ORDER : 1. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel for the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, has handed over to us in Court today an action plan for control of stray animals menace [monkeys, dogs, cattle’s and pigs]. The action plan mainly focuses on three strategies to control the monkey problem; (1) increase natural food base to the monkeys in the forest; (2) creating awareness among public through series of activities, such as putting up advertisements hoardings, awareness camps by voluntary and social clubs, organising seminars and workshops, distribution of pamphlets to the tourists, etc; and (3) on controlling monkeys' population by sterilization. The action plan has also set out the long term measures, such as improved solid waste management and improved waste management and operations. It has also dealt with the aspect of translocation of commensal monkeys to especially established sanctuaries. Some interim steps have also been suggested in the action plan which mainly concerns the problem of monkey menace, though reference has also been made to other animals. 2. Before we issue final directions, it would be expedient to have the responses from the State Governments/Union Territories. Copies of the action plan shall be supplied within two weeks to the Standing counsel representing the State Governments/ Union Territories, which shall file their responses within four weeks therein clearly indicating as to how it propose to implement various suggestions given in the action plan, time frame therefor, implementing agencies and monitoring, besides other aspects. The State Governments/Union Territories shall also indicate as to what action plan it has in relation to the awareness programme. On the aspect of implementation and monitoring, the State Governments/ Union Territories shall consider having appropriate representations from the following Departments; (1) Wild Life; (2) Municipalities; (3) Forest; and (4) Police. Besides these, the involvement of Non-Governmental Organisations and Societies for prevention of cruelty to animals may also be considered advisable. The State Governments/Union Territories need not wait for the directions of this Court to commence the action plan in their respective areas where it is so considered necessary and start the same on the basis of the suggestions made in the action plan or any other additional measure, which may be considered appropriate to check the menace. 3. The State Governments/Union Territories need not wait for the directions of this Court to commence the action plan in their respective areas where it is so considered necessary and start the same on the basis of the suggestions made in the action plan or any other additional measure, which may be considered appropriate to check the menace. 3. The main prayer in the writ petition is for strict enforcement of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and other ancillary prayers. Suggestions in this regard have been made by Animal Welfare Board of India and the Petitioner. In terms of order dated 26th March, 2001, the State Governments were directed to file their responses and also to deal in the responses, aforesaid suggestions contained in the affidavits of the Animal Welfare Board of India and the petitioner. Some of the States have filed their responses but since four years have elapsed since then, the States are permitted to include in their responses, directed to be filed pursuant to this Order, the development which may have taken place during the intervening number of years. We intend to take up this matter as well on the next date of hearing. 4. Copies of the responses shall be supplied by the State Governments/Union Territories to Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Mr. Raj Panwani, Advocates, and the learned advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned advocate, shall file the service report of action plan in the Registry within one week. 5. List the petitions after seven weeks.