JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This Contempt petition alleges flagrant violation of the directions of this Court in the judgment of the Bench in writ petition No. 19296 of 1986, decided on 24th April, 1987 in the matter of Arun Kumar v. Nagar Mahapalika and others reported in 1987 UPLBEC 665. 2. The directions in the judgment which are specifically the subject-matter of this contempt petition are referred to amongst other references in paragraph 79 of the judgment, particularly. The court had given five years to the opposite parties basically being the local bodies and the State of Uttar Pradesh to carry out planning in such a manner that Allahabad has a new modern sports complex and when completed, the present stadium inside Chandra Shekar Azad Park would be dismantled and the space released for use as park for the public. Detailed directions are contained in the judgment of the manner in which a site would be located, the design of the stadium formulated and settled and thereafter the period within which the stadium or sports complex would be constructed. The allegations in the contempt petition is that no exercise worth the name has taken place until today in pursuance of the directions of the judgment. Thus, the occasion to file a contempt petition has arisen upon a news item given wide publicity in one of the leading newspapers, a national daily, referring that a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 is going to be spent by a department of the State Government on the very stadium which would be the subject matter of dismantling upon a new stadium being constructed. The Court at present will make no further comments, on merits without hearing the opposite parties except that the contention of the petitioner is upon a news item which has appeared announcing that this 20,00,000 rupees will be spent on the existing stadium, so that the grant will be utilised on a stadium which is to be dismantled. 3. Was the judgment of the Allahabad High Court or forgotten ? 4. On the one hand is the judgment of this Court giving directions otherwise reported in approved journals, on the other hand the news item given wide publicity, executes a plan. 3. Was the judgment of the Allahabad High Court or forgotten ? 4. On the one hand is the judgment of this Court giving directions otherwise reported in approved journals, on the other hand the news item given wide publicity, executes a plan. The news item the authenticity of which is attributed to a department of the State Government and the judgment of this Court certainly do not make the two situations compatible on a major aspect of planning about to be put in motion in the city. Even if the State intends to undertake it and regard being had to reference to the context, it cannot be without co-ordination of the local bodies. If any major construction is to be constructed inside the Park, the Superintendent, Government Gardens should not be unaware of it. The department which will execute the project is the Public Works Department, Allahabad. 5. Since the judgment was delivered in a public interest litigation, and was for the benefit of the public and sufficient time was given to the opposite parties to comply with the judgment, the purpose was not to violate the terms and conditions of the spirit of the judgment, the funds, it appears are available. 6. Thus, today the court is not issuing any summons on this contempt petition as the concern of the Court is that the public at large must not be under the impression that the Allahabad High Court gives its judgments and the terms of the judgment can be easily violated under public gaze. 7. Upon regard being had to the circumstances that the judgment was in an affirmative action and the action as alleged in the contempt petition is intended to be put into execution with speed and haste, has left the court with no option but to require opposite parties No. 1 and 2, 4 and 6, to be present before the court tomorrow (24 May, 1990) The court is entitled to know on how the situation is compatible with the judgment existing and simultaneously attempts to violate its. These opposite parties are Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the Nagar Mnhapalika/Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, Secretary Allahabad Development Authority, Superintendent, Government Gardens, Chandra Shekhar Azad Park, Allahabad and the Executive Engineer, P. W. D., Allahabad. 8. These opposite parties are Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the Nagar Mnhapalika/Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, Secretary Allahabad Development Authority, Superintendent, Government Gardens, Chandra Shekhar Azad Park, Allahabad and the Executive Engineer, P. W. D., Allahabad. 8. At the time when this matter was under consideration, learned counsel otherwise also Standing Counsel for the local bodies and also brief holder for the State of U. P. Mr. Umesh Narain Sharma, Advocate, was present. The Court has made a request to the learned counsel that proceedings of this Court be intimated to each of the aforesaid parties, to be available to the Court tomorrow. 9. Place as unlisted tomorrow, i.e. 24 May, 1990. Directed accordingly. Ravi S. Dhavan, J. (D/d. 25.5.1990) - Present :- Dr. R.G. Padia, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P. Singh, Chief Standing Counsel, U.P. Mr. Ashok Mohiley and Mr. Umesh Narain Sharma, Advocates, learned counsel for Nagar Mahapalika and Allahabad Development Authority, respectively. Mr. Alok Ranjan, I. A. S. Administrator/Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and Vice-Chairman, Nagar Mahapalika and Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. K.P. Srivastava, Deputy Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. M.P. Aneja, Chief Town Planner, Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. P.P. Dwivedi, Supdt. Government Garden, Chandra Shekhar Azad Park (Alfred Park) Mr. K.K. Jain, Assistant Engineer, P.W.D Mr. Sukhram Maurya, Accountant, Regional Sports Office, U. P., Allahabad. 2. At the outset, this court is again placing on record that no summon on this contempt petition has been issued to any opposite party. The writ petition itself was on affirmative action in the matter relating to Chandra Shekhar Azad Park (Alfred Park) concerning environment, zoology and urban planning. The decision, stands reported in 1987 U.P.L.B.E.C. 665 : 1987 LJ 1038, Arun Kumar v. Nagar Mahapalika and others. The writ petition was decided on 24th April, 1987. Certain directions were given by a Bench of this court to be implemented by the opposite parties. The judgment noticed how a park of 132 acres was reduced when about ? of this area was rendered unuseable as a result of creeping encroachments in the park. The judgment contained directions to be carried out within a time bound schedule, it appears that this was not done. The directions were steps to resurrect open spaces and restore the ecological balance of the park. 3. of this area was rendered unuseable as a result of creeping encroachments in the park. The judgment contained directions to be carried out within a time bound schedule, it appears that this was not done. The directions were steps to resurrect open spaces and restore the ecological balance of the park. 3. Amongst the many directions given, the first relates to the stadium inside the park which has rendered a large area unuseable as a park. The judgment mentions that a modern sports complex be made available to the citizens of Allahabad. This new stadium should cater for every sports activity. The court gave a period of live years, since the judgment to construct a new stadium and, thereafter, dismantle the stadium which occupies the park. From the date of the judgment eighteen months were given to find an altercate site or two years to finalise the site and design of the stadium by inviting suggestions and proposals from the citizens of Allahabad. The stadium was to be constructed in the next three years. The court had indicated that five years from the date of the judgment the new stadium complex, having every facility for all discipline of sport should be ready and, thereafter, the present stadium was to be dismantled and the space occupied by it released be used as a park. 4. Apparently, the judgment was lost to the opposite parties, all State authorities. An investment of rupees twenty lacs is intended to be made on the existing stadium, which is to be dismantled. A public announcement in the newspaper is the cause of the present contempt petition. 5. In these circumstances the court at present views this contempt petition as a matter which concerns environment, ecology and urban planning, an effort not to fight with the nature, but to preserve it. With this approach the court suggested to counsel for the petitioner the implementation of the judgment is more important. 5. In these circumstances the court at present views this contempt petition as a matter which concerns environment, ecology and urban planning, an effort not to fight with the nature, but to preserve it. With this approach the court suggested to counsel for the petitioner the implementation of the judgment is more important. The court, thus, passed an order on 23-5-1990 desiring the presence of the opposite parties for giving them an opportunity on what they had to say on the implementation of the judgment The court desired their present on 24-5-1990, with the exception of opposite parties No. 3 and 5, who were otherwise in Lucknow The court received favourable response, when counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 mentioned on 24-5-1990 that these opposite parties would appear but were finding it difficult to do so, on that day as they were busy with a meeting of the World Bank team visiting the city. 6. Today, the authorities are present. 7. The court appreciates the gesture in responding to the court's desire in this matter of environment, ecology and urban planning. The court also notices that whereas more or less the Heads of the departments have appeared, but the Public Works Department at Allahabad and the Regional Sports Office, U. P. at Allahabad is not represented by its heads at Allahabad but through the Assistant Engineer and the Accountant, respectively. It would have been appropriate if the Heads of the Office at Allahabad had also appeared, like the other opposite parties. 8. Before proceeding on the merits of the matter, the court in no uncertain terms indicated to the opposite parties present, that as the matter arises out of contempt proceedings, thus, the court was obliged to caution the opposite parties that it is their right under the law to take a defence. But, if they participate voluntarily in the implementation of the judgment, then they will be joining in a participatory exercise and going forward to implement the directions in the judgment. The court waited for their answer. Each one of the opposite parties stated that they would make joint efforts to go forward to implement the directions of the judgment. 9. But, if they participate voluntarily in the implementation of the judgment, then they will be joining in a participatory exercise and going forward to implement the directions in the judgment. The court waited for their answer. Each one of the opposite parties stated that they would make joint efforts to go forward to implement the directions of the judgment. 9. The court, then explained to the opposite parties that as they have not been summoned, it is in these circumstances that the court was, for their benefit, holding proceedings in chambers so that it may not be misunderstood that the officials are under summons. 10. Then the court asked each of the opposite parties present whether they were totally familiar with the text of the judgment. The representative of Public Works Department and the Regional Sports Office indicated to the court that they had not gone through the details of the judgment. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika/Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, Mr. Alok Ranjan, IAS, indicated to the court that he had discussions with the Chief Town Planner and directed him to go ahead and prepare a deign for the sports complex to be built as per directions of the court. He made a request to the court that this matter may be taken up in July and in the meantime he will ensure that an exercise for a new sports complex as directed in the judgment is set rolling and in the meantime he will have a co-ordinated meeting with the departments concerned and the District Magistrate, inclusive. He also mentioned that during the next few weeks, he will explore cites for the stadium, have a blue print of its design made, it's cost evaluated and report to the court. This is a good step. 11. The very purpose of this meeting is that there ought not to be any incoordination. The court, regard being had to the circumstances, felt that possibly the opposite parties as State departments have not co-ordinated on how to implement the directions in the judgment. Then, permitting three years to pass by ignoring the judgment is not a good phenomena. Getting caught in violating it is worse. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari/Vice-Chairman, aforesaid, has assured the court that he will push the programme for implementation of the judgment and particularly the plan to give Allahabad a modern sport complex. The court will appreciate it. 12. Then, permitting three years to pass by ignoring the judgment is not a good phenomena. Getting caught in violating it is worse. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari/Vice-Chairman, aforesaid, has assured the court that he will push the programme for implementation of the judgment and particularly the plan to give Allahabad a modern sport complex. The court will appreciate it. 12. The representative of the Regional Sports Office did confirm that at part of the announcement in the newspaper, out of the rupees twenty lacs, which was to be spent by the Public Works Department on the stadium (which under the directions of the court is to be dismantled ultimately) six lacs rupees have been received. Carrying forward the plan to invest such a huge amount of money in violation of the direction of the judgment may become a serious matter. Let the court sound this caution. This will reflect on the poverty of planning, violation of the judgment and treating the city of Allahabad with a step motherly treatment. 13. It is the need of Allahabad to have a modern sports complex. The advantages have already been given in the judgment. One will be the release of the town hall (Mayo Hall) for the purpose for which it was constructed ; a civic centre. At present it is a half hearted exercise to cater for limited sports without optimum use of it, and depriving Allahabad of its Town Hall. 14. The Superintendent of Government Gardens along with the representative of the Public Works Department has also made a note, on being indicated by the court, of the other directions yet to be implemented, which ought to have been implemented a long time back. 15. The exercise to set in motion the implemention of the judgment may have come late, but atleast the parties present in court have jointly prayed that this matter may be taken up in July on a date which will be indicated by the opposite party No. 1, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari/Vice-Chairman, Mr. Alok Ranjan, IAS, aforesaid, so that the court is formally conveyed of the directions to give Allahabad a modern sports complex being taken beyond the blue print stage. Alok Ranjan, IAS, aforesaid, so that the court is formally conveyed of the directions to give Allahabad a modern sports complex being taken beyond the blue print stage. All that this means is that of the five years given by the court in April, 1987, though nothing was done in the last three years, in reference to the stadium, let every thing be done in the next two years. About other directions the Superintendent Government Garden shall place a report before this court in July also. 16. The court has already observed that it would like this matter to proceed, in a spirit of inquiry and reform as an effort to strive towards excellence in a collective activity, which otherwise is a constitutional obligation under Chapter IV-A of the Constitution of India 17. On the next date the court expects that the Heads of the Public Works Department and the Regional Sports Office, U. P., Allahabad will also be present. The court is referring to this aspect as the implementation of the directions of the court ought to receive a positive attention of all concerned. 18. List for orders before this court as part heard on 12th July, 1990 for the Mukhja Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika/Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, to indicate the next date in July, 1990 for the purposes of today's proceedings. Directed accordingly. Ravi S. Dhavan, J. (D/d. 20.7.1990) - Present: Dr. R. G. Padia Advocate, Mr. R.P. Singh, Chief Standing Counsel Mr. Istdev Prasad Rai, Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority, Mr. K.P. Srivastava. Mr. M.P. Aneja. Mr. B.P. Dwivedi, Superintendent Government Garden. Mr. R.K. Chaturvedi, Regional Sports Officer, U. P. Alld. 2. A mention has been made on behalf of Mr. Alok Ranjan Administrator/Nagar Mahapalika/Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority to exempt his personal presence as his children are sick. A chamber mention was made the day before. An application and affidavit has also been moved, which in such circumstances was not necessary as the Court has already indicated when the Chamber mention was made by Mr. Ashok Mohiley. Advocate, that Mr. Alok Ranjan, opposite party No. 1 is granted exemption from attending the proceedings today. On account of the children reported to be sick should further accommodation be needed, the court shall grant it. Ashok Mohiley. Advocate, that Mr. Alok Ranjan, opposite party No. 1 is granted exemption from attending the proceedings today. On account of the children reported to be sick should further accommodation be needed, the court shall grant it. The court reiterates that no party has been summoned on a motion of contempt proceedings, the reasons for which are contained in the order of 25th May, 1990. 3. Today was the date to intimate the Court on the extent to which parties have taken positive steps to implement the judgment of the High Court, reference report 1987 Allahabad Law Journal 1033 : 1987 UPLBEC 665. 4. Nothing tangible has been done. The only thing that has happened today is that the parties have again assured this court that they will put the judgment and the directions in it, into implementation. 5. The other aspect which the court must notice, as it must not remain unnoticed is that from the records which have been brought before the court, the court finds in the report of the Superintendent Government Garden, affirmed by an affidavit that at some stage in reference to the report which was being submitted a reference was by the Director Horticulture, U. P. for advice of Ms. Sobha Dixit, Advocate on Report at the Supreme Court of India. The court inquired from the Chief Standing Counsel, U. P. that the step did seem unusual that the parties have agreed to implement the judgment and the advice was being sought from a counsel in New Delhi, when the State had its own Standing Counsel at the High Court at Allahabad. Though, not mentioned in the affidavit or the report, for the first time a disclosure was made at the Bar, the court that a S. L. P. had been tiled three years ago before the Supreme Court of India, and that an order for stay was not granted. This disclosure should have been made to the court at the very first stage when the officials had been called to appear at the Bar of this court as this was an essential information as a consequence of the writ petition. It was inappropriate for the Horticulture Department to have kept this essential and relevant information away from this court. This disclosure should have been made to the court at the very first stage when the officials had been called to appear at the Bar of this court as this was an essential information as a consequence of the writ petition. It was inappropriate for the Horticulture Department to have kept this essential and relevant information away from this court. When the matter was taken up on 25th May, 1990, no disclosure was made of this aspect that a S. L. P. had been filed. A faint plea was offered that the opposite party No. 4, the Superintendent Government Gardens, Allahabad, was not aware of it. This sort of approach is not good. The Court demanded a copy of the S. L. P., and it was produced by this opposite party. From the record of the S. L. P. the court notices from the proceedings that the very learned counsel who had argued the matter on behalf of the party before the High Court, Mr. N. L. Ganguli, Advocate, was inspecting counsel at New Delhi, also. This S. L. P. record was lying at Allahabad. Why was this information kept away from this Court ? More so when the tenor of the proceedings, in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution of India, in matters of environment and ecology, was a participatory exercise as a co-operative venture to implement what the judgment stood for. The court had cautioned the parties when they appeared that under the law, if they chose to, they could take any defence which they desired to justify their actions or inaction by not implementing the judgment. Each party election voluntarily to tell the court that they would not resist the judgment and justify inaction thus far, but would implement the directions in the judgment. The court thus did not issue notice on a motion of contempt but permitted implementation of the directions, though late. Thus, when the matter was taken up on 12-7-1990 no mention was made of the pending S. L. P. at the Supreme Court. Today, the court found reference to this S. L. P., only by chance from the record shown to the court. It is difficult for the court to appreciate that none of the opposite parties may not have had knowledge of the S. L. P. pending since the last three years. Today, the court found reference to this S. L. P., only by chance from the record shown to the court. It is difficult for the court to appreciate that none of the opposite parties may not have had knowledge of the S. L. P. pending since the last three years. It is fortunate that learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. R. G. Padia, Advocate, who otherwise appeared in the writ petition as a consequence of which the judgment was given, is now under obligation to keep the record of the S. L. P., pending before the Supreme Court straight and intimate the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the proceedings before this court and the fact that the opposite parties have elected to implement the judgment and have acquiesced to the judgment and are in a participatory venture that they would implement it. 6. From the record, which has been produced before the court by the Horticulture Department, by the Superintendent, Government Gardens, upon an affidavit affirmed on 11-7-1990, another fatal mistake has occurred at the hands of this department. The source and cause has yet to be found out by the court. The affidavit of the Superintendent Government Garden, Mr. P. P. Dwivedi, in paragraph 4 mentions that the Director, Horticulture and Fruit Utilisation (Plain), Lucknow, has written a letter to the Secretary Horticulture and Food Preservation, Lucknow, recommending that the matter be taken up with the State administration for cancellation of the leases to the six organisations mentioned in the letter under reference. Apparently nothing was done for three years since the judgment was delivered and remained pending without implementation within the time bound schedule. Not one positive effort had been taken for the last three years, to implement the directions of the High Court. The action of the Horticulture Department to recommend cancellation of leases, suggests that some one was trying to be more clever than was necessary. The letter under reference suggests as if the High Court had given a direction to cancel the leases. The High Court had given no such direction. In fact, the High Court had specifically observed in the judgment that "This Court in the present writ petition cannot determine the leases....". Thus, what even the court did not direct some officials of the Horticulture Department have given the impression as if it was part of the direction to be implemented. The High Court had given no such direction. In fact, the High Court had specifically observed in the judgment that "This Court in the present writ petition cannot determine the leases....". Thus, what even the court did not direct some officials of the Horticulture Department have given the impression as if it was part of the direction to be implemented. There is a difference between the grant of a lease and its cancellation. The letter which has been written, inter departmental at the Horticulture Department creates sensationalism and attributes an action as a direction in the judgment when such a direction is non-existent, it is clear from this letter that the attempt is to confuse the issue. Not having done anything for three years, the only paper work which was done by the authority, whose garden has been spoiled, is a negative approach, for the purposes of creating penic and no other. The decision to deliver a grant may be illegal but the cancellation of a lease cannot be done unilaterally. It is only for this reason that the court never gave a direction for the cancellation of the lease. The Director, Horticulture who wrote the letter to the effect that the leases are to be cancelled as per direction of the High Court is answerable to the court on how he has indulged in sensationalism and created a direction in the judgment which does not exist. The court, is not impressed by this exercise. This is a very serious matter. The Director of Horticulture, in reference to the context, who wrote this letter will explain to the court formally on how he created a direction not existing in the judgment. The Director Horticulture, Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, shall appear before this Court on Friday 27th July, 1990, when the matter will otherwise be listed. 7. Then, there is the matter of the Stadium. The court has been intimated that certain sites ate being considered. No plan has been shown as to what sort of Stadium it would be. The court was on the last occasion assured, when proceedings were recorded on 25th May, 1990, that the Stadium which is proposed to be constructed, a design is under draft and will be shown to the Court. 8. No plan has been shown as to what sort of Stadium it would be. The court was on the last occasion assured, when proceedings were recorded on 25th May, 1990, that the Stadium which is proposed to be constructed, a design is under draft and will be shown to the Court. 8. Certain records have been shown to the court of a meeting which apparently was called at which the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika/Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority had presided on 10th July, 1990. At this meeting there were representatives of organisations which function within the park. Amongst the various aspects which have been discussed in the meeting the broad aspects in reference to the implementation of the judgment are in reference to the boundary walls surrounding and within the precincts and periphery of the park and other buildings and constructions which were the subject-matter of being demolished as referred to in the judgment. On the first aspect it appears in pursuance of the meeting every one has accepted in principle that they shall scale down the boundary walls of the park to the same height as on the north of the park towards Chandrashekhar Memorial The court had given an alternative to cordon the areas whether by fences, hedges or grills. It appears that two organisations are being difficult and are at the stage of discussions The other aspect discussed at the meeting is in reference to the buildings of the State departments. At this meeting the proposals were to the effect that while the smaller buildings will be removed the larger one which was intended to house the Home Science College, the first floor of the building may be demolished so that what remains may be put to such use which may be decided sufficiently. At present the court is not making any comments on this. All these are proposals at the meeting and still. Discussing situations is good as long as the intention is to find a solution, but not to delay it. When this order had been dictated Mr. R. P. Singh, Advocate, Chief Standing Counsel, U. P. submitted that the mistake which has been made in the inter office communication of the Horticulture Department will be retracted and rectified and that he finds that the error has happened under a mistake. When this order had been dictated Mr. R. P. Singh, Advocate, Chief Standing Counsel, U. P. submitted that the mistake which has been made in the inter office communication of the Horticulture Department will be retracted and rectified and that he finds that the error has happened under a mistake. The court at present cannot comment whether the error was inadvertent or otherwise, suffice it to say that the intention was to move up the files on the action suggested and a copy was endorsed to each organisation mentioned. At present, the court will leave this matter at this. The matter be listed on July 27, 1990, when it is report to the court that Mr. Alok Kanjan, Mukhya Nagar Adhikari/Nagar Mahapalika/Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, will be in a position to come to the court. Ravi S. Dhavan, J. (D/d. 28.7.1990) - Present : Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. Mr. Ashok Mobiley, Advocate, learned counsel for Nagar Mahapalika and Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and Vice-Chairman, Nagar Mahapalika and Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. R.I. Srivastava, Director, Horticulture, Lucknow. Mr. R.K. Chaturvedi, Regional Sports Officer, U. P. Mr. A.K. Shahi, Joint Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. K.P. Srivastava, Deputy Secretary' Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. M.P. Aneja, Chief Town Planner, Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. P.P. Dwivedi, Superintendent, Government Gardens, Chandra Shekhar Azad bark (Alfred Park). 2. This matter has been listed today as continued proceedings as a consequence of the order of 20 July, 1990. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari/Vice Chairman. Allahabad Development Authority Mr. Alok Ranjan, has intimated the court that he called a meeting on 25 July, 1990 to discuss on the implementation of the directions as contained in the judgment regarding the Park. He submitted, in his assessment every organisation inside the park is agreeing in principle that the directions are to be implemented. He has placed before the court, the minutes of the meeting which he had called and recorded on 25 July, 1990 ; these minutes have been brought on record. Some organisations very few though occupying the park are being a little difficult. But, having agreed in principle, the details can be sorted out by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari/Vice Chairman. 3. The Director of Horticulture is present upon the order of 20 July, 1990. Some organisations very few though occupying the park are being a little difficult. But, having agreed in principle, the details can be sorted out by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari/Vice Chairman. 3. The Director of Horticulture is present upon the order of 20 July, 1990. The Court had questioned him on two aspects mentioned in the order. One was in creating sensationalism recommending cancellation of leases otherwise not directed in the judgment and withholding information of filing a Special Leave petition in the Supreme Court while simultaneously acquiescing to the Judgment before this court to carry out its directions. In reference to the first aspect he submitted that he has already filed an affidavit expressing regrets and apology for making a mistake. On the second aspect, he has submitted that non-disclosure was an unintentional error for which he expresses regret. 4. The Administrator has informed the court of certain sites which are under consideration for a stadium composite or a separate stadium and a velodrome. The exact location of the stadium is receiving the attention of the Administrator. Today, he has required the Chief Town Planner to place before the court the lay out, as a bird's eye view of the proposed sports complex for Allahabad. Thus a sketch not signed by any official was presented The Chief Town Planner was uncomfortable when asked to sign the sketch. He stated the sketch was not original, but a copy of the Seoul Olympics sports complex. A little more serious effort will have to be made than sketching and copying overnight. The lay out and design must be oriented to the needs of Allahabad and its hinterland. As the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari discussed that it may be a possibility to have two stadia, if the complex cannot fit at one site. 5. The proposed sports complex made as a sketch for instance refers to tennis. A reference to this activity has already been made in the judgment. The Horticulture Department, represented in these proceedings with its Director is responding positively to make lawn tennis courts available to the sports department should they have sufficient interest to use it. The Regional Sports Officer says that he is not in a position to take a decision. This aspect is little disappointing. The Horticulture Department, represented in these proceedings with its Director is responding positively to make lawn tennis courts available to the sports department should they have sufficient interest to use it. The Regional Sports Officer says that he is not in a position to take a decision. This aspect is little disappointing. As here is one department of the State Government which is prepared to offer space to another department and the latter shows no interest to receive it. 6. The matter is basically one of co-ordination. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari has made a note of this aspect and has assured the Court that he will get in touch with the Secretary, Ministry of Sports or the Directorate of Sports to ensure in co-ordination does not hamper the progress to implement the judgment. The presence of the official with whom the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari will discuss may be necessary as a sports complex will require decision making on many aspects, not excluding funding and execution of works within a time bound schedule already set. For this purpose the court adjourns the proceedings to a date after three weeks by which time the Mukhya Nagssr Adhikari will be in a position to bring all the departments together as it appears that without an integrated effort nothing will move to a positive end. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari submitted that he will request the Secretary, Ministry of Sports to be available at the next proceedings. 7. One aspect the court cannot help but notice today. To spoil an environment of a planned city can happen within the span of a single generation. Its resurrection is a tedious process. What has happened to the Chandra Shekhar Azad Park (Alfred Park) in Allahabad is a glaring example of modicority and poverty of planning. A park has been destroyed never to be seen in its pristine glory. Urbanisation is planning, which requires conscious effort to respect conforming use of open spaces. A resistance to keep away from the specified areas which the law requires to be left without invasion. This park, one of the largest in Uttar Pradesh has been scarred and defiled. For the mistakes made by the administration, over the years, to strangulate a park and choke it with structures, is a scar from which future generations will suffer. A resistance to keep away from the specified areas which the law requires to be left without invasion. This park, one of the largest in Uttar Pradesh has been scarred and defiled. For the mistakes made by the administration, over the years, to strangulate a park and choke it with structures, is a scar from which future generations will suffer. The park a breathing lung for the city will never be the cam and its memories will haunt the generation which knew of this park as it stood originally. This callousness of disrespect of conforming use of open spaces needs to be checked. Planning and aesthetics go together. If excellence is to be the hall-hark of planning an environment, such errors and mistakes must be checked forthwith. 8. The time has come, the court feels that every major city of the State should have an Urban Arts Commission which will guide whenever such mistake are about to happen that they be checked and rectified. Urbanisation cannot abdicate aesthetics of planning. Architectural ingenuity and thoughtful lay out of natural open spaces is what made one proud of belonging to Allahabad which today is becoming a case study in a dying culture. An Urban Arts Commission for this city is needed. Delhi has one for its preservation and improvement. 9. List for further orders on the August 17, 1990 by which date the Administrator will be probing on further progress in this matter. Directed accordingly. Ravi S. Dhavan, J. (D/d. 16.8.1990) - Ad application has been moved in these proceedings. Learned counsel who has filed the application and supported it by his personal affidavit has submitted that the matter is urgent to occasion orders on this application today. The fact that a member of the Bar and a counsel in case has put in his personal affidavit in the proceedings with no other request except that what is stated in the affidavit be brought on record and directions be given to the registry of this court that the record of the proceedings be made available as Certified Copies, in itself implies that there is some thing serious in the grievance made in this application. 2. Appended with the application and the affidavit moved before this Court, is a copy of the application moved by one of the opposite parties, the Horticulture Department, before the Supreme Court. 3. 2. Appended with the application and the affidavit moved before this Court, is a copy of the application moved by one of the opposite parties, the Horticulture Department, before the Supreme Court. 3. In so far as the request that the court give direction that certified copies of various proceedings and documents, which lie on record be delivered to the applicant, there is no problem in passing such an order on it is the right of any person to receive certified copies of a public record of proceedings, which are consequential to a public justice system. 4. The application which has been filed before the Supreme Court learned counsel for the applicant submits is not the entire record of the proceedings. This Court is sad to reflect that what one of the opposite parties submit before this court has not been submitted at the Bar of the Supreme Court and what is submitted at the Bar of the Supreme Court is kept away from this Court This could seriously embarrass proceedings before this Court when the next date in this case is tomorrow. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant Dr. R. G. Padia, Advacate, submits that there were more orders passed, than one the opposite parties has disclosed before the Supreme Court. He refers to orders to this Court dated 23 May, 1990, 25 May, 1990, 20 July, 1990, 28 July, 1990, apart from those on the order sheet. Certain directions were attributed as having been given in the judgment the implementation of which is in issue. When the Court questioned the opposite parties to point out references to directions otherwise not on record, a regret was offered orally and the apology was formalised by no loss a person than the Director of Horticulture, Uttar Pradesh. This affidavit was filed on 24 July, 1990. The request to retract the misstatement is recorded in the order of 20 July, 1990, the affidavit offering the apology is noticed in the order of 28 July, 1990. 6. On record are "minutes of meetings between officials of the local administration, filed by the State respondents to show to the court that every party and organisation are agreed that they shall join in the effort to implement the judgment. All these are meetings called by the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika/Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, and all during July. 1990. 6. On record are "minutes of meetings between officials of the local administration, filed by the State respondents to show to the court that every party and organisation are agreed that they shall join in the effort to implement the judgment. All these are meetings called by the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika/Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, and all during July. 1990. One on 10 July, 1990 and the other on 25 July, 1990. Learned counsel desires certified copies of this record also. 7. Learned counsel who appears for the applicant is under an obligation to place the entire record at the Bar of the Supreme Court including last order of this court which hither to, it is contended, is not on the proceedings of the Special Leave Petition. 8. It was the submission of the opposite parties that they have decided as a matter of policy to implement the judgment and it was at their request that the notices to show cause on an allegation of contempt was not issued it was at their request that proceedings be taken in chambers as they were all agreed to implement the judgment. Nothing gives the court satisfaction to see that a judgment is being implemented. The proceedings as exist on record of this case rest on the confidence given by the opposite parties by joining in a participatory exercise to implement the judgment. The court permitted this, as already indicated in an earlier order, to solve issues in a spirity of inquiry and reform, in a matter concerning environment and urban planning, an obligation set under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India. 9. Beyond this the Court cannot comment anything today as that would be the merit of the case itself. Suffice it to say that let the record be available to learned counsel for receiving certified copies, if applied, for such use as he desires to make of it. Mr. R.P. Singh who has been appearing on behalf of the State Department, then a Chief Standing Counsel, U. P. is present at the time when this order was dictated, Mr. R. P. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents has submitted before the Court that he had given advise in writing that after the State respondents had acquiesced to the judgment to intimate to the court formally that they shall implement the judgment. 10. R. P. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents has submitted before the Court that he had given advise in writing that after the State respondents had acquiesced to the judgment to intimate to the court formally that they shall implement the judgment. 10. A certified copy of this order including the certified copies of the documents, photo copy, if necessary, applied for may be given today. Directed accordingly. Ravi S. Dhevan, J. (D/d. 27.8.1990) - Present: Dr. R. G. Padia and Mr. U. C. Misra Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Mohiley for the Nagar Mahapalika and Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. B. C. Sinha, holding the brief of Mr. R. P. Singh. Mr. Ram Kishan, I. A. S. Secretary, Nagar Vikas (Urban Development). Mr. Alok Ranjan, I. A. S. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development at present Additional Director, Industries, U. P. Kanpur. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Special Secretary, Sports. U. P. Government, Lucknow. Mr. R.B. Chaturvedi, Regional Sports Officer. Mr. P.P. Dwivedi, Supdt. Government Garden, Chandra Shekhar Azad Park (Alfred Park). Mr. M.P. Aneja, Chief Town Planner. Mr. K.P. Srivastava, Deputy Secretary. Allahabad Development Authority. Mr. Istdev Praiad Rai, Deputy Secretary Allahabad Development Authority and Mr. A.K. Shahi, Joint Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority. 2. The court must appreciate the courtesy shown by officials the Secretaries to the Ministries of the U. P. Government to be available to this Court on the implementation of the judgment in re : Arun Kumar v. Nagar Mahapalika, (reported in 1987 ALJ 1038 : 1987 UPLBEC 665. 3. There was a request on behalf of the officials to take proceedings in chambers by an application. The request was permitted. 4. The Allahabad Development Authority has today filed on record a supplementary affidavit affirmed by the Chief Town Planner placing on record four maps as a preclude to implementation of the judgment and to show their efforts that the planning of the stadium is their intention. As these steps are in progress in between the heads of the Municipal Corporation and the local body incharge of Urban Development, Mr. Alok Ranjan, I. A. S. has been transferred out. His successor has not been announced. The two organisations are without any substantive incumbent But Mr. As these steps are in progress in between the heads of the Municipal Corporation and the local body incharge of Urban Development, Mr. Alok Ranjan, I. A. S. has been transferred out. His successor has not been announced. The two organisations are without any substantive incumbent But Mr. Alok Ranjan, I. A. S. reference being to the orders of August 17, 1990 has personally assured this Court that whoever his successor might be and when he is posted he will apprise him with the entire matter and what the matter is about in this case to ensure that there is no incoordination in implementation of the judgment and also of the resurrection of the city park. 5. Mr. Ram Kishan, I. A. S. though he came to the High Court in another matter relating to urban planning (the crises of water supply and encroachment of public roads) is available to the court as Secretary, Urban Development, U. P-and has given his assurance that all the departments of the Government will be helpful in coordinating the implementation of the judgment, and Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, I. A. S. as Special Secretary, Sports, U. P. has made a note on what needs to be done on the stadia complex which the city has to be given. Tho direct consequence of this will be that the part will be partly restored and then a total sports complex will simultaneously retrieve the town hall (Mayo Hall) to the Nagar Mahapalika to be used as a civic centre, the purpose for which it was made. But all this will inevitably be a slow process. The officials have assured the court that the process will be put into execution and implemented and have appreciated that the implementation of the schemes are for the public good, whether it is on saving the Chandra Shekhar Azad Park, giving the city a sport complex and thereby retrieving the town hall (Mayo Hall) as a civic centre. All three are interconnected and detailed schemes, which are otherwise the result of errors which were occasioned in disrespecting the discipline of urban planning according to law. The Secretary Sports Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, I. A. S. submitted before the Court that he will do his best to ensure and help that Allahabad does not remain without a sports complex, a facility which this major city of Uttar Pradesh, does not have. The Secretary Sports Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, I. A. S. submitted before the Court that he will do his best to ensure and help that Allahabad does not remain without a sports complex, a facility which this major city of Uttar Pradesh, does not have. He has also appreciated that the so-called stadium inside the park is violating the conforming use of the area as a park and otherwise is neither a sports complex and only an excuse for a stadium. When the court drew his attention that it is a cordoned area within a park where girl athletes have been molested and raped, he mentioned that he was aware of it. 6. The Sports Secretary intimated the Court that as soon as the local administration will select the site and make the land available, as part of his obligation as a Sports Secretary he will see that Allahabad does not remain without a stadia. He did mention that at present the policy of the State Government is with less emphasis on spectator participation and more on encouraging various disciplines of sports itself. The court indicated to him that let the implementation be on what the policy be at present as long as every facility is available as a total sports complex, but planning must project to future needs and later if the policy is that sports and spectators go together, then the same sports complex should be able to expand accordingly. 7. There are certain sports which do not need a stadium and planning on this ought to proceed straightaway. These are water sports, which regard being had to the advantage of Allahabad, with two major rivers (Jamuna being better suited being a slower and placid river) let the youngsters and aspirants not be denied the advantage Allahabad can offer. The Sports Secretary, Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, I A. S. and Mr. Alok Raojan, I. A. S. submitted that there is a fund allocation for these sports under the Allahabad Development Authority and as part of the river embankment development programme. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal I. A. S. submitted that he had made a note of this and will work on its implementation immediately, as part of a co-ordinated plan. 8. As part of the original activities of open ground sports without disturbing the balance of the park, the State records are noticed in the judgment. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal I. A. S. submitted that he had made a note of this and will work on its implementation immediately, as part of a co-ordinated plan. 8. As part of the original activities of open ground sports without disturbing the balance of the park, the State records are noticed in the judgment. There is a reference to tennis in the gazetteer and the 1924 garden records. It is the business of the Horticulture Department to maintain lawns. The judgment, in Paragraph 81 refers to encouraging this activity not as part of an elite society but a classless society and children of the latter must have this sports activity which was under the raj only reserved in this park (then Alfred Park) only for the Sahibs. The Horticulture Department on 28th July, 1990 undertook to maintain the lawns for this purpose which they had done before. The Sports Secretary Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, I.A.S. submitted that he has made a note of this and he would right away work on this aspect to ensure that children who would like to play this are encouraged by the State, as a subsidised sport. 9. At today's proceedings, with high officials of the State Government present, two of them Secretaries to Ministries viz. Sports and Urban Development, and including Mr. Alok Ranjan, I. A. S., the previous Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority, the confidence given to the court is that these public schemes for the benefit of the public good will be implemented. The policy to implement has been made concrete, the blue prints are being prepared and are on record. In short the advantage to the city will be (a) a public park will be restored as a park though not totally ; (b) a sports complex will be available to the city and (c) the town hall will revert back as a city town hall and civic centre. 10. The errors in urbanisation and disrespect for environment caused these ills. The redemption of the park will be a slow process and one to be watched with patience. All are concerned that the mistakes of the past need to be rectified. Thus, the presence of the officers of the State Government. But, there is a contradiction on record which shakes the faith which one department gives to and takes from this Court. All are concerned that the mistakes of the past need to be rectified. Thus, the presence of the officers of the State Government. But, there is a contradiction on record which shakes the faith which one department gives to and takes from this Court. It is the Horticulture Department, and its officials. Should the past records be put together, the one before this court and the one at the Bar of the Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal proceedings, the pleadings of the officials of this department contradict and negate the affirmations in two courts. This was noticed in the orders of 20th July, 1990, 28th July, 1990 and 17th August, 1990. An affidavit of Mr. P P. Dwivedi, dated 20th August. 1990, Superintendent, Government Gardens, Allahabad again submits an apology and regret, in effect, of the contradictions and inconsistency, to put it mildly, on record and in affidavits. The officials of this department have much to explain on whose case they are pleadings in two forums. In the meetings of local administration they are sagaciously participating to implement the judgment and telling this Court accordingly. But, these officials swore one set of affidavits on 19th July 1990 at New Delhi and were submitting another set of affidavits for proceedings before this Court on 28th July, 1990. If the meetings presided over by Mr. Alok Ranjan, I. A. S. (Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority) and the affidavits of apologies and regrets were to be sent to be placed on record of the proceedings of the Supreme Court there is much the officials of this Department have to explain and account for. This in legal terms is chicanery. Is it possible that proceedings continue in this atmosphere ? Today. Mr. P. P. Dwivedi, Superintendent, Government Gardens, Allahabad, again regrets the situation and again submits that there is every intention to comply with the judgment, for the benefit of the park under his charge. Mr. R. P. Singh, Advocate, his counsel did not appear but sent his junior Mr. R. C. Sinha, Advocate, who was at loss to explain the record of two courts. 11. The senior officials present suggest to the court that the matter be taken after three weeks as by that time the successor of Mr. Alok Ranjan, I. A. S. may be announced and he may be briefed accordingly. The Sports Secretary, Mr. R. C. Sinha, Advocate, who was at loss to explain the record of two courts. 11. The senior officials present suggest to the court that the matter be taken after three weeks as by that time the successor of Mr. Alok Ranjan, I. A. S. may be announced and he may be briefed accordingly. The Sports Secretary, Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, I. A. S. submitted that in these public schemes would on his own brief the District Magistrate, Allahabad for better co-ordination. The Secretary Urbm Development, Mr. Ram Kishan, I. A. S. who appeared courtesy (as he came for another case) gave confidence to the court that on the implementation of the judgment, if any scheme or plan relates to his Ministry viz. Urban Development (Nagar Vikas) he would co-ordinate. The Court appreciates this. The Court also appreciates the approach of these officials appearing direct and straight away before the court, and fairly explaining their co-operation and the modalities to go forward to implement the public benefit schemes to save a park, to give a stadium to encourage sports and save a town hall, all for the common good of this neglected city and all experiment in errors of planning or the mediocrity of it in an otherwise planned city which is losing its planned character. 12. List on 21st September, 1990, Mr. Ram Kishan, I. A. S. need not appear on the next date, as already recorded he appeared as he came in another matter, but at the request of the court Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, I. A. S. and Mr. Alok Ranjan, I. A. S. submitted that they will be available on the next date along with the next Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, should his appointment be announced. 13. Mr. Anand Mohan a member of public claiming to be a social worker moved an application and styled it as a letter and a Civil Misc. Petition, seeking prayers that action be taken against the officials responsible for evading the judgment dated 24st April, 1987. 13. Mr. Anand Mohan a member of public claiming to be a social worker moved an application and styled it as a letter and a Civil Misc. Petition, seeking prayers that action be taken against the officials responsible for evading the judgment dated 24st April, 1987. He further prays that a writ of mandamus be issued for making suitable arrangements for an ultra modern stadium like the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium at New Delhi and the Indira Gandhi Stadium, New Delhi, so that national and international games can be held at Allahabad ; that the plans for holding an Indira Marathon at Dehra Dua be quashed and directions be issued for holding the same at Allahabad in 1990. He has also made several prayers in reference to sports as also volunteering to suggest further plans for the public-park, in reference to the context, that Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S. previous Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority be brought back to Allahabad ; and that the letter petition be entertained and heard in any shape and manner in public interest. The stage for Mr. Anand Mohan to join proceedings was in the writ petition in which the judgment was given. Once a contempt proceeding has been initiated the matter is between the court and others who are alleged to have committed contempt. Contempt is an action which relates to implementation of the judgment or orders Parties before the court have already declared their intention to implement the judgment, may be implementation is delayed and not strictly in accordance with the time schedule set in the judgment. But, in matters of environment and urban planning, where mistakes have been made in the past the process is slow. The high officials of the State Department have already reposed their faith in the court that public schemes for saving the park, delivering Allahabad a stadium and retrieving the town hall will be taken up as an effort Before this Court no one has said that it will of be done Punishment; regard being had to situations is not always a solution. The court has no reason to disbelieve the officials who have assured of the efforts which they shall make. Time will tell. Mr. Anand Mohan will also have to bid. his patience. 14. List on 21st September, 1990.