JUDGMENT :

P.S. MISHRA, C.J.:— Two petitions addressed to the Chief Justice of the Court were clubbed and treated as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being Writ Petition No. 25835 of 1996. The first petition in Writ Petition No. 25835 of 1996 is by the residents of the locality of Indira Park in the lower Tank Bund area in Hyderabad and the second is by the Advocates of City Civil Court. In both the petitions, objections are raised against the proposed cremation of the body of Dr. M. Chenna Reddy, former Chief Minister of the State and the Governor of Tamil Nadu, who expired on 2-12-1996. On 3-12-1996, when the matter was taken up by a Bench of this Court and it was noticed that cremation was fixed for 4-12-1996, the Court issued notice to the learned Advocate General, who filed a memo answering the various queries made by the Court. Ordering, however, the petition after the memo filed by the learned Advocate General, the Court postponed final disposal, awaiting response to its directions which were/are as follows:

“We direct the Respondents 1 and 3 immediately consider the objections raised in the two petitions in the background of the fact and law discussed in this order and take decision as to whether any suitable alternate site can be selected or whether the site already selected for cremation would be used. We are not passing any orders of injunction as we are leaving it to the consideration of the Respondents 1 and 3. But, we make it clear that it is the responsibility of these respondents to take the decision but that when the matter is finally decided the legality or otherwise of the decision will be considered and appropriate orders passed in respect of the action taken.”

2. The Court also directed for filing of a detailed counter-affidavit. Meanwhile, Smt. Amrita Ahluwalia, a resident of the City, filed Writ Petition No. 35 of 1997 and alleged, inter alia, that it is the duty of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to maintain and manage all the public parks, gardens, public parking places and open spaces vested in or under its control, law i.e. the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, enjoins it to frame bye-laws necessary for the said purpose and the bye-laws for regulating the use of parks, gardens, public parking places, open space, play grounds etc. in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad are made under Section 586 of the Act in the year 1968. She has, however, alleged-

“Unfortunately, inspite of the Bye-Laws the condition of the above said public places, is not satisfactory in some cases and deplorable in other cases. Out of these public places, parks and gardens occupy important role in the life of a citizen whether single or with family, as people go there to relax and for recreation which is badly needed in the present day world. In view of this, there is an extra responsibility cast on the corporation to maintain them befitting the purpose for which they are intended to. The Corporation failed to discharge, this responsibility and the same is evident from the condition of the public parks and gardens of the twin cities. In some of the public parks, there are encroachments by the private persons and in some there are unauthorised constructions and in some cases the land which is intended for public park are converted for some other purpose. The Corporation is not taking any action in this regard. In reality these public places meant for public purpose are allowed to be used for private purpose. I understand that some of the residents of the twin cities have already approached this Honourable Court by way of a writ petition in this regard. In the recent past the Corporation has gone a step ahead and allowed these places to become crematoriums. Though for the present only two places have become the targets, one can very clearly foresee a situation in the future where the rest of the parks also may turn out to be crematoriums as and when the occasion arises.

I submit that th