SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to maintain the public park at Rajamal-ka-Talab. It is stated that in the Writ Petition No. 421/1983 directions were issued by this Court to maintain the said park measuring 320" x 120" in accordance with the Scheme of the respondents. Attention has been drawn towards the Notification No. D-18465/f-3 (b)/ (57)LSG, date 4th Octo- ber, 1960 by which open spaces reserved for parks, vehicle stand, public building and roads etc. at the time of approval of various schemes, have subsequently been allotted to certain persons were objected and directions were given that there should not be any irregular allotment and in future no scheme which has been approved by the Technical Department should be disturbed by the Municipalities, City Improvement Committees and Urban Improvement Board without the approval of the Government. A letter of the Collector dated 29. 4. 1982 has also been referred in order to show that there is a provision regarding entry of heavy vehicles and inspite of there being prohibitory order, the heavy vehicles are violating the Government orders by loading and unloading the goods on foot-paths. By another order dated 21. 9. 1982 issued by the Collector, the officials were directed to stop the illegal activities of the transporters.
(2.) I have heard the arguments of both the parties. In the present matter, the first decision of this Court is dated 30th June, 1986 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 421/83; Jasbir Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1) which was also filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation for directing the respondents to maintain the public park at Rajamal-ka-Talab, and after taking into consideration the arguments of both the learned counsel, it was directed that the public park measuring 320' x 120' as shown in the approved scheme under rule 8 of the Rules, shall not be destroyed and no part of it shall be sold to anybody. Thereafter D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2913/88; Bharat Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2), was filed. It has also been decided by Division Bench on 12. 4. 1989 and it was directed that no bus shall be stationed on the road which is 24' wide. This judgment has also reference of the public park. The maintenance of public park is the responsibility of Municipal Corpo- ration. It is admitted by both the parties that the vehicles are not at present parked on that public park because a boundary wall has been constructed thereon. The only thing therefore remains of maintenance of the said park. It is stated by Shri Surana that neither the trees nor grass is there on the land reserved for park and it has become barani. The object of maintaining the public parks is to provide gree- nary to the inhabitants of the locality so that there may not be any pollution and the health of the citizens may improve rather than deteriorate because of pollution problem, in a park besides grass, growing of trees, shrubs etc. , is must otherwise the very purpose for which the parks are left in the scheme will be frustrated. This court and even the Apex Court in many cases, has laid stress for the public parks for the benefit of general public and, therefore, when in the scheme under rule 8 the par was left it was the duty of the respondents to maintain it properly. In the case of S. P. Gupta vs. Union of India (3), it was observed that - "the new social and economic rights which are sought to be created in pursuance of the Directive Principles of State Policy essentially re- quire active intervention of the State and other public authorities. Amongst these social and economic rights are freedom from indigency, ignorance and discrimination as well as the right to a healthy environment, to social security and to protection from financial, commercial, corporate or even governmental oppression. More and more frequently, the conferment of these socio-economic rights and imposition of public duties on the State and other authorities for taking positive action generates situations in which a single human action can be beneficial or prejudicial to a large number of people, thus making entirely inadequate the traditional scheme of litigation as merely a two party affair. For example, the discharge of efflument in a lake or river may harm all who want to enjoy its clean water, emission of noxious gas may cause injury to large numbers of people who inhale it along with the air, defective or unhealthy packaging may cause damage to all consumers of goods, and so also illegal raising of railway or bus fares may affect the entire public which wants to use the railway or bus as a means of transport. In cases of this kind it would not be possible to say that any specific legal injury is caused to an individual or to a determinate class as group of individuals. What results in such cases is public injury and it is one of the characteristics of public injury that the act or acts complained of cannot necessarily be shown to affect the rights of determinate of identifiable class or group of persons; public injury is an injury to an indeterminate class of persons. In these cases the duty which is breached giving rise to the injury is owned by the State or a public authority nor to any specific or determinate class or group of persons but to the general public. In other words, the duty is on which is not corelative to any individual rights. Now if breach of such public duty were allowed to go unreddressed because then is no one who has received a specific legal injury or who was entitled to participate in the proceeding pertaining to the decision relating to such public duty, the failure to perform such public duty would go unchecked and it would promote disrespect for the rule of law. It would also open the door for corruption and inefficiency because there would be no check on exercise of public power except what may be provided by the political machinery, which at best would be able t o exercise only a limited central and at worst might become a participant in misuse or abuse of power. It would also make the social collective right and interests created for the benefit of the deprived sections of the community meaning less and ineffectual. " In the case of Arun Kumar vs. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19296/86 decided o n 24. 4. 87 (4), the Allahabad High Court observed that - "protecting the environment was, but is no longer a private matter. It is a concept which has to be seriously embodied and the sooner the better. Once of the hazards of urbanization today is taking conflict with nature. The man-date of protecting nature has been out on all the citizens in the Constitution of India in the directive principle of State Policy. The State cannot ignore its edict in a city. . . . . Planning inside a park must have a purpose so that there is a direct co-ordination with functions of the park. These open spaces are to be preser- ved. Buildings are not to be put at the whims of those who govern the city. Public participation in planning is not to be ignored. The State is obliged to accept the suggestions of the residents and seriously consider the proposal with the Town and Country Planning Department before attempting to upset the conforming use of a space alrea- dy dedicated for public". Normally, for small parks the respondents may have the water connection but for bigger parks the boring should be there so that the grass or the trees or the plants are not dried up. It is stated that in the present matter there is no facility of water and it is being taken from the nearby area from the buckets. The respondents shall provide the sufficient water so that there may be a proper maintenance of the park. The land should not remain open as a barani land so that in summer the dust may not be flown in the area. The land should have a greenary by growing the grass over it and trees/shrubs should be grown near the boundary wall of all the sides.
(3.) IT may also be observed that there are other parks within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur which are to be maintained by it. IT would not be necessary for the citizens to come by way of separate writ petitions claiming the relief for maintenance of public parks and the directions which have been given in the present writ petition shall be followed for other public parks which have been left in the scheme as public parks. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. .;