1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CONTEMPT PETITION (LODG.) NO.46 OF 2009 IN P. I. L. NO. 80 OF 2008 Shubhada Nikharge and others ..Petitioners. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Darius Shroff, Senior Advocate with Mr. Astad Randeria and Ms. Kalindi Kokal i/b Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the Petitioners. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.K. Nandankar for the Respondents. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 4th May, 2009. P.C. : 1. On 18th September, 2008 a Division Bench presided over by the Learned Chief Justice disposed of a public interest petition which dealt with the grievance of the citizens in regard to the development of the Zoo at Byculla. The Petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on 18th September, 2008 in the following terms : “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. K.K. 2 Singhvi, learned senior counsel submits that the plan is under preparation. Once the plan is prepared by the experts appointed, then it will be sent for approval to the Competent Authority and the Corporation can act for any other purposes whatsoever only after the approval is granted. Learned senior counsel further submits that after the grant of approval, the Corporation will obviously make the plan public. In view of the statement made, nothing survives in this petition. Petition is dismissed.” 2. The immediate development that led to the institution of the contempt petition was that a tender notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation on 21st February, 2009 inviting bids for the following work viz. “Development of infrastructure, civil construction & landscaping around Administrative Building Wall Fence, Service Road, Hospital Commissary & Quarantine Areas for Veermata Jijabai Bhosale Udyan-Zoo, Byculla, Mumbai.” 3. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners stated before the Court that there is no objection to the development of an administrative building and of the hospital since both the existing structures are in a dilapidated condition. However, it has been submitted that tenders have now been invited at an estimated cost of Rs.34.29 3 Crores and the work includes civil construction, landscaping, service road and quarantine areas for the Zoo. The grievance of the Petitioners is that though a statement was made before the Division Bench that the Municipal Corporation would act “for any other purpose whatsoever” only after approval was granted to the plan by the competent authority, as a matter of fact the Municipal Corporation has proceeded to act without the approval of the Central Zoo Authority. An affidavit has been filed in reply to the Contempt Petition. The affidavit in reply discloses that on 4th March, 2008 the Central Zoo Authority approved a new master layout plan subject to four conditions. The four conditions that were stipulated in the approval granted by the Central Zoo Authority were to the following effect : “(i) All the structures/animal enclosures created at the Zoo as per the approved Master (layout) Plan of 2001 should be retained but may be modified / improved marginally, if necessary, with the prior approval of Central Zoo Authority. (ii)Considering the heritage value related to the antiquity of V.J.B. Udyan-Zoo and Garden, Byculla, it must be ensured that implementation of the new Master (layout) Plan should not carry out felling/ removal/ transplantation of any vegetation including trees, shrubs and creepers. Also no activity should be undertaken 4 which affects the life of vegetation in short or long- term. This would relate to the proposed massive earth fillings and equally large areas of excavation. (iii)In case, any re-alignment of any enclosures or structures is to be made for retaining the vegetation, the same should have got prior approval of this office. (iv)It should also be ensured that all existing heritage structures within the premises of V.J. B. Udyan-Zoo, Byculla are not damaged/ modified in any way without obtaining permission from appropriate authorities.” 4. The affidavit of the Municipal Corporation states that there after on 25th March, 2009 a new master plan along with designs and related documents have been forwarded to the Member Secretary of the Central Zoo Authority. In paragraph 4(L) of the affidavit in reply the Municipal Corporation has averred that in view of the letter of the Central Zoo Authority dated 4th March, 2008, approving the new master layout plan subject to the four conditions noted earlier, the Municipal Corporation initiated the preparation of tender documents for working included in Phase I such as the administrative building, wall fence, service road, hospital commissary and quarantine area. According to the 5 Municipal Corporation the work which is included in Phase I does not require the approval of the Central Zoo Authority and the administrative building is beyond the boundary wall of the Zoo. Moreover, it has been stated that the process of finalizing contractors for the execution of work in Phase I is at the initial stage; after the tender committee finalizes the tender, the proposal has to be approved by the standing committee and the Corporation and a new master layout plan will be made public only after it is approved by all competent authorities including the Central Zoo Authority. There is a considerable degree of ambiguity in the stand now adopted by the Municipal Corporation before the Court. On the one hand, it has been stated that in order to comply with the conditions imposed by the Central Zoo Authority on 4th March, 2008 the consultant revised the earlier master (layout) plan and a copy of the new master plan was forwarded on 25th March, 2009 to the authority. On the other hand, it has been stated that the Central Zoo Authority by its letter dated 4th March, 2008 approved a new master layout plan subject to four conditions and, “in view of the same” the Municipal Corporation initiated the preparation of 6 tender documents for work included in Phase I. At the hearing of the Contempt Petition, however, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation has on instructions clarified the position before the Court by making a statement to the effect that no work will be commenced without the express sanction of the Central Zoo Authority in respect of those matters for which the permission of the Authority is required under the law. In view of the aforesaid statement, which is in implementation of the earlier statement made before the Division Bench on 18th September, 2008, it would not be necessary for the Court to pursue the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction any further. The assurance which is made before the Court by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the Municipal Corporation on instructions assuages the grievance of the Petitioners that an attempt has been made to surreptitiously evade compliance with the terms of the statement made before the Division Bench on 18th September, 2008. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ***** 7