ORDER Ravi S. Dhavan, J.
1. Present : Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S.
Mr. M. P. Aneja, Town Planner, Mr. P. P. Dwivedi, Superintendent Government Garden, Mr. C. B. Tripathi, Dy. Director, Sports, Mr. K. K. Chaturvedi, Sports Officer, Mr. U. N. Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of Allahabad Development Authority, Mr. R. P. Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of State (In court), Mr. R. C. Sinha, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. R. P. Singh (in chambers), Mr. R. C. Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Dr. R. G. Padia, Advocate.
2. Upon orders of 28 July, 1990, the matter is fixed for today. To implement the judgment, to resurrect the park, parties before the court desired an adjournment of three weeks so that they could get together and co-ordinate the steps to comply with the directions in the judgment. The Court, on 28 July, 1990 observed:
".................. for this purpose the court adjourns the proceedings to a date after three weeks by which time the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari will be in a position to bring all the departments together as it appears that without an integrated effort nothing will move to a possible end. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari submitted that he will request the Secretary, Ministry of Sports to be available at the next proceedings.....................
List for further orders on August 17, 1990 by which date the Administrator will be reporting on further progress in this matter."
3. Yesterday, an order was passed when on an application of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. R. G. Padia, gave his personal affidavit to support the application. Learned counsel, aforesaid, contended that he had received documents and pleadings filed by the Horticulture Department at the Supreme Court, recently. The application and affidavits filed before the Supreme Court were placed at the Bar of this court by counsel's personal affidavit. A reading of the record, the application and the affidavits filed before the Supreme Court, learned counsel submits makes it clear that there is a duplicity of stand which this department takes in two courts, at the High Court and the Supreme Court. This aspect, unfortunately is correct and a matter of record.
4. As indicated yesterday, vital and essential information regarding the tenor of the proceedings, volunteered by the opposite parties at their request (the Horticulture Department included) unsolicited, was concealed from the Supreme Court. The self-contradiction of this Department, and its officers has been occasioned on the record even today, and will be brought on record of these proceedings later in this order.
5. The contention of the officials of the Horticulture Department in their affidavit before the Supreme Court is that the court has not issued notice on the contempt application and the proceedings go on in chambers. The Supreme Court was not intimated, and the record was concealed, that proceedings happen in chambers at the request, of no other persons than the opposite parties. This request was made as early as 23 May, 1990 when the contempt application was presented and notice issued, simpliciter, though not to answer a charge or an allegation on contempt. The request was repeated on 25 May, 1990. And, even today a formal request has been made by an application (Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S. opposite parties No. 1 and 2). The request was logical as the submission of the opposite parties was that contempt proceedings are for implementation of an order of judgment, and all opposite parties have decided to implement the judgment. Thus the request was that the matter be taken in chambers. For the implementation of the judgment, it was contended that they shall during the course of proceedings report to the court on the steps taken to implement it. Even today, Mr. Umesh Narain Sharma, Advocate learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2. and otherwise Standing Counsel for the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad/the Allahabad Development Authority, has virtually insisted in the presence of Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S. that the court be pleased to record that it was he who had made the request when the proceedings began on 23 and 25 May, 1990, and subsequently and even today by application (the proceedings were going on in court) and shall continue to make the request that the proceedings be taken in chambers. He submitted that the intention is to comply with the judgment.
6. The inaction not to implement the judgment is accepted, implying that there is a violation. But, the court is conscious of two aspects : (1) the judgment arose out of an affirmative action, a public interest litigation in which one person was not alone to make submissions on the writ petition. The reliefs sought were for the benefit of public good, concerning the entire city of Allahabad in a matter of envoirnment, ecology and planning where references to Article 484 and Chapter VIA, Article 51A(g)(h) and (j) could not be ignored even by a Contempt Court. (2) Civil contempt is a proceedings requiring the implementation of an order. Punishment may not be a solution in a matter concerning enviornment, unless to defy a judgment is blatant. Thus, with all opposite parties clearly indicating that in this matter of enviornment, ecology and planning, that they would readily implement the judgment, the Constitution's guideline to resolve this matter in a spirit of inquiry and reform (reference Article 51 A(h) can neither be ignored nor forgotten). The implementation as a cooperative venture in this collective activity on an enviornmental matter was more important than the belligerence of a contempt proceedings, as again Article 51A(j) casts such an obligation. Thus, the proceedings as a participatory exercise, in chambers.
7. Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S., the Administrator/Vice Chairman of Nagar Mahapalika and the Allahabad Development Authority, has done a commendable exercise in calling meetings of local administration and organisations for the purpose of retrieving the lost balance of the park (Alfred Park, now Chandra Shekhar Azad Park). He has had minutes of the meetings brought on record of the case where implementation of the judgment was discussed. These were the matters for scaling down the height of the walls inside and around the park. He contended that there will be no problem on this and the details are being discussed, and the Allahabad Development Authority may include this aspect in its beautification programme. The details in any case, the court will not supervise and are being left to be worked out by the Administrator/Vice Chairman who is coordinating and presiding over the meetings. On the buildings to be removed, at the meetings the proposal of the Horticulture Department was discussed and finalised that the smaller structures attempted to be constructed during the pendency of the writ petition, would be removed. The other being unoccupied and locked by it where it was intended to open a Women's Home Science College, will not be used as a college. The first floor would be taken off, during the week from 25 July, 1990 and thereafter, the ground-floor would be suitably modified for such use as the court would permit. On the shifting of the stadium, Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S. has required the Chief Town Planner of the State to make blue prints, architectural designs, survey reports and cost evaluation. The sites are under consideration and the designing is under progress. The maps, off the drawing board and at the drawing board stage were shown to the court. The court appreciates that Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S., has undertaken to coordinate under his guidance. Should the cooperation for which he has set the pace continue, the judgment shall stand complied. Allahabad, may partially save a municipal park, most of it has been destroyed by man-made efforts. Allahabad may have a modern stadium, which at present this city is without one and embarrassed to admit it. The Sports Secretary was to appear today but has not, instead a Deputy Director Sports has been sent from Lucknow. Mr. Alok Ranjan assured the court, that he will speak to the Sports Secretary and ensure his presence on the next date.
8. But with all that painstaking work done by Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S., who has been presiding over the meetings of the local departments and chalking out a workable plan all by consent of everyone concerned, in context, something unfortunate and bad has happened which has pained the Court. With this much faith given by the court, the officials of one department, whose business it is to maintain and preserve a park, have indulged in duplicity. It was done before, but regretted, an apology given and accepted. Another aspect of duplicity has come to light. This is reprehensible. First, the pendency of a Special Leave Petition was kept away from this court and the officials of the Horticulture Department made a statement that they are offering no defence, but implementing the directions in the judgment. When questioned why the pending Special Leave Petition was not brought to the court's notice, and an impression as if the judgment was not impugned before the Supreme Court, the situation was regretted. Then certain directions, not contained in the judgment were attributed to having been given by the High Court as affecting third party rights. When the court questioned why sensationalism was created to panic third parties when no directions were given to affect their leases in the park, again on apology was tendered that it was a mistake and that the officials of the Horticulture Department regretted their action and sought an apology. All this is on record of the orders dated 20 July, 1990 and 28 July, 1990.
9. This court cannot make any comment on the pendency of the Special Leave Petition at the Supreme Court, nor on the liberty of a citizen or the State (department included) to exercise the constitutional right to impugn a judgment of the High Court. But, this Court has reservations that a party can mislead or hoodwink two courts. One by giving its faith that the judgment is readily being implemented and participate with party respondents in open forum meetings that the judgment is in the process of implementation and simultaneously not intimate the Supreme Court that the party has ventured into a participatory exercise on the implemention of the judgment. This is exactly what the officials of the Horticulture Department have done in this case.
10. The implementation of an order of the court and the negation of it cannot exist together. If it could, in between would lie untruth. It is like solemnly entering into a consent decree and simultaneously executing it. The records before this Court, minutes of open forum meetings presided over by an I.A.S. Officer, otherwise head of the municipal corporation and the urban planning authority were kept away from the Bar of the Supreme Court, by the Horticulture Department.
11. When all this was pointed out from the record to learned counsel appearing for the officers of the Horticulture Department, he placed before this court a letter carrying two dates 12 August, 1990/16 August, 1990, written by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Director, Horticulture Department, Luck-now, to Mrs. Shobha Dixit, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court, New Delhi, not to press on the stay of proceedings. But why withdraw a recently filed stay application? The High Court was solemnly intimated that the judgment is under compliance and implementation. No court gave a direction to file or withdraw. Or was it that both the letters to the Advocate-on-record and the stay application were to be used at the right time? This is playing with the process of two courts.
12. Counsel for the officials of the Horticulture Department submit an oral apology to the contradictions on record, and submits that he had advised that the filing of the stay application was an error. Any regret or apology, this court is afraid, must be by an affidavit. This court had neither been intimated of a pending Special Leave Petition, nor of a stay not granted, nor of the filing of yet another stay application before a higher court. This court cannot issue any direction nor suggest to any party to press or not to press a prayer for stay in a higher court. But, this court can question a party, if it indulges in double standards and duplicity. After all if truth on record will be concealed from a higher court, the proceedings of this court will be embarassed. If any affidavit is to be filed, in reference to the context, let it be filed by Monday next.
13. The maps, architectural designs and blue prints, shown to the court and referred to by Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S. and the Chief Town Planner may be brought on record, also by Monday, next.
14. List on 27 August, 1990, for further proceedings.