ORDER : S.H. Kapadia, J. I.A. Nos. 1448-1449 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995: 1. On the basis of vague nature of averments and that too by association and not by individual industries, it is not possible to grant the prayer which is for rejection of report submitted by CEC and for quashing the order dated 21st June, 2005 granting sanction for licenses being issued to six new wood based industries. 2. I.A. Nos. 1448-1449 are accordingly, dismissed. I.A. No. 1240 with I.A. Nos 1266, 1299, 1341 and 1382 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995: 3. On request of Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, adjourned for six weeks. 4. Additional affidavit may be filed in the meanwhile. Contempt Petition (C) No. 247/2005 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995: 5. This petition has been filed by Mr. Naidu Prakash, resident of Secunderabad, claiming to be an active environmentalist belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh. He also claims to be Director, A.P. Forest Development Corporation. The applicant is not a party in these proceedings. Except stating that he is an environmentalist, no details as to his antecedents have been given in the application. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition filed by him. At the same time, however, serious averments have been made in the prayer that only 100 private units were there in the country at the time when ban was imposed by this Court and now the number has gone to 1700. Some annexures have been filed with the application. 6. In this view, we would substitute CEC as the petitioner to assist this Court. Mr. Naidu Prakash may supply such information, as he may have, to the Secretary of CEC. 7. We would treat this contempt Petition as I.A. in the application. 8. Notice for the present be issued to the State of A.P., State of Haryana and State of Uttaranchal. I.A. No. 1177 in I.A. Nos. 742-743 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995: 9. None is present for the State of Rajasthan. However, in the affidavit dated 29th November, 2005 filed on behalf of the State Government, it has inter alia been stated that a revised proposal for 30.70 hectares pf forest land was sent for diversion to MoEF only with regard to 19 mining leases existing on the date. None is present for the State of Rajasthan. However, in the affidavit dated 29th November, 2005 filed on behalf of the State Government, it has inter alia been stated that a revised proposal for 30.70 hectares pf forest land was sent for diversion to MoEF only with regard to 19 mining leases existing on the date. The total area for which first stage clearance was granted was 54 hectares. 10. While adjourning the matter because of the absence of counsel for the State, we have asked Mr. A.D.N. Rao to take instructions from MoEF on the plea of alleged revised proposal having been sent by the State Government to the MoEF and stage thereof. 11. The affidavit also refers to the order dated 2.6.2005 having been passed by the State Government. Copy of that order shall be placed on record by the State Government after supplying it to the counsel for the applicant. 12. List the matter in the month of January, 2006. I.A. Nos. 1234, 1372 & 1391 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995: 13. List in the month of January, 2006. 14. In the meanwhile, State of U.P. may file its response. I.A. Nos. 1235-1237 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995: 15. List in the month of January, 2006. SLP (C) No. 18973/2005 16. As prayed, two weeks time is granted to file statement of objections. SLP (C) No. 15562, 15578, 16106, 26033, 25791 & 26032 of 2004: 17. Leave granted. 18. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.