ORDER IA No. 60 1. The Final Report of the Bastar Malik Makbuja Enquiry Committee with comments of the learned Lokayukta, Madhya Pradesh has been received from the Office of the Lokayukta, Madhya Pradesh. Learned the parties are permitted to examine the report and in case they of the report, the same shall be made available to them on SO far as the supply of copy to the learned amicus curiae is the same shall be made without payment. Learned counsel may After examining the report, file their response, if any, within eight weeks. 2. List after eight weeks. 3. Mr Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh submits that a detailed affidavit giving the difficulties being by the tribals in the area on account of the order of this Court and Suggesting certain remedial steps shall be filed within eight weeks. Its advance copy shall be served on Mr Lalit. 4. List after eight weeks . IA No. 291 5. The Third Interim Report has been furnished by the Committee appointment by this Court after visiting the border-affected areas on 27-4-1998 and 28-4- 1998. According to the Committee, some more detailed study is require to be undertaken. We request the Committee to do the needful and furnish their report within eight weeks 6. It appears that Prof. J.S. Singh, Head, Department of Botany, Banaras Hindu University Varanasi has expressed his inability to join the Committee because of his pre-engagements. Learned counsel appearing before us may suggest a substitute for Mr Singh. List on 12-5-1998 for nominating a substitute in place of Prof. Singh. IA No. 276 7. This application presents rather a disturbing picture of the manner in which forests in Chaikamagalur Division have been denuded. It appears that forests have been destroyed and fragmented due to encroachments for growing coffee plantation and agriculture etc. The affidavit filed by Mr Prasad on behalf of the State of Karnataka on 4-2-1998 does not make us any wiser about the effective steps taken by the State to prevent deforestation, remove encroachments and restore the forests to their original position. Mr Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka prays for and is granted one weeks time to file a proper affidavit giving all details. Mr Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka prays for and is granted one weeks time to file a proper affidavit giving all details. Besides giving the status report, it shall also be disclosed in the affidavit as to why action under Section 64-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 has not been taken against the encroachers, even though as many as 416 cases of encroachment are reported to have been detected by the State Government itself. It is stated that cases have been registered and in some cases even charge-sheets have been filed. Mr Nagaraja shall inform us the progress made in all such cases. 8. On 12-12-1996t, directions were issued by this Court banning the felling of trees all over the country including in the State of Karnataka to save forests and prevent deforestation. The State of Forest Report 1 however, discloses that the area of forests has come down by 5 sq. 1997. Obviously, trees have been permitted to be felled after the order of this Court dated 12-12-1996t in violation of that order. Before we proceed to bring to book the violators, we grant an opportunity to the State Karnataka to explain its position in the light of the 1997 Status Report. learned amicus curiae submits that because of the violation of the orders of this Court and the inaction on the part of the State to protect the forests in Karnataka, a District Judge may be appointed as a Receiver for the entire area of erstwhile forests. We shall examine that request at a later stage. IA No. 385 9. This order will dispose of IA No. 385 of 1997 filed by the State of U.P. seeking certain directions and modifications of our earlier order. 10. On 8-5-1997, this Court permitted the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest of the State of V.P., on case-to-case basis, to consider grant permission to an existing licensee of a sawmill to relocate itself, provided that the relocated site is not within 10 km of any existing forest. Mr learned counsel for the State of V.P., submits that a clarification is necessary to be made that the area of 10 km, would not include trees standing one or both sides of the road and the railways. Mr learned counsel for the State of V.P., submits that a clarification is necessary to be made that the area of 10 km, would not include trees standing one or both sides of the road and the railways. We clarify that the direction 8-5-1997 not to relocate the sawmill within 10 km of any existing for would mean and imply 10 km of any existing forest, excluding the tree a either side of the roads and the railways outside the existing forests and 10 km ban be considered in that light. 11. Mr Goel further submits that the State Government has examined Rules on the subject and is of the opinion that the Rules require to amended and a Cabinet decision has been taken to amend the Rules before notifying the same to bring it to the notice of this Court, and seek permission. 12. We allow the State Government to amend the relevant rules, accordance with the law keeping in view various orders and directions issued by this Court from time to time on the subject. It is, however, clear that the permission hereby granted is not in dilution of any order passed by this Court on this subject. We also clarify that by the grant of this permission, we should not be taken to have pronounced as the validity otherwise of the Rules nor expressed any opinion on the correctness otherwise of the proposed amendments. 13. In case any other clarification or modification is required of , earlier orders of this Court, the State of V.P. shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application in that behalf. 14. Application (IA No. 385) is disposed of.