ORDER IA No. 1474 with IA No. 1324 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 1. We have perused the affidavit dated 3 - 2 - 2006 filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, in particular para (7) thereof in relation to the proposal for diversion of 660.749 hectares of forest land for bauxite ore mining in favour of M/s Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. which has entered into an agreement with the applicant, M/s Vedanta Alumina Limited, for providing ore for the Alumina Refinery proposed to be installed by M/s Vedanta Alumina Limited. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that various aspects require in - depth study by expertslorganisations having expertise in the field concerned. This study is to be conducted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and report is to be submitted to the Forest Advisory Committee. It is submitted by the learned Solicitor General that the study is likely to take some time. We grant three months time to the Ministry of Environment and Forests to look into the matter in detail and consult such experts/organisations, which it may deem fit and proper. It would be open to the parties concerned to assist the Forest Advisory Committee. In case, names of experts are suggested by the Central Empowered Committee, it would be open to the Ministry of Environment and Forests to consider whether to consult the said experts or any other experts. 2. List the matters after four months. Contempt Petition (C) No. 83 of 2005 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 3. Mr Ashok Khot is present in the Court and wants to make a statement in regard to the Marathi note, referred to in the order dated 27 - 1 - 2006. Mr Khot states that the said Marathi note was written by him on 1 - 2 - 2005. He further states that during the course of hearing before the Central Empowered Committee on 1 - 2 - 2005, he wrote this note on the file inadvertently instead of on a separate piece of paper and the file was passed on to Mr Tripathi, Joint Secretary, to argue the case. 4. He further states that during the course of hearing before the Central Empowered Committee on 1 - 2 - 2005, he wrote this note on the file inadvertently instead of on a separate piece of paper and the file was passed on to Mr Tripathi, Joint Secretary, to argue the case. 4. This contempt petition has been filed by learned amicus curiae against Respondent 1 Ashok Khot, the then Principal Secretary (Forest), presently Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, and Respondent 2 Sarup Singh Naik, the then Minister of Forests, Government of Maharashtra, for initiating contempt proceedings against them for having granted permission in the State of Maharashtra to six plywood/veneer units in wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court. During the course of hearing, the original record has been produced before us. It contains a handwritten Marathi note after the note - sheet dated 5 - 4 - 2004. The name of the scribe has not been mentioned. The said note is before the typed Marathi note dated 5 - 4 - 2004 which was signed by the first respondent on which Respondent 2 granted permission on 6 - 4 - 2004. 5. On the last date of hearing i.e. 27 - 1 - 2006, we directed the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra to file an affidavit placing on record the movement of the file to ascertain as to when the note was made in the tile. It was further noted that the movement of the file shall show as to who was in possession of the file at the relevant time. Pursuant to the said order, Mr R.M. Premkumar, Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, has filed affidavit dated 2 - 2 - 2006 explaining the movement of the file as per. record. According to that affidavit, the handwritten Marathi note seems to have been made between 1 - 2 - 2005 and 3 - 2 - 2005. In any case, today in the Court, the first respondent has admitted that he made the note on the original file on 1 - 2 - 2005. He has sought to give some explanation which, of course, would be considered at the relevant time. 6. In any case, today in the Court, the first respondent has admitted that he made the note on the original file on 1 - 2 - 2005. He has sought to give some explanation which, of course, would be considered at the relevant time. 6. The order dated 27 - 1 - 2006 also permitted Respondent 2 to file an additional affidavit explaining his stand on the minutes of the High - Powered Committee, dated 28 - 1 - 2004. That order notes how the copy of the minutes filed by Respondent 2 in these proceedings were different from the minutes shown to us in the Court. Pursuant to that order, Respondent 2 has filed affidavit dated 1 - 2 - 2006 admitting that the offending portion noted in the order dated 27 - 1 - 2006 is, in fact, not part of the minutes dated 28 - 1 - 2004 and how it came to be included in Annexure D tiled by the said respondent along with his answer to the contempt notice contained in the affidavit dated 30 - 62005. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, we are of the view that the matter requires deeper consideration after framing of charges which will give further opportunity to the alleged contemnors to file their response, if they so wish. Accordingly, we frame the charges as under: Whereas this Court by its order dated 4 - 3 - 19971 directed the closure of all unlicensed sawmills, veneer and plywood industries, and further by its order of 30 - 10 - 20022, directed that no State Government Would permit the opening of any sawmills, veneer and plywood industries, without the prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee and whereas the State of Maharashtra, through its Interlocutory Application No. 414 sought permission to permit the reopening of the sawmills/veneer and plywood industries inter alia dependent on imported timber, which permission was declined by rejection of their application by this Court on 14 - 7 - 2003. Whereas in response to enquiries made by the Central Empowered Committee as well as the amicus curiae, the State Government assured that the orders of the Court will be complied with and six mills in question i.e. (i) M/s Oriental Veneer Products Ltd., (ii) M/s Konark Plywood Industries Ltd., (iii) M/s Great Western Plywood Industries Ltd., (iv) M/s Pagoda Woods (P) Ltd., (v) M/s Woodmac (Bombay) (P) Ltd., and (vi) Luckywood Products (P) Ltd. were actually closed; And whereas vide orders dated 7 - 4 - 2004 and 29 - 5 - 2004 the State of Maharashtra granted permission to the aforesaid six units to operate in the State; And whereas from the affidavit filed and the records produced it is apparent that these permissions were granted on the basis of the decision taken by Respondents 1 and 2 deliberately and consciously and after being aware of the orders of the Court with the sole motive to favour these units and to evade enforcement of the orders of this Court; And whereas as the result of these orders the mills have been permitted to operate in direct contravention of the orders of this Court; And whereas a handwritten Marathi note has been added in the original record on 1 - 2 - 2005 by Respondent 1 which amounts to interpolation of the record; And whereas the minutes, Annexure D, from pp.47 to 57 filed by Respondent 2 show addition in the manner noticed in the order dated 27 - 1 - 2006; And whereas by their conduct Respondents 1 and 2 have not only violated the direction to the State to ensure that unlicensed sawmills/ veneer and plywood industries are not allowed to operate, but have also attempted to lower the authority of the Court by granting permission which act clearly was in derogation of the authority exercised by the Court in exercise of its constitutional powers over the officers and a employees of the State Government; And whereas Respondents 1 and 2 have interpolated the record in the manner abovenoted; And whereas by virtue of the aforesaid acts, the respondents are guilty of civil and/or criminal contempt of court by having wilfully disobeyed the orders of the Court as well as having acted in a manner that attempts to lower the authority of this Court as well as interferes in the administration of justice by preventing enforcement of directions issued by the Court which constitutes a criminal contempt. 8. The respondents plead not guilty and seek an opportunity to file detailed affidavits in their defence to meet the aforesaid charges. Let those affidavits be filed within four weeks. Response may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 9. It is agreed that the contempt petition shall be decided on the basis of the affidavits which may be filed, and the original record. The original record shall be kept in a sealed cover. 10. List the petition for hearing of arguments on 31 - 3 - 2006. IAs Nos. 1265 in IAs Nos. 1256 - 59 and 1260 - 63, 1269, 1286 and 1306, 1307 11. List on 31 - 3 - 2006. IAs Nos. 1413, 1414, 1426, 1428, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1444 - 45, 1454, 1459 and 1460 12. Mr Rao, learned counsel appearing for MoEF, prays for and is granted ten days time to file an additional affidavit on behalf of the Ministry in relation to the suggestions made regarding the operation under temporary working permits. The private parties may also file their affidavits within the same time. 13. Adjourned for two weeks. IA No. 1441 14. Order dated 16 - 12 - 20054 will continue till further orders. IA No. 1150 in IA No. 1010 in IA No. 670 with IA No. 1458 in IA No. 1010 15. List on 17 - 2 - 2006. IAs Nos. /267 - 68 16. List after six weeks. Rest of the matters 17. List after the week commencing 24 - 2 - 2006. IAs Nos. 1475 - 76 in IA No. 566 18. The application filed by Mr H.K. Puri, Advocate, is taken on board. 19. Issue notice. Court Masters