JUDGMENT : IA Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 in WP (C) 537/1992 1. It is represented that there is an Original Suit No. 6/1996 between the State of Haryana and State of Punjab pertaining to SYL Canal in which the judgment has been reserved. It is possible that some observations made therein may have effect on the present proceedings, though Dr. Dhawan, the learned Amicus says that the issues therein are not directly related with the present case, we, however, adjourn the matter till two weeks after the judgment in Original Suit No. 6/1996. 2. Interim orders to continue. 3. It is clarified that no applications will be listed without the approval of the Amicus Curiae. W.P. (C) 725/1994 4. The learned Solicitor General states that as far as the Union of India is concerned it insists on the implementation of its letter dated 28th August, 2000 and there is as of today no dilution of the stand, lest any person may have any apprehension in regard thereto. 5. An affidavit on behalf of the Union of India has been filed. In this Court's order dated 31st July, 2001 the Ministry of Urban Development was required to check and inform the Court as to whether what was stated in the annexures in an earlier affidavit of the Chief Secretary was correct. The said annexures purported to give information with regard to demolitions and encroachments which had been removed. In the affidavit filed today by the Union of India, it has been stated that the Ministry is unable to give any information asked for by this Court because the requisite particulars of the properties in respect of which action for demolition or removal of encroachment had taken place were not available. The Chief Secretary is stated to have been requested by the Union of India to submit the particulars asked for. 6. By an order dated 31st July, 2001, the Chief Secretary, NCT of Delhi as well as the Commissioner, M.C.D., had been directed to file within four weeks specific affidavit dealing with each of the clauses of the letter dated 28th August, 2000 of the Union of India. No affidavit has been filed till today and counsel for N.C.T. of Delhi as well as the M.C.D. request for eight weeks time to do the needful. No affidavit has been filed till today and counsel for N.C.T. of Delhi as well as the M.C.D. request for eight weeks time to do the needful. While we do not think that any cause, leave alone justifiable cause, has been shown for not filing the affidavit giving the particulars asked for, nevertheless, eight weeks time is granted to the Chief Secretary, N.C.T. of Delhi and the Commissioner, M.C.D. to comply with this Court's order dated 31st July, 2001. We also direct the Vice-Chairman, D.D.A. to file an affidavit within eight weeks dealing with each of the clauses of the letter dated 28th August, 2000. The affidavits which are filed and the particulars which are required to be furnished to the Union of India should contain all the details which will make it possible to verify as to what is stated in the said affidavits is correct or not. It is indeed disheartening that the correctness of the affidavits filed by the senior functionaries have to be verified by another. 7. List after eight weeks. I.A. Nos. 20 & 21 in WP 4677/85 8. With regard to the functioning of the STPs, the Delhi Jal Board will also file an affidavit giving the status report by the next date of hearing.