Constitution of India : 

Articles 14,21,49,5/-A, 298, 299, 226 and 136-Park of historical importance-Maintained by Corporation-Corporation entering into an agreement with a builder for the construction of underground shopping complex in the guise of decongesting the area without inviting tenders Terms of agreement totally one side in favour of builder and also contrary to statutory provisions passed by State Legislature-Allegations of personal gain against the authorities of Corporation-Corporation divested of its control over the park after the agreement-Held, such action of Corporation is unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair and opposed to public policy, public interest and public trust doctrine and is an example of bad governance-Therefore, judicial review called for-Any illegal or unauthorised construction done by the builder must be demolished irrespective of amount of expenditure incurred  by it-Municipalities-UP. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959-U.P. Regulation of Buildings Operations Act, 1958-U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973-U.P. Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975. 

Article 136-Relief-illegal and unauthorised construction-Court  should order demolition of such construction irrespective of any amount invested by the builder-Exercise of judicial discretion in moulding the relief not called for in such cases of illegal and unauthorised construction as the same would encourage and perpetuate the illegality-Direction issued to hold an enquiry as to how unauthorised construction came about and to book the offenders-Public Accountability-Town Planning-Municipalities. 

Articles-226, 32, I 36-Judicial review-Action of State or its instrumentality-Illegal and in contravention of prescribed procedure apart from being unreasonable, irrational or mala fides-He/d, such action is open to judicial review-Further held, that bad governance sets bad example Administrative Law. 

Section 114-Obligatory duty of the Corporation to maintain Parks- Corporation allowing a builder to construct an underground shopping complex over an existing park of historical importance-Held, section 114 violated-However, underground construction can be converted into a parking place as it was also an obligatory duty of the Corporation-But, such parking place be constructed after taking into consideration all relevant factors such as locality and its population etc. -Town Planning-U.P. Parks, Playground and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975.

Sections 91, 105 and 119-Meetings of so called High Power Committee of the Corporation No authority to the Corporation to constitute such a Committee and to delegate its function to the Committee-Notice issued for meeting of such Committee-Agenda included "other subjects, subject to the permission of the Presiding Officer"- Under this topic of the agenda, Corporation allowed a builder to construct an underground shopping complex on an existing park of historical importance-Decision of this Committee [ was approved by Executive Committee and general body-Held, constitution of High Power Committee and delegation of function was wholly illegal and violative of mandatorý provisions of Section 91 and 119 and was not mere irregularity so as to be protected under Section 105-Further, such an important project could not have been discussed under the topic "other subjects" of the agenda-Municipalities-Town Planning.

Section 136(2)-Requirement to obtain sanction of State Government where any project approved by the Corporation exceeded Rs. ten lakhs- Held, Section 136 (2) attracted not only where the cost of the project was to be incurred by the Corporation but otherwise also.

Sections 131,132,133 and 136-Land of prime value was handed over to a builder in violation of public trust doctrine and master plan of the city for the construction of an underground shopping complex over an existing park by way of an agreement-Terms of agreement were such that a man of ordinary prudence would not have such one sided terms in favour of the builder Terms also contrary to various statutory provisions-Held, agreement was illegal, unreasonable, atrocious, irrational and arbitrary-Constitution of India, Article 14-Administrative Law Judicial Review.

Section 128 and 129-Corporation granted licence to a builder to construct an underground shopping complex and to hold on the same for an indefinite period Under the terms of the agreement, builder authorised to lease out the shops on behalf of the Corporation-Held, such terms would attract the expression "otherwise dispose of any interest in the property" in Section 128 and hence contravenes Sections 128 and 129.

U.P. Parks, Playground and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975-Corporation allowing a builder to construct an underground shopping complex on an existing park of historical importance-Under the Act, it was the duty of the Corporation to maintain the park-Held, true nature of the park destroyed and consequently the public trust doctrine as expounded in Span Resorts case violated-Doctrine of Span resort case is a part of Indian Law and has developed from Article 21-Corporation was a trustee for the proper maintenance of park-Public Trust doctrine- Ecology-Constitution of India-Article 21-Municipalities-Town Planning-Park.

U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973-Sections 14 and 3(e) Construction of underground shopping complex in a park-Sanction of the building plan not obtained by the Development Authority constituted under the Act-Held, construction illegal-Town Planning.

Easements Act, 1882-Sections 60(b) and 62(f)-Licene-Revocability of-Licence granted by the Corporation to a builder for the construction of an underground shopping complex in a park-Construction is a work of permanent nature constructed after having been incurred expenses-Held, Such licence would be irrevocable under Section 60(b)-But licence was deemed to be revoked under Section 62(f) when as per agreement, licensee would recover his full costs pliis the agreed percentage of profit on the investment made by him.

Evidence Act, 1872-Section 115-There is no estoppel against a statute.

Practice and Procedure Corporation being a continuing body will be estopped from changing its stand-But when the Corporation finds that its action was contrary to statute, there could be no impediments in its way to change its stand-Estoppel.

Interpretation of Statute-Subsidiary rules-Mandatory or directory- Statute specifically provided that a body corporate has to act in a particular manner as specified in the statute and in no other way-Held, this provision is mandatory and has to be strictly complied with.

Administrative Law-Authority created under the Act-Jurisdiction of Corporation allowed construction of an underground shopping complex on an existing park contrary to various statutory provisions by way of an agreement with a builder-Builder to act an agent-However, concept of agency totally missing-Rather the agreement was from principal to principal-Terms of the agreement totally one sided in favour of the builder- Terms of agreement defied logic, was outrageous and crossed all limits of rationality Held, the Corporation has acted in a fatuous manner in entering into such an agreement.

An agreement to construct an underground-shopping complex in a park located in a commercial-cum-residential area of Lucknow, was entered into between the appellant/builder and the Lucknow Mahapalika (Corporation) on the pretext of decongesting the area. This agreement was entered into without inviting any bid and without obtaining any project report. Not only that, the procedure adopted by the Corporation was contrary to statutory provisions and the terms of the agreement was totally one sided in favour of the builder. Decision to award the contract was also prejudicial to public purpose in so far as the maintenance of park was of historical importance from environmental point of view. Respondents challenged the award of the contract to construct underground shopping complex in favour of appellant/ builder by way of a writ petition before the High Court and the same was allowed. In appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Single Judge. Hence this appeal.

It was contended by the builder/appellant that there was no disposal of the property by Corporation in favour of the builder and therefore, provisions of Section 128 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 (the "Act"); that there was no arbitrariness or unreasonableness vitiating the agreement between Corporation builder in view of the finding of the High Court that there was no lack of bona fides and that it was not disputed that the builder was not competent to execute; and that High Court exceeded its jurisdiction as it did not apply correct parameters of its power of judicial review as laid down by Tata Cellular's case.

It was contended by the respondent that in view of historical importance and of environmental necessity, construction of shopping complex would be in breach of Articles 21,49 and 51-A(g) of the Constitution; that the contract was in violation of various statutory provisions contained in U.P. Regulation of Buildings Operations Act, U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, U.P. Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act; that no tender was invited by the Corporation; that the agreement smacked of arbitrariness, was unfair and gave undue favour to the builder and this was done with mala fide motives of personal gain by the authorities of the Corporation; and that the action of the Corporation was against public interest.