen from a different perspective. They are a source of employment. The petitioner wants to play tennis. you won't see this from that perspective They give sustenance and employment to those attached. Delhi Government counsel Satyakam submitted that the issue of allowing outdoor sports activity should be left to the DDMA which was scheduled to meet on February 4. The court closing the petition said, ''The petitioner would be within his right to agitate his grievances in future. Let the authority do their work. Come back after the DDMA considered it."