ORDER : K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.I. and Dr. Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ. - IAs Nos. 1413-14, 1426, 1428, 1440-41, 1454, 1459-60, 1662-63 and 1675, 1717-18 in No. 1413 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 1. The above IAs cover several aspects, one such aspect being the constitution and composition of the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) under Rule 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 (the 2003 Rules). In this regard, the facts are as under: when the above IAs came for hearing on 15-9-2006, one of the items which this Court had to consider was concerning constitution of FAC under the said 2003 Rules. On that date, this Court found that FAC was constituted in terms of the amended Rules which were stayed by this Court in 2004. Therefore, it was directed to file affidavit explaining the circumstances under which FAC was not constituted under the 2003 Rules. Therefore, the matter had to be adjourned. 2. On that date, however, this Court was told that there were several matters concerning the temporary working permit (TWP) which were required to be examined by a duly constituted committee under the said 2003 Rules. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned by two weeks to enable MoEF to file its affidavit. On that date, this Court directed three experts in the forestry and allied disciplines to be appointed in consultation with the learned amicus curiae and the Chairperson of CEC. 3. On 14-12-2006 an affidavit was filed by the Assistant Inspector General of Forests, MoEF stating that on 12-12-2006 FAC has been reconstituted. In that affidavit it was stated that the names suggested by the Chairperson of CEC did not qualify for appointments as experts and therefore, they were not eligible to be members of FAC. This has given rise to the question regarding the eligibility of the members appointed by MoEF in FAC as well as the objection to the inclusion of the names suggested by CEC in FAC. 4. We have made certain suggestions for incorporation of some names out of the names suggested by CEC. However, the learned ASG submitted that members once appointed cannot be removed except under the procedure prescribed by law. Today, it is not possible to decide this larger question. This question is to be decided at a later date as indicated hereinbelow. 4. We have made certain suggestions for incorporation of some names out of the names suggested by CEC. However, the learned ASG submitted that members once appointed cannot be removed except under the procedure prescribed by law. Today, it is not possible to decide this larger question. This question is to be decided at a later date as indicated hereinbelow. It will require detailed arguments in the light of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 with the Rules framed thereunder. 5. Unfortunately, in the process, a large number of projects (200) have accumulated for clearance. Broadly, we find that post-15-9-2006 FAC has given clearance to certain projects; there are cases which have not been vetted at all till today (fresh cases). Lastly, there are cases where post-15-9-2006 the projects have been cleared by FAC and the response has also been filed by CEC but they are pending approval by this Court. List of such cases be filed in the Registry before the next date of hearing. 6. In the circumstances, we hereby give the following directions, pending our decision on the larger question indicated hereinabove: (a) FAC as it stands today will give priority to projects which need immediate clearances. In this regard, it may be stated that fresh cases may be cleared project wise by FAC and thereafter such clearances shall be placed before this Court for approval. We make it clear that pending the decision of the larger question, all clearances by FAC of fresh cases shall be subject to approval by this Court. Before giving approval, we would like to have responses from CEC in respect of each clearance. In order to avoid delay, we direct the Ministry concerned to give a copy of the clearance to CEC so that CEC would give its response expeditiously. We will examine each clearance and decide whether to grant or not to grant the approval thereto. Once the approval is granted by this Court, the matter may be placed before the Central Government for disposal in accordance with law. (b) Post-15-9-2006, the former FAC has given clearances to projects and, therefore, in such cases it would not be necessary to place those clearances before the existing FAC once again. In such cases, CEC is required to filed its response at the earliest. (b) Post-15-9-2006, the former FAC has given clearances to projects and, therefore, in such cases it would not be necessary to place those clearances before the existing FAC once again. In such cases, CEC is required to filed its response at the earliest. Such cases may be placed before this Court along with the response from CEC so that the approval of this Court could be obtained expeditiously. (c) There are certain projects on lands in parks and sanctuaries where this Court has passed orders relaxing certain conditions. In such cases, FAC and the Central Government may pass appropriate orders without reference to CEC or to this Court. (d) In respect of certain projects, FAC has given their clearance after 15-9-2006, CEC has also given its response. Such matters may be posted in the second week of July 2007 for approval of this Court. (e) Pending the decision of this Court on the abovementioned larger issue regarding constitution of FAC, our order dated 30-11-2006 stands extended till the decision, as we have decided to examine each clearance by FAC and the response of CEC. In that regard, our order dated 15-12-20061 staying reconstitution of FAC (vide order dated 12-12-2006 annexed to the affidavit dated 14-12-2006 filed by MoEF) shall stand modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. IA No. 826 in No. 566 with No. 955 in Nos. 566, 958, 985, 1001-1001-A, 1013-14, 1016-18, 1019, 1046-47, 1135-64, 1180-83, 1196, 1208-09, 1222-25, 1229, 1233 in 1135-36, 1248-49, 1253, 1301-04, 1312-14, 1318-19 in Nos. 1137, 1325, 1364, 1365-66, 1371, 1384, 1385-87, 1434-38, 1441 with 1635, 1475-76, 1513, 1573, 1639 in Nos. 1135-36, 1664-65, 1671, 1676-80, 1707, 1785-86 in IAs Nos. 1441, 1779 in No. 1164 in Nos. 566, 1721 in No. 1597 in No. 566 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 (NPV Matters) IA No. 826 in No. 566 7. Pursuant to the report submitted by Prof. Kanchan Chopra Committee, the CEC has filed a supplementary report. Issue notice to MoEF. MoEF shall file its response within four weeks to the same. The matter may be placed for argument in the third week of July 2007. The parties, who wish to file any objections to the supplementary report, may also file their response within three weeks. 8. We are told by the learned amicus curiae that there is another report of CEC in IA No. 955 and connected IAs. The matter may be placed for argument in the third week of July 2007. The parties, who wish to file any objections to the supplementary report, may also file their response within three weeks. 8. We are told by the learned amicus curiae that there is another report of CEC in IA No. 955 and connected IAs. As regards this report also issue notice to MoEF and MoEF shall file its response within four weeks. The respective parties may also file their responses within three weeks. List in the third week of July 2007. All the matters covered by the CEC report up to 20-11-2006 9. Issue notice to MoEF. MoEF and the parties concerned may file their response within four weeks. List in the third week of July 2007. IA No. 1137 10. The State of Kerala may file its response to the report of CEC within three weeks. I A No. 1164 11. No further orders are necessary for the present. IAs Nos. 1180-81 and 1435-37 12. CEC has given its report. The parties may file their response, if any, within four weeks. IA No. 1441 13. No further orders are necessary for the present. IA No. 1438 14. Issue notice to MoEF. MoEF shall file its response within four weeks. IAs Nos. 1475-76 and 1513 15. CECs report has been filed. The parties may file their response within four weeks. IA No. 1573 16. Issue notice. MoEF shall file its response within four weeks. IAs Nos. 1639 & 1671 in No. 1639 in Nos. 1135-36 17. Issue notice. MoEF and the parties may file their response within four weeks. IAs Nos. 1664, 1665 and 1676 18. Issue notice. MoEF and the parties may file their response within four weeks. IAs Nos. 1707 and 1721 in Nos. 1597, 1779 in Nos. 1664 and 1785-86 19. Issue notice to CEC. CEC shall file its response within four weeks. As regards coalfields 20. We are told that the mining companies have paid 50% of the NPV and in cases where 50% of the NPV has already been paid, appropriate authorities may give necessary permission/approval for carrying on the mining activities in the various coalfields in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 15-12-20061 and 23-2-2007. IAs Nos. 1798, 1789, 1788, 1787 and 1791-92 21. Issue notice to CEC. CEC may file its response within four weeks.