ORDER : Haryana(Mining) I.A.No.828, 839,840, 850, 853-854, 855-856, 866-868, 869- 870, 871-872, 873-874, 875-876, 877-878, 879-880, 881-882, 891-892, 900, 905, 1276-1277, 1465, 1488 in 891-892, 1590, 1612- 1613, 2007-2008 and 2138-2139 in 891-92, 2205, 1700-1703 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 & I.A.No.1785 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.1967 in I.A.No.1785 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.2152 in I.A.No.1785 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.2143 in I.A.No.1785 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.2186 in I.A.No.1785 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 W.P.(C)NO.624/2002 W.P.(C)NO.661/2002 W.P.(C)No.428/2002 CONT.PET.(C)NO.568/2002 CONT.PET.(C)NO.542/2004 I.A.No.2198 @ CONT.PET.NO.125/2006 VIDE COURT'S ORDER dated 25.10.2007 I.A.No.2269 in I.A.No.1785 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 CONT.PET.(C)NO.186/2003 IN W.P.(C)NO.4677/1985 I.A.No.1866 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.Nos.1858-1859 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.1886 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.1888 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.1891 to 1893 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.1895 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.1896 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.1906 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.1907-1908 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.1911-1912 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 I.A.No.1937 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985 and 2168 & Cont.Pet.No.186/2006 1. MoEF seeks further time to file a report regarding the impact of mining on water level. Four weeks time is granted for filing the same. 2. List on 18.7.2008. I.A.No.2270 : 3. Issue notice to C.E.C. Learned Amicus Curaie may file his views within four weeks. 4. List on 18.7.2008. I.A.NO.2167 5. List on 18.7.2008 I.A.Nos.2177-78, 2179-80, 2181-82 and 2183-84 : 6. The applicants who are engaged in mining, have agreed to the recommendations made by C.E.C. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that they are agreeable for the following recommendations : 1. to pay the NPV (if not already paid) for entire forest area included in mining lease approved under MMDR Act; 2. to pay Compensatory Afforestation for the entire forest area excluding the fores area broken before/prior to 25.10.1980; 3. to pay Penal Compensatory Afforestation if the mine has operated in past in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act; 4. No transfer of mining lease has taken place in violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act/Forest (Conservation) Act; 5. The mine was actually in operation and not closed during the validity of mining lease; however, mines were closed and mining operations stopped as soon as the mining leases expired; 6. They agree to give undertaking to pay additional charges, if any, payable as per the conditions imposed at the time of formal approval. 7. We accept the recommendations. 8. MoEF may consider the applications of the applicants and pass appropriate orders in the matter of grant of licenses to these applicants. 9. Applications are disposed of accordingly. I.A.No.2163 : 10. Teesta Hydroelectric Project Stage VI has been recommended by the Forest Advisory Committee. 7. We accept the recommendations. 8. MoEF may consider the applications of the applicants and pass appropriate orders in the matter of grant of licenses to these applicants. 9. Applications are disposed of accordingly. I.A.No.2163 : 10. Teesta Hydroelectric Project Stage VI has been recommended by the Forest Advisory Committee. MoEF may examine and pass appropriate orders as regards clearance in respect of 89.4266 ha. of forest land. We accept the recommendations, subject to the clearance by MoEF. 11. I.A. is disposed of accordingly. I.A.No.2166 : 12. List on 16.5.2008. I.A.NO.2126 : 13. List on 2.5.2008. I.A.No.2212 : 14. List on 2.5.2008. I.A.No.1500 and 2235 : 15. Applicant obtained a licence for carrying out mining activity in 263.25 acres of land. According to the applicant, out of this only 7.85 acres of land is forest land and the rest of the area is not covered by forest and for 7.85 acres of land the applicant has got clearance from the MoEF. Stand taken by the State Government is that the entire 263.25 acres are forest land. According to applicant, there was earlier a joint survey conducted and it was found therein that whole area was not forest land. But according to the District Level Committee, the whole area is forest land. The applicant requests that the representatives from C.E.C. may make inspection of the land and give a report. Applicant may make an application for before the C.E.C. in this regard. 16. List on 25.7.2008. I.A.No.2186-2187 : 17. Issue notice to C.E.C. as well as to the State of U.P. 18. State of U.P. to file its reply/response regarding setting up of furniture units by the applicant, within four weeks. 19.List on 25.7.2008. I.A.No.2191-93 : 20. Issue notice to C.E.C. as well as to the State of Haryana. 21. State of Haryana may file its reply/response regarding setting-up of herbal park by the applicant, within four weeks. 22. List on 25.7.2008. I.A.No.2199-2200 : 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the applications with liberty to move an appropriate application. Permission sought for is granted. The applications are dismissed as withdrawn. I.A.No.2201 : 24. Application for impleadment is dismissed. I.A.Nos.2202-03 : 25. Issue notice to C.E.C. C.E.C. to file response within four weeks. 26. List on 25.07.2008. I.A.No.2208 : 27. Issue notice to C.E.C. C.E.C. to file its response within four weeks. Permission sought for is granted. The applications are dismissed as withdrawn. I.A.No.2201 : 24. Application for impleadment is dismissed. I.A.Nos.2202-03 : 25. Issue notice to C.E.C. C.E.C. to file response within four weeks. 26. List on 25.07.2008. I.A.No.2208 : 27. Issue notice to C.E.C. C.E.C. to file its response within four weeks. The applicant is permitted to file an additional application suggesting the ways and means by which they would prevent the illicit use of timber/forest trees. 28. List on 18.7.2008. 29. The applicant would be at liberty to file additional documents, if any, before the C.E.C. I.A.Nos.2213-15 in 948-48 A : 30. List on 25.7.2008. I.A.Nos.1424-25 and 2218&2211 : 31. C.E.C. seeks further time to file a report/response. It is submitted that already inspection has been carried out. 32. List on 25.7.2008. I.A.No.1179 in 675-676 and 957 : 33. List on 8.8.2008. I.A.Nos.1291-92 : 34. The applicants filed a petition purporting to be public interest litigation alleging that in the State of Chhattisgarh. It was stated that there are serious violations in forest land and the State is constructing several roads by destroying the forests. The matter was examined by C.E.C., which has given the following recommendations : "(a) for each of the road being constructed under the PMGSY the existing width of the road, the number of trees required to be felled, the source of earth, murrum, metal etc., the legal status of the road and the other relevant details should be verified by the team(s) consisting of the representative of the Forest Department, the Revenue Department and the Panchayat & Rural Development Department under the direct supervision, and guidance of the Regional CCF, MoEF, Bhopal, Regional Office. Based on the reliable Government documents, it should be decided whether this was an existing forest road or some other road such as PWD road etc; (b) the construction of the road passing through the forest area should be undertaken only after obtaining the requisite approvals under the F.C. Act except in respect of the identified existing road which do not involve any widening, felling of trees, black-topping or use of earth/ murrum/metal from the forest area; (C) in respect of the roads passing through the National Parks/Sanctuaries the construction/upgradation work shall be undertaken only after obtaining the permission from this Hon'ble Court; (d) the filing of the consolidated proposal for seeking approval under the F.C. Act for the construction/ upgradation/widening of the roads and the decisions thereon by the MoEF shall be taken in a time bound manner so that the construction of the roads is not unnecessarily hampered. The safeguards/conditions stipulated by the MoEF shall be strictly complied with;" Learned counsel appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh submits that these roads had to be surfaced properly to avoid illegal land mines and it is submitted that the police and administration are not able to reach remote village areas due to the absence of these village roads. The recommendations suggested by the C.E.C. are acceptable to the State Government. It is submitted that suggestion that the State Government may be directed to take disciplinary action against the officers for construction of the roads, may not be accepted. The felling of trees have been necessitated because of the absence of roads in these remote village areas and also because of serious internal security threats which are prevalent in these areas. 35. Subject to fulfillment of the above conditions stipulated by the C.E.C. except relating to action against officers, the application is disposed of. W.P.(C)Nos.36/2003 & W.P.(C)No.85/20007 : 36. Adjourned. I.A. Nos. 36, 75, 89 & 103 in W.P. (C) No. 3371/1995. 37. List in July, 2008