Judgment This writ petition in the nature of public interest is filed seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to hand over any portion of the park schedule property in question which is known as Indira Gandhi Memorial Park. 2. The brief facts that lead to the filing of the present petition are as under: The 1st petitioner is a welfare association for Krishna Apartments claiming to be a non-profit organisation registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. According to them by the proposed handing over of a substantial portion of the said park to the 8th respondent, presumed to be a Trust, is opposed to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. They further contend that putting up the structure measuring not less than 1000 sq. mts. In the schedule park is contrary to section 4 of the Act. According to them, by the proposal of putting up a war memorial, several trees, shrubs, plants and bushes which form part of the garden have to be cut. 3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is as under: A land measuring 17.04 acres was notified by the Government of Karnataka as park vide notification dated 30.7.1998. This was originally used by LRDE, a defence establishment and after removing the structures on the said park, the present park was created, retaining the existing trees and also planting new trees with a musical fountain as well. It is considered to be one of the prime parks in the city. In view of the policy of t Government not to put up any building within the existing park did not allow any structure to come up. However, Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Ltd., has put up temporary structure to highlight all the sources of renewable energy and also how to promote the ecological balance. This was done without felling any of the trees. This park is used by the public at large and by the respondents in and around the said park coming from Ali Asker Road, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar, palace Road, High Grounds, Cunningham Road and Crescent Road. This has created a lung space in the heart of the city. 4. When the ‘statue of unknown warrior’ was shifted from Minsk Square War Memorial to this park the public had no objection. This has created a lung space in the heart of the city. 4. When the ‘statue of unknown warrior’ was shifted from Minsk Square War Memorial to this park the public had no objection. Similarly when a rock etched with the inscription ‘National Military Memorial Park’ with a plaque on the rock was placed in the said park in the month of February 2009, as there was no hindrance to the public at large, petitioners did not raise any objection. Subsequently, the petitioners have learnt that respondent No.8 is intending to establish National Military Memorial Park within the precincts of the park by way of landscape without any building being put up as per the newspaper report. However, they were surprised to read several newspaper reports that ‘Motivation Hall’ is proposed covering 1000 sq.mts. construction in the park and 31 trees to be axed. Several persons including the petitioners submitted memorandum to the Government, Chief Minister and several persons. Subsequently under Right to Information Act, the petitioners secured information from the BBMP and also BDA which intimated the proposed structure of 1000 sq. mts. by cutting several trees. Even though they have declared to cut only 4 trees, several trees are marked to be cut. Therefore, the petitioners apart from other residents of the apartments have resolved to protest which is in support of the cause of the public at large. The act of the 1st respondent State Government under whose custody the land was till now, has given away part of the land to 5th respondent and the 5th respondent has assigned a right in favour of the 8th respondent. The activities are on account of 7th respondent. The convenor of 7th respondent is none other than the Chairman of the 8th respondent. With these averments, they contend that when the petition schedule park – Indira Gandhi Memorial Park is declared as a park, no portion of the same could be alienated in any manner as per Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. 5. Similarly no construction of any building or structure could be allowed within the meaning of Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act. They further contend that there cannot be creation of rights in third parties contrary to the intention of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the above said Act. 5. Similarly no construction of any building or structure could be allowed within the meaning of Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act. They further contend that there cannot be creation of rights in third parties contrary to the intention of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the above said Act. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent who has a duty to maintain and preserve the trees in the park has allowed the 2nd respondent to carry out the project involving feeling of trees and putting up of structures. The Chief Secretary representing the Chief Minister failed to take action on the representation given by the petitioners. The 3rd respondent failed to act on the representation of the petitioners and others who represents the Chief Minister. 6. The status and the Constitution of the 8th respondent is under cloud and the whole idea seems to be the brain child of one Mr. Rajiv Chandrashekar convenor of 7th respondent. 7. The proposed construction of War Memorial involving felling of trees and construction of huge building on the schedule property would affect the interest of citizens at large and therefore, it is illegal and ultra vires the Constitution. According to the petitioners, they have great respect for the warriors who fought for the country and the purpose of filing the present petition is not to hurt the sentiments of the Jawans/Martyrs but is only to ensure that the law of the land is upheld. With these averments, they have sought for a writ of mandamus seeking directions as under: a) Writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to handover any portion of park to any activity in any manner by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange, mortgage, licence or otherwise to any entity and retain it as public property; b) Writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from putting up any structure over or above ground in the nature of motivation hall be it permanent or temporary in the schedule park; c) Writ of mandamus restraining the respondents not to fell any trees, remove bushes, shrubs, etc. 8. As against this, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have file the objection statement which are enumerated in brief as under: The claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained as they are not entitled for any of the reliefs. 8. As against this, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have file the objection statement which are enumerated in brief as under: The claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained as they are not entitled for any of the reliefs. No prima facie case is made out warranting issuance of writ of mandamus. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed in limine in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of MANISUBRATE JAIN ETC., -vs- STATE OF HARYANA [ AIR 1977 SC 276 ]. The 2nd petitioner is a resident of the 1st petitioner/Association. Therefore, it is a private interest rather than public interest espoused in the present writ petition. 9. According to the respondents, the present petition is filed with private motive to achieve personal gain. Therefore, it is contra to the guidelines pronounced in the case of STATE OF UTTARANCHAL –vs- BALAVANT SINGH CHAUFAL[2010 AIR SCW 1029]. 10. It is contended, the very admission of the petitioners that on earlier occasion, the structures were used by Electronic Radar and Development Establishment [LRDE] would only indicate that originally the property was used by the Department of Defence of Union of India. The entire area measures about 17.4 guntas belonging to the State Government is under the control of PWD. 11. These respondents recognising the sacrifice rendered by the sons of Karnataka and in order to honour those persons from Karnataka who served the Armed Forces, by creating a War Memorial want to pay homage to them. This would inspire patriotism towards the motherland in the minds of the youth. Accordingly, the Government Order came to be issued constituting a Committee to design the War Memorial. After the perusal of the report submitted by the said Committee, the State Government resolved to create a Trust for the National Military Memorial by the order dated 28.2.2009 having 11 members with the approval of the Cabinet. Several sanctions were also accorded including entrusting of work of tenders, appointment of contractors, monitoring the works of the construction, etc. In all 6 acres 20 guntas of land is required to establish the War Memorial in the said land and the same was entrusted to BDA by an order of the Government dated 12.5.2009 for the purpose of commencement of construction. In all 6 acres 20 guntas of land is required to establish the War Memorial in the said land and the same was entrusted to BDA by an order of the Government dated 12.5.2009 for the purpose of commencement of construction. In all 4 trees (3 Eucalyptus and 1 Ashoka) are coming in the way of construction of Motivation Hall located within the National Military Memorial Area. Therefore, the question of axing many trees does not arise. Similarly, question of alienation of land by way of gift, lease, exchange, sale, mortgage or otherwise as contemplated under the above said Act, also does not arise. The park will always remain under the control and ownership of the State Government and the Committee is constituted only to design and plan the War Memorial. Covering a space of 1000 sq. mts., underground Motivation Hall is proposed to be put up in the said land. The ground above the Motivation Hall will be covered with landscape. The Motivation Hall is proposed to be used only for paying homage to the martyrs from military and honour their families. This would inspire and educate the younger generation about the same. They also intend to display artifacts of war, etc., to educate the younger generation in order to create awareness and patriotism. The object is to restore the sense of pride amongst the youth so as to motivate them to join Defence service to serve the country. The Motivation Hall will not be used for any other purpose. Therefore, the proposed War Memorial including the Motivation Hall in the underground will not in any way affect the general public including the petitioners and on the other hand it will be a prestigious land mark for the people of Karnataka. With these averments, they have sought for dismissal of the petition. 12. The statement of objections of BDA is more or less on the similar lines of objections filed by respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. According to them parting of the land to any one would not occur as the property in question remains to be the property of the Government (coming under the control of Public Works Department). However it is maintained by the Horticulture Department. The proposed Military Memorial was done only to inspire and educate the younger generation about the martyrs and the related matters. However it is maintained by the Horticulture Department. The proposed Military Memorial was done only to inspire and educate the younger generation about the martyrs and the related matters. Only a portion of the land will be used for the said purpose. The BDA is entrusted with the work of tendering appointment of contractors, etc. It was handed over to the BDA on 12.5.2009. Subsequently, it has passed a resolution on 21.5.2009 to take up the project of establishing a National Military Memorial. The cost of construction would be from the resources of BDA. As per the resolution dated 8.2.2010, contract is already awarded to one Mr. K. Damodar who is required to complete the project within 9 months. Only after conducting a tree census, the land was handed over to them. In all there are 384 trees in the land. Originally there was a proposal to cut 18 trees and a permission was also obtained from the competent authority. Honouring the opposition raised by the environmentalists, after re-looking into the matter only, 4 trees are decided to be removed, which are coming in the way of the Motivation Hall and the modified proposal also will be placed before the concerned authority. This was done in order to preserve and maintain the ecology. The petitioners have no locus standi to present the writ petition and there is no contravention of any of the provisions of the above Act. The entire construction which is going to be underground is less than 4% of the land on which the National Military Memorial is proposed. This would not in any way affect the ecology or preservation of parks. With these averments, they have sought for dismissal of the petition. 13. In brief the objection statement of the 8th respondent is as under: They categorically deny all the averments in the public interest litigation. The 8th respondent committee is not at all connected to the agenda for Bengalure Infrastructure and Development (ABIDe) as contended by the petitioners. With these averments, they have sought for dismissal of the petition. 13. In brief the objection statement of the 8th respondent is as under: They categorically deny all the averments in the public interest litigation. The 8th respondent committee is not at all connected to the agenda for Bengalure Infrastructure and Development (ABIDe) as contended by the petitioners. The entire land in High Grounds Camp (A) plot no.456 consists of 17.04 acres which is mainly a horticultural garden; in one portion of the said garden, Indira Gandhi Musical Fountains are situate; the proposed war memorial is to be established in a plot of 6 acres; the apprehension of the petitioners that the State Government is transferring the land in question for the said memorial is il-conceived; the memorials such as India Gate at Delhi or Minsk Square at Bangalore were established by the British during their rule in India to honour the soldiers who laid down their lives to protect the British empire. Unfortunately, no such memorial has come into existence at Bangalore post independence to pay homage to those soldiers from Karnataka who have lost their lives while protecting the Indian Republic. 14. It is stated that proposed underground memorial hall is with a purpose and intends to motivate the youth in the State of Karnataka to join the defence services and develop patriotism. With the above aims and objectives, National Military Memorial was decided to be established on the proposed and, in order to inculcate and imbibe patriotism in the citizens of this State and the country at large by exhibiting national flag, flags from 3 wings of the defence services, name plates of martyrs, bugle post, band stand, and the Motivation Hall will also have different kinds of artefacts like photographs, etc. in memory of the soldiers/martyrs from the State of Karnataka. 15. It is further contended that the entire project establishing the said memorial is under the aegis of the State Government as the State Government is seized of the complete control over the planning, establishment and maintenance of the memorial; a Committee was established by notification dated 17.9.2008 which would suggest design and plan of the establishment of the Memorial. 16. It is further contended that the entire project establishing the said memorial is under the aegis of the State Government as the State Government is seized of the complete control over the planning, establishment and maintenance of the memorial; a Committee was established by notification dated 17.9.2008 which would suggest design and plan of the establishment of the Memorial. 16. It further contends that the proposed land was not identified by any of the private and it is the State Government which decided the spot for establishment of the Memorial after inspecting multiple spots and various plots. The proposed land will be under the administration and control of the Home Department while the ownership of the proposed land continues to vest with the Public Works Department. No third party is conferred with any responsibility of establishing or conducting any activities connected with the establishment of the Memorial. The Bangalore Development Authority would be responsible for the construction of the Memorial. The Memorial after establishment has to work in accordance with the rules and regulations that apply to National Military Memorial. The ceremonies and various activities which have to be conducted by National Military Memorial cannot be conducted by the State Government alone, which requires continues co-operation and coordination between the State Government and the command offices of the various services. In order to achieve this object, the trust headed by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka as Chairman is also established. The said Trust is also not in the nature of a private Trust and the trustees are responsible persons from various walks of life. 17. With the above contentions, it is contended that the proposed land in no way is alienated and it is not going to fall into private hands, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners is unfounded. The land would continue to be with the ownership of the State Public Works Department and the trust will be in charge of the maintenance and control of the War Memorial. According to them, the final plan of the War Memorial would not in any way affect the ecology or the greenery as the entire area will continue to be maintained with greenery. No construction would come up above ground level; only 4 plants have to be removed which would be compensated by planting approximately 30 new saplings around the Memorial to augment the green cover. No construction would come up above ground level; only 4 plants have to be removed which would be compensated by planting approximately 30 new saplings around the Memorial to augment the green cover. With these averments they have sought for dismissal of the petition. 18. According to Mr. Thiruvengadam learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the clarifications needed were not met and at no point of time there was any indication that it is an underground memorial. Even the plan filed by the BDA does not indicate underground construction. According to the learned counsel, Annexure R-4 at page 12 filed along with the objection statement of the BDA indicates that 7% of the cost was agreed to be the fee to the advisors. Therefore, it leads to suspicion. He further contends that as already substantial portion of the land is covered by solar project and Annexure R-6 does not indicate who prepared the list of trees and when Annexure E indicates axing of 31 trees, objection statement indicates cutting of only 4 trees. According to him the so call Motivation Hall is not a Motivation Hall but it is only a sub-way planning. Therefore, it is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. He further contends that the 8th respondent Trust is not yet constituted and it is only a committee. Therefore, unless aims and objectives of the Trust are brought on record, the apprehension is based on sound reasoning. By the proposed construction, the apprehension of the common man according to the learned counsel would be that they would be restricted to enter the proposed land. According to them, the proposal to create the Trust for the running of the War Memorial is contrary to law, affects ecology and restricts movement of public in the 7 acres as indicated by several persons. Therefore, without detail of structure, estimate and plan it leads to suspicion. Hence, there is justification in the call of the petitioners approaching this Court in this Public Interest litigation. 19. The learned senior counsel Mr. Holla representing the respondent no.8 Committee strongly opposes the contention of the petitioners regarding allegation of wrongful alienation of the property. According to him, there is no transfer of alienation of the proposed land to any 3rd party. 19. The learned senior counsel Mr. Holla representing the respondent no.8 Committee strongly opposes the contention of the petitioners regarding allegation of wrongful alienation of the property. According to him, there is no transfer of alienation of the proposed land to any 3rd party. Only the day-to-day maintenance would be under the control of the Trust proposed and the entire design and planning would be under the aegis of a committee consisting of several members from different walks of life. In other words, the whole project would be under the control of the officialdom and not the 3rd parties. 20. The learned Advocate General Mr. Ashok Haranahalli commenced his arguments with the technical objection that the very prayer in the writ petition is not justified as there is no question of handing over any portion of the park to any third parties by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange, mortgage, as the same is going to be retained as a public property. According to him, affidavit and statement of objection of the Government as indicated in para 9 would establish that the petitioners who are the apartments owners have approached the Court with ulterior motive and there is no public interest or cause of any nature. It is nothing but the interest of the private individual coming under the guise of Apartment Owners Welfare Association. He further contends that the very proposal of the War Memorial is also in the interest of the public and the apprehension of the petitioners association is not well-founded as will not be restriction of any movement in any of the areas of Indira Gandhi Memorial Park. The present area also will be to the benefit and welfare of the public at large. The learned counsel with these arguments sought for dismissal of the petition. 21. Learned counsel Mr. Shankar Narayana Rao appearing for the BDA contends that there was a proposal initially to cut 31 trees when the project was at the initial stage of conceptualization but ultimately it is found only 4 trees – 3 eucalyptus and one Ashoka tree would be axed. 21. Learned counsel Mr. Shankar Narayana Rao appearing for the BDA contends that there was a proposal initially to cut 31 trees when the project was at the initial stage of conceptualization but ultimately it is found only 4 trees – 3 eucalyptus and one Ashoka tree would be axed. He further contends that the apprehension of the petitioners that some marking has been done on the trees indicating proposal to axe those trees is not at all correct as the numbering or the marking on the trees was at the time of tree census being taken and not for the purpose of cutting the trees. With these arguments, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 22. With these arguments in our mind, we proceed to consider the facts on record. From the pleadings and the documents furnished to us, it is established that a War Memorial is proposed in a land measuring about 6.20 acres of land. So far as the portion of the land used for exhibiting sources of energy, most of it is done on the land posts and not on the ground except some portion of the land used for solar equipment. It is not disputed or denied by the petitioners that several Kannadigas more than 1800 persons have sacrificed their lives as soldiers / martyrs in the process of protecting our country. It is not the case of the petitioners that there are several War Memorials already established. The contention of the petitioners’ counsel that such memorials could be established within the defence area or within the army campus is not laudable because such establishment of War Memorial in a closed campus of the army or in other departments of Defence, the general public has no access. The very intention of establishing National Military Memorial is to inculcate and imbibe patriotism so as to encourage the younger generation to join defence services by looking at the names of soldiers/martyrs on a plague who sacrificed their lives for the country and to know the details of the soldiers / martyrs who sacrificed their lives while protecting this country from enemies. 23. 23. So far as the establishment of a Committee and the Trust, the Annexures filed by the Government at Annexure R-1 and R-2 would indicate that as long back as 17.9.2008 itself, a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Rajeev Chandrashekar, Member of Parliament to establish a War Memorial at Bangalore for the purpose of paying homage to the martyrs, their families and to inspire and educate the younger generation about the same. It is further stated that the ownership of the land in question would vest with the PWD and the Horticulture Department is in charge of maintenance and up-keeping. This Government Order further indicates the intention of keeping the administrative control of the place under the Home Department and also to form a Trust with the corpus for up-keeping and maintenance of the War Memorial. The Committee consists of the following members: 1 Sri Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Hon’ble Member of Parliament President 2 Air Marshall (Retd.) K D K Levis Member 3 Major General (Retd.) Nanjappa, AVSM, YSM Member 4 Air Commander (Retd.) M.K. Raveevchandra, AVSM Member 5 Lt. Col. G. V. Sreedhar (Retd.) Member 6 Col. Vivek Bopaiah (Retd.) Member 7 Smt. Subhashini Vasant (W/o Late Col. Vasant-Ashok Chakra-posthumously) Member 8 Secretary to the Chief Minister Member 9 Commissioner, BBMP Member 10 Commissioner, BDA Member 11 Principal Chief Architect to Government, PWD, Bangalore Member 12 Secretary to Government, Internal Administration Department Member 24. On the report of the Committee, the State Government resolved to create a Trust for National Military Memorial by another Government Order dated 28.2.2009 and none other than the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State would be heading the said Trust as chairman of the Trust. The following are the members of the said trust: 1 Hon’ble Chief Minister Chairman 2 Chairman of War Memorial Committee Vice Chairman 3 Chief Secretary to Government Member 4 Secretary (PCAS), Home Department Member Secretary 5 Air Office Commanding in Chief, Training Command (IAF) Member 6 General Officer Commanding in Chief, Southern Command (Army) Member 7 Navy Representatives (two) Members 8 Representatives from Veterans (two) Members 9 Representatives from Martyr’s families (two) Members 10 Eminent Citizens (two) Members 11 Secretaries/Officers of the Government Departments to be co-opted The above 2 Government Orders indicate who has to propose the designing and planning of the War Memorial. The War Memorial would be under the aegis of a Trust to be constituted under the leadership of none other than the Hon’ble Chief Minister as its Chairman. Again the Vice-Chairman of the Trust would be none other than the Chairman of the War Memorial Committee. This would indicate that the suggestions and advice of the War Memorial Committee would be placed before the Trust by its Chairman. The other persons who are indicated as the proposed trustee are the representatives of the Government, Home Department, Training Command, Army & Navy representatives, 2 veteran family members of martyrs and 2 noted citizens. It has also permitted to opt secretaries or officers of the State Government as trustees. The proposed Trust with the above persons does not indicate that the State Government is trying to accommodate or approve any private interest. It is not a private Trust consisting of third party individuals for individual purpose. As per the records, there is nothing on record indicating that in the guise of a war memorial individual objects or aims are going to be achieved. 25. So far as the transfer or alienation of a portion of this park to the 3rd parties in contravention of the Act as stated above, none of the documents placed on record would indicate absolute transfer of any right, interest or title of the property to any of the private parties. The ownership of the proposed land would continue to be with the Public Works Department and the maintenance of the garden would be with the Horticulture Department. So far as the proposed land, it would be under the control of the Home Department of the State and the Trust would be in charge of the activities to be conducted in the said War Memorial. 26. The pleadings and documents placed by the respondent no.8 before us would indicate the following activities: i. The predominant nature of the proposed land as a horticultural garden will continue to be maintained. The Memorial will not contain any brick, mortar or concrete superstructure above ground level. The Memorial will consist of a Veera Gallu, platform for military band, aesthetic water bodies, remembrance plaques denoting the names of the martyrs and a motivation hall / martyrs gallery, which will be constructed as an underground structure. The Memorial will not contain any brick, mortar or concrete superstructure above ground level. The Memorial will consist of a Veera Gallu, platform for military band, aesthetic water bodies, remembrance plaques denoting the names of the martyrs and a motivation hall / martyrs gallery, which will be constructed as an underground structure. From an elevation perspective, lawns and green cover will continue to be maintained and the motivation hall / martyrs gallery will not be visible from the ground level. The area above the ground will be landscaped with lawns, flowering plants, ornamental trees planted around the Memorial. ii. The entire establishment of the Memorial will not lead to depletion of green cover. In the entire process of establishing the Memorial, only four (4) Eucalyptus trees will be cut and multiple ornamental trees and plants will be planted. It is submitted that no heritage trees presently located in the proposed land will be cut or hurt in any manner whatsoever. iii. The plans for the Memorial include planting approximately thirty (30) additional trees around the Memorial so as to augment the green cover that already exists in the proposed land. iv. By establishing the Memorial, the jogging/walking paths within the proposed land will not be affected as the plans for the Memorial include the establishment of jogging/walking paths around it. 27. The sketch at Annexures C & D filed by the 8th respondent along with Annexure R-7 filed by the BDA indicates how the Motivation Hall and the martyr’s gallery below the ground level would look. No doubt, at the initial stage, the BDA filed its objection statement did not indicate the underground Motivation Hall but the subsequent pleadings certainly suggest that only underground Motivation hall is proposed. The four trees to be cut are going to be replaced by many more trees, plants and shrubs as indicated by respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 8. Looking at these records, except one Veeragalu in vertical form, no other construction whatsoever is proposed above the ground level. The entire ground above this underground Motivation Hall is covered with green landscape indicating lawns, ornamental plants, flowering plants, ornamental trees, etc. Therefore, even the proposed construction is not in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act as indicated above. The entire ground above this underground Motivation Hall is covered with green landscape indicating lawns, ornamental plants, flowering plants, ornamental trees, etc. Therefore, even the proposed construction is not in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act as indicated above. The apprehension of the petitioners – residents of the apartment is answered because jogging and walking paths are also proposed within the proposed land as the memorial includes establishment of such jogging or walking paths. 28. Therefore, the various persons coming from different walks of life representing all age groups would have the benefit of watching what exactly is the Veeragalu and what the Motivation hall contains. Whoever visits the park would definitely be curious to know what it contains. This is to attract the attention of all users of the park when they can go for a walk or jog or grand-parents and parents who accompany the youngsters to the park. The elderly persons, especially the grandparents who bring their grand children to the park for play, etc. will be enthusiastic to explain to the young ones what exactly the War Memorial stands for and why it stands for. 29. Even otherwise, the families who lost their kith and kin while protecting their motherland would be consoled by finding the names of their kith and kin depicted on the proposed monolithic or looking at the photographs in the Motivation hall. This is the minimum homage one can pay in recognition of the sacrifice made by our brethren from the State of Karnataka. As a matter of fact, it would be a pride for the Kannadigas of the State. In the absence of exhibiting the names and photographs of hundreds of soldiers or martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the country, the possibility of future generation not even knowing the names of such persons cannot be ruled out. The proposal to set up War Memorial is laudable and it is in the larger interest of the citizens of the country to inspire patriotism in their hearts. The proposed War Memorial would create not only curiosity and interest to know what it contains but it will definitely inspire many youngsters to join the Defence Services to protect our motherland. The proposed project is not meant to be an amusement park for recreation purpose of the public. The proposed War Memorial would create not only curiosity and interest to know what it contains but it will definitely inspire many youngsters to join the Defence Services to protect our motherland. The proposed project is not meant to be an amusement park for recreation purpose of the public. On the other hand, it would not come in the way of any of the users of the park restricting their movement in the said park. It would also create motivation in the youth of this country to join the Defence Services. It is nothing but paying homage to the soldiers / martyrs who have sacrificed their lives for this country. Therefore, the proposed construction of underground Motivation hall or the green landscape with Veeragalu flag post proposed above the ground level does not indicate private interest of any private individual. It would add to the prestige of the Kannadigas exposing the sacrifice made by the fellow Kannadigas and the same is the pride of our state. Therefore, the larger public interest is definitely indicated in the proposed War Memorial. 30. Every suspicion or apprehension of the petitioners is clarified by the respondents not only in their objection statement but also by their Annexures that only 4 trees are going to be cut; no construction above ground level is proposed. As indicated in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also in the averments of the petition, all the apprehensions seem to be based only on suspicion. Unfolding of all the details before the Court by the respondents does not give room for any doubt or suspicion. 31. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the reported case of M.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD. –vs- RADHEY SHYAM SAHU ( AIR 1999 SC 2468 ) wherein their Lordships have held that by allowing the construction of underground market to de-congest the area was not correct because such construction would be affecting its historical importance and environment. These two are considered as public purpose, therefore, their Lordships held such market should not come up under the guise of de-congesting the area and the residents should not be deprived of quality of life. 32. The scenario is completely different in the present case. There is no commercial activity of any nature in the proposed War Memorial. These two are considered as public purpose, therefore, their Lordships held such market should not come up under the guise of de-congesting the area and the residents should not be deprived of quality of life. 32. The scenario is completely different in the present case. There is no commercial activity of any nature in the proposed War Memorial. By virtue of this War Memorial neither the historic importance nor the environment is going to be affected. We have already said how none of the residents of the locality would be deprived of using this public park including the land where the proposed War Memorial would come up. They can make use of the walking or jogging path proposed around the area. The proposal does not indicate any arbitrariness, unfairness and favoritism to any private individual. No private individual is shown to have any benefit from the proposed War memorial. Out of the entire 6.20 guntas of land 4% of the area would be used for construction, that too for underground Motivation Hall. Therefore, this would neither create a private interest to benefit any individual nor it would come in the way of users of the park. 33. The learned Advocate General relied upon the following decisions and the relevant portions are indicated as under: 1. MANISUBRATE JAIN –vs- STATE OF HARYANA ( AIR 1977 SC 276 ); 2. MAHINDER KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS –vs- UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS [ (1995) 1 SCC 85 ]; AND 3. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL –vs- BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL [2010 AIR SCW 1029]: In the first case while considering the issuance of writ of mandamus their Lordships held that a person can be termed as aggrieved person if he is denied a legal right by some one who owes a legal duty to do something or abstains from doing something. Therefore, no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. 34. In the second case, it was a question of considering eligibility for grant of dealership to individual or as a member of the partnership. The guidelines which were based on public policy to give effect to the constitutional creed at para IV of the Constitution was held to be justified. Therefore, it was found no public interest was being violated or affected and hence the appeals were dismissed imposing costs of Rs.20,000/- in each of the writ petitions. The guidelines which were based on public policy to give effect to the constitutional creed at para IV of the Constitution was held to be justified. Therefore, it was found no public interest was being violated or affected and hence the appeals were dismissed imposing costs of Rs.20,000/- in each of the writ petitions. 35. So far as the third case of State of Uttaranchal –vs- Balwanth Singh their Lordships found the necessity to issue following directions in order to preserve the purity and sanctity of a public interest litigation. a. The Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. b. Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging PIL filed with oblique motives. The High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court immediately thereafter. c. The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. d. The Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. e. The Court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. f. The Court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. g. The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. h. The Court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busy bodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. 36. The learned counsel for the 8th respondent relies upon the following decisions and the relevant portions are as under: 1. 36. The learned counsel for the 8th respondent relies upon the following decisions and the relevant portions are as under: 1. ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY V STATE OF WEST BENGAL [ (2004) 3 SCC 349 ]: 2. COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [(2008) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 511] 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ARAVALI GOLF CLUB & ANR, V CHANDER HASS & ANR [(2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 683] 4. K.R.SHINIVAS Vs.R.M PREMCHAND [(1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases] 37. InAshok Kumar’s case their Lordships have held that inspite of indicating parameters when a public interest litigation should be encouraged, the Courts are entertaining such petitions wasting valuable judicial time. Their Lordships insist that the Courts dealing with the public interest litigation should analyse the real intention and objective behind such petitions. They further opine that it would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions by imposing costs in order to see that right message goes in the right direction. 38. So far as the Common Cause case by referring to several Judgments of the Apex Court their Lordships have indicated that there cannot be anything against judicial activism but there should not be judicial excessiveness as interference by such activism would come in the way of doctrine of separation of powers. Their Lordships have gone in detail on the subject of judicial activism and public interest litigation. They have indicated that Courts cannot be expected to issue general directives which cannot factually be implemented. They further said that when it is wholly inappropriate for the judiciary to meddle in such matters the judiciary should refrain from meddling in such matters. Their Lordships further felt that though the object of the public interest litigation was encouraged initially, as a useful judicial weapon to help the poor and the weaker section of the society who have no means to approach the Courts of law, of late it has developed into an uncontrollable monster choking the dockets of the courts concerned. 39. In Aravali Golf Club case, their Lordships have actually cautioned the Judges by saying Judges should restrain from performing executive or legislative functions under the garb of judicial activism. Judges should not cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the State. 40. 39. In Aravali Golf Club case, their Lordships have actually cautioned the Judges by saying Judges should restrain from performing executive or legislative functions under the garb of judicial activism. Judges should not cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the State. 40. In the last case, their Lordships while explaining how the Courts have to deal with the persons who come to Court with malafide intentions in the guise of public interest litigation have proceeded to say that the objective in the public interest litigation must be clean apart from exhibiting clean heart and clean mind. 41. As already discussed above, the proposed project of the state “the war memorial” would be under the control of a trust headed by the Hon’ble Chief Minister as its Chairman. The aims and objectives indicated by the respondents do not even whisper any private or individual cause being encouraged. On the other hand, they dispel the suspicion or doubts expressed by the petitioners. By the proposed ‘war memorial’, there seems to be no obstruction or hamper in the use of the Garden. The trust which would be in charge of the administration and maintenance is headed by none other than the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Hence, we hope there would be no room for suspicion or doubts. None of the objectives of the trust pose any danger to the interest of the public at large. On the other hand, the proposed ‘memorial’ is not only useful to the society at large but also adds prestige to the State of Karnataka. The petitioners are apprehending impediment to public interest namely users of the park. By the proposed memorial, the project intended is not only the pride of the state catering greater service to the public at large but also laudable. Therefore, we are of the opinion, the petitioners are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.