JUDGMENT : I.A.No.1660: 1. We have perused the recommendation of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) dated 30th October, 2006 in respect of permission sought for use of 49 hectares of forest land falling in the Renuka Wildlife Sanctuary for construction of Renuka Dam Project by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, subject to the condition Nos. 1-7 which read as under: "(i) requisite approval under the FC Act for the use of forest land will be obtained. (ii) the NPV at the present rate will be deposited by the Project Authorities alongwith an undertaking to deposit additional NPV in the CAMPA as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court; (iii) the conditions on which the proposal has been recommended by the Standing Committee for National Board for Wildlife will be complied with; (iv) 5% of the revised project cost will be deposited in Compensatory Afforestation Fund by the user agency for undertaking conservation and protection works in the sanctuary. This condition has also been recommended by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife; (v) a comprehensive environment management plan for the conservation and the protection of the Renuka Wildlife Sanctuary will be prepared and implemented; (vi) no labour camps will be established in the forest area, arrangement for fuel wood/kerosene oil will be made and supplied free of cost to the labourers only in the project to meet their energy requirement; and (vii) the Project Authorities will enter the sanctuary area for the construction activity after obtaining prior permission from the concerned authorities of the Forest Department." 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant-Government of Himachal Pradesh states that all the aforesaid conditions are acceptable to the State Government. As noticed in condition No.(iii), the Standing Committee for National Board for Wildlife has accepted the proposal on the State Government complying with the conditions as noted at pages 5 and 6 of the recommendations as under: "(i) submerged area of the project would be included in the sanctuary bringing the total area of the sanctuary to 15.976 ha. (ii) the road that is presently bifurcating the sanctuary should be closed to traffic and an alternative road would be provided bypassing the sanctuary area. (ii) the road that is presently bifurcating the sanctuary should be closed to traffic and an alternative road would be provided bypassing the sanctuary area. However, till the new road is constructed the existing road may be allowed to be used; (iii) the entire submergence area of the reservoir would be notified as a sanctuary with a view to provide protection to the migratory species and birds in the reservoir area; (iv) Compensatory Afforestation over twice the area notified as deemed forest diverted for the project to be carried out over the degraded forest on the mountain slopes along the River Giri downstream of the proposed dam. This area is estimated at 939 ha. and therefore Compensatory Afforestation is required over 1878 ha.; (v) 5% of the project cost should be deposited by the Project Authorities for development and management of the sanctuary; and (vi) the Project Authorities should ensure adequate flow of water throughout the year in the Giri River,which is the habitat for several varieties of fish for centuries. Appropriately designed fish ladder should be provided at Renuka Dam and Dadahu Barrage." On the State Government agreeing to the aforesaid conditions, the permission sought for is granted. 3. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. I.A.No. 1661 in I.A.No. 1360 in I.A. Nos. 1130 & 1152: 4. The Interlocutory Application is dismissed. I.A.No. 1666: 5. Let the CEC examine and file its report/ response within four weeks. I.A.No.923 in IA.Nos. 392 & 263: 6. We direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to submit the up-to-date report of the District Magistrate within a period of two weeks. List the application thereafter. I.A.No. 930 in I.A.Nos. 659 & 669 with I.A.Nos. 777: 7. The MoEF is directed to file an affidavit and relevant material, within three weeks, disclosing the reasons for reducing the original indicated area of 498 sq.km. to 214 sq.km. in the final notification issued in respect of Matheran area in Maharashtra which has been declared as eco-sensitive zone under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. I.A.Nos. 967 & 1285: 8. To be listed along with I.A.No.930. I.A.No.941 in I.A. Nos. 754-755 with I.A.No.777 with I.A.Nos.1131-1133, 1042-1146, 1148, 1184, 1272 & 1579-1580: 9. to 214 sq.km. in the final notification issued in respect of Matheran area in Maharashtra which has been declared as eco-sensitive zone under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. I.A.Nos. 967 & 1285: 8. To be listed along with I.A.No.930. I.A.No.941 in I.A. Nos. 754-755 with I.A.No.777 with I.A.Nos.1131-1133, 1042-1146, 1148, 1184, 1272 & 1579-1580: 9. On 30th January, 2004 it was directed that the State of Rajasthan would send its proposal to the MoEF along with relevant material for examining the question of declaring Mount Abu as eco-sensitive zone under the Environment (Protection) Act. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the MoEF, states that such a proposal has still not been received. The learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan prays for two weeks time. Let it now be sent to the MoEF within two weeks. I.A.No. 1038-1041: 10. The applicant may approach the Committee again which will look into the matter and give it consideration that it deserves. The application is disposed of accordingly. I.A.No.976 in I.A.No.727: 11. Our attention has been drawn to the letter dated 16th March, 2006 addressed by the MoEF to the Secretary (Forests), Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, on the issue of exclusion of 65,670.20 ha. of cultivated and habitation area closed under Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 from the list of areas in Districts Ropar, Nawanshar, Hoshiarpur and Gurdaspur in Punjab. In response to the said communication, it seems that the State of Punjab had furnished some compliance to the Ministry. On consideration thereof, the MoEF by communication dated 10th August, 2006 has approved delisting of 707.70 ha. of such area as per details given therein from the list of forest areas in Nada and Karoran villages in District Ropar (now renamed as SAS Nagar/Mohali) subject to the conditions mentioned in that letter. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab states that since it is a large area, the State Government is in the process of sending further compliance report to MoEF. In this view, for the present, no further orders are required to be passed. S.L.P.(C) No.9414 of 2002: 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has shifted and is no more operating the saw mill within the area of 10 kms. Still the question is as to whether the petitioner has any license for the area from which it may be operating now. S.L.P.(C) No.9414 of 2002: 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has shifted and is no more operating the saw mill within the area of 10 kms. Still the question is as to whether the petitioner has any license for the area from which it may be operating now. We direct the petitioner to file an affidavit giving all these particulars within three weeks. Copy of that affidavit shall be supplied to CEC, learned counsel for the MoEF and the State Government. It would be open to the CEC to inspect the new site particulars whereof shall be provided in the affidavit. The petitioner shall also file a copy of the license, if any, along with the affidavit. 13. List after four weeks. W.P.(C) No. 10/2001: 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the file has been misplaced, he could not supply a copy of the petition to the CEC and prays for one week's time. Time, as prayed, is granted. I.A.Nos.1572 & 1578: 15. Mr. Lalit, learned amicus curiae, states that copy of the recommendations dated 10th November, 2006 has been sent to the States of Chhattisgarh and Orissa. However, counsel for the said two States are not present. Notice be served on the two States as also on their standing counsel. If these two State Governments have any comment to make, they may file the same within two weeks of receipt of the notice. 16. On the next date of hearing, the file of W.P.(C) No. 144 of 2006 shall also be sent to Court. 17. The matter is adjourned for four weeks.