- (1.) By these applications the applicants Calcutta Youth Front and its President Hridayanand Gupta pray for committing for contempt respondents 3-9 under the Contempt of courts Act, 1971, namely : 1. Kamal Basil, Mayor and Administrator, Calcutta Municipal Corporation, 2. R. K. Prasannan, Municipal Commissioner, 3. B. C. Mitra, Municipal Engineer-in-Chief, 4. B. K. Roy, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Sr. ) , 5. A. K. Sarkar, Chief Municipal Architect and Town Planner, 6. A. K. Goswami, District Engineer, 7. Dr S. K. Chowdhury, Chief Municipal Health Officer, as well as the lessees respondents 13 and 14 Jugal Kishore Kajaria in his individual capacityas well as Director, Messrs Happy Homes and Hotels Private Limited. The applicants allege that these respondents were guilty of contempt in that they had in breach of the terms and conditions laid down by this court in its order dated 18/08/1987 in Special Leave Petitions 5678-79 of 1987 permitted the lessees Messrs Happy Homes and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. to construct an underground air-conditioned market at Satyanarayan Park, and that they had connived and acquiesced in permitting the lessees to construct four pucca structures 15 feet in height above the road level partly covering the surface of the park and covering a major portion of the surface of the park. It is alleged that the said constructions constitute gross and deliberate violation of the undertaking of respondent 13 in his supplementary affidavit dated 25/07/1987 and the terms of the courts order dated 18/10/1987. Applicant 2 Hridayanand Gupta in his affidavit dated 14/07/1988 placed reliance on the following observations made by this court in its order : Under the scheme there would be no construction on the park; the underground market would be under the park and not over the park. The only difference is that the park would be relocated at a height of 6 feet above the road level easily accessible by three separate staircases. Under the scheme, Satyanarayan Park would become a real park with a lush green garden with tall trees, shrubs, etc. and a centre for relaxation of the thickly congested Burrabazar locality and in particular for the children as a playground. It was alleged that the assertion of the contemnors before this court, as was before the High court, was that tall trees and/or shrubs would be planted apart from the lush green lawn on the eastern garden under the direct supervision of the Agri-Horticultural Society of India, Aliporc as per its letter dated 25/07/1987. This, according to the applicants, was nothing but a hoax. The applicants allege that the aforesaid respondents have committed deliberate violation of the terms and conditions of this courts order by permitting the lessees to construct the aforesaid pucca structures of lofty heights which, apart from the four-storeyed building, cover a substantial portion of the surface of the park which would make it literally impossible to have a terrace garden with a lush green lawn with tall trees, shrubs etc. as a place of relaxation, and therefore liable to be committed for contempt. They in the meanwhile pray that respondents 13 and 14, the lessees, be restrained from subletting the underground airconditioned park to anyone in the greater public interest. These allegations were controverted by the counter-affidavit of Jagdishkaajilal, Deputy Chief Engineer (Design) , Planning and Development Department of the Municipal Corporation dated 10/02/1988 and that by the lessees Jugal Kishore Kajaria impleaded as respondents 13 and 14. The applicants filed rejoinders to these counter-affidavits.
(2.) Having carefully gone through the applications for contempt, the counter-affidavit of respondents 13 and 14 and that filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, and having regard to the fact that the allegations made in the applications involve controverted facts, we thought it expedient to request Shri Justice Urnesh Chandra Banerjee by our order dated 21/04/1988 to hold an enquiry as to whether there was a violation of the judgment and order passed by him, as affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal by the division bench and also by this court, and directed him to forward his findings by the second week of July 1988 after hearing the parties. It was clarified while making the order that that direction of ours was not to be construed as meaning that there was a breach of the terms and conditions laid down in the judgment. It was further directed that the High court shall not, during the pendency of the enquiry, pass any interim order which would tend to obstruct or delay the completion of the construction work of the underground air-conditioned market.
(3.) In compliance therewith, Shri Justice Umesh Chandra Banerjee has submitted his report holding that there was no violation of his judgment. The learned Single Judge not only heard the parties but also took the trouble of personally visiting the park and noted his observations on personal inspection. In the report the learned Judge records his visual impression in the following words: Two open staircases have been provided for an entry onto the park apart from the three other covered entrances which would facilitate entry onto both the Air Conditioned Market as well as to the park. Teh covered entrances are more or less at a height of about 15 ft. There are three other units of Air Handling Plants which are also more or less at a height of about 15 ft. On the eastern side there is a four storeyed building and on the top, a built-in water reservoir has been erected and atop the built-in water reservoir there are existing two huge water cooling tanks. The four storeyed building admittedly has been constructed in place and stead of a one-storeyed building which was existing prior to the licensing agreement and popularly known as "service Block". On visual examination it appears that certain plant and machinery along with a switch room are located and housed in the service block. The learned Judge then goes on to add: On a close look at the entire nature of construction it cannot but be said that the area looks totally green with some trees on one side, shrubs and other small trees all around. In my judgment dated 17/07/1986 I observed: Lovely lush green park soothing to the eyes would be visualised since the same would be at a raised level. Tall trees have already been replanted. The entire area in question would have a different look. The sceptics might say that this is too much to expect but optimism prompts judicial conscience to allow such a project so that prospect of having such an area in the heart of a commercial centre in the city of Calcutta is not ruled out. The learned Judge expresses satisfaction that his expectations for beautification of the Metropolitan City of Calcutta were not belied, in these words: It seems that the judicial optimism has paid a rich dividend in this particular case and the entire area in fact is having a decent and sophisticated look. There was not a blade of grass on the park prior to the licensing agreement. But now a lush green lawn is visible and the place in fact has turned out to be a place for recreation of tax payers place for recreation for the children of the locality and a place to wither away the time for the old and aged people. Along with the report he has annexed a photograph which depicted the existing state of Satyanarayan Park which was once a dark, dangerous place frequented by persons with criminal record, has now turned out to be a beauty spot in a thickly congested area like Burrabazar. It shows that all the work of construction including the covered staircases together with the open staircase, including the four storeyed Service block is complete. The photograph depicts the state of affairs as to the shape, size and dimensions of these structures and gives an overall view of the proposed park atop the underground air-conditioned market at Satyanarayan Park. The learned Single Judge accordingly records a finding that by the raising of these constructions, question of committing any contempt of his judgment does not and cannot arise. We find no justification to come to any different conclusion.;