Sachin Tendulkar sought Defence Minister's help to save holiday resort in Mussoorie 1

According to reports in the Economic Times(ET), legendary Indian batsman Sachin Tendulkar had sought Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s help to save a luxurious holiday resort in Landour, Mussoorie. The resort, which is frequently visited by the former batsman, is  currently involved in a security dispute with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

In fact, the matter became so serious that the little master had to cut short his Australia trip last year to meet Manohar Parrikar to resolve the issue.

The disputed resort, that is Tendulkar’s famous summer destination Dahlia Bank in the cantonment area, has broken one of DRDO’s rules. The resort has crossed the 50-foot, no-construction zone beside the Institute of Technology Management, which is a very important establishment of the DRDO.

Sachin Tendulkar is not the sole owner of the property as his business partner Sanjay Narang partly owns the resort.

According to the reports of the Institute, Narang sought the required permissions to build  tennis courts in the ‘restricted construction zone’ around the establishment. However,he  went on to construct full-fledged buildings.

The defence Minister has reportedly heard the whole matter patiently. However, he has still not taken any step to resolve the dispute.

Some defence officials  have revealed that Parrikar was not willing to take any step as the matter involved illegal construction next to a sensitive DRDO laboratory complex.

“Tendulkar had been trying to meet the minister and an appointment was set up. He spoke at length about the property case, which was heard out. However, no action was taken on the request put forward,” a senior official told ET.

The batting maestro refused to comment on the whole issue. The defence ministry too refused to deliver  a formal comment on the issue.
Tendulkar’s business partner, Narang did not respond to questions either. However, his representative, who wanted to remain anonymous, claimed that the area in dispute fell outside the no-construction zone and accused the DRDO institute of taking a “faulty stand”.