JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. Whether any area which is being used as a park can be allowed to be used for marriage purpose, is the question involved in this petition.

2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The said society has been formed for the welfare of the residents of the New Delhi South Extension Part I housing society.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that the land measuring 0.72 acres was earmarked for the purpose of green open land and reserved for district part layout and thus the user thereof could not have been changed. According to the petitioner, in complete violation of the building bye-laws, certain commercial activities are going on in the area. According to the petitioner, despite various protests, the concerned authorities are allowing the said park for use for parties/functions where loudspeakers are also played. It has been contended that even the said area is given for marriage purposes to the persons who are not residents of the area as a result whereof the members of the petitioner society have been put to a great inconvenience.

4. In its counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, it has been contended that three Departments of the MCD namely Directorate, Horticulture, Directorate, Community Centres and Executive Engineers (Building) Department of 12 Zones accord permission for erection of pandals and tents in the parks, community centres and open spaces. Such permission is granted in terms of the policy decisions taken in this behalf, which as stated in the counter-affidavit, are:

"(a) The Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi maintains two types of Parks under its jurisdiction (I) is Ornamental Parks and (II) other parks.

Ornamental Parks are not given for any kind of function including the marriage and the other parks are given for the erection of Pandal, tents for the marriage purposes as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985, titled as Sh. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. A copy of the said order is filed as Annexure R-1.

(ii) Policy of Community Services Departments of Municipal Corporation of Delhi regarding booking of the Community halls/Barat ghar for the marriage purposes is filed as Annexure R-2.

The Office orders dated 31st May, 1999 for charging fee for the allotment of the Community Halls/Barat Ghar is attached as Annexure R-3. A list of total community halls/Barat Ghar of category A & B is attached as Annexure R-4 and terms and conditions issued on 27th December, 1990 in this regard are filed as Annexure R-2.

(iii) As regards policy of allowing the pandals/tents on roads and lanes for parties, functions and festival it is submitted that Municipal Corporation of Delhi does not give any kind of permission for erection of Pandals/tents on roads."

5. It is stated that such guidelines have been framed in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court of India in the Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985, titled as Sh. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. By reason of an order dated 10th December 1996, the apex court directed:

"The second point raised by Mr. Mehta is that large number of parks in the City are being used for construction of marriage pandals and for hoisting other functions etc. According to Mr. Mehta, the frequent use of Parks for such purposes, is bound to degrade the environment and the utility of the Parks as a recreation for the public. Mr. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, Deputy Director, (Horticulture), MCD has filed affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that only 1023 parks/Tot lots out of 12000 parks/Tot lots in Delhi are permitted for such functions. It is further stated that there are 141 Community Halls for these purposes. But since the demand is very large, the Community Halls are not sufficient to hoist all the functions throughout the year. We agree with Mr. Mehta that the recreational and other aesthetic uses of the Parks cannot be curtailed. Mr. Mehta is also correct that the permitted use of the parks being recreation under the Master Plan, it cannot be permitted for any other use. But at the same time, keeping in view the need of the Society, it is necessary to bring the parks back to their normal use in a sustained manner. We are of the view that the MCD, the NDMC and the DDA shall .. the use of the Parks for commercial/marriage purposes etc. The material placed on record shows that the MCD is permitted such use in 1023 Parks, the DDA in 146 Parks and the NDMC in 51 parks. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we direct as under:

(1) The use of Parks by the MCD, the NDMC and the DDA for the purposes mentioned above shall not be permitted more than 10 days in a month. In other words, when any of the Designated Park is used for such purpose 10 days in a month, no function thereafter shall be permitted during the remaining 20/21 days.

(2) The MCD, the DDA and the NDMC shall make endeavor to construct Community Halls for the purposes of marriage etc. (3) The number of Parks indicated by the 3 authorities used for marriage etc, shall be reduced by 30% by June 30, 1997. It shall be reduced by further 20% by December 31, 1997. In other words, by the end of December 1997, the use of the Parks for marriage etc. shall be reduced by 50%. The authorities concerned shall file affidavits stating the progress in the projects for construction of community halls and also stopping the use of the Parks for marriages etc. by the end of December 1997. This may be monitored further by this Court in 1998.

6. The learned counsel would contend that the permission is being granted for using the said park for marriage purposes contrary to the will of the residents of the area. Such permissions are given to persons who are living in far-off areas. It is submitted that while granting such permission, the density of residential buildings in and around the park as also infrastructure available therefore had not been taken into consideration. It was submitted that there has been absolutely no reason as to why the residents should choose the park in question and no other park. In any event, public earmarking the area in question for the afore-mentioned purposes, the petitioner society ought to have given an opportunity of hearing.

7. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that this court cannot issue any direction, which would run contrary to or inconsistent with the directions of the Supreme Court.

8. We are further of the view that the principles of natural justice cannot be said to be applicable inasmuch as the respondents have merely taken a decision in terms of the directions of the Apex Court. If such an opportunity of hearing is granted, the residents of all the areas may come out with one plea or the other that the park situated within their residential area should not be allowed for the said purpose. The apex court has issued the afore-mentioned directions with a definite purpose namely, to see that all the parks are not misused.

9. A public interest litigation before the apex court is pending and the matter is being monitored by the Supreme Court of India. In the event if any action has been taken by the respondents in violation of the directions of the Supreme court, the same should be brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. But keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that this court issue any direction.

10. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that while issuing such permission, the New Delhi Municipal Corporation has a duty to see that least disturbance is caused to the residents of the area. In the event it is found that any person in whose favor such a permission had been granted, has failed and/or neglected to conform to the conditions laid down therefore and/or acts in contravention of any other law for the time being in force, appropriate action should be taken against him. Even if permissions are granted by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation or any other authority, the concerned persons cannot violate the other laws in force as for example, Environmental Protection Act or the AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. In a given case, the attention of the authorities of the Pollution Control Board can also be drawn in this regard. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that before granting such permission, the competent authority should verify the genuine need of the residents of the area and should see to it that the open spaces which used to be used as a park should not be allowed to be used b those who are not residents of the vicinity but in fact, belong to a far-flung area.

11. With the afore-mentioned observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.