1

A.F.R.

Reserved

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 41434 of 2015

Petitioner :- Sandeep Pandey And Another

Respondent :- State of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C, Shashi Nandan, Sr. Adv., Anoop

Trivedi, Anil Tiwari, Shivam Yadav,

Hon'ble Dilip B Bhosale, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.

Rule.

Heard forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners, who claim to be social activists, have instituted

this petition in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, challenging the resolution/proposal which has been

passed/approved by respondent no. 4-Kanpur Development Authority

(for short “KDA”) in its 112

th

Board meeting dated 14.10.2014. By this

resolution, KDA have decided to construct an underground parking in

Phoolbagh, which, according to the petitioners, is contrary to and in

defiance of the judgement of this Court dated 12.9.2014 rendered in

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 42083 of 2014. The petitioners

have also made consequential prayers in the PIL.

PIL No. 42083 of 2014 was also filed by the petitioners,

challenging the validity of a decision of KDA to construct an

underground car parking area for 680 cars in the lower basement with a

shopping complex of 150 shops in the upper basement in a portion of

Phoolbagh park at Kanpur. The challenge was on the ground that the

Neutralp:itationpNoYpmp6bcDjW":jc6kkgcmzV

2

construction of an underground shopping complex and car parking in

an area reserved for a park under the Master Plan is unlawful. The

project, that was under challenge in the said PIL, envisaged the

construction of an underground multilevel car parking facility of

between 7000 to 8000 sq. meters and a shopping complex of 150 shops

in the upper basement with a facility of providing for the parking of

680 cars in the lower basement, in addition to which, surface parking

of 200 cars. The terrace garden was also envisaged over and around the

central area where construction was to be carried.

In this backdrop, the issue which the Division Bench addressed

was whether the construction of an underground shopping complex in

an area which is reserved under the Master Plan as a park would

violate the provisions of the Master Plan. Further, it was considered

whether the construction of 150 shops which was liable to attract a

large number of vehicles of persons who visit the shopping complex

would at all alleviate the problem of traffic congestion outside

Phoolbagh. The Division Bench after considering judgments of the

Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Muddappa, AIR

1991 (SC) 1902, G.N. Khajuria vs. Delhi Development Authority,

AIR 1996 SC 253 and M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam

Sahu, AIR 1999 SC 2468 held that the decision of KDA to construct

an underground shopping complex and car parking in the area of

Phoolbagh was legally impermissible and was contrary to the

provisions of the Master Plan prepared under the U.P. Urban Planning

3

and Development Act, 1973 (for short “Act, 1973”). While so

declaring, it was also observed that it would be open to KDA to

conduct a fresh survey on the likely need for a car parking facility in

the area and after a due and proper enquiry and survey, to conceive of a

project involving the provision of a parking facility as an amenity

appurtenant to the park. It was also clarified that the said judgement

would not stand in the way of the Authority in taking necessary

measures for beautification and maintenance of Phoolbagh as a park

without disturbing its integral feature as a recreational open space.

Thereafter, KDA, it appears, conducted a survey and enquiry and

has taken the impugned decision. It further appears that after following

the due procedure, KDA also commenced with the construction of the

underground car parking, providing parking space for 650 cars.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned resolution

dated 14.10.2014, the petitioners have filed the instant PIL alleging

that KDA, in the name of survey and enquiry and under the garb of

limited liberty given by this Court in the judgment dated 12.9.2014 in

PIL No. 42083 of 2014, deliberately misread and misinterpreted the

order and commenced the construction of underground parking.

Petitioner no. 2 and the residents of Kanpur city, it is stated in the

petition, submitted objections before KDA which, it appears, have been

shelved by the Authority, inasmuch as it had pre-decided to proceed

with the plan and just covered up with paper formalities. In short,

according to the petitioners, the decision of the respondents, in

4

particular KDA, was in contravention and defiance of the order passed

by this Court dated 12.9.2014 in PIL No. 42083 of 2014, inasmuch as

they wilfully misread the limited liberty given by this Court to proceed

with multilevel parking as was originally conceived of by them earlier

and which in unequivocal terms, as held by this Court, legally

impermissible.

The Vice Chairman of KDA has filed counter affidavit denying

all allegations made in the writ petition and has placed on record the

materials including survey report dated 24.9.2015 (Annexure CA-14)

in support of the impugned resolution. It would be relevant to

reproduce paragraphs 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 53, 54, 76 and 78 to know the

exact stand of the KDA, which read thus:

“37. That further, the tract of land over which the car

parking is now being constructed was a barren piece of land

which was not being utilized for any purpose. It is stated

that neither ecology of the park has been disturbed nor there

would be any change in the nature of park. The multilevel

car parking below the ground level would only add to the

convenience of the visitors to the park and nearby areas.

The said facility is presently a necessity in the city also.

39. That it is stated that the project of underground parking

is being carried out after the survey was conducted under

the directions of this Hon'ble Court. This project has also

included the future possibilities and future inflow of the

persons / vehicles in the park.

41.That it is specifically stated here that the Kanpur

Development Authority has undertaken the beautification

and renovation of the park in question. Various facilities /

amenities are being provided by the Kanpur Development

Authority in the park that would certainly attract a large

crowd to the park. These visitors would certainly require a

big parking lot.

42. That it is specifically stated here that the Kanpur

Development Authority is creating walking track/ path way

3 meters wide about 960 meters, 2.5 meter about 210

meters. This walking track / path way would cover an area

5

of 3273 square meters.

44.That the Kanpur Development Authority has further

proposed to construct a separate jogging park of 380 meter

length.

53.That in the meanwhile the officers of the Kanpur

Development Authority started conducting survey which

took three weeks time and the survey report was submitted

and considered in a meeting dated 24.09.2015.

54. That the answering respondent brings on record a true

copy of the survey report conducted by the Kanpur

Development Authority. A true copy of the survey report

dated 24.09.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure No. CA-14 to this affidavit.

76. ….In reply it is stated that the answering Development

Authority has merely constructed an underground

multilevel car parking that too without disturbing the

ecology of the park in any manner. It is specifically stated

here that the ground area above the car parking would

remain as a park. It is specifically stated here that no

commercial activity whatsoever is either contemplated or

would be permitted at the site in question.

78. ….However, it is specifically stated here that even after

the construction of underground multilevel car parking the

land above it will be restored in the shape of park and

would not be utilized for any other purpose and the same

will continue to be an integral part of the Ganesh Udyan

that too as a park.”

In reply to the counter affidavit, petitioner no. 2 has filed

rejoinder affidavit and in paragraph 5 thereof stated that “the

development authority have not made any proposal for constructing

parking facility appurtenant to the park but had made the proposal for

constructing multilevel parking in the park itself, considering the need

of the entire city. The proposal was against the Master Plan of the

development authority and even against various judgments of Hon'ble

Supreme Court, which forbade any change in user of park or green

area, contrary to the Master Plan.” The petitioner no. 2, apart from

denying the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of

6

KDA, has also tried to demonstrate as to how the decision of the

construction of an underground parking facility is also contrary to the

provisions of Uttar Pradesh Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces

(Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975 (for short “Parks Act”) and

also against the Master Plan. In short, in the rejoinder affidavit,

petitioner no. 2 once again made an attempt to demonstrate as to how

the construction of underground parking facility in the park is likely to

cause injury to the environment and ecology of the public park.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

senior counsel for KDA and other learned counsel appearing for the

remaining respondents at considerable length and with their assistance

perused the entire materials placed on record.

Mr. Rahul Mishra, counsel for the petitioners, at the outset,

submitted that construction of an underground car parking facility in an

area which is reserved under the Master Plan as a park would violate

the provisions of Master Plan. In support of this contention, he placed

heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 12.9.2014 in PIL

No. 42083 of 2014. He vehemently submitted that the impugned

resolution is not only contrary to and in defiance of the judgment dated

12.9.2014, but going ahead with the proposal for construction of

underground parking facility, would also amount to flouting of the said

order of this Court. In support, he invited our attention to the

conclusion drawn in the judgment dated 12.9.2014, wherein it was held

that “an area reserved in the Master Plan as a park must be used as a

7

park and a terrace garden above an underground shopping complex is

no substitute for a park”, as held by the Supreme Court in M.I.

Builders (supra). He submitted, in any case, the construction of an

underground facility for parking of 650 vehicles is not an amenity

associated with the use of the park itself. He then submitted that if the

underground parking lot is built then the park would no longer adhere

to the definition of park under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Parks Act,

1975, which provides for minimum 95% of area should be laid out as a

garden with trees, plants or flower beds or as a lawn or as a meadow

and maintained as a place for the resort of the public for recreation, air

or light. He then submitted that if underground car parking facility is

provided then in that portion of the park, above the parking lot, trees

cannot be planted apart from the fact that number of trees are likely to

be cut for construction of the underground parking facility. He

submitted, the park, which is of historical importance, cannot be

allowed to be destroyed by constructing an underground parking

facility, and thereby loosing its character as a park. Lastly, he

submitted that no survey as directed by this Court vide order dated

12.9.2014 and as observed by the Supreme Court made in M.I.

Builders (supra).

On the other hand, Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel

for KDA, apart from reiterating what has been stated in their counter

affidavit, on instructions, submitted that for construction of

underground parking lot, KDA shall not cut a single tree. As a matter

8

of fact, he submitted that the area of 1.5 acres where KDA proposed to

construct underground parking lot, as on the date of decision, did not

have a single tree and even today, this portion does not have a single

tree. He further submitted that, in any case, KDA would construct the

underground parking facility in such a way that the surface (ground

level) of the park would not be disturbed nor any levels would be

created and that one would even not realize that there is an

underground parking lot beneath the park. He also submitted that KDA

shall use modern technology for providing exhaust facility without

causing any pollution in the park. In the course of arguments, he

submitted, as a matter of fact, as of today, the portion where KDA

propose to construct underground parking lot is vacant and is not used

for any purpose whatsoever. After construction of the underground

parking facility, KDA propose to develop a very attractive garden/park

over this portion. In support of this contention, he also invited our

attention to several paragraphs, few of which we have already made

reference, of the counter affidavit.

The principal question that falls for our consideration is whether

the construction of an underground parking in an area, which is

reserved under the Master Plan as a park, would violate the provisions

of the Master Plan, more particularly in the light of the judgment of

this Court dated 12.9.2014 in PIL No. 42083 of 2014. At this stage, it is

relevant to notice the question that was raised in the earlier PIL and the

liberty given by the Division Bench, while disposing of the said PIL.

9

The question was “whether construction of an underground shopping

complex in an area which is reserved under Master Plan as a park

would violate the provisions of Master Plan” and the liberty granted,

while disposing of the PIL, was to conduct a fresh survey on the likely

need for a car parking facility and after a due and proper enquiry and

survey, to conceive of a project involving the provision of a parking

facility as an amenity appurtenant to the park. Thus, the challenge in

the earlier PIL was to the proposed construction of an underground car

parking and a shopping complex of 150 shops in a portion of

Phoolbagh park at Kanpur. The Division Bench while dealing with the

question that fell for its consideration observed thus:

“...At this stage, it does not appear that any survey or

study was carried out before a decision was taken to

provide an underground shopping complex of 150

shops, on the impact of a shopping complex on the

existing state of traffic congestion in the area. The

presence of 150 shops is liable to attract a large number of

vehicles of persons who visit the shopping complex.

Whether this situation would at all alleviate the problem of

traffic congestion outside Phoolbagh is a moot point. In our

view, it was necessary for KDA to have carried out a

thorough study in regard to whether the construction of

a shopping complex, albeit in the basement would

resolve the basic issue of traffic congestion.”

(emphasis supplied)

Then the Division Bench after considering the judgments of the

Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust, G.N. Khajuria and

M.I. Builders (supra) in one of the concluding paragraphs held thus:

“The submission is that only an area ad-measuring 1.5 acres

of the park would be utilized for an underground shopping

complex. The fact that "only" 1.5 acres of the total area of

the park is to be utilized for the construction of a shopping

complex together with an appurtenant car parking facility

10

cannot, in our view, legalise the project. Conceivably, a

Master Plan may permit making available a parking

facility for the purpose of the visitors to a park or

recreation space and this would be an amenity

associated with the use of the park itself. But in no

circumstances, can a recreational area be converted into

shopping complex, whether below or above ground. In

M.I. Builders (supra), the Supreme Court held that a

terrace garden above an underground shopping complex is

no substitute to a park. An area reserved in the Master Plan

as a park must be used as a park. The Court cannot

countenance devious attempts by public bodies to usurp the

dwindling green areas that remain. Above all, the project in

question, allowing as many as 150 shops in the basement,

was conceived without a due and proper application of

mind to the impact on congestion and density of population

in an already over crowded area. In this view of the matter,

we are of the view that it would not be appropriate to allow

the historical park situated in the city of Kanpur and

associated with important events of the freedom struggle, to

be frittered away.”

(emphasis supplied)

From perusal of the judgement dated 12.9.2014 passed in PIL

No. 42083 of 2014, it is clear that the Division Bench had granted

liberty to KDA to conduct a fresh survey on the likely need for a car

parking facility and then to conceive of a project involving the

provision of a parking facility as an amenity appurtenant to the park. In

view of the observations made in the judgement dated 12.9.2014, the

respondents claim that they conducted survey and after due and proper

enquiry conceived of a project involving the provision of a parking

facility only as an amenity appurtenant to the park. In other words,

KDA dropped the proposal for construction of a shopping complex of

150 shops in the upper basement in a portion of Phoolbagh at Kanpur.

It was categorically submitted on behalf of the respondents that they

would not cut a single tree for construction of the underground car

11

parking and would also not disturb the surface (ground level), and that

after construction gets over, they would develop and maintain better

garden than what exists as of today, in particular at the spot where they

propose to construct the underground car parking lot. It was also

submitted that after the construction is over and a garden is developed,

one would not even realize that there is an underground car parking lot

beneath the park/garden.

The project that has been cleared in the 112

th

meeting of KDA

Board dated 14.10.2014, envisages construction of an underground car

parking facility for 650 cars and the portion above the car parking lot,

shall be restored back to its original position to be used as park/garden.

It is well settled that any use, development or construction must

necessarily abide by the provisions of Master Plan and the Zoning

Regulations. The Master Plan which has been prepared under the Act,

1973 has statutory force. Once the Master Plan is notified, it has

binding force and effect.

It appears that KDA, while proposing to construct underground

car parking facility and shopping complex, did not carry out any study

on the impact of the proposed shopping complex on the preservation of

a historical park as a green area and further on the impact of a

shopping complex on the existing state of traffic congestion in the

area. It was noticed that the presence of 150 shops would attract a large

number of vehicles of the visitors to the shopping complex. Whether

that situation would at all alleviate the problem of traffic congestion

12

outside Phoolbagh was not taken into consideration by the

respondents. In this backdrop, the Division Bench in the earlier PIL

had observed that “it was necessary for KDA to have carried out a

thorough study in regard to whether the construction of a shopping

complex, albeit in the basement, would resolve the basic issue of

traffic congestion.” There was nothing on record to indicate that any

study was carried out on the impact of proposed shopping complex.

Having so observed, the earlier PIL was disposed of with liberty to

KDA, as mentioned above.

It is true, and in any case cannot be disputed that the public

interest in the reservation and preservation of open spaces for parks

and playgrounds cannot be sacrificed for any purpose whatsoever. Any

such act would be contrary to the legislative intent and inconsistent

with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, it would be in direct

conflict with the constitutional mandate to ensure that any state action

is inspired by the basic values of individual freedom and dignity and

addressed to the attainment of a quality of life which makes the

guaranteed rights a reality for all the citizens, as observed by the

Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust (supra). Absence of open

space and public park, in present day when urbanisation is on

increase, rural exodus is on large scale and congested areas are

coming up rapidly, may give rise to health hazard. Therefore, in any

case open space and parks cannot be allowed to be destroyed, either by

constructing shopping complex or even for parking for that matter.

13

What is necessary to see, in the present case, is whether construction of

underground parking would either destroy the park or reduce the area

of park more than 5% of the total area for providing ingress and egress

to underground parking lot.

Our attention was specifically drawn to the observations made

by the Supreme Court in M.I. Builders (supra) to contend that

Phoolbagh is of historical importance and construction of underground

parking would create grave to the environment ecology of the park, the

surrounding area and the city, adversely affecting the health of the

citizens. It was submitted that after the underground parking is allowed

to be constructed, trees cannot be planted and the development of park

above the underground parking lot would be more like a terrace park

and in any case, it cannot be termed as a park. It would be relevant to

notice the observations made by the Supreme Court in M.I. Builders

(supra) wherein the decision taken by the Lucknow Nagar

Mahapalika, permitting a builder to construct an underground shopping

complex in the Jhandewala Park situated in Aminabad market

Lucknow was under challenge. The Supreme Court was dealing with

the judgment of a learned Single Judge, who held the decision to be

unlawful and a mandamus was issued to the Lucknow Nagar

Mahapalika to restore back the park to its original position. The

relevant observations in paragraph 51 read thus:

“51. Jhandewala Park, the park in question, has been in

existence for a great number of years. It is situated in the

heart of Aminabad, a bustling commercial-cum-residential

locality in the city of Lucknow. The park is of historical

14

importance. Because of the construction of underground

shopping complex and parking it may still have the

appearance of a park with grass grown and path laid but it

has lost the ingredients of a park inasmuch as no plantation

now can be grown. Trees cannot be planted and rather

while making underground construction many trees have

been cut. Now it is more like a terrace park. Qualitatively it

may still be a park but it is certainly a park of different

nature. By construction of underground shopping complex

irreversible changes have been made. It was submitted that

the park was acquired by the State Government in the year

1913 and was given to the Mahapalika for its management.

This has not been controverted. Under Section 114 of the

Act it is the obligatory duty of the Mahapalika to

maintain public places, parks and plant trees. By

allowing underground construction Mahapalika has

deprived itself of its obligatory duties to maintain the

park which cannot be permitted. But then one of the

obligatory functions of the Mahapalika under Section

114 is also to construct and maintain parking lots. To

that extent some area of the park could be used for the

purpose of constructing underground parking lot. But

that can only be done after proper study has been made of

the locality, including density of the population living in the

area, the floating population and other certain relevant

considerations. This study was never done. Mahapalika is

the trustee for the proper management of the park. When

true nature of the park, as it existed, is destroyed it would

be violative of the doctrine of public trust as expounded by

this Court in Span Resort Case (1997 (1) SCC 388). Public

Trust doctrine is part of Indian law. In that case the

respondent who had constructed a motel located at the bank

of river Beas interfered with the natural flow of the river.

This Court said that the issue presented in that case

illustrated "the classic struggle between those members of

the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and

open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with

administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of

the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find

it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands

heretofore considered inviolate to change"

(emphasis supplied)

From perusal of the above observations made by the Supreme

Court, it is clear that one of the obligatory functions of the Nagar

Mahapalika under Section 114 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal

15

Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 (in short Adhiniyam of 1959) is to

construct and maintain parking lot. Having regard thereto, the Supreme

Court observed that some area of the park could be used for the

purpose of constructing underground parking lot. But that can only be

done after proper study has been made of the locality, including

density of the population living in the area, the floating population and

other certain relevant considerations.

In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the challenge to

the construction of an underground shopping complex and in view

thereof, it was also held that the Master Plan could not have envisaged

Jhandewala Park being used as a site for commercial purposes,

considering the density and congestion in the area.

It is not in dispute that Kanpur is one of the most populated

cities not only in India but in the world. It faces traffic congestion

problem day in and day out. It is also not in dispute that the area

around Phoolbagh park is marked by heavy traffic congestion since a

crowded market place is situated in close proximity of the park. Traffic

congestion causes inconvenience not only to the residents of area and

the persons visiting markets situated in close proximity of the park, but

also to the visitors to the park. It is also not in dispute that the visitors

to the park and even to the market place situated in close proximity of

the park do not have parking facility and they find it extremely

difficult to park their vehicles, and situation there force them to park

their vehicles on crowded road and lanes, which further causes traffic

16

congestion and also air pollution. It was contended on behalf of the

petitioners that though the area of Phoolbagh was originally 40 acres,

what remains as of today as park, is an area of about 18 acres. Out of

this area of park, KDA proposes to use 1.5 acres for an underground

parking facility. After the judgment of this Court in the earlier PIL, we

are informed, KDA decided not to reduce the area of park at all and

provide an underground car parking facility without disturbing the

surface (ground level) of the park and to provide a modern exhaust

facility without creating any pollution in the park.

In our opinion, parking lot, irrespective of the fact whether, it is

at ground level or underground, for a park, as per the Master Plan,

would be an amenity associated with the use of the park itself as

observed by the Supreme Court in M.I. Builders (supra), after making

reference to Section 114 of the Adhiniyam of 1959. Construction of

underground parking to some extent is permissible in law. What is

required is only that such decision has to be taken after proper study of

the locality, including the density of the population living in the area,

the floating population and other certain relevant considerations, such

as traffic congestion. Dropping of the original proposal for

construction of an underground shopping complex is an outcome of the

study/survey conducted by KDA for car parking facility in the area as

an amenity appurtenant to the park. We have, with the assistance of

learned senior counsel for KDA, gone through the survey report dated

24.9.2015. The report is exhaustive. Lot of photographs are also placed

17

on record, which show the physical condition of the area around the

park. The report and the photographs placed on record are sufficient to

convince that the parking facility is necessary and it could be only

underground. The Supreme Court in M.I. Builders (supra) has

undoubtedly observed that a terrace garden above an underground

shopping complex is no substitute to a park but that was in the light of

the nature of project under consideration, namely underground

shopping complex. In the very same judgment, as noticed earlier, the

Supreme Court also observed that some area of the park could be used

for the purposes of constructing underground parking lot having regard

to surrounding areas where the people suffer every day due to traffic

congestion. The only alternative left to KDA is to provide underground

parking lot without causing any disturbance to the park on the surface.

In our opinion, the observations made by this Court in the order

dated 29.7.2015 were prima facie observations and they cannot be

taken as final opinion on the questions raised in the writ petition.

Section 13 of the Act, 1973 also would not come in our way to take the

view, that we are taking in the instant PIL. From sub-section (1) of

Section 13, it is manifest that the Authority may make only those

amendments which do not affect important alteration in the character

of the plan. It means the respondents do not have an absolute right of

amending the Master Plan or the zonal development plan. The basic

characteristic of such a plan cannot be altered by the Authority. Only

that amendment is permissible under Section 13(1) which does not

18

affect the basic character of the plan. Open space lying for park in the

plan forms a basic feature of the plan and that cannot be amended. A

plan cannot be amended so as to denude the plan of such a basic

feature. Section 13 (1) can in no circumstances be interpreted so as to

clothe KDA to utilise the open space reserved for a park either to

construct buildings or use it in any other manner, which is foreign to

the concept of a park. (See D.D. Vyas and others vs. Ghaziabad

Development Authority, Ghaziabad, 1992 Legal Eagle (ALD) 131).

In the present case, the basic characteristic of Master Plan has not been

altered and, therefore, the question of even amendment of the Master

Plan also did not arise.

Project of underground parking, the manner in which KDA

proposes to develop, as observed earlier, in our opinion, would not

alter the Master Plan or the zonal development plan. On the contrary,

the provision of a parking facility that KDA proposes to provide by

constructing underground parking lot, is an amenity appurtenant to the

park. It is the obligatory duty of Mahapalika to maintain public places,

parks and plant trees. It is also one of the obligatory functions of the

Mahapalika under this provision, to construct and maintain parking lot

and to that extent some area of park could be used for the purpose of

constructing underground parking lot. In our opinion, the characteristic

of park, as defined by clause (b) of Section 2 of the Parks Act, would

not be changed or defaced, by construction of the underground parking

facility in Phoolbagh.

19

In the result, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Before parting, in the larger interest of the people in Kanpur, we

issue the following directions to KDA:

(i)KDA for construction of the underground parking facility, as

proposed, shall not cut a single tree;

(ii)KDA after construction of the underground parking facility shall

develop the park and to have appearance of a park, provide lawn,

flower beds, walking track/jogging track, etc. In short, under any

circumstances, KDA should see to it that after construction of the

underground car parking facility, the park above the parking lot, shall

not loose its character as a park;

(iii)KDA shall provide exhaust facilities, for the underground

parking facility, in such a way that it shall not, in any case, cause any

air pollution in the park;

(iv)KDA shall reserve minimum half of the parking space in the

underground parking lot for the vehicles of visitors to the park; and

(v)KDA even in future shall not use any portion of the park for any

purpose other than for a park as defined under Section 2 (b) of the

Parks Act.

Date: 24

th

August, 2016 (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)

RK/

(Yashwant Varma, J)