JUDGMENT 1. - This review' petition has been assigned to me by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 2. The matter arises out of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 681 of 88, Ram Chandra Kasliwal v. State, decided on 2.4.1993 reported in 1993(2) WLC 501 . 3. The learned Single Judge, after a great deal, considering various aspects directed that "Ramniwas Garden shall be maintained as is required by law and no thoroughfare or vehicular traffic shall be permitted to pass through it" alongwith. 16 other directions on 2.4.93 and to start process not later than 3 months and to complete within another 6 months. 4. Against this order dated 2.4.93, D.B. Special Appeal No. 476/92 was filed by the Bardia Colony Vikas Samiti, which is still pending. A Review Petition No. 10/96 was filed by Jaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industries, in which notice was issued on 16.2.96, with next date 4.1.97. 5. The Bardia Colony Vikas Samiti filed another Writ Petition No. 1601/94, wherein it was prayed that respondents be restrained from diverting the traffic through Bardia Colony Road and the proposed road through the children park and further be restrained from closing down the Eastern Gate of Ramniwas Garden. 6. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the stay application in writ petition No. 1601/94 directed that main gate of Ramniwas Garden be opened from 8.11.96 except in the night as was done earlier". 7. Against this stay order dated 7.11.96, the State of Rajasthan filed DB Civil Special Appeal No. 1162/96. Ram Chandra Kasliwal has filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1169/96. One Om Prakash has filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1723/97 (defect). The Division Bench after hearing concerned parties decided all the three appeals alongwith DB Civil Special Appeal No. 476/92. The order of learned Single Judge dated 7.11.96 was set aside with the direction to maintain status-quo, as directed on 19.11.96, till the matter is finally decided. The cases were remanded to the concerned learned Single Judge. The concerned learned Single Judge declined to hear the cases. The matter was referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, and as stated above, now the case has come before me. 8. The cases were remanded to the concerned learned Single Judge. The concerned learned Single Judge declined to hear the cases. The matter was referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, and as stated above, now the case has come before me. 8. Mr Jagdeep Dhankar submits that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 2.4.93 granted more relief then prayed for without even pleading by adopting unusual manner which ultimately resulted into miscarriage of justice. The finding given in para 14 of the judgment is based only on its preceding para Nos. 9 to 13 that the activities mentioned in the parks violate the provisions of the Act of 1956 and notification of 1959, without any specific finding that no traffic was passing through the garden and there were no roads. Mr. Dhankar has submitted that this conclusion for closing of the gates arrived at without any datas and even without pleading in the writ petition amounts to error apparent on the face of record. It is further submitted that there is no rule to prohibit light vehicles to pass through the park. Rule 9(10) of the Rajasthan Public Park Rules of 1959 deals with condition of entry & residents-No person shall in a park... (i) to (ix)... (x) drive, ride or wheel any animal, vehicle or cycle of any kind across or any part of the park other than roads, leave or permit the same to remain upon any part of the park, other than the place provided for It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered Sub-rule 10 of Rule 9 in right perspective particularly the words that "any part of park other than the roads, leave or permit the same to remain upon any part of the park, other than the place provided for". Thus the error is to be corrected, otherwise, as per Schedule appended to the Rules, Jaisingh Circle at serial No. 23 and Statue Circle at serial No. 09, which are also declared as parks, no vehicle will be permitted to go through, therefore, prohibition of entry to drive, ride or wheel, except to those roads existing in the park, be exempted. He relied on the decisions of Shiv Dev Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 , Mafatlal Engineering Industries Ltd. v. M.E. in Employees Union, 1992 Lab. He relied on the decisions of Shiv Dev Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 , Mafatlal Engineering Industries Ltd. v. M.E. in Employees Union, 1992 Lab. I.C. 900 , Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Miss Sonal P. Shah, AIR 1982 Guj. 58 , and " Mohammed Ali Tahir v. The Union of India, 1972 Lab. I.C. 465 . 9. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari submits that the Bardia Colony is connected to the Museum Road by a lane which runs just adjacent to the Eastern side of the 'Children Park' which forms part of the Ramniwas Garden and for closing down the Eastern Gate of garden, the respondents are taking steps to construct a road passing through the children park just adjacent to the boundry of S.S. Medical College, Which would be connecting the Bardia Colony. He, therefore, prayed for a direction that the respondents be restrained from constructing the road through Children Park and respondents be further restrained from diverting the traffic. The Bardia Colony Vikas Samiti has filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1601/94. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari has also argued on review petition and endorsed the arguments of Mr. Dhankar and submits that due to closing of the roads, the 3 years experience shows that the system has utterly failed. It is also submitted that the concerned Judge has also felt that he passed the order in utter disregard to the provisions of law, therefore, it is a fit case for review. He has relied on the decision of S.C. Advocates on-record Association v. Union of India, reported in, (1993) 4 SC 441 . 10. Mr. K.K. Sharma has also filed application for Gordhan Das of Bardia Colony Vikas Samiti and submits that closing of the gate from New Gate side in the garb of environment to avoid animals/birds from noise, created traffic problem and resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is necessary to bring to the notice of this Court, the feelings of general public who have been deprived from using the public park which has complex in its own and is also meant for them connecting public to reach its destination. He has also filed a photostat copy of the Article published (Annex-2), written by the concerned Judge and cumulative representation, with Schedule-I and signature campaign (Annx-3) and also some maps of Tokyo, Hongkong and London. He has also filed a photostat copy of the Article published (Annex-2), written by the concerned Judge and cumulative representation, with Schedule-I and signature campaign (Annx-3) and also some maps of Tokyo, Hongkong and London. It is also submitted that for want of passing of public and due to lack of road-lights, activities of land elements have increased. It is submitted that in issuing the direction to close gates is clearly an error of law. apparent on the face of record as it was indirectly on attempt to compel the Government to initiate legislation in absence of any specific rule framed under the Rules in prohibiting entry of light vehicles on the existed roads of park. The petitioner was using the garden from his college time, as stated in the writ petition as mentioned in para 2 and 3 of the judgment. Mr. K.K. Sharma further submits that this being a PIL is not a litigation between two parties and filing review at a later stage without certified copy and even being not a party in the original writ petition will not come in his way and the cases of Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta, 1996 SCC 529 , and Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri, 1986 S.C. 391 are not applicable to the facts of this case, so the argument of Mr. I.C. Jain has no substance that the decision given cannot be re-agitated and the cases of Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal AIR 1979 S.C. 1764 and, (1996)8 SCC 482 are not helpful. The Court has to see with open mind the circumstances which need change. The Jaipur is well-known for its well-planning and city of straight roads. I.C. Jain has no substance that the decision given cannot be re-agitated and the cases of Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal AIR 1979 S.C. 1764 and, (1996)8 SCC 482 are not helpful. The Court has to see with open mind the circumstances which need change. The Jaipur is well-known for its well-planning and city of straight roads. Learned Counsel submits that complex was open free for all without charge having cricket pavilion, Zoo, museum and Ravindra Manch but the learned Judge wrongly influenced by the feelings of certain morning walkers and persons like petitioner, as if it is made for them only, on the pretext of preservation of life of animals and to keep garden free from pollution and arrived at a conclusion that by going so-much traffic how it is polluted without any pleading of adverse being shown and without getting an experts request on different aspects, issued direction even to finish sports activities, a part of public health which were there from inception for general public of the city his such it not warranted in the circumstances and the consideration well the planned city having garden and straight roads has been spoiled. He relied on Note-27 written by Lt. Col. H.L. Showers in 1909 regarding Jaipur City. Moreover, there were no circumstances even at that point of time to warrant the closer of the gates and preservation is not just a feeling in the mind of persons nor the court was satisfied on the report of some committee of experts and, therefore, cannot take advantage of the cases of M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I., 1997(1) Sup 418 , as in this case various reports and report from Pollution Control Board was also called. So also in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors., (1996)2 SCR 212 , where a PIL was held maintainable and observed that Court can after ascertaining allotted industrial units were responsible for causing ecological fragility, directed the authorities concerned to perform their statutory duties under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, as such the order of the learned Single Judge if liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. Mr. P.C. Jain, counsel for Ramchandra Kasliwal, raised a preliminary objection and submits that there is no error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, as such the order of the learned Single Judge if liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. Mr. P.C. Jain, counsel for Ramchandra Kasliwal, raised a preliminary objection and submits that there is no error apparent on the face of record. He further submits that in view of the amendment in CPC by adding Explanation it is clear that generally review is not maintainable. No review can be heard. He further submits that if this Court at all think necessary that some error of law and facts are there on the face of record, then it should issue notice to all the concerned persons who were heard in view of general notifications of the Court published in Rajasthan Patrika on 23-10-91, before passing order dated 2.4.93. It is further submitted that no resolution has been filed on behalf of Chamber of Commerce and Industries to agitate this issue which is not germane to their object. He further submits that the review petition has been filed after 581 days, without any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is further submitted that once the appeal is filed against the impugned order, the review petition is not maintainable, therefore, this review petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is submitted that Chamber of Commerce & Industries or any other person in changed circumstances/conditions, are free to challenge or to get the impugned order set aside by filing separate petitions. On merits, it is submitted that once the Judge has decided the controversy it cannot be gone into and principle of res-judicata will be attracted. He has placed reliance on the decisions:, (1996)6 SCC 584 K.K. Sharma v. State reported in 1996 (3) WLC 611 AIR 1957 Manipur 39 and on the decision of Vellora Citizens Welfare Forum v. U.O.I., reports in, AIR 1996 SC 647 . 12. Mr. Bharat Vyas for JDA endorsing the preliminary objection of Mr. P.C. Jain submits that counsel for the petitioner has wrongly tried to interpret the word 'vehicle'. The word 'vehicle' qualified all sorts of vehicles otherwise the rule-making authority would have classified, as per definition of the Motor Vehicles Act, On the basis of registered laden weight as light or heavy vehicle, in the Rules of 1980.So far as other argument that no vehicle could be permitted in two parks as mentioned at serial Nos. The word 'vehicle' qualified all sorts of vehicles otherwise the rule-making authority would have classified, as per definition of the Motor Vehicles Act, On the basis of registered laden weight as light or heavy vehicle, in the Rules of 1980.So far as other argument that no vehicle could be permitted in two parks as mentioned at serial Nos. 28 and 8, appended to Schedule is not correct interpretation, at Jaising, Circle and Statue Circle are circles only. 13. Mr. Vimal Choudhary for morning walkers, adopted the arguments of Mr. P.C. Jain and submits that application is only made to help 'Chatwalas' otherwise they have nothing to do. It is submitted that PIL was filed in 1988 and was decided on 2.4.93 but till then Jaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industries and the 'Chatwalas' have never bothered and now cannot be heard at this belated stage and principle of res-judicata is fully applicable. It is also submitted that due to inconvenience to certain group of persons as also the residents of Bardia Colony by having a round of circle covering some more distance and by not passing through the garden cannot be given preference against the interest of public at large whose interest is to be safeguarded by closing the gates to use the park free from pollution. Thus there are no changed circumstances, rather closing of the gates for the last 3 years have resulted better in maintaining the garden and its environment, therefore, review should not be entertained and is liable to be dismissed. He also relied on, AIR 1986 SC 391 , AIR 1997 SC 116 , [1996] 3 SCC 212 and 611, 1996 (2) SCC 751 and 1997(1) Supreme 418 , M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I. and Ors. 14. Mr. S.M. Jain for one Om Prakash-applicant, submits that Chamber of Commerce has no locus-standi to file this review and endorsed the arguments of Mr. Choudhary. It is submitted that as per notification issued by the Dy. Registrar (J) of this Court and in pursuance thereof they have filed detailed objections and after considering the same, this Court has passed detailed order which after 3 years, even if any resolution has been passed, which has not been filed, with abnormal delay and even if the decision is erroneous, no ground is made out for review and cannot be challenged by Jaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industries. It is submitted that they are only challenging the same with the convievance of 'Chatwalas', who have still their business in the garden without any licence in contravention of rules and even against specific directions of this Court. He has also relied on the decisions in Paulienmang Singaon and Ors. v. State of Manipur, AIR 1997 Gowahati 1, AIR 1973 Orissa 94, AIR 1977 Karnantaka 193 and AIR 1979 SC 1047 . 15. Mr. R.C. Kasliwal, present in person, also reiterated the historical importance of well-planned city, and the efforts of Sir Mirza Ismail, who helped in its planning in the best possible manner to attract tourists throughout the world to see Jaipur and also Museum. It is also submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge is correct and there is no necessity to review the same. So far as non-compliance part is concerned, Mr. Kasliwal submits that it is not necessary for the Court to consider this at the stage of review. However, he submits that the officers concerned, who have allowed unauthorised construction, be held responsible and necessary directions be issued in this regard. Similarly Mr. Anant Kasliwal and Mr. M.S. Sharma have also adopted the arguments of the counsel of this side and submits that as soon as the order dated 7.11.96 is set aside by the D.B., the original position should be restored, and the entire litigation is, as a matter of fact, on behalf of 'Chatwalas' who have given active support to high-up big persons and not complied with the directions deliberately. It is also alleged that by not removing them and due to their disposal of waste material, it has caused problem of cleanliness and environment, which is faced by public and particularly morning walkers as neither 'Chatwalas' nor Municipal Council and Garden Authorities are removing the disposal. 16. Mr. Shyam Arya for Municipal Corporation submits that municipality has not given any licence to the 'Chatwalas' and was issued only by the Superintendent Garden, However, the submits that most of the directions of this Court have been complied with except 4, 8, 9 and 17 for which they have nothing to do. However, municipality has given and will give its full co-operation to remove them. The process is going on as per directions of this Court. 17. Mr. K.S. Rathore, Addl. However, municipality has given and will give its full co-operation to remove them. The process is going on as per directions of this Court. 17. Mr. K.S. Rathore, Addl. Advocate General for State submits that almost all the 13 directions have been complied with in three phases except removal of Chatwalas, cricket pavilion, JCC, Ground and some other to some extent. He has placed on record a Booklet showing development plan of Ramniwas Garden, Jaipur. So far as direction No. 8 is concerned, it is submitted that licences of the lease-holders has already expired, being no extended and no fresh licence has been issued to any new person and action has been taken by filing FIRs against them for unauthorised occupants. It is submitted that so far as Chatwalas are concerned, they will be shifted to the appropriate location instead of back to the museum, opposite to Gem Cinema to which they have moved for necessary direction and so far as removal of RSEB, PHED and Superintendent Garden's Office is concerned, they will be shortly shifted in their own block. Mr. Rathore submits that at one time it was proposed earlier to have a separate lane from Gem Cinema Gate to Museum via Ravindra Manch connecting Moti Doongari Road but it was not materialised as the gates were closed though now he could not lay his hands on such proposal. Mr. Rathore has relied on the case of Rakesh Arora and O.P. Sharma's cases decided at Jodhpur. 18. Ms. Vandana Jain, a Law Student, who is present in the Court, submits that everybody wants to save the park and museum from environment without appreciating the factual aspect at that point of time and it was not understandable as to way the gate from New Gate side was close and why two gates from JLN side and Moti Doongari side road were kept open, is nothing but to facilitate the residents of Bardia Colony, a high-class society, From NCC side gate it made for Maharaja College but NCC persons were allowed to use the JLN gate instead of their own gate from Maharaja College. The road in front of Gem Cinema was also open to go to Ravindra Mach, and opening of these gates will not in any manner help the museum or nearby area to save from environment problem or to preserve animals from noise and other disturbance and garden could not be maintained properly, particularly when Eastern side gate meeting Moti Doongari is also left open and all the traffic is passing through these gates. It is also pertinent to note that during 33 years due to closer of gates, people do not visit garden and avoid to go in the garden after a particular time of 6 P.M. is apparent from number of Article and further petitioner and like other students had to go to University which took sufficient time to pass through from two congested roads outside the garden. She further submits that what was the necessity of paving road opposite museum by Phase-2 and what was the necessity of converting Charcol road portion into grassy lawns and making certain construction inside the garden in the name of development spending substantial public money and the extra lawn without maintaining the existing lawn. The learned Single Judge never considered that by making and lawns, the pedestrians will go over the lawn itself which will ultimately d the grass daily and will incur huge expenditure regularly and in this way does not serve the purpose ad wishes of the general public rather hurt and by making small bifercations the garden looks like a cage itself, lost its significance as a place of recreation for which it was meant. The apprehension of the learned Single Judge and the conscious litigants that passing thousands of vehicles will cause the environment problem to the members of the walkers association who stall daily in the early morning and need--fresh air for keeping them fit, with great respect, is without substance. The learned Single Judge has lost sight off all these important facts including that allowing vehicles to pass through the existing road in the garden, trees and plants will absorb Carbon-dioxide in comparison to the congested outside road of the garden and in this way entire gases and Carbon-di-oxide will be absorbed by the residents only which will ultimately frustrate the good cause. The learned Single Judge has also lost sight off the fact that environment problem could not be solved only by closing the gate and stopping the traffic from New Gate side road. It is stated that free pollution zone can only be developed by plantation, cleanliness and awareness. It is further submitted that as only a tree covered the environment is much healthier to live and work in and tree leaves recharge the atmosphere with life giving oxygen, take away excess carbon-di-oxide and transit moisture to the atmosphere by way of transpiration, therefore, in the interest of general public at large the same position be restored as it was before 2.4.93. 19. Dr. S.K. Tiwari, who was present in the Court was allowed to intervene in the matter. He submits that public of Jaipur is law-abiding, when the gates were closed it was going by two roads and when the gate was opened public started to go from the short cut, and in any case environment problem is hardly effected but one the matter is referred to the Court, the Court is duty to bound to see the interest of the persons who are not before the Court also in PIL. It is further submitted that the Court has no basis to come to the conclusion that while passing the vehicles through the garden it causes pollution beyond permissible limit and when it goes through outside the garden by two roads, will cause less pollution. There was also no basis that the carbon-mono-oxide will flow only in the upward direction by moving the vehicle and will not defuse in the atmosphere and in this way garden will be safe from pollution. He further submits that today the population has substantially increased alongwith the vehicles and as stated, there are only two roads outside the garden to connect the other part of the city and unless alternative roads are provided, stopping of vehicles through the garden is not the need of the day. More particularly, now a days every vehicle has to take a certificate from the pollution control board. Dr. Tewari submits that while allowing light vehicles in the park, in the circumstances of the case, even if there is some pollution. that cannot be a ground to close the gate, nor prohibited in the rules. More particularly, now a days every vehicle has to take a certificate from the pollution control board. Dr. Tewari submits that while allowing light vehicles in the park, in the circumstances of the case, even if there is some pollution. that cannot be a ground to close the gate, nor prohibited in the rules. That apart there is no alternative way except the existing two outside roads hardly 30-40 feet away from existing garden road itself. Under the circumstances, the Court should reconsider the entire matter and the gate of garden from New Gate side road be opened for vehicles and bifurcations/barriers at Ravindra Manch be removed and allow the light vehicles irrespective of any pollution till the Government makes alternative arrangements. 20. In reply Mr. Dhankar submits that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. In reply to argument of res-judicata and bona fides of filing this review petition Mr. Dhankar submits that in its 34th Annual General Meeting held on 15.11.94, the Chamber of Commerce and Industries has passed the resolution. The credentials are very much bonafide. He further submits that principle of governing res-judicata will not come in way of reviewing its order as review is to be considered on the basis of error apparent on record, which is apparent, so the cases cited by Mr. Vimal Chaudhary and Mr. P.C. Jain are not applicable. In the cases of environmental pollution, the Court came to the conclusion on the basis of report and provided alternative places. Mr. Dhankar submits that principle enunciated in the cases cited by the respondents are not disputed, but they are not applicable to the facts of this case. 21. Mr. Dhankar has deprecated the inaction and the lack of foresightedness, co-ordination of the concerned authorities of JDA and Municipality by shifting the responsibility to each other in not removing Chatwalas and without any authority allowed Bus Stop at MGD side gate, which polluted the entire atmosphere. He referred to the affidavit of Mr, M.L. Garg, XEN and submits that the State has not properly answered, not placed any notification desired by the Court. The traffic survey report of the garden dated 23.3.89 even assuming to be correct will have no effect in 1997, against the present actual datas. 22. Mr. He referred to the affidavit of Mr, M.L. Garg, XEN and submits that the State has not properly answered, not placed any notification desired by the Court. The traffic survey report of the garden dated 23.3.89 even assuming to be correct will have no effect in 1997, against the present actual datas. 22. Mr. Dhankar has given much emphasis to the Article written by the Judge concerned, who passed the order and also opined". " jkefuokl ckx% ,d U;k;k/kh'k dh vUrosZnuk fdlh Hkh n`f"V ls ns[kk tk;s rks lq/kkj ds ctk; fouk'k vf/kd gqvk gS vkSj esjh le> esa :i;ksa dk nq:i;ksx vf/kd gS] lnqi;ksx de gSA--------------- eq>s de ls de esjs fu.kZ; dh lgh Hkkouk ls fdz;kfUofr esa dgha u dgha deh utj vkrh gS ;k fQj eSaus gh 'kk;n Bhd ls le>us esa xyrh dh gSA " 23. Which shows that his order was not right to achieve desired purpose and passed without proper assistance. He further submits that Article 48A of the Constitution finds place in Part TV of the Constitution and the learned Judge seriously erred in law in not considering the provisions of Article 37 of the Constitution which mandates that provisions of Part IV shall not be enforceable by any Court, and the argument of Mr. Choundhary that it has no bearing as this point was not pleaded, has no substance. It is also submitted that this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus as petitioner has no legal right and there was no legal obligation on the State to stop light vehicles in absence of any bar in the rules. Choundhary that it has no bearing as this point was not pleaded, has no substance. It is also submitted that this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus as petitioner has no legal right and there was no legal obligation on the State to stop light vehicles in absence of any bar in the rules. It is submitted that in view of the power in Section 6(d) which regulates the traffic and carrying of passengers in park, there is clear bar on heavy vehicles as per Sub-rule 11 of Rule 9 of the Rules, therefore, a light vehicle of any description can be driven in the park other than the road provided for Rule 11 is a regulatory provision and according to that speed of the vehicles will not exceed 15 miles per hour from the points by which persons may enter and route by which pass through a park and as also provided in rules alongwith the time during which the park will remain open for the vehicles is mentioned in Rule 8, meaning thereby that there is no bar for light vehicles and it is permissible on existing roads provided in the park without challenging any rules, therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed palpable legal error apparent on the face of record, and the argument of Mr. Vimal Choundhary that the relief sought in the writ petition by way of mandamus was forx performine the statutory duties only and not against the rules, but the direction is against the rules, as already stated there is no prohibition for light vehicles and, therefore, the case of Rampal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in, 1986 RLW 395 is not attracted to the facts of this Case. In reply to the argument of Mr. P.C. Jain that review is not maintainable pending, appeal, it was argued by Mr. Dhankar that the matter was before the D.B. and could have been disposed by the learned D.B. itself but considering the circumstances, D.B. over-ruled the objections and thought it fit and proper that this error which has committed and resulted miscarriage of justice can be cured by the SB itself by reviewing its own order dated 2.4.93, the same has been remanded with specific directions, even when appeal is pending, therefore, this argument now does not exist. He also submits that the list supplied by Mr. He also submits that the list supplied by Mr. Kasliwal showing some gardens where vehicles are not permitted, is of no benefit as their situation and circumstances has not been placed and pleaded. 33 Under the circumstances, the situation of Ramniwas garden cannot be equated with them without specific pleadings and the learned Counsel cannot take advantage of the case in SBCWP No. 4360/95 decided on 24.2.95 and SBCWP No. 5549/94 decided on 17-2-95, as the judgments do not reveal that the point argued in this case has been considered. So also, he cannot take advantage of the case of K.K. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996(3) WLC (Raj.) 611 , which according to the learned Counsel, is based on the decision of the impugned order and further operation of the order has already been stayed by the Division Bench. 24. In reply to the argument that notice to all concerned is necessary, Mr. Dhankar submits that all persons who were heard before passing the order dated 2.4.93 were fully aware but have not approached this Court, as they were not in a position to justify the order despite the full knowledge of the order dated 2.4.93, 7.11.96 and 19.11.96 and even daily hearing of the case, and as per paper reporting, only the applicants, who were interested approached therefore, under the circumstances, as suggested by Mr. P.C. Jain, no notice is necessary. It is also stated that being a PIL every time notice is not necessary otherwise there will be no end of hearing. So far as the argument that in absence of the affidavit of the concerned Judge, no adverse inference can be drawn for the error Committed by the concerned Judge. In reply to this Mr. Dankar submits that he has already filed affidavit regarding publication of article alongwith opinion of different persons published in the newspapers and the publication has not been disputed, therefore, the argument of Mr. P.C. Jain has no substance, Mr. Dhankar submits that some time good order passed in bona fide may result injustice, the same could have been corrected by the concerned Judge, who retired on 16.2.94, which is clear from his Article. He further submits that the documents filed by Mr. P.C. Jain has no substance, Mr. Dhankar submits that some time good order passed in bona fide may result injustice, the same could have been corrected by the concerned Judge, who retired on 16.2.94, which is clear from his Article. He further submits that the documents filed by Mr. K.S. Rathore, does not reveal that there is any notification to prohibit light vehicles and nor any notification or circular has been filed to show that vehicles to go through Statute Circle connecting other side has been allowed, being a circle, as argued, despite the time granted and the documents filed by Mr. K.S. Rathore are not helpful in resolving the controversy. 25. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record and case law cited on the point. The principle enunciated in the case law cited by the parties is not disputed, as such it is not necessary for me to deal with them in detail. However, each case depends upon the facts of its own. 26. Any person considering himself aggrieved, can file review. Review is hot a routine procedure. The review is to be filed in time alongwith the certified copy as per law. 27. It is also true that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review to prevent miscarriage of justice to correct palpable error committed by it. 28. The procedural law is also applicable in PIL. But at the same time, the court ought not to be technical in the exercise of power in a genuine case were there is a miscarriage of justice, though this power should be exercised sparingly. 29. It will be relevant to quote para 16 of the judgment of their Lordships in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera v. State of U.P., reported in, AIR 1988 SC 2187 . 16. The writ petitions before us are not inter party disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the Court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. We may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not, available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the Court. Even if it is said that there was a final order, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult to entertain the plea of res judicata. As we have entertain the plea of res judicata. As we have already pointed out when the order of 12th March, 1985 reported in, was made, no reference to the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 had been done. We are of the view that leaving the question open for examination in future would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and would be against the interest of society. It is mere and proper as also in the interest of the parties that the entire question is taken into account at this stage. 30. It is no doubt true that the individual interest can be overlooked against the group of persons, at the same time larger interest is to be seen in comparison to the interest of group of persons and once the matter is referred to the Court, the Court is duty found to see the interest of the persons who are not before the Court also in PIL. This Court in appropriate case can review its order. 31. Though the petitioner was not a party in the original writ petition and the review was not filed in time alongwith the certified copy, but as stated, under the circumstances of the case, the question of res judicata is not applicable. 32. Considering arguments of both the sides, the law on the point and the observations of D.B. re-consideration and review of the order dated 2.4.1993, the technicalities will not come in the way of the petitioner applicant even on merits. I am of the firm view that the review is maintainable and objections are over-ruled. The petitioner applicant, who was not a party earlier, but was adversely affected by not placing the law point and the material as discussed above, caused miscarriage of justice and can challenge the impugned order dated 2.4.1993 in this review petition in PIL. 33. Now I proceed to deal with the matter on merits. 34. The petitioner applicant, who was not a party earlier, but was adversely affected by not placing the law point and the material as discussed above, caused miscarriage of justice and can challenge the impugned order dated 2.4.1993 in this review petition in PIL. 33. Now I proceed to deal with the matter on merits. 34. It is the mistake or error apparent on the face of record which needs no elaborate argument is a ground for review. It is also settled that re-hearing of entire case is not permissible in review and so also an erroneous order cannot be cured in review. 35. This review petition when initially came up before me and this Court was conscious of the fact and asked the counsel for the petitioner to show error apparent on the face of record for its maintainability, on 24.1.96. 36. In the instant case while passing the impugned order dated 2.4.1993, the Hon'ble Court directed to maintain the garden as required by law and restrain the entry of vehicular traffic to pass through it, on the ground to keep the garden free from pollution. 37. It is not necessary to go into the history of the garden and Jaipur City. This review is not an interparty dispute, and has arisen from PIL, as stated. The controversy is in narrow compass but has far reaching effect of general public. So far as the direction to maintain park as per law is legal, but the question whether under the facts and circumstances, restraining of using light vehicle on existing road while going on any part of the park other than roads then the places provided for, is against the Rules and without pleadings and coming to the conclusion without any basis of expert report or otherwise as discussed in earlier paragraphs, adversely affecting the general public, is an error apparent on the face of record causing carriage of justice to the public in general, is so what is its effect and relief? 38. It is relevant to reproduce para No. 13 in the case of Bharat Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 38. It is relevant to reproduce para No. 13 in the case of Bharat Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in, AIR 1988 SC 2181 : In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition if he is respondent from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, that is a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable. But, inspite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit. 39. It is not disputed that the environment is a necessary element. Undoubtedly, the maintenance of environment and ecological balance is obligation of the State and not only to the extent of the garden, but to my mind the entire city should be free from pollution. 40. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged in review the impugned order on number of points including want of pleading and other points which have already been dealt with in the earlier paras, and by not considering the points by the learned Judge while passing the order dated 2.4.93 has thus committed an error apparent on the face of record. 41. The consciousness regarding environmental upkeep is of recent origin. 41. The consciousness regarding environmental upkeep is of recent origin. As stated, to keep garden free from pollution and for that to close gate is good but keeping some gates of garden open for vehicular traffic is no justification and deprive some persons only and prohibiting in absence of any prohibitory order/circular without providing for sufficient alternative road is an error apparent on the face of record. 42. The error is also apparent, considering the Article which at at least reveals this much that the learned Judges showed grief and was hurt in passing of the order for want of proper assistance or due to its non-implementation in its letter and spirit to achieve its object. 43. In my opinion, the PIL's paramount consideration is to see general public interest irrespective of population problem, particularly, when there is hardly difference shown that if vehicles pass either through outside garden road or the existing road of the garden, when now certificate and sticker from the Pollution Control Board is necessary for every vehicle, otherwise it will be an offence. 44. Considering the arguments and keeping in view these aspects discussed in preceding paras and under the prevailing circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, by losing the gates for light vehicles the public has been adversely effected amounting to causing injustice and the impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the public at large and the error apparent is to be corrected this effect. The review petition is accepted. 45. As stated, to maintain the original grandeurs and to in tact the park free from pollution both air and noise the gates were closed as per the order dated 8.4.93. The gates were opened on 8.11.96 by the order of the learned Single Judge on 7.11.96 much has been executed by removing the mud barrier and reconstructed as of the interim order dated 19.11.96. 46. As discussed, the situation has become bad to worse. The public is using their vehicles on this muddy road as well as on the strips having surface of cement tiles and while passing through damaging the existing lawn also which is far off. 47. It is not disputed the extra lawn made, covering existing Charcoal road as per order dated 2.4.93, is now no more in existence. It will require sufficient time and huge expenditure for its paving and maintenance of lawn. 48. 47. It is not disputed the extra lawn made, covering existing Charcoal road as per order dated 2.4.93, is now no more in existence. It will require sufficient time and huge expenditure for its paving and maintenance of lawn. 48. As already stated earlier, in prevailing circumstances of the present case and keeping in view, the convenience of the public at large, as the Court is required to maintain the balance, I deem it proper to modify the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.4.93 to this extent to remove the entire mud and barrier obstructions including in front of Ravindra Manch side also, except three wells and new fountains, with necessary repair of the road to make it motorable as before, within 15 days from today, so that the public having certificate and affixed sticker on the vehicle issued by the Pollution Control Board may use their light vehicles only between 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. without any difficulty till an alternative road is proposed and prepared to connect the other side of the city for vehicular traffic. 49. As stated by the parties, all the directions given in the order dated 2.4.93 have been complied with except directions Nos. 4, 8, 9, 16 and 17 to some extent, though the directions are consequence of the order. Since the appeal is pending, it is not proper for me to give any finding considering the error apparent on the face of record except to give direction not to permit 'Thelas' and 'Khomchas' and take necessary action against unauthorised occupants and to remove them impleading otherwise the concerned authorised persons will be held personally responsible for their inaction for now following the directions, as per direction Nos. 8 and 9 with some modifications, as stated. 50. The State and others are directed to comply with the directions and to remove the Chat Bazaar who are working without licence and to shift it to the new location in front of Gem Cinema, with a separate entrance as suggested in the development plan instead of in back of museum, as per direction No. 8, within 4 months from today. 51. They are also free to provide facility at various locations in the park for drinking water, toilets and repairing of benches and others which are necessary to maintain it properly, as per earlier directions. 52. 51. They are also free to provide facility at various locations in the park for drinking water, toilets and repairing of benches and others which are necessary to maintain it properly, as per earlier directions. 52. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified to this extent only, as the Special Appeal is pending. 53. So far as the Writ Petition No. 1601/94 of Bardia Colony is concerned, Mr. S.M. All, Addl. Advocate General, submits that as per his information and intimation, the Department has reviewed the proposal to construct link read between Bardia Colony and JLN Marg. It is no more to go ahead with the proposal to construct this road, therefore, no direction is necessary and this writ petition has become infructuous. He has also placed on record the letter dated 19.3.97 of Chief Engineer (P-1). 54. In view of this statement of Mr. S.M. Ali, it is not necessary for me to pass any order on the writ petition at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. 55. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the State to acquire any land for laying down road or by-land for vehicle transport from outside the Garden for its development in future in accordance with law.The writ petition is, therefore, dismissal and the review petition is accordingly allowed, as indicated above.Petitions Disposed of as above with Freedom to State to Acquire Land for Purposes of Directions. *******