Judgment : 1. Petitioner 1 is a Residents’ Welfare Association, the association was formed to look after the interests of the residents of K.E.B. layout, BTM 1st Stage, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. Petitioner 2 is its Secretary and petitioners 3 to 5 are residents of K.E.B. layout. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition, as a cause in public interest, mainly to declare as illegal the road, that has been laid across the park situated between 6th 7th main roads of the layout referred to above. The grievance of the petitioners is, that respondent 1-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (‘the BBMP for short) has laid a road illegally in the park area situated between 6th and 7th Main Roads referred to above, resulting in bifurcation and shortening of the park area. 3. In support of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted, that the park area between the two main roads is vested with the BBMP and utilisation of the park area for laying of the road to connect the two main roads is contrary to Section 174 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (‘the Corporations Act’ for short). He also placed reliance on the Karnataka Parks, Play-fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985 (‘the Parks Act’ for short) 4. On the facts of the case, the only question that requires to be considered is, as to whether laying of the road to connect both 6th and 7th main roads of the layout is contrary to any law or is against public interest? In our opinion, both the contentions urged in support of the writ petition are liable to be rejected. Section 174 of the Corporation Act, does not prohibit the BBMP to utilise any area vested in it for public purpose in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. It is not shown to us as to which provision of the Corporations Act is violated in the laying of the road in question. Coming to the Park Act, admittedly, the area between 6th and 7th Main Roads of KEB layout is not specified in the list published under Section 4 or 5 of the Parks Act. Hence, question of violation of the Parks Act does not arise. 5. Coming to the Park Act, admittedly, the area between 6th and 7th Main Roads of KEB layout is not specified in the list published under Section 4 or 5 of the Parks Act. Hence, question of violation of the Parks Act does not arise. 5. We deem it relevant to refer to the proceedings of the BBMP at Annexure-H which would show, that both 6th and 7th main roads are dead-end roads and connecting both the main roads by laying a road in the park area situated in between them would ease the flow of traffic and would avoid congestion. As could be seen from the photographs at Annexures-Q2 and Q3, the road in question is formed on a small strip of and situated almost at the end of the park area. 6. In view of the above, in our opinion, the laying of the aforesaid connecting road on a small trip of land cannot be said to be against public interest. On the contrary, it was in public interest, as it would help smooth movement of traffic and would avoid congestion on both 6th and 7th main roads. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.