SHYAM MANOHAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, in the form of public interest litigation, has been filed for the following reliefs:

(2.) The petition has been filed by five persons in the capacity of local residents of the area, where the Central Park, Geeta Nagar is situated. According to the writ petitioners, Jal Nigam Authorities are going to construct an overhead tank and underground water reservoir/tank in such park, which will change the nature and character of the park. Not only the private respondents, but the State be also prohibited in doing so.

(3.) Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Arun Kumar v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and others, (1987) UPLBEC 665, wherein even for putting a pump-house to protect the tube-well for water and sub-station for distributing electricity in the park reserved for little children was stopped by the Court. He has also placed reliance upon another Division Bench decision of this Court in U.P. KrishakSamaj, Lucknow v. The Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and others, (1986) UPLBEC 781 where also the starting of 120 shops for exhibition in a public park was stopped. He has further relied upon an interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 12.4.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28267 of 2005 (Junior Lawyers Association v. State of U.P. and others) not to carry out office work by the District Inspector of Schools and his subordinates within the area of a College. The necessity of showing such judgments by Mr. Singh is that the work is required to be done in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 6 of such Act says that no park, playground or open space shall be used for any purpose other than the purpose for which it has been made, unless previous sanction of the prescribed authority. This provision is analogous to Section 7 of the Act which provides for maintenance of parks, playgrounds and open spaces. Section 8 of the Act prohibits construction of any building without the previous sanction of the prescribed authority. Section 11 of the Act pertains to removal of unauthorized persons from the parks, playgrounds and open space, which is not relevant for the purposes of present case. The fact remains that the manner in which the respondents are going to construct the overhead tank and underground water reservoir/tank, will ultimately interfere with the purpose of using the park specially its utilization as playground. Therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be done. In support of his contention, Mr. Singh has brought on record th&eopy of lay out plan which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, from which it appears that on one side of the Central Park there is a Ramlila stage and a Temple and on the other side of the park the proposed water reservoir and the old pump house are situated, but the site of the overhead tank has been shown in the middle of the park.