S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for punishing the alleged contemnors herein for alleged violation of the orders passed by this Court dated 28-1-1997 in Writ Petition No.25835 of 1996, which has been reported in S.R. Ramanujam v. Chief Secretary to Government, 1997 (3) ALD 114.
2. The fact of the matter shorn of all unnecessary details leading to passing of the said judgment is as under:
3. A Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ petition having declared that conversion of public places like gardens and parks as cremation grounds is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, restrained the respondents from converting NTR Garden (Buddha Purnima) and Indira Park to any other use.
4. According to the petitioner, no construction of whatsoever nature should come up in the park in view of the said judgment, but the greenery in NTR Garden is being stripped off by constructing a multi-crore theatre. He made representations to the second respondent on 27-11-2000 and the Chief Minister. The grievance of the petitioner is that the NTR Garden is being used for some other purposes like theatres, restaurants, cafes, etc., which is in clear violation and wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court amounting to contempt of Court.
5. The petitioner herein has filed the aforementioned public interest litigation. The Division Bench of this Court directed:
'In the result, the applications are allowed. Respondents are restrained from converting the abovementioned two parks to any other use and from permitting in future any burial, cremation or otherwise disposal of the dead at any place other than the place registered as contemplated under Section 566 of the Corporation Act read with Sections 567 and 568 thereof. Since the petitioners have moved the Court in public interest and since we have taken the view that the respondents-State Government and the Corporation have acted against public interest, we are inclined to award exemplary costs payable by the Corporation as well as the State Government to the petitioners. Hearing fee for each petitioner and intervener each day at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-'.
6. The petitioner herein inter alia states that in wilful disobedience of the said judgment, the respondents have cut off small trees in NTR Garden and raised various constructions, including a multi-crore theatre. The representations filed by him, before the appropriate authorities, including the Chief Minister, allegedly went unheeded. Using the park for running a restaurant, theatre, cafeteria, etc., the petitioner contends, is not only in wilful disobedience of this Court but against the very purpose and object of the order of this Court.
7. Two counter-affidavits have been filed in the matter - one on behalf of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and another by Ms. Chandana Khan, Secretary to Government, Department of Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture. An additional affidavit had also been filed by Dr. P.K. Mohanty, the Second respondent herein.
8. The main thrust of the contentions raised in these affidavits is that the question as to whether, despite the judgment dated 28-1-1997 passed in Writ Petition Nos.25835 of 1996 and 35 of 1997, the land in the park should be allowed to be used for recreational purposes came up for consideration before the same Bench (P.S. Misra, CJ, and D.H. Nasir, J) in Writ Petition No.3860 of 1996, at the instance of Buddhist Society of India, A.P. Branch, wherein attention of this Court was drawn to the fact that the character of the space, which has been clearly assigned for recreational purposes only, is not changed. The Division Bench holding that the subject matter of the said writ petition being covered by the judgment of the Court in Writ Petition Nos.25835 of 1996 and 35 of 1997 went into the question as to whether the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, to whom the park had been handed over, can undertake a project for recreational purposes. It was observed:
'Our attention has been drawn, however to the project which has already been finalised and learned Counsel appearing for the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority has shown to us the plan and the map so far drawn for the project. We are satisfied that the character of the space which is clearly assigned for the purposes of recreational use only in accordance with various divisions of land for use as designed under the Hyderabad Urban Area Development Act, is not changed or is proposed to be changed. As held in Writ petition Nos.25835 of 1996 and 35 of 1997 respondents are restrained from changing the use of the land and thus the land shall be used as park and such recreational purposes only which are required to be provided in the park and in the surrounding area which was originally covered by the Buddha Purnima Project and is said to be presently covered by the NTR Project.Petition has overtones of some sort of denial to the status of Lord Buddha by modification or shelving of the project called Buddha Purnima Project and instead introducing NTR Project. These, however, are not matters, in our view, which are required to be considered by the Court. We find no merit in the petition'.
9. In the affidavit filed by the Vice-Chairman of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, it is stated that in NTR Garden Entrance Plaza of 4600 square metres with a unique fountain of 15 metres height and 10 meters dia made of fiber glass, Landscape Platform of 875 square metres with beautiful view with Toy train platform of 500 square metres, Ant Hill in an area of 3300 square metres, fruit restaurant in an extent of 154 square metres, formal garden in 2940 square metres, Machan artificial tree at 15 metre height, car cafe in 220 square metres, Souvenir Shop in 1495 square metres, Pagoda Garden, Nirvana - a fibre glass structure of 804 square metres, water fall, etc., are being developed in the said park:
10. It has been denied that any construction activity, which has not been included in the plan and which was not earlier approved by the Court, has been going on now. The green belt development of the Urban Forestry Department has neither been disturbed nor any tree had been cut, but in fact 4000 new saplings have been planted.
11. Ms. Chandana Khan, Secretary to the Government, in her affidavit stated that IMAX theatre is being set up on a land of two acres forming part of commercial area notified by G.O. Ms. No.363, and 23-8-1985, which is not part of NTR Park.
12. Dr. P.K. Mohanty, the second respondent stated that the Hyderabad UrbanDevelopment Authority is in charge of the said' park.
13. Mr. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner being not a party in Writ Petition No.3860 of 1996 and as thereby the judgment and order passed in the earlier writ petition, viz., WP No.25835 of 1996 had not been modified the respondents cannot take shelter thereunder. In any event, it was contended, that Souvenir Shop measuring 1495 square metres having a concrete structure must be held to be violative of the order of this Court. The learned Counsel did not press the issue as regards the construction of IMAX theatre being satisfied that the same does not fall within the NTR Park.
14. Learned Advocate-General and Mr. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor, on the other hand, submitted that by reason of the said order, the respondents have not violated any part of the order made by this Court. The learned Counsel would contend that Souvenir Shop and Pagoda Garden are part of recreational activities. So far as the Souvenir Shop is concerned, the learned Counsel would contend that having regard to the extent, length and breadth of the park, some provisions were required to be made for providing amenities to the public so that they can have rest and also for housing the management services.
15. The question as to whether the petitioner has made out a case for punishing the respondents for contempt of this Court would depend upon the question as to whether there has been a wilful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court or not.
16. It is true that the petitioner was not a party to Writ Petition No.3860 of 1996. Both the writ petitions, however, were in the nature of public interest litigations. It, therefore, does not matter whether one or the other person is a party in one or the other writ petitions or not. Public interest litigation is not adversorial in nature. All persons of the society are considered to be a party in the litigation for whose benefit the Court exercises its jurisdiction.
17. The Bench, which delivered the judgment in Writ Petition No.25835 of 1996 at the instance of the writ petitioner and in Writ Petition No.3860 of 1996 are the same. The learned Judges were very much conscious of the existence of their previous judgment. In fact, in the latter judgment except making some modifications as regards the permission granted for using the park for recreational purposes having regard to the project undertaken by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, it merely followed its earlier judgment. It is not for this Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction to consider as to whether the same could be done. However, we are of the opinion that there is no reason why it could not.
18. The contemnors, having regard to the order passed in the Writ Petition No.3860 of 1996, interpreted the same in the manner that the project of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, as regards making provisions for recreational purposes, can be implemented. If they did so, in our opinion, no exception thereto can be taken. It is now a well-settled principle of law that where the judgment is capable of two interpretations and if a party proceeds on the basis that one interpretation is correct, no wilful disobedience or wilful default can be attributed See: State of Bihar v. Sonabati Kumari, : [1961]1SCR728 .
19. The main grievance of Mr. K.S. Murthy is that construction of Souvenir Shop and Pagoda Garden is in violation of the aforementioned judgment of Division Bench. Pagoda Garden is a building constructed in the form of a Pagoda covered with water pond all round and two pedestrian bridgeswith mounds with plantation so as to enable the people to sit and enjoy. Souvenir Shop is a structure of 1495 square metres which houses the amenities for public and for housing the management services for the park. Keeping in view the fact that the area of the park extends to 34.06 acres or 1,37,875 square metres, it cannot be said that the recreational facilities provided to the visitors should not have been provided for. The various, who are in large number, having regard to the extent of the park, are required to be provided with some place where they can take rest. Hence, provisions for grant of amenities, as also construction for management services, cannot also be said to be not subserving the public interest.
20. It is a well-settled principle of law that before a person is punished for commission of contempt of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970, the Court must arrive at a finding that not only the violation of its order has taken place, but the same was wilful and deliberate. In no uncertain terms, the alleged contemnors had stated before us that the entire project had been placed before the Court and no action had been taken, which is not covered by the said projects.
21. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in the contempt case, which is dismissed accordingly.