Judgment :- V.K. Bali, C.J. Should the court proceed to examine the validity of proceedings in a public interest litigation even when the court may be convinced that such proceedings have rather done good to the public at large and, in any case, are not detrimental to the public, is the question. 2. The question framed by us arises from the following facts: Forum for Socio Economic Studies, the petitioner herein, is a registered charitable trust with registration No.1124/93 of S.R.O. Maradu, having its registered office at Cochin. The objectives of the petitioner are stated to be to analyse and study socio-economic problems and issues, to enlighten the public and to persuade the Government to correct its outlook and policies so as to attain development and progress. The petitioner also is said to be working to shape public opinion on issues of general importance and to persuade public bodies to follow policies that further sustainable development and public welfare. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to espouse a public interest stated to be involving a matter of serious concern to the residents of Kochi in general. The challenge in the writ petition is against the decision taken by the respondent to carve out considerable extent of land from the designated Maidan and park area of Rejendra Maidan, Subhash Park, Children’s Park and Annie Besant Park for the purpose of what has been termed as model road. It is the case of the petitioner that these designated open places and play fields cannot be converted and used for any other purpose for more reasons than one. Section 4 of Act 2 of 1969 contemplates an elaborate procedure to be followed before designating an area as a play field or park. Once it is so ear marked, designated and notified as a park or open space in terms of Section 4(6) of the Act, then such designation is inviolable. It is not open to any authority to change its user. A variation in the list published in this regard under Section 4(6) of the Act is possible only after following the entire procedure provided in Section 4 and 5 of the Act. It is not open to any authority to change its user. A variation in the list published in this regard under Section 4(6) of the Act is possible only after following the entire procedure provided in Section 4 and 5 of the Act. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that the proposal which is challenged in this writ petition consists of annexing a portion of the Rajendra Maidan, Subhash Park Children’s Park and Annie Basant Park (reportedly land with a width of 10 metres on the eastern side of the existing park avenue to convert it into what is called as model road). On facts, it is stated that very limited open space that is available to residents of Kochi within the Corporation area is getting truncated. Valuable trees which are providing shade and open place will necessarily have to be felled and removed for construction of the model road. The entire move is actuated by a well thought out plan to expend valuable public funds. Construction of the model road had been resorted to apparently give some work to an architect. It is not as if the proposal is actuated by genuine public interest. In the wake of the pleadings made above, the petitioner has come up with the following prayers: “a. issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the entire records relating to the proposed ‘Model Road’ from the Respondents and to quash the proposal so far as it relates to the appropriation of any portion of the Maidan/park lands along the Park Avenue for road widening. b. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents not to implement any project or proposal that would interfere with the protection and preservation of the Maidan and Park land along the Park Avenue including the integrity of its area and vegetation. c. Declare that the appropriation of Maidan and park lands for other purposes is in violation of Article 21 read with Article 48(A) of the Constitution of India. d. Declare that the appropriation of Maidan or park lands for road widening or for any other construction is in violation of the provisions of Kerala Parks, Play Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Protection) Act, 1968. d. Declare that the appropriation of Maidan or park lands for road widening or for any other construction is in violation of the provisions of Kerala Parks, Play Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Protection) Act, 1968. e. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to in the interest of justice.” 3. In the counter affidavit that has been filed by the 6th respondent through K. Aloysius Mathew, Secretary to the Greater Cochin Development Authority, it has been inter alia pleaded that all averments and allegations contained in the Writ Petition are wrong and thus denied. The present public interest litigation is said to be really detrimental to the larger interest of the public who suffer much because of suffocation especially due to the poor condition and vital statistics of the roads in the city, which is burdened with the enormous increase in the number of vehicles. The steps that are being taken to widen the concerned road as part of the development activity is in the best interest of the general public and it takes its origin from the Cochin Marine Drive Scheme formulated by GCDA and approved by the State Government. The G.C.D.A. as part of the Kochi Marine Drive Scheme had reclaimed the land from the back waters and utilized the same for various purposes such as roads, parks, maidans, residence/commercial purposes and such other public uses. As per the Government approved master plan for the Marine Drive Area, there is a proposal for widening the existing road to 36 metres wide road by adding portions from the western side. It was accordingly that Shanmugham Road was widened to 36 metres utilizing the reclaimed land, wherever the same was available. With regard to the remaining extent lying up to the Rajendra Maidan, an additional area of a width of 10 metres would have to be surrendered to the P.W.D. for making the road to 36 metres wide, as per the original proposal of the approved Master Plan. The portion forming part of the Rajendra Maidan, which is owned by the G.C.D.A. has already been surrendered by the G.D.C.A. to the P.W.D. The remaining portions forming part of the Subhash Bose Park, Children’s Park etc. have to be surrendered by the Corporation of Kochi, who owns the same. The portion forming part of the Rajendra Maidan, which is owned by the G.C.D.A. has already been surrendered by the G.D.C.A. to the P.W.D. The remaining portions forming part of the Subhash Bose Park, Children’s Park etc. have to be surrendered by the Corporation of Kochi, who owns the same. It was to compensate the said loss of space from the parks as above, that the G.C.D.A. as early as in 1979, reclaimed much land on the western side of the parks with an average width of about 45 metres and was given to the Corporation, which comes to an approximate area of 7.75 acres. Despite this, the Corporation has not surrendered the nominal area of 10 metres wide portion on the Eastern side of the parks to widen the existing road in tune with the accepted and approved proposal for widening the road. In the vacant area (forming part of the proposed road), situated to the northern side of the canal bordering the northern side of the Children’s Park, some persons/traders started to effect permanent constructions, allegedly with the silent concurrent of the Corporation of Kochi, for their trade/business. On obtaining an anonymous letter in that regard, this Court was pleased to treat it as a Letter O.P. and all parties were called upon to answer the charge. On asking the stand of the G.D.C.A. the position was made clear by filing counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit, simultaneously producing a portion of the concerned, Scheme Map; a true copy of which has been annexed as Ext.R6(a). A number of interim orders were passed in this regard to secure the desired end. Pursuant to the active and timely intervention of this Court, the public property/funds could be saved, making the concerned parties/traders to give unconditional undertaking to the Corporation of Kochi to effect removal/demolition of the temporary structures as and when demanded. The proposed widening of the road is sought to be thwarted at the instance of the above concerned beneficiaries who want to make the existing arrangement, a permanent one. The idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the purpose of the reclamation of the land done by the G.C.D.A. and given to the Corporation on the western side of the parks is quite wrong and misconceived. The idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the purpose of the reclamation of the land done by the G.C.D.A. and given to the Corporation on the western side of the parks is quite wrong and misconceived. The petitioner, a responsible citizen/body/institution having genuine commitment to the development of the roads, streets and thus the welfare of the public at large, ought not to have proceeded with the above experimental litigation, that too, without confirming the actual facts and figures. It is further pleaded that the writ petition is devoid of merits and none of the grounds raised in support of the same would be sustainable. 4. The third respondent in the counter affidavit filed by it pleads that Model Road Project is undertaken by the Kerala Tourism Department and PWD is the execution agency. M/s. Ajith Associates, Kochi is the architect appointed by Tourism Department for the project. The road from B.T.H. junction to High Court junction was identified by Tourism Department to develop into a Model Road at Kochi. The basic concept of the Model Road is to improve driving quantities of the road, improve the drainage system and foot path on either side, provide smooth foot path to the pedestrians by paving tiles, provide bus shelters with special amenities. Provide modern street lighting and service ducts for utilities to avoid the practice of digging the road frequently. The road from High Court to Guest House Junction is already a four name road from High Court to BTH junction. For getting a full stretch four lane road from the High Court to BTH junction, the portion from St. Theresas junction to BTH junction has to be widened. Hence, it was decided to consider the possibility of widening this portion by utilizing 10 metres wide land of Rajendra Maidan, Subhash Park, Irrigation Department, KSRTC and Children’s Park. It was decided that these agencies may be requested to surrender 10 metre wide land for this purpose. The Corporation of Kochi has passed a resolution to surrender 10 metre wide land of Subhash Park and has given their consent. The G.C.D.A has expressed their willingness to surrender 10 metre wide land of Rajendra Maida. It is then pleaded that Kochi is having very little green space and Rajendra Maidan, Subhash Park and Children’s Park are among this. The Corporation of Kochi has passed a resolution to surrender 10 metre wide land of Subhash Park and has given their consent. The G.C.D.A has expressed their willingness to surrender 10 metre wide land of Rajendra Maida. It is then pleaded that Kochi is having very little green space and Rajendra Maidan, Subhash Park and Children’s Park are among this. It is further stated that Kochi does not have even half the road required to carry the ever increasing traffic. Due to the large inflow of traffic which is higher than the capacity of the roads, accidents are a regular feature. Widening the portion from BTH junction to St. Theresas Junction is only a step to ease the traffic congestion. The project is planned in such a way that all the trees will be maintained to the maximum extent and will be lined in a central median. Hardly any big tree need to be removed for the work. Spacious parking areas, paved footpaths, modern waiting sheds and street lights for the visitors to the parks and maidan are also provided in the project. By widening the road, the area will become more spacious and beautiful and the public will be benefited out of the project. 5. From the averments made in the counter affidavits of the respondents, it is quite apparent that a part of the parks is being utilized for widening the road so as to make it 36 metre wide. The road is being widened in the larger interest of general public who suffer from suffocation due to the poor condition and vital statistics of the roads in the city, which is burdened with the enormous increase in the number of vehicles. The enormous rush on the existing road, which are insufficient, results in fatal accidents. The steps taken for widening the road as per the Master Plan is a step in the right direction and out and out, for the benefit of the public at large. In so far as the park area is concerned, the same far from being reduced has been increased. The steps taken for widening the road as per the Master Plan is a step in the right direction and out and out, for the benefit of the public at large. In so far as the park area is concerned, the same far from being reduced has been increased. As already noticed, in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent it has been stated that, the portion forming part of the Rajendra Maidan, which is owned by the GCDA, has already been surrendered by the GCDA to the PWD and remaining portions forming part of Subhash Bose Park, Children’s Park etc have to be surrendered by the Corporation of Kochi. It is to compensate the said loss of space from the parks that the GCDA as early as in 1979, had reclaimed much land on the western side of the parks with an average width of about 45 metres and the said area was given to the Corporation, which comes to an approximate area of 7.75 acres. It is thus true that whereas from one side the park area has been reduced by about 10 metres on the other, it has been added by 45 metres. No facilities in the park have been reduced. The public enjoyment of the park is in tact. 6. Counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently contends that the park in question was a designated area as provided in Section 4 of Act 2 of 1969 and no change in the said designated area can be made about without following the procedure, which includes a public notice and hearing. We are of the considered view that such procedural lapses cannot be raised in public interest litigation, particularly when it may appear to the court that the act complained of has in fact done immense good to the public for whose benefit always the public interest litigations are resorted. Such procedural lapses, the court may examine and comment upon, while dealing with individual property or other rights of the citizens. From the facts as mentioned above, when the public may stand to gain in the ultimate analysis, such procedural flaws have to be ignored. Such procedural lapses, the court may examine and comment upon, while dealing with individual property or other rights of the citizens. From the facts as mentioned above, when the public may stand to gain in the ultimate analysis, such procedural flaws have to be ignored. The court is convinced that by widening the road, even though by shelving a part of the park, the public would stand to gain, inasmuch as bottle necks of traffic in a busy road would be removed, thus providing much required safety to the people; whereas, the part area has not been reduced but has rather been added. Hence, on both counts, the public would stand to gain, it is not possible for this Court to examine the procedural lapses complained of by the petitioner. We are of the firm view that, in such circumstances, it would not be justified to examine the correctness of the procedure adopted in widening the road by converting a part of the park area, even though the same may be a designated one, as asserted in, the petition. We, therefore, are not inclined to examine the correctness of the procedure with regard to a public road widening and changing the nature of the park, while implementing the master plan which, as mentioned above, has ultimately resulted in widening the road by shelving a part of the park, but keeping in tact or adding to it more area by reclamation of land from backwaters. In view of the observations made above, this Writ Petition is dismissed leaving, however, the parties to suffer their own costs.