learned counsel for respondent no.2, states that the respondent no.2 has also not consented to diversion of the site. The alleged consent of respondent No. 2 is, in my view, not dispositive of the matter, having regard to the specific statement made to the Court that site would not be used for social/religious functions in future. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposes the submissions. She submits that the respondent No.3 has already made arrangements for holding Ram Leela , and has paid the amount demanded by the MCD for the booking. I do appreciate the difficulty, as far as the respondent No.3 is concerned. However, the problem is really of the MCD’s making, and one that will have to be resolved between the MCD and respondent No.3. In the order dated 22.09.2023, the Court permitted an arrangement, which would enable the proposed function to go on, subject to conditions mentioned therein. However, an assurance was given that, other than three further days for which bookings had already been taken, such a situation would not reoccur. The Court cannot be faced with a fait accompli, that the booking has been made, contrary to the assurance made to the Court, and the interests of respondent No.3 will now be prejudiced. A mutually acceptable arrangement was worked out on one occasion, but when an assurance is given to the Court, it is expected that a statutory authority will act in terms of the assurance.
