ORDER IAs Nos. 1430-32 1. The applicant being a public sector undertaking, the order dated 16-9-20051 would not be applicable to it. The IAs stand disposed of accordingly. IA No. 1370 in 1A No. 566 2. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) shall file its response within four weeks. IA No. 1442 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for some time, we permit the applicant to file within four weeks an additional affidavit along with such other further material that may have been placed before the High Powered Committee. IA No. 1186 (recommendations of CEC in IAs Nos. 205-06. 645. 723-24, 737, 738-39 and 763) 1As Nos. 205-06 4. On request of the counsel for the applicant, adjourned. 1A No. 645 5. This IA has already been dismissed as withdrawn on 15-4-2005. IAs Nos. 723-24, 737, 738-39 and 763 6. None has opposed the recommendations of CEC that these applications have become infructuous. The IAs are, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. 1As Nos. 1202 and 1206 7. Issue of notice dated 3-9-2004 by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kundremukh Wildlife Division, Karkala, requiring members of CEC to explain why legal proceedings should not be initiated against them• for violation of Section 173 of the Penal Code and other sections as applicable has led to the filing of IA No. 1206 by the amicus curiae. On IA No. 375 being filed before CEC, an order dated 28-4-2004 was passed by CEC whereby the Deputy Conservator of Forests was directed to stay proceedings initiated against the applicants. The State of Karnataka had earlier filed an application (IA No. 1202) on 7-6-2004 in this Court seeking stay of further proceedings before CEC on IA No. 375. Without getting any order from this Court or without waiting for any orders being passed by this Court, the Deputy Conservator of Forests proceeded to issue the above-referred notice dated 3-9-2004. There can be no doubt, and rightly it is not sought to be defended, that the officer had no right, power or jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 3-9-2004 to the members of CEC. In this view of the matter, we allow IA No. 1206 and quash the notice dated 3-9-2004. 8. There can be no doubt, and rightly it is not sought to be defended, that the officer had no right, power or jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 3-9-2004 to the members of CEC. In this view of the matter, we allow IA No. 1206 and quash the notice dated 3-9-2004. 8. Regarding IA No. 1202, learned counsel for the applicant State of 8 Karnataka would obtain instructions and state whether the notice dated 3-9-2004 has led to filing of any FIR and on receipt of the said information we would examine this application further. List IA No. 1202 after four weeks. The paper-book of IA No. 1206 shall also be placed before the Court when IA No. 1202 is taken up for hearing. IA No. 1220 (interim report of CEC in IA No. 548) and IA No. 994 9. Some of the State Governments/Union Territories have filed their responses to the recommendations of CEC. Such of the States/Union Territories which have not filed the same, are granted further four weeks' time. 10. None of the States has filed any objection to the recommendations of CEC made in paras 14 and 15 in relation to clarification about allowing conservation and protection related activities for better management of the protected areas. The recommendations contained therein are, accordingly, accepted and the order dated 14-2-2000 is clarified accordingly. Accepting the said recommendations, we direct as under: (A) Various activities such as removal of weeds, clearing and burning of vegetation for fire lines, maintenance of fair weather roads, ( habitat improvement, digging temporary waterholes, construction of antipoaching camps, chowkies, checkposts, entry barriers, water towers, small civil works, research and monitoring activities, etc. are undertaken for protection and conservation of the protected areas and therefore permissible under the provisions of Section 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. These activities are necessary for day to day I management of the protected areas besides they do not involve any type of commercial exploitation. The activities abovementioned are permissible under the various provisions of other environmental laws as well. These activities are necessary for day to day I management of the protected areas besides they do not involve any type of commercial exploitation. The activities abovementioned are permissible under the various provisions of other environmental laws as well. (B) The order dated 14-2-2000 will not be applicable to the following activities provided that they (i) are undertaken as per the management plan approved by the competent authority; (ii) are consistent with the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; (iii) are undertaken consistent with the National Wildlife Action Plan; (iv) are in conformity with the guidelines issued for the management of the protected areas from time to time; and (v) the construction and related activities are designed to merge with the natural surroundings and as far as possible use forest friendly material. (a) Habitat improvement activities Weed eradication, maintenance and development of meadows/ grassland required for wild herbivores which are prey base for the carnivores, digging and maintenance of small waterholes and small anicuts, earthen tanks, impoundment of rainwater, relocation of villages outside the protected areas and habitat improvement of areas so vacated. (b) Fire protection measures Clearance and maintenance of fire lines as prescribed in the management plan by undertaking controlled cool or early burning and construction of watch towers. (c) Management of wet grassland habitats Early or cool controlled winter burning of grassland habitats such as in Kaziranga and Manas National Parks in Assam, to facilitate growth of fresh grass. (d) Communication and protection measures Construction of wireless towers, improvement and maintenance of fair weather non-tarred forest roads not exceeding three metres in width, small bridges, culverts, fences, etc. (e) Anti-poaching initiatives Construction, maintenance and improvement of small anti-poaching camps/chowkies, patrolling camps, checkposts, barriers, boundary walls, construction of small staff quarters for the front line staff, etc. IAs Nos. 1226 and 1231 11. The learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra shall supply a copy of the affidavit to Mr A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). MoEF is granted further four weeks' time to file reply, if any. List after four weeks. IAs Nos. 1232 and 1352 (Reports of HPC in IAs Nos. 963-64) 12. After arguing for the applicant M. Indrasen Singh for a considerable time, the learned counsel was unable to explain the status of M. Indrasen Singh vis-a-vis Al Baari & Sons, Moreh, Manipur. List after four weeks. IAs Nos. 1232 and 1352 (Reports of HPC in IAs Nos. 963-64) 12. After arguing for the applicant M. Indrasen Singh for a considerable time, the learned counsel was unable to explain the status of M. Indrasen Singh vis-a-vis Al Baari & Sons, Moreh, Manipur. The counsel seeks one week's time to file an additional affidavit. Though we allow the prayer, but having unnecessarily wasted the time of this Court, we impose on the applicant M. Indrasen Singh costs of Rs 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) as a precondition for hearing of these applications. The amount of costs shall be deposited with CEC within one week. The IAs are adjourned. List after one week. 13. The applicant M. Indrasen Singh shall be present in the Court on the next date of hearing also. SLP (C) No. 8707 of 2002 14. On the ground of personal difficulty of the counsel, adjourned. Court Masters