ORDER 1. Permission to file SLP is granted. 2. Delay condoned. 3. Leave granted. 4. The main grievance of the appellants appears to be that although at their instance the Calcutta High Court had earlier passed orders relating to the same wetlands as in People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of W.B.1 and thereafter, yet they were not made parties to the present writ petition which according to them seeks to make changes in the same wetlands. The first respondent, however, contended that the appellants were heard by the High Court before passing the above order. From the record, it is not clear whether the appellants had in fact, been served with a notice or they had by themselves appeared before the High Court, whether they had filed any affidavit or made any submissions. In view thereof, and in view of the fact that two earlier decisions of the High Court had been obtained at the instance of the appellants, the matter is remanded to the Bench of the Calcutta High Court dealing with environmental issues to consider the submissions of the appellants and thereafter to make a fresh suitable order, either affirming or modifying the existing order or rejecting the petition. Liberty to the appellants to file an affidavit before the High Court if they have not done so. if any affidavit is so filed, the first respondent and/or other parties will be at liberty to file affidavits in reply. The matter may be considered expeditiously. 5. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly. (C.R.) Order accordingly. ************* Parallel Citations of other Journals : People United for Better Living, Calcutta v. Dimple Vincom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 1999(10) Supreme 12 00023