By the Court.—Rule.

Heard forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. 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 112th 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.

3. 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 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.

4. 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 v. B.S. Muddappa, AIR 1991 (SC) 1902, G.N. Khajuria v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1996 SC 253 and M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. 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 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.

5. 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.

6. 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