ORDER IA No. 1360 in IAs Nos. 1130 and 1152 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 1. The recommendations of CEC dated 15-7-2005 are accepted. The Committee, suggested in para 10 of the recommendations, shall frame guidelines, if not already framed on the basis where of, it would prepare the seniority list of eligible sawmills and other wood-based industries which will be considered for grant of licence in order of seniority. The case of the applicants in IAs Nos. 1130 and 1152 would, of course, be considered by the Committee. The applicants can approach the Committee. 2. The interlocutory applications are disposed of. IAs Nos. 1362-63 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 3. The response to the applications shall be filed by Respondents 1, 2, 3 and CEC within four weeks. 4. Rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. 5. List these applications after six weeks. IA No. 35 in IA No. 32 in WP (C) No. 171 of 1996 6. Having considered the recommendations of CEC, Interlocutory Applications Nos. 32 and 35 are dismissed. 7. Counsel for the State Government submits that after instructions, fresh application may be filed giving valid reasons. IA No. 1369 in IA No. 956 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 8. The recommendations of CEC dated 29-7-2005 are accepted. Learned counsel for the applicant in IA No. 956 states that as per GO No. 45, the requirement to comply with Form 2 is unnecessary with regard to silver oak trees and in fact, it amounts to duplication in view of the Statutory Committee, as mentioned in clause (iv). The said Form is not on record. We, therefore, do not exactly know what requirements are to be complied with. The interlocutory application is dismissed. The applicant is permitted to approach CEC. CEC will examine the matter and if necessary, the parties can again approach this Court. IA No. 1372 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 9. Issue notice. 10. Notice is accepted by the counsel on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Response to this application may be filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and CEC within four weeks. 11. The order of cancellation, if passed in the meanwhile, would not be implemented. IA No. 1003 in IA No. 965 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 12. Adjourned for four weeks. 13. Response to this application may be filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and CEC within four weeks. 11. The order of cancellation, if passed in the meanwhile, would not be implemented. IA No. 1003 in IA No. 965 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 12. Adjourned for four weeks. 13. Since the matter is being examined in terms of the order dated 16-9~0051 passed by this Court, the Ministry of Environment and Forests shall llso be associated with the discussions. A No. lOll, fA No. 1149 with 1390 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 14. List after two weeks. A No. 1015 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 15. In terms of the report of CEC dated 11-9-2003, the applicant wants to lithdraw this application with liberty to move the appropriate authority for ~eking necessary relief. In this view, the interlocutory application is ismissed as withdrawn. The applicant may take appropriate steps in terms of Ie aforesaid CEC report dated 11-9-2003. ~ No. 1037 in fAs Nos. 1008-09 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 16. Counter-affidavit said to have been filed by Mr H.K. Singh on behalf f the Government of Uttaranchal is not on record. Let the counsel check up Id if not available on record, file the copy thereof. 17. List after four weeks. l No. 993 in fAs Nos. 836-95 and 1281 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 18. Adjourned. .s Nos. 1315-16 in fA No. 566 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 19. The report of CEC, filed in the Court, is taken on record. 20. The interlocutory applications are disposed of in terms of the order of is Court dated 12-5-2005 passed in IAs Nos. 1301-02 with IAs Nos. 1303- 04 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995. It is directed that with regard to the temporary working permits of the applicant, which is a public sector undertaking, there would be a status quo on the condition that the applicant furnishes a updertaking to the CEC and Moef to make payments of net present value as and when determined and demanded by Moef.