Judgment B. Padmaraj, Ag. C., J.—Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the relevant case papers, including the additional documents filed along with I.A. No. 1/2005 by the petitioner. 2. There being a proposal to cut 702 roadside trees to easen traffic problems in the City of Bangalore, the petitioner, which claims to be an environment support group, has approached this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by way of public interest litigation, seeking a writ to declare the proposal to fell and prune 702 trees as illegal and, to direct R-1 to seek necessary approvals from R-6 under the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act before embarking upon any felling of trees within its jurisdiction. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have entered appearance. They have however not filed their response. 4. By I.A. No. 1/2005, the petitioner herein has filed two documents of the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka, the authenticity of which has not been disputed by the respondents. The contents of the second document, which is found at Annexure-X of which the English translation has also been produced, would show that, with regard to the cutting of the trees within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore City, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary and, in furtherance of the said meeting, it has been directed that with regard to the trees falling within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (including those on roads), it has been decided that permission has to be obtained under the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act and permission will have to be given on top priority and that further with respect to every instance, the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is to send details to the concerned Tree Officer in every case and the Tree Officer has to take a considered decision in a fair manner, after exercising due caution. The contents of the said letter would further indicate that, before granting permission to cut the trees, an opportunity would be given to the representatives of Hasire Usiru, wherever possible. The learned counsel for the petitioner informs us that the petitioner is a part of that group called Hasire Usiru. 5. The contents of the said letter would further indicate that, before granting permission to cut the trees, an opportunity would be given to the representatives of Hasire Usiru, wherever possible. The learned counsel for the petitioner informs us that the petitioner is a part of that group called Hasire Usiru. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if the letter dated 6-6-2005 of the State Government as per Annexure X is implemented in its letter and spirit, the petitioner may not have any grievance and the writ petition may be disposed of accordingly. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that since a decision has already been taken by the Chief Secretary, the directions issued in the letter dated 6-6-2005 will be followed both in letter and spirit. 6. In view of the above, we find that there is no need for us to proceed further with the matter and, on the other hand, the writ petition may be ordered to be disposed of by placing on record the decision taken at a meeting under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary and communicated to the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, as well as to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, and the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Tree Officer). We hope and trust that the authorities concerned will obey and comply with the directions issued in the letter dated 6-6-2005 of the State Government, in its letter and spirit. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Order accordingly.