ORAL JUDGMENT (PER BORKAR, J.):- 1. Heard the advocates for the concerned parties. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. By this public interest litigation, the petitioner has originally challenged proposed felling of trees by respondent No. 1 at three sites and subsequently added respondent Nos. 3 to 6 challenging the validity of constitution of respondent No.6, Tree Authority and also its decision dated 18.5.2007 permitting felling of trees and also challenging the agreements for development of two sites entered into between respondent No.1 on one hand and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the other hand. 3. The petitioners on 24.8.2007 categorically given up their case against respondent No.5 Airport Authority of India and as such by order passed on that day, respondent No.5 has been absolved of the entire liability which was imposed on it by virtue of status quo order passed in the petition and the said order was recalled. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary for us to consider the case made out by the petitioners against respondent No.5 any more. 4. It is necessary to consider the case of the petitioners as it stood before the petition was amended when ad-interim order of status-quo was obtained against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and after the amendment when status-quo order continued. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner is a registered Public trust and its aims and objects are to safeguard the interest of the pollution free environment and to create awareness in the public at large about keeping the environment free from any congestion and also to promote tree plantation in the entire district of Aurangabad for pollution free air. The petitioner trust is also committed to preserve trees, wild life, bird life and various bio-diversities. 5. Respondent No.1 is the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, which is the local body. The petition was filed against respondent No.1 for directions not to carry out the construction activities, such as construction of Food Plaza, Parking place, etc. in and around Siddharth Garden situated in the heart of Aurangabad City. The petitioner also seeks directions to respondent not to fell trees standing in the Siddharth garden as well as trees standing near Mayor’s Bungalow and roadside trees on the way to Airport as per the proclamation issued on 26.4.2007. 6. in and around Siddharth Garden situated in the heart of Aurangabad City. The petitioner also seeks directions to respondent not to fell trees standing in the Siddharth garden as well as trees standing near Mayor’s Bungalow and roadside trees on the way to Airport as per the proclamation issued on 26.4.2007. 6. Respondent No.1 Corporation decided to construct Food Plaza and parking place in and around the Siddharth Garden, a beautiful place where big trees are standing. The newspaper reports show that the decision for construction of food plaza and parking place in and around Siddharth Garden has been taken and the process in that respect has started in full swing. The petitioner raised voice and protested against the proposed construction for the reasons that about 16 big trees standing in the area were likely to be felled, which would seriously affect the environment. The food plaza is being constructed on the portion where there are big trees. The petitioners made representation to respondent No.1 on 19.1.2007 and there were discussions with the Commissioner. The Commissioner promised that the place of food plaza and parking place would be changed and it would be on the area where there are no trees. The petitioners sought information under the Right to Information Act on 23.1.2007. However, necessary information was not given. It is necessary to save the garden which is a carbon sink. Felling of trees would be detrimental to the environmental condition. The construction is purely for commercial purpose and it is not going to serve the purpose of or development of the garden. It is further stated that for the first time by proclamation in the newspaper on 26.4.2007, the concerned authority had called for objections from the public at Aurangabad regarding the constructions of building etc. and felling of trees in the area of Siddharth Garden, near Mayor’s Bungalow and on the way of the Airport. The petitioners have filed their objections to the huge constructions being made by spending about Rs.4.00 Crores. The location of the garden is exactly on the highway and near Central Bus Stand. Looking to the history of felling of trees, the assurance given by the Corporation that sufficient plantation would be made, cannot be believed as the percentage of survival of plants is very low. The location of the garden is exactly on the highway and near Central Bus Stand. Looking to the history of felling of trees, the assurance given by the Corporation that sufficient plantation would be made, cannot be believed as the percentage of survival of plants is very low. The parking place can be constructed besides Siddharth garden where there is Nullah (stream) flowing, by putting a slab on a height of about 10 feet over the nullah. 7. The Mayor’s Bungalow is on the main road leading to railway station. Because of heavy traffic there is much pollution in that area. Large number of trees are standing by the side of the road. There is no proper planning by respondent No.1 Corporation and looking to alternative available in respect of felling of standing trees, the action of the Corporation is not transparent and is likely to affect the environment. The petitioners are not against the developmental activities as such, but only the grievance of the petitioners are that the constructions which affect the environmental conditions, and need felling of trees should not be undertaken. With these pleadings, the petitioners prayed for directions to respondent No.1 to stop all proceedings in respect of raising constructions in Siddharth Garden, near Mayor’s Bungalow and on the way of Chikalthana Airport and to prohibit the respondents from felling of trees on the above said three sites. The petitioners on 18.5.2007 persuaded the court to issue Ad-interim status-quo order. 8. The matter came up for hearing on 25.5.2007 and Shri.R.S. Deshmukh, advocate appearing for respondent No.1 pointed out that so far as the trees standing on the road to Chikalthana Airport are concerned, the Municipal Corporation has no concern as occupier or owner and it is the Airport Authority of India which is concerned with the said trees and it is not made party. So the petitioners were directed to verify and if necessary to make the Airport Authority of India as party to the petition. Shri. Deshmukh for respondent No.1 also pointed out after referring to various documents that so far Siddharth Garden is concerned, the Corporation has passed resolution regarding development on 13.4.2006. The development agreement was executed and possession was given to developer on 20.3.2007. So it was argued that the order of the Court also affects the development and the developer should be made party. The development agreement was executed and possession was given to developer on 20.3.2007. So it was argued that the order of the Court also affects the development and the developer should be made party. The same is the case with the premises near Mayor’s Bungalow, for which the agreement for development was executed on 7.9.2006 and possession was handed over to developer. In these circumstances, the petitioner was directed to make necessary amendment and the petitioner amended the petition. 9. By the amendment, the petitioners came with a case that permissions of Tree Authority are obtained in case of all three sites for felling of trees. The petitioner challenged the validity of constitution of the Tree Authority of which the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation is Chairman. It is also stated that the proper procedure was not followed. The orders of the Tree Authority are not legal and proper and the same deserve to be quashed. Since the Commissioner himself is interested party, there is infringement of principles of natural justice in his presiding over the Tree Authority. The development activities are prejudicial to the public interest. The permission granted by Tree Authority is violative in law and in these circumstances, prayers are added for setting aside the order of the Tree Authority dated 18.5.2007, so also to quash the agreements entered into by respondent Nos. 1 with respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 10. Respondent No.1 filed its affidavit-in-reply. It is stated that under the garb of public interest litigation directions were sought against respondent No.1 Corporation for forthwith stopping all the proceedings in respect of construction in Siddharth garden, near Mayor’s Bungalow at Station road and on the way of Chikalthana Airport. The necessary parties such as developers, whose tenders have not only been accepted by the Standing Committee and further approved by the general body of the Corporation, but to whom possession of respective sites have been delivered, were not made parties. It is also stated that agreements were executed with the developers. So far as the construction at Chikalthana airport is concerned, the Airport Authority of India is necessary party. The applications was given to Tree Authority Committee for permission to fell about 35 trees for the purpose of proposed construction of terminal building at Chikalthana airport and for parking place at Chikalthana airport. So far as the construction at Chikalthana airport is concerned, the Airport Authority of India is necessary party. The applications was given to Tree Authority Committee for permission to fell about 35 trees for the purpose of proposed construction of terminal building at Chikalthana airport and for parking place at Chikalthana airport. As per provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the Tree Act"), the Corporation has constituted a committee after public proclamation in newspaper on 27.4.2007. The Commissioner is chairing the Committee by virtue of the Act. The Committee is legally and properly constituted. 11. So far as Siddharth garden is concerned, 21 trees from proposed parking place and 16 trees from proposed food plaza area have been identified as trees which would be affected. By positive efforts six trees have already been saved. Similarly out of total trees near Mayor’s Bungalow, 5 would be only affected, 7 have been saved. The Tree Authority Committee has granted necessary permission after hearing all concerned. 12. It is also stated by respondent No.1 Corporation that the Corporation owns 36 acres of land in and around Siddharth Garden. The garden is in 20 acres and in remaining 16 acres of land there are Zoo, Swimming Pool, Musical Fountain, Aquarium, Hyderabad Muktisangram Memorial, residential quarters of the staff and offices of the Garden Superintendent and the Director of Zoo. In 20 acres of garden land there are 925 trees. While on the rest of the 16 acres land, there are 550 trees. Thus out of total 1475 trees only 37 trees would be affected. 13. The Tree Authority Committee under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner had held meetings on 8.5.2007, 16.5.2007 and 18.5.2007. The minutes of the meeting shows that the Secretary of the petitioner Trust alongwith its President and other colleagues was present. They raised objections, attended the meeting, participated in the decision making process. Moreover, the Committee has directed that for each one tree to be cut, 5 new trees are to be planted and per tree Rs.200/- should be deposited. Thus necessary precaution is taken for plantation of additional trees. 14. It is also stated that an expert committee was appointed to consider the alternative proposal suggested by the petitioner. Moreover, the Committee has directed that for each one tree to be cut, 5 new trees are to be planted and per tree Rs.200/- should be deposited. Thus necessary precaution is taken for plantation of additional trees. 14. It is also stated that an expert committee was appointed to consider the alternative proposal suggested by the petitioner. The President of the Petitioner Trust Mr.Diwan, had proposed to provide columns and RCC slab for covering nullah so as to provide parking space. The expert committee was comprising of Mr. U.J. Kahalkar, HOD Civil Department, Engineering College, Dr. Satish Patil HOD Environmental Science Department, BAMU, and Mr. Sunil Raka and Associates, Consulting Engineer, Aurangabad. The said expert committee has given report that the alternative proposal made by the petitioner Trust for parking site is not feasible and practical. The report is placed on record. It is also stated that the project is undertaken by the Corporation to provide basic and necessary facilities for people visiting Siddharth garden such as a big parking place (two tier parking), a food plaza, an amusement zone and garden related shops. It is also stated that as many as 19 lacs people visit Siddharth garden annually. During peak hours, as many as 7 to 8 thousand people are visiting the garden every day. This submission is made to underline the necessity of parking place. It may be noted that the alternative proposal to cover nullah and provide parking place itself shows that the petitioner is also convinced of the necessity of parking place. 15. It is further stated that the project is undertaken on Built, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis by the Corporation, which is in the interest of public at large. The whole exercise is to minimize the vehicular pollution and to maintain the garden and to provide amusement zone to visitors. 16. It is further stated that there is necessary transparency in the transaction. The procedure laid down in law is followed. Absolutely there is no reason to allow the petition. All other allegations regarding the proposed construction near Mayor’s Bungalow and near Siddharth garden are denied. It is stated that respondent No.1 Corporation has done excellent work in the field of preservation, plantation and spreading awareness so far as trees are concerned. This petition is nothing but an attempt to stall developmental activities of the Corporation under the garb of public interest litigation. It is stated that respondent No.1 Corporation has done excellent work in the field of preservation, plantation and spreading awareness so far as trees are concerned. This petition is nothing but an attempt to stall developmental activities of the Corporation under the garb of public interest litigation. It is stated in para 12 that the petition seems to be at the instance of somebody having vested interest to achieve private goals. 17. Respondent Nos. 4 has also filed his affidavit-in-reply justifying the contract with it by respondent No.1 and also justifying order of the Tree Authority Committee. Similar affidavits filed by respondent No.3 and respondent No.5 are also on record. 18. Both sides cited several authorities. In the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs. C.Kenchappa & Ors ( AIR 2006 SC 2038 ), Their Lordships considered the law on the subject and explained principle of sustainable development. In para 49, para 27 in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action Vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281 ), is reproduced as follows:- "While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment." . In para 60 it is observed as follows:- " The development should be such as it can be sustained by ecology. All this has given rise to the concept of sustainable development.". In para 99 and 100 the following observations are made:- "99. Sustainable use of natural resources should essentially be based on maintaining a balance between development and ecosystem. Coordinated efforts of all concerned would be required to solve the problem of ecological crises and pollution. Unless we adopt an approach of sustainable use, the problem of environmental degradation cannot be solved. 100. The concept of sustainable development was propounded by the "World Commission on Environment and Development", which very aptly and comprehensively defined it as ’development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Unless we adopt an approach of sustainable use, the problem of environmental degradation cannot be solved. 100. The concept of sustainable development was propounded by the "World Commission on Environment and Development", which very aptly and comprehensively defined it as ’development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Survival of mankind depends on following the said definition in letter and spirit." 19. Same principles are laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others ( AIR 2005 SC 4256 ) and Intellectuals Forum, Tirupati Vs. State of A.P. and others (2006 AIR SCW 1309), 20. In para 67 of Intellectuals Forum (supra), Their Lordships directed that what the court should follow is principle of sustainable development and find a balance between the development needs which the respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the appellants allege. Their Lordships also dealt with another legal doctrine that is relevant to the matter i.e. doctrine of public trust. In para 82 it is observed that the State authorities are trustees to hold and manage the property for the benefit of community and they cannot be allowed to commit any act or omission which will infringe the right of the community and alienate the property to any other person or body. In that case Their Lordships were considering the feasibility of revival of two tanks at Tirupati and (-15-) prayer for prohibiting further housing construction. 21. The case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and others (2004 AIR SCW 4033) is also cited before us. In that case various lands were being used for mining. The question was regarding mining in Aravalli Hill Range. In para 48, Their Lordships made the following observations:- "48. The development and the protection of environments are not enemies. If without degrading the environment or minimising adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles of sustainable development, in that eventuality, the development has to go on because one cannot lose sight of the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects etc. including the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue. A balance has to be struck." 22. The case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. including the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue. A balance has to be struck." 22. The case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2006 AIR SCW 3346) is also cited for necessity of absolute transparency. It was a case of appointment of constitutional functionaries and it was observed that absolute transparency is required to be maintained and demonstrated. It is argued before us that in this case what is expected from respondent No.1 while entering into the agreement was absolute transparency. 23. On the other hand, advocate for respondent No.1 relied upon the case of Shri Sachindanand Pandey and Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. ( AIR 1987 SC 1109 ). In the said case commercial transaction was involved. There was allotment of public land for construction of a five star hotel. The deal was finalised by negotiations with leading Hotelier company, instead of inviting tenders or holding auction. In para 3 and 4, it is observed that while the scientific and technological progress of man has invested him with immense power over nature, it has also resulted in the unthinking use of the power, encroaching endlessly on nature. If man is able to transform deserts into oases, he is also leaving behind deserts in the place of oases. . The Court further observed in para 4 that;- "Obviously, if the Government is alive to the various considerations requiring thought and deliberation and has arrived at a conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be for this Court to interfere in the absence of mala fides. On the other hand, if relevant considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant considerations influence the decision, the Court may interfere in order to prevent a likelihood of prejudice to the public. Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind. On the other hand, if relevant considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant considerations influence the decision, the Court may interfere in order to prevent a likelihood of prejudice to the public. Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind. Art. 48-A of the Constitution, Directive Principle which enjoins that "The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country." and Art. 51-A(g) which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures," When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy making authority. The least that the Court may do is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go further, but how much further much depend on the circumstances of the case. The Court may always give necessary directions. However, the Court will not attempt to nicely balance relevant considerations. When the question involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the Court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority.". It is argued before us that respondent No.1 has acted bona fide in the best interest of the society and there are no mala fides and even the Tree Authority Committee has acted bona fide, in the interest of the society and has taken care of the concerns for environment and ecology. 24. At Exh. R-1 alongwith the affidavit-in-reply, respondent No.1 has produced a copy of minutes of the meeting regarding the development near Siddharth garden and near Mayor’s Bungalow. It may be noted that on BOT principle parking space, temporary stalls, terrace restaurant, fountains, modern restaurant and entertainment centre with modern toys and gadgets are to be installed as development of Siddharth Garden. The parking space is to be 5708 Sq. Mt. A gate is also to be erected and the shopping complex, restaurant etc. are to be in 2373 Sq. Mt. There are other terms and conditions. The parking space is to be 5708 Sq. Mt. A gate is also to be erected and the shopping complex, restaurant etc. are to be in 2373 Sq. Mt. There are other terms and conditions. Similarly near Mayor’s Bungalow the construction was to be effected in 5792.62 Sq. Ft. portion. The Developer was also to give some constructed area to Municipal Corporation for use. We are not so much concerned in this P.I.L. with merits or wisdom in the policy decision underlying agreements entered into by respondent No.1 with respondent Nos.3 and 4, though in argument all such questions are raised by the petitioner, which are beyond the scope of this petition. It is stated that the petition was filed by the petitioner simply out of love and regard with the preservation of ecology and Trees. . Exh. R-2 shows the Municipal Corporation took decision regarding the appointment of Tree Authority under the Tree Act. Accordingly the Committee was constituted. At Exh. R-3 there is a copy of public notice regarding felling of trees from Siddharth garden, the place near Mayor’ s Bungalow and for development of Airport. Objections were called by the said public notice dated 26.4.2007. 25. If we have regard to the provisions of the Tree Act, it is clear that so far as the Municipal Corporation is concerned, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation is Ex-Officio Chairman and in view of this provision, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the Tree Authority are void merely because its Chairman also happens to be Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, which has entered into the contract of development with respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Absolutely no malafides are pointed out nor any illegality is substantiated. Section 8 of the said Act also lays down the procedure to be followed for giving permission and the conditions on which such permission can be granted. 26. At Exh.R-3 the description of trees with their kind, girth, age etc. are given. These are the description of the trees which are to be felled down as a result of project undertaken near Siddharth Garden and this was part of the public notice given. 27. At Exh. R-4 chart is also given as to how many trees are required to be felled down for the developmental activities on the three sites. At Exh. These are the description of the trees which are to be felled down as a result of project undertaken near Siddharth Garden and this was part of the public notice given. 27. At Exh. R-4 chart is also given as to how many trees are required to be felled down for the developmental activities on the three sites. At Exh. R-5 the total number of trees in Siddharth garden (which was 925) and their kinds are given in detail. These are trees in 20 acre land. 28. At Exh.R-6 there is minutes of the meeting of the Tree Authority Committee which considered the application for permission to fell trees at three sites in dispute and at other places. Professor Vijay Diwan, President of the petitioner was one of the persons who took objections and he was present. Kishor Gathadi, who signed the petition on behalf of the petitioner Trust was also present. The meeting was held on 8.5.2007. Various suggestions were considered. It is clear that after giving hearing on 8.5.2007, 16.5.2007 and 18.5.2007 permission was granted for felling of trees on the conditions that for each tree felled five trees are to be planted and for each tree felled Rs.200/- are to be deposited with the Tree Committee. 29. At Exh. R-7 there is report of the expert committee regarding suggestion by the petitioner for covering stream by concrete slab and using it as parking space. The committee has given reasons for rejecting the proposal as impractical. So the affidavit of respondent No.1 is supported by documents produced on record. 30. At the time of argument Shri Sant appearing for the petitioner has argued that the Commissioner could not have presided over the Tree Authority Committee as he was an interested person. We do not agree with this submission. Though the Commissioner is executive head of the Municipal Corporation, it cannot be said that he has any personal interest in the agreements entered into by respondent Nos.1 with respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The minutes of the meeting so also decision of Tree Committee clearly shows that it is according to law, and taken after following necessary procedure. No material procedural defect is established. 31. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued for cancellation of agreements between respondent No.1 on one hand and respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the other hand. The minutes of the meeting so also decision of Tree Committee clearly shows that it is according to law, and taken after following necessary procedure. No material procedural defect is established. 31. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued for cancellation of agreements between respondent No.1 on one hand and respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the other hand. In our opinion, for entertaining this submission there is no sufficient material on record. Material placed on record does not show that the agreements even prima facie, suffered from any defect which requires review by this Court. In fact this introduction of amendment challenging the agreement by respondent No.1 with respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the original petition and emphasis on cancellation of agreements only strengthen the allegation by respondent No.1 that this alleged P.I.L. is in fact private interest litigation. It may be noted that if officials of petitioner trust were present at the meeting of Tree Authority, they should have come with all facts which they introduced by way of amendment. Order of status-quo was obtained against respondent No.5 Airport Authority of India without making it party. Without commenting more on this aspect, in our considered opinion, absolutely no case is made out to interfere considering the total number of trees standing in and around Siddharth garden and the number of trees required to be felled. Similarly, near Mayor’s Bungalow only five trees are affected. Moreover, necessary precautions are taken by the Tree Authority. 32. In our considered opinion, the Tree Authority has considered all objections and applied its mind and has passed proper order. Shri Sant even went to the extent of saying that it is more important to save trees and proposed construction is not at all necessary. But that is extreme view. 33. Shri Deshmukh, advocate for respondent No.1 has pointed out that developmental activities have to be undertaken if more visitors are to be attracted to Siddharth garden and if congestion of traffic presently made due to parking of number of vehicles visiting the garden are to be regulated by providing parking space. In fact as stated in the petition, the garden is on the main road, it is one of the important attractions for visitors, so making provision of parking space is one of the duties of the Municipal Corporation. In fact as stated in the petition, the garden is on the main road, it is one of the important attractions for visitors, so making provision of parking space is one of the duties of the Municipal Corporation. If we are to give impetus to the growth of tourism industry such projects are necessary. The tourists have to be attracted. They must be provided with facilities such as safe parking, entertainment for children, good food and better facilities. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the petition. At the time of argument it is argued that if necessary respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are ready to plant more trees. 34. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. 35. However, it is directed that while developing the site of Siddharth Garden, Aurangabad, 37 notified trees are required to be cut. Similarly, at the site near Mayor’s Bungalow, railway Station, Aurangabad, five trees are notified to be cut. This felling of trees is allowed on condition that the concerned developers respondents on both the sites shall, with the assistance from respondent -Corporation, plant at least ten trees for every cut tree in the near vicinity of the respective sites and shall make deposit of Rs.1000/- per cut tree with the tree authority of the Corporation as non refundable deposit. It shall be the responsibility of the concerned developers- respondents, with the assistance from the concerned authorities of the Garden Department of the Corporation to look after the newly planted trees at least for next five years from the date of the order. Such trees to be planted within two months from the date of this order. The nature of the trees to be planted to be determined by the tree authority of the Corporation. 36. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Interim order stands vacated. Rule discharged. 37. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a plea for stay of the order. In view of the facts and circumstances, the plea for stay stands rejected.