on CRL No 1061 of 1982
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
MA Krishna Moorthy AS Pundir Din Dayal Sharma Ms Sangeeta Aggarwal CV Subba Rao and Gopal Subramaniam for the appearing parties
The following Order of the Court was delivered Pursuant to our order of May 10 1991 this matter was called on 11th July 1991 when parties and both the Commis sioners were heard
The report from the Executive Chairman of the UP State Legal Aid and Advice Board has been re ceived and looked into
The proceeding has been pending in this Court for almost nine years
In spite of all possible orders and directions made from time to time no substantial progress has yet been made
The land records have got to be prepared the forest land has to be identified and final action under the Forest Act has to be taken
The exercise involved in this process is undoubtedly massive but that by itself would not justify a protracted proceeding
When we made our order in May 1991 we had a feeling that before the rains started there would be substantial progress
The rainy season has come though rains are belat ed
In these two months however there has been no progress
Mr RP Pandey one of the Commissioners has been staying at Allahabad and he does not find it convenient to shift to the site
As we indicated earlier the matter has reached a stage where presence of all the officers and the Commissioners at the site has become almost indispensable Mr Pandey has informed the Court that he would find it difficult to shift to the site
We do not think much of his services can be utilised if he is allowed to stay at Allaha bad
It would therefore be 404 necessary to substitute him by appointing some other judi cial officer as Commissioner
Mr Pandey had done good work during the period he was supervising the process
We would suggest to the Secretary to the Commission appointed by us to make a report to us as to in what way Mr Pandey can be compensated for the work done
In place of Mr R P
Pandey we direct Shri Prem Singh retired District Judge of the State to be appointed as one of the Commissioners
The Registry shall cake steps to intimate him of the assignment at his Varanasi address
At the hearing of the matter on 11th July grievance was made that several directions out of the order of 10th May 1991 had not been complied with
Mr Yogeshwar Prasad Senior Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh assured us in Court that immediate steps would be taken to comply with all the directions excepting the requirement of depositing of Rs20 lakhs with the Secretary of the Commission
We have considered his stand in regard to the direction for deposit ing Rs20 lakhs and are prepared to modify the amount of Rs20 lakhs to Rs5 lakhs in view of the assurance that more of funds can come on requisition without loss of time
That amount may be kept in deposit with the Secretary in the imprest account within two weeks hence
The State of Uttar Pradesh shall file an affidavit that all the directions made on 10th May as modified now have been complied with within three weeks from today in the Registry of this Court
Some time back the Chief Secretary had set up a small Committee at Lucknow for monitoring the work
We suggest to the Chief Secretary that he may revive the Committee which on account of the intervening disturbances of law and order followed by the general elections had perhaps been abandoned so that coordinated activity may be possible
We request Mr Justice Loomba Executive Chairman of UP State Legal Aid and Advice Board to continue to super vise the work which he has been doing already so that the monitoring at the spot can appropriately be cross checked He is requested to send monthly reports to the Court
The matter may be placed again five weeks hence
Petition disposed of with interim directions


Summary:
A site in the city of Bangalore was reserved as an open space in an improvement scheme adopted under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act
This Act was replaced by the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 and the scheme prepared under the repealed enactment was deemed to have been prepared and duly sanctioned by the Government in terms of the new Act
In the scheme the open space in question had been reserved for a public park
However pursuant to the orders of the State Government and by a Resolution the Bangalore Development Authority allotted the open space in favour of the appellant a private medical Trust for the purpose of constructing a hospital
This allotment and diversion of the user of the site was challenged before the High Court by the respondents as residents of the locality and as general public contending that it was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the scheme sanctioned thereun der and the legislative intent to protect and preserve the environment by reserving open space 103 for ventilation recreation and play grounds and parks for the general public
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that a hospital being a civic amenity the allotment of the site by the BDA in favour of the appellant for the purpose of constructing a hospital was valid and in accordance with law and rejected the claim of the peti tioners that the BDA had no power to alter the scheme and in any event a site reserved for a civic amenity could not have been allotted for construction of a hospital on the ground that the scheme could be altered under Section 194 of the Act and it was done with approval of State Govt
On appeal the Division Bench held that though the BDA had the authority to deal with the plot in question the area having been reserved in the sanctioned scheme for a public park its diversion from that object and allotment in favour of a private body was not permissible under the Act even if the object of the allotment was the construction of a hospital since a hospital could not be considered to be an amenity in 1976 and that in alloting the site to the appellant Trust largesse was conferred on it in utter violation of law and rules and set aside the allotment of the site in question to the appellant with liberty to the BDA to make a fresh allotment of any alternative site in favour of the appellant
In appeal before this Court on behalf of the appellant trust it was contended that the Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside an allotment which was purely an administrative action by the BDA pursu ant to a valid direction by the Government in that behalf that in the absence of any evidence of mala fide the deci sion of the BDA was not liable to be interfered with that the decision to allot a site for a hospital rather than a park was a matter within the discretion of the BDA and that the hospital being not only an amenity but also a civic amenity under the Act as amended from time to time the diversion of the user of the land for that purpose was justified that under Section 65 the BDA was bound by all directions of the Government irrespective of the nature or purpose of the directions and that Section 38A prohibiting sale or any other disposal of land reserved for public parks or playgrounds and Section 161d requiring that 15 of the total area of the lay out be reserved for public parks and playgrounds and an additional area of not less than 10 of the total area for civic amenities were enacted subsequent to the relevant orders of the Government dated 27576 and 11676 and the resolution of the BDA 104 dated 14776 resulting in the allotment of the site in favour of the appellant and at the material time when the Government made these orders and the BDA acted upon them there was no restriction on the diversion of the user of the land reserved for the public park or a playground to any other purpose
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that it was improper to confer a largesse on a private party at the expense of the general public and the special consideration extended to the appellant was not permissible under the Act and that to allot in favour of the appellant an area re served for public park even if it be for the purpose of constructing a hospital was to sacrifice the public interest in preserving the open spaces for ventilation recreation and protection of the environment
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD Per Sahai J 1
The entire proceedings before the State Government suffered from absence of jurisdiction
Even the exercise of power was vitiated and ultra vires
Thereforethe orders of the Government to convert the site reserved for public park to civic amenity and to allot it for private nursing home to the appellant Trust and the resolution of the Development Authority in compliance of it were null void and without jurisdiction
148C D 21 The purpose for which the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 was enacted is spelt out from the pream ble itself which provides for establishment of the Authority for development of the city and areas adjacent thereto
To carry out this purpose the development scheme framed by the Improvement Trust was adopted by the Development Authority
Any alteration in this scheme could have been made as pro vided in Sub Section 4 of Section 19 only if it resulted in improvement in any part of the scheme
A private Nursing Home could neither be considered to be an amenity nor it could be considered improvement over necessity like a public park
The exercise of power therefore was contrary to the purpose for which it is conferred under the statute
141G H 22 The legislative mandate under Sec
194 enables the Authority to alter any scheme
Thus existence of power is clearly provided for
But the legislature took care to control the exercise of this power by linking it with im provement in the scheme
What is an improve 105 ment or when any change in the scheme can be said to be improvement is a matter of discretion by the authority empowered to exercise the power
142C D 23 Sub Section 4 of Section 19 not only defines the scope and lays down the ambit within which discretion could be exercised but it envisages further the manner in which it could be exercised
Therefore any action or exercise of discretion to alter the scheme must have been backed by the substantive rationality flowing from the Section
142E 24 The exercise of power is further hedged by use of the expression if it appears to the Authority
In legal terminology it visualises prior consideration and objective decision
And all this must have resulted in conclusion that the alteration would have been improvement
145G H 31 When legislature enacted Sub Section 4 it une quivocally declared its intention of making any alteration in the scheme by the Authority that is BDA and not the State Government
It further permitted interference with the scheme sanctioned by it only if it appeared to be improve ment
Therefore the facts that were to be found by the Authority were that the conversion of public park into private Nursing Home would be an improvement in the scheme
Neither the Authority nor the State Government undertook any such exercise
Power of conversion or alteration in scheme was taken for granted
There is no whisper anywhere if it was ever considered objectively by any authority that the nursing home would amount to an improvement
Whether the decision would have been correct or not would have given rise to different consideration
But it was a total absence of any effort to do so
144G H 145A G 32 The manner in which power was exercised fell below even the minimum requirement of taking action on relevant considerations
A scheme could be altered by the Authority as defined under Section 3 of the Act
It is a body corpo rate consisting of the Chairman and experts on various aspects
This Authority functions through committees and meetings as provided under Sections 8  9
The purpose of the Authority taking such a decision is their knowledge of local conditions and what was better for them
That is why participatory exercise is contemplated
Yet without calling any meeting of the authority or any committee the Chairman sent the letter for converting the site
If any alteration could be done by the Chariman or the Chief Minister then subsection 4 of Section 19 is rendered otoise
106 33 Financial gain by a local authority at the cost of public welfare has never been considered as legitimate purpose even if the objective is laudable
Sadly the law was thrown to winds for a private purpose
The extract of the Chief Minister s order quoted in the letter of Chairman of the BDA leaves no doubt that the end result having been decided by the highest executive in the State the lower in order of hierarchy only followed with ifs  and buts  ending finally with resolution of BDA which was more or less a formality
In less than ninety days the machinery in BDA and Government moved so swiftly that the initiation of the proposal by the appellant a rich trust with foreign depos its query on it by the Chief Minister of the State guid ance of way out by the Chairman direction on it by the Chief Minister orders of Govt resolution by the BDA and allotment were all completed and the site for public park stood converted into site for private nursing home without any intimation direct or indirect to those who were being deprived of it
141A C 34 Speedy or quick action in public institutions call for appreciation but our democratic system shuns exercise of individualised discretion in public matters requiring par ticipatory decision by rules and regulations
No one howso ever high can arrogate to himself or assume without any authorisation express or implied in law a discretion to ignore the rules and deviate from rationality by adopting a strained or distorted interpretation as it renders the action ultra vires and bad in law
141C D 35 There is no provision in the Act for alteration in a scheme by converting one site to another except of course if it appeared to be improvement But even that power vested in the Authority not the Government
The Authority should have applied its mind and must have come to the conclusion that conversion of the site reserved for public park into a private nursing home amounted to an improvement then only it could have exercised the power
Instead the application for allotment of the site was accepted first and the proce dural requirements were attempted to be gone through later and that too by the State Government which was not autho rised to do so
The only role which the State Government could play in a scheme altered by the BDA is specified in Sub Sections 5 and 6 of Section 19 of the Act viz the State Government could be concerned or involved with an altered scheme either because of the financial considera tions or when additional land was to be acquired an exer cise which could not be undertaken by the BDA
A development scheme therefore sanctioned and published in the Gazette could not he altered by the Government
146B G H 147A 107 36 Not only that the Authority did not apply its mind and take any decision if there was any necessity to alter the Scheme but even if it is assumed that the State Govt could have any role to play the entire exercise instead of proceeding from below that is from the BDA to State GOv ernment proceeded in reverse direction that is from the State Government to the BDA
Every order namely converting the site from public park to private nursing home and even allotment to the applicant was passed by State Government and the BDA acting like a true subservient body obeyed faithfully by adopting and confirming the directions
It was complete abdication of power by the BDA
146D E 37 The Legislature entrusted the responsibility to alter and approve the Scheme to the BDA but the BDA in complete breach of faith reposed in it preferred to take directions issued on command of the Chief Executive of the State
This resulted not only in error of law but much beyond it
146F 38 Under Sub Section 3 of Section 15 the State Government has power to direct the Authority to take up any scheme
The main thrust of the Sub Section is to keep a vigil on the local body
But it cannot be stretched to entitle the Government to alter any scheme or convert any site or power specifically reserved in the Statute in the Authority which functions as a body
The general power of direction to take up development scheme cannot be construed as superseding specific power conferred and provided for under Section 194
Absence of power apart such exercise is fraught with danger of being activated by extraneous considerations
147D E 39 An exercise of power which is ultra vires the provi sions in the Statute cannot be attempted to be resuscitated on general powers reserved in a Statute for its proper and effective implementation
Section 65 authorises the Govern ment to issue directions to carry out purposes of the Act and to ensure that the provisions of law are obeyed and not to empower itself to proceed contrary to law
What is not permitted by the Act to be done by the Authority cannot be assumed to be done by State Government to render it legal
An illegality cannot be cured only because it was undertaken by the Government or because it is done at the behest of the Chief Executive of the State
No one is above law
In a democracy what prevails is law and rule and not the height of the person exercising the power
147G H 148A B 310 Amenity was defined in Section 2b of the Act to include road street lighting drainage public works and such other con 108 veniences as the Government may by notification specify to be an amenity for the purpose of this Act and before any other facility could be considered amenity it was necessary for State Government to issue a notification
And since no notification was issued including private nursing home as amenity it could not be deemed to be included in it
That apart the definition indicates that the convenience or facility should have had public characteristic
Even if it is assumed that the definition of amenity being inclusive it should be given a wider meaning so as to include hospital added in clause 2bb as a civic amenity with effect from 1984 a private nursing home unlike a hospital run by Govt
or local authority did not satisfy that characteristic which was necessary in the absence of which it could not be held to be amenity on civic amenity
In any case a private nursing home could not be considered to be an improvement in the scheme and therefore the power under Section 194 could not have been exercised
145A D 41 Discretion is an effective tool in administration
But wrong notions about it result in ill conceived conse quences
In law it provides an option to the authority concerned to adopt one or the other alternative
But a better proper and legal exercise of discretion is one where the authority examines the fact is aware of law and then decides objectively and rationally what serves the interest better
When a Statute either provides guidance or rules or regulations are framed for exercise of discretion then the action should be in accordance with it
Even where Statutes are silent and only power is conferred to act in one or the other manner the Authority cannot act whimsically or arbi trarily
It should be guided by reasonableness and fairness
The legislature never intends its authorities to abuse the law or use it unfairly
144E G 42 The executive or the administrative authority must not be oblivious that in a democratic set up the people or community being sovereign the exercise of discretion must be guided by the inherent philosophy that the exerciser of discretion is accountable for his action It is to be tested on anvil of rule of law and fairness or justice particularly if competing interests of members of society are involved
144C D 43 When the law requires an authority to act or decide if it appears to it necessary  or if he is of opinion that a particular act should be done  then it is implicit that it should be done objectively fairly and reasonably
Deci sions affecting public interest or the necessity of doing it in the light of guidance provided by the Act and rules may not require intimation to person affected yet the exercise of discretion is vitiated if the action is bereft of ration ality lacks objective and 109 purposive approach
The action or decision must not only be reached reasonably and intelligibly but it must be related to the purpose for Which power is exercised
Public interest or general good or social betterment have no doubt priority over private or individual interest but it must not be a pretext to justify the arbitrary or illegal exercise of power
It must withstand scrutiny of the legislative stand ard provided by the Statute itself
The authority exercising discretion must not appear to be impervious to legislative directions
No doubt in modern State activity discretion with executive and administrative agency is a must for efficient and smooth functioning
But the extent of discre tion or constraints on its exercise depends on the rules and regulations under which it is exercised
141E F 142F D Public park as a place reserved for beauty and recrea tion is associated with growth of the concept of equality and recognition of importance of common man
Earlier free and healthy air in beautiful surroundings was privilege of few
But now it is a gift from people to themselves 
Its importance has multiplied with emphasis on environment and pollution
In modern planning and development it occupies an important place in social ecology
A private nursing home on the other hand is essentially a commercial venture a profit oriented industry
Service may be its moto but earn ing is the objective
Its utility may not be undermined but a park is a necessity not a mere amenity
A private nursing home cannot be a substitute for a public park
134A C 52 In 1984 the BD Act itself provided for reservation of not less than fifteen per cent of the total area of the lay out in a development scheme for public parks and play grounds the sale and disposition of which is prohibited under Sec
38A of the Act
Absence of open space and public park in present day when urbanisation is on increase rural exodus is on large scale and congested areas are coming up rapidly may give rise to health hazard
May be that it may be taken care of by a nursing home
But it is axiomatic that prevention is better than cure
What is lost by removal of a park cannot be gained by establishment of a nursing home
To say therefore that by conversion of a site reserved for low lying park into a private nursing home social welfare was being promoted was being oblivious of true character of the two and their utility
134D F 61 Locus standi to approach by way of writ petition and refusal to grant relief in equity jurisdiction are two different aspects may be with the same result
One relates to maintainability of the petition and other to exercise of discretion
Law on the former has marched much ahead
110 Many milestones have been covered
The restricted meaning of aggrieved person and narrow outlook of specific injury has yielded in favour of broad and wide construction in the wake of public interest litigation
Even in private chal lenge to executive or administrative action having extensive fall out the dividing line between personal injury or loss and injury of a public nature is fast vanishing
133B C 62 Law has veered round from genuine grievance against order affecting prejudicially to sufficient interest in the matter
The rise in exercise of power by the executive and comparative decline in power and effective administrative guidance is forcing citizens to expose challenges with public interest flavour
Therefore it is too late in the day to claim that petition filed by inhabitants of a locali ty whose park was converted into a nursing home had no cause to invoke equity juris diction of the High Court
In fact public spirited citizens having faith in rule of law are rendering great social and legal service by espousing cause of public nature
They cannot be ignored or overlooked on technical or conservative yard stick of the rule of locus standi or absence of personal loss or injury
Present day development of this branch of jurisprudence is towards free movement both in nature of litigation and approach of the courts
Residents of locality seeking protection and mainte nance of environment of their locality cannot be said to be busy bodies or interlopers
Even otherwise physical or personal or economic injury may give rise to civil or crimi nal action but violation of rule of law either by ignoring or affronting individual or action of the  executive in disregard of the provisions of law raises substantial issue of accountability of those entrusted with responsibility of the administration
It furnishes enough cause of action either for individual or community in general to approach by way of writ petition and the authorities cannot be permitted to seek shelter under cover of technicalities of locus standi nor they can be heard to plead for restraint in exercise of discretion as grave issues of public concern outweigh such considerations
133C H SP Gupta vs Union of India 1982 2 SCR Akhil Bhartiya Sashit Karamchari Sangh vs UOI AIR 1981 SC 293 and Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union vs UOI AIR 1981 SC 364 referred to
Per Thommen J Concurring 11 Apart from the fact that the scheme has not been validly altered by the Bangalore Development Authority it was not open to the Government in terms of section 65 of the Bangalore Development Act 1976 to give a direction to the BDA to defy the very object of the Act
The orders of the Government dated 275
1976 and 1161976 and the consequent decision of the BDA dated 111 1471976 are inconsistent with and contrary to the legis lative intent to safeguard the health safety and general welfare of the people of the locality
These orders evidence a colourable exercise of power and are opposed to the statutory scheme
132B D 12 The orders in question and the consequent action of the BDA in allotting to private persons areas reserved for public parks and play grounds and permitting construction of buildings for hospital thereon are in the circumstances declared to be null and void and of no effect
132D E 21 Under Sub Section 4 of Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 the BDA may subject to certain restrictions contained in sub sections 5 and 6 alter the scheme but such alteration has to be carried out pursuant to a formal decision duly recorded in the manner generally followed by a body corporate
The scheme is a statutory instrument which is administrative legislation involving a great deal of general law making of universal application and it is not therefore addressed to individ ual cases of persons and places Alteration of the scheme must be for the purpose of improvement and better develop ment of the City and adjoining areas and for general appli cation for the benefit of the public at large
Any altera tion of the scheme with a view to conferring a benefit on a particular person and without regard to the general good of the public at large is not an improvement contemplated by the Section
122C E Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited  Anr etc
vs Union of India  Ors 1990 1 SCR 909937 et
relied on
22 Under Section 38 the BDA has the power subject to such restrictions conditions etc as may be prescribed to lease sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which belongs to it and to appropriate or apply any land vested in it or acquired by it for the formation of open spaces  or for building purposes or in any other manner for the purpose of any development scheme
This implies that land once appropriated or applied or earmarked by formation of open spaces  or for building purposes or other development in accordance with a duly sanctioned scheme should not be used for any other purpose unless the scheme itself which is statutory in character is formally altered in the manner that the BDA as a body corporate is competent to alter
But that power has to be exercised consistently with the appropriation or application of land for formation of open spaces  or for building purposes or any other development scheme sanctioned by the 112 Government
Any unauthorised deviation from the duly sanc tioned scheme by sacrificing the public interest in the preservation and protection of the environment by means of open space for parks and play grounds and ventilation  will be contrary to the legislative intent and an abuse of the statutory power vested in the authorities
Section 38A inserted by Amendment Act 17 of 1984 clarifies that it shall not be open to the BDA to dispose of any area reserved for public parks and play grounds and civic amenities
Any such site cannot be diverted to any other purpose
Any action in violation of this provision is null and void
123F H 124A D E 23 Section 16 treats public parks and play grounds  as a different and separate amenity or convenience from a civic amenity  and reserves 15 and 10 respectively for these two purposes
The extent of the areas reserved for these two objects are thus separately and distinctly stated by the Statute
The implication of the conceptual distinc tion is that land reserved for a public park and play ground cannot be utilised for any civic amenity  including a hospital
121B C 24 One of the main objects of public parks or play grounds is the promotion of the health of the community by means of ventilation and recreation
It is the preservation of the quality of life of the community that is sought to be protected by means of these regulations
121E F 25 The legislative intent is to preserve a public park or public playground in the hands of the general public as represented by the BDA or any other public authority and prevent private hands from grabbing them for private ends
126G 31 The scheme provides for a public park and the land in question remains dedicated to the public and reserved for that purpose
It is meant for the reasonable accomplishment of the statutory object which is to promote the orderly development of the city and adjoining areas and to preserve open space by reserving public parks and play grounds with a view to protecting the residents from the ill effects of urbanisation of the city in a way that maximum space is provided for the benefit of the public at large for recrea tion enjoyment ventilation  and fresh air
This is clear from the Act itself as it originally stood
The amendments inserting sections 161d 38A and other provisions are clarificatory of this object
The legislative intent has always been the promotion and enhancement of the quality of life  by preservation of the character and desirable aes thetic features of the city
 128F H 129A B 113 32 The original scheme duly sanctioned under the Act includes a public park and the land in question has been reserved exclusively for that purpose
Although it is open to the BDA to alter the scheme no alteration has been made in the manner contemplated by section 194
127F 33 The letters addressed by the Chairman of the BDA to the Chief Minister and the endorsement made by the Chief Minister on that letter as well as the orders of the Govern ment sanctioning conversion of the low level park into a civic amenity site and alloting the same to the appellant and the resolution adopted by the BDA leave no doubt that the action of the Government and the BDA resulting in the resolution have been inspired by individual interests at the costs and to the disadvantage of the general public
Public interest does not appear to have guided the minds of the persons responsible for diverting the user of the open space for allotment to the appellant
Conversion of the open space reserved for a park for the general good of the public into a site for the construction of a privately owned and managed hospital for private gains is not an alteration for improve ment of the scheme as contemplated by Section 19 and the orders in question in that behalf are a flagrant violation of the legislative intent and a colourable exercise of power
In the circumstances no valid decision has been taken to alter the scheme
127G H 128A D F 34 The power of the Government to give directions to the Authority under section 65 is not unrestricted
The object of the directions must be to carry out the object of the Act and not contrary to it
Only such directions as are reasonably necessary or expedient for carrying out the object of the enactment are contemplated by section 65
If a direction were to be issued by the Government to lease out to private parties areas reserved in the scheme for public parks and play grounds such a direction would not have the sanctity of section 65
Any such diversion of the user of the land would be opposed to the statute as well as the object in constituting the BDA to promote the healthy devel opment of the city and improve the quality of life
Any repository of power be it the Government or the BDA must act reasonably and rationally and in accordance with law and with due regard to the legislative intent
127B D 35 The BD Act as enacted in 1976 has undergone several changes but the definition of amenity  in Clause b or Sec 2 remains unchanged
Amenity includes various conven iences such as road drainage lighting etc
and such other conveniences as are notified as 114 such by the Government
The section was amended in 1984 and to add clause bb after clause b which distinguished a civic amenity from amenityand specified as civic amenities such as dispensaries maternity homes etc
and those ameni ties which are notified as civic amenities by the Govern ment
Clause bb which was substituted by Act 11 of 1988 defines a civic amenity as amongst others a dispensary a hospital a pathological laboratory a maternity home and such other amenity as the Government may by Notification specify
Thus Clauses b and bb of Sec 2 read together show that all those conveniences which are enumerated or notified by the Government under Clause b amenities and those amenities which are enumerated or notified by the Government under clause bb are civic amenities
Signifi cantly a hospital is specifically stated to be a civic amenity
However the concept of amenity under clause b remains uncchanged though it is not clear from sub clause i of clause bb whether a hospital when is not run by the Government or a civic Corporation  but by a private body as in the instant case would qualify as civic ameni ty 
But the Act of 1988 was merely clarificatory of what was always the position and the hospital has always regarded as an amenity  if not a civic amenity 
119C G 120A 41 Protection of the environment open spaces for recreation and fresh air play grounds for children prome nade for the residents and other conveniences or amenities are matters of great public concern and of vital interest to be taken care of in a development scheme
It is that public interest which is sought to be promoted by the Act by estab lishing the BDA
129C 42 The public interest in the reservation and preserva tion of open spaces for parks and play grounds cannot be sacrificed by leasing or selling such sites to private persons for conversion to some other user
Any such act would be contrary to the legislative intent and inconsistent with the statutory requirements
Furthermore it would be in direct conflict with the constitutional mandate to ensure that any State action is inspired by the basic values of individual freedom and dignity and addressed to the attain ment of a quality of life which makes the guaranteed rights a reality for all the citizens
129D E Kharak Singh vs The State of UP  Others 1964 1 SCR 332 Municipal Council Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand  Ors   Francis Coralie Muffin vs The Administrator Union Territory of Delhi  Ors   Olga Tellis  Ors
vs Bombay Municipal Corporation  Ors   State of Himachal Pradesh 115 Deo Singh Tomar vs State of Bihar
   re ferred to
43 Reservation of open spaces for parks and play grounds is universally recognised as a legitimate exercise of statutory power rationally related to the protection of the residents of the locality from the iII effects of urban isation
Crowded urban areas tend to spread disease crime and immorality
129G 130G Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 Maharash tra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 Bombay Town Plan ning Act 1954 The Travancore Town and Country Planning Act 1120 The Madras Town Planning Act 1920 and the Rules framed under these Statutes Town  Country Planning Act 1971 England  Wales Encyclopaedia Americana Volume 22 page 240 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences Volume XII at page 161 Town Improvement Trusts in India 1945 by Rai Sahib Om Prakash Aggarawala p 35 et
 Halsbury s Statutes Fourth Edition p 17 el seq
and Journal of Planning  Environment Law 1973 p 130 et
Penn Central Transportation Company vs City of New York 57 L Ed 2d631  1978 Village of Belle Terre vs Bruce Boraas  1974 Village of Euclid vs Ambler Realty Company 1926 Halsey vs Esso Petro leum Co Ltd 1961 1 WLR Thomas J Schoenbaum Environ mental Policy Law 1985 p 438 et
Summary and Comments  et
and Agins vs City of Tribu ron  1980 referred to
Samuel Berman vs Andrew Parker   referred to
44 Any reasonable legislative attempt bearing a ration al relationship to a permissible state objective in economic and social planning will be respected by the courts
A duly approved scheme prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act is a legitimate attempt on the part of the Gov ernment and the statutory authorities to ensure a quiet place free of dust and din where children can run about and the aged and the infirm can rest breath fresh air and enjoy the beauty of nature
These provisions are meant to guaran tee a quiet and healthy atmosphere to suit family needs of persons of all stations
Any action which tends to defeat that object is invalid
131D F Village of Belle Terre vs Bruce Boraas   Village of Euclid vs Ambler Realty Company 1926 and 116 T Damodhar Rao  Ors
vs The Special Officer Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad  Ors  referred to