ORDER : K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 301. IA Nos. I.A.Nos. 2530-2531 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 1. Await report of CEC. 2. List in the first week of February, 2012. 302.IA NOS.3118-3120 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 3. Post in February, 2012. 303. I.A.NOS.2902-2903 AND 3208 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 IA NOS. 3330) IN IA NOS. 2902-2903 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 304. I.A.NOS.2904-2905 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 IA NOS. 3331 IN IA NOS. 2904-2905 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 305. I.A.NOS.2906-2907 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 IA NOS. 3332 IN IA NOS. 2906-2907 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 306. I.A.NOS.2908-2909 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 IA NOS. 3333 IN IA NOS. 2908-2909 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 307. I.A.NOS.2910-2911 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 IA NOS. 3334) IN IA NOS. 2910-2911 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 308. I.A.NOS.2935-2936 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 IA NOS. 3335 IN IA NOS. 2935-2936 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 4. Interim order dated 14.10.2011 would stand extended by another three months from today. 5. Await the affidavit of the State of Orissa. 6. Learned counsel appearing for MoEF states that MoEF has not received the proposal from the State. State of Orissa to forward the proposal within three weeks. 7. MoEF will file its response within one month after receiving the proposal. 8. List after two months. 309. I.A.NOS. 2, 9, 11-13, 16-20, 23, 24, 28, 29 33-34/2005 AND 37/201 IN W.P(C)No.171/1996 WITH CONMT.PET.(Civil)No.290-292/1998: 9. Vide order dated 11.11.2011, the State of Jammu & Kashmir was to file response to the report of CEC but the State has not filed response so far. As a last chance, one month's time is granted to the State of Jammu & Kashmir to file response to the report of CEC. 10. CEC makes available their report forthwith. 11. Post after one month. 310. SLP(C)No.7031/2010 12. Post after Christmas holidays. 311. MOUNT ABU PART HEARD I.A.NO. 972 IN I.A.757, 1042-1045, 2949.IN 757 AND I.A.NO. ...IN I.A.NO. 757 AND I.A. NO..../2011 IN I.A. NO. 1042-1045 IN WP(C)NO.202/1995 13. Above mentioned application was filed by the amicus curiae seeking appropriate orders from this Court to prevent indiscriminate cutting of forest trees from Mount Abu situated in the State of Rajasthan and also for a declaration that Mount Abu is an eco- sensitive zone in Aravali Range. Followings are the reliefs sought for: "(a) Direct the Union of India to take steps to declare Mount Abut as an "eco-fragile" area, and to set up a Committee under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 so as to do all that is necessary to protect the environment of this area. Followings are the reliefs sought for: "(a) Direct the Union of India to take steps to declare Mount Abut as an "eco-fragile" area, and to set up a Committee under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 so as to do all that is necessary to protect the environment of this area. (b) Direct the State of Rajasthan and its officers and in particular the Deputy Conservator of Forest or any other officer in charge of the forest in the area to immediately conduct a survey and report on the forest cover in the area of Mount Abu irrespective of whether the land in classified as forest or non-forest. (c) Direct the State of Rajasthan and its officers particularly to the Collector in- charge of the area not to grant or renew any lease of the property in Mount Abut till the survey is conducted and orders therein passed by this Hon'ble Court. (d) Direct the State of Rajasthan including the Conservator of Forest in-charge of the area to ensure that there is no felling of trees whatsoever in Mount Abut without further order of this Hon'ble Court. (e) Pending consideration of this matter relating to declaration of Mount Abu as an eco-fragile area, restrain the State of Rajasthan, its officers, servants and agents from sanctioning any building or construction activity. (f) Pass any other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." 14. Counsel for the Union of India submitted, when the IA came up for hearing on 9.5.2002, that the application would be placed before an Expert Committee for its consideration and, in the meanwhile, no further building permits be sanctioned by any authority. An interim order was passed by this Court to that effect. Subsequently, various orders were passed by this Court. CEC also filed their report dated 8.9.2003. 15. Later, one Jan Sewa Samiti, through its General Secretary, filed IA No. 1045/03 on 21st November, 2003 for impleadment in the proceedings, an application No. 1042/2010 for appropriate directions and IA No. 1044 was also filed for vacating the stay. Several orders were passed by this Court on various occasions in connection with IA No. 757, however, it is not necessary to refer to all those orders. 16. Several orders were passed by this Court on various occasions in connection with IA No. 757, however, it is not necessary to refer to all those orders. 16. The Government of India issued a draft notification under sub-section (1) read with Clause (v) and Clause (xiv) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) which was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide notification dated 22nd October, 2008, following the requirement of sub-rule 3 of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. 17. The Government of India later came up with a final notification dated 25.6.2009, in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Clause (v) and Clause (xiv) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and sub-rule 3 of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 declaring Mount Abu as an eco-sensitive zone and by which various activities were sought to be regulated. 18. Challenging the above mentioned notification dated 25.6.2009, Jan Sewa Samiti filed Writ Petition (C) No. 240/2010 seeking the following reliefs: "(a) issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notification dated 25.6.2009 (Annexure P); (b) issue appropriate writ, orders or directions setting aside the "monitoring committee' appointed under the notification dated 25.6.2009 and further directing the regulation of construction and buildings to be done by the Municipality in accordance with the bye-laws in force. (c) issue appropriate writ, orders or directions to prepare a proper scheme for the protection of the environment taking into consideration the real reasons for the depletion of forest cover around Mount Abu. (d) issue appropriate writ, orders or directions directing the Forest department to account for the moneys advanced to it by the Municipal authorities and further direct the CBI to investigate the usage of funds by the forest officials in relation to the Mount Abu region. (e) pass further or other order or offers as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case." 19. Notification dated 25.6.2009, it was contended, had infringed the power of the Municipal Board duly constituted under Part IX-A of the Constitution of India read with Schedule 12 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act enacted by the State Legislature. Notification dated 25.6.2009, it was contended, had infringed the power of the Municipal Board duly constituted under Part IX-A of the Constitution of India read with Schedule 12 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act enacted by the State Legislature. Specific reference was made to Article 243-W and it was submitted that the Municipal Bodies would carry out the functions as set out in Schedule XII of the Constitution. Further, it was also pointed out that the powers under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 should not be used for creating extra-constitutional authorities so as to denude the constitutional authorities of the powers vested on them. Several other grounds were taken challenging the constitutional validity of the notification. When the writ petition came up for admission before a three Judge Bench of this Court on 19.7.2010, the Court passed the following order: "In our view, it would be in the fitness of things that this writ petition is considered by the competent High Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn." 20. Jan Sewa Samiti has, however, through the impleading petitions reiterated the same grounds on the constitutional validity of the notification. Arguments went on for few days on the constitutional validity of the notification dated 25.6.2009 and both the sides were heard at length, but order of the three-Judge Bench passed on 19.7.2010 was placed before us only today. We then called for the records in Writ Petition (C) No. 240/2010 and we are convinced that identical grounds were already raised by the Jan Sewa Samiti in Writ Petition (C) No. 240/2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn, giving liberty to approach the competent High Court. 21. We are bound by the order of this Court dated 19.7.2010. Contentions raised before us on the constitutional validity of the notification dated 25.6.2009 therefore, cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Consequently, all the contentions raised by the counsel of either side on the constitutional validity of the above notification are left open, to be raised before the appropriate Court, if the parties are so advised. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the various contentions raised by the counsel on either side. Consequently, all the contentions raised by the counsel of either side on the constitutional validity of the above notification are left open, to be raised before the appropriate Court, if the parties are so advised. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the various contentions raised by the counsel on either side. Counsel appearing for the MoEF submitted that, on the basis of the notification, various steps have already been taken for its implementation, may be, since notification has already been issued, IA No. 757 has become infructuous and disposed of accordingly. 312. IA NO.100 IN W.P(C)No.337/1995 313. I.A.NOS. 1308, 1323, 1455, 1468, 1478 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 314. ASKOT MUSK DEER SANCTUARY I.A. NO.1791-1792 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 315.IA NO.2716 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 22. Not taken up 316. I.A.NO.2469 WITH I.A.NOS.2782, 2939-2940 AND I.A.NOS.3023-3024 IN IA 2782 3030.AND 3032 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 WITH W.P(C)No.130/2011 23. Post on 27.1.2012 at the top of the final disposal matters. 317. SLP(C) NO.24627-24628/2011 318.SLP(C)No.3941/2010 319. SLP(C)No.28519/2008 320.I.A.NOS. 2642 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 321. I.A. NO.2717 IN I.A. NOS.1135-1136 322. I.A. NO.2785 & 3025 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 323. PANCHMARHI MATTERS (TIGER RESERVE ETC.) I.A.NOS.2202-2203,I.A.NOS.2601 & 2915-2917 In I.A.NOS. 2202-2203, 2602, 2929-2931 WITH 1606, 2002-2004, 2011, 2062-2063 IN 1220.IN 548, 3308-3310 IN WP(C)NO.202/1995 WITH I.A.NO.1697 IN 548 AND 2595-2596 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 324.IA NOS.2155-2156 & 2680 IN IA NO. 2156, 3275 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 325. I.A.NO.3117 IN IA 1991 AND 1991 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 326. I.A.NOS.2710 & 2730 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 327.I.A. NO. 925 WITH CONMT.PET.(Civil)No.193/2001, I.A. NO. 1127 IN 925 AND I.A.NO.4 IN CONMT.PET.(Civil) NO.193/2001 In W.P(C)No.202/1995 24. Not taken up 328. IA NOS.128-129 & 144 IN W.P(C)No.337/1995 25. Learned counsel appearing for the MoEF submitted that MoEF has not received any response from the State of U.P. Learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P. submitted that they have already sent their proposal on 28.7.2011. If any further information is passed on by the State of U.P., the MoEF would consider that also within two weeks, including the proposal dated 28.7.2011. State of U.P. would make available all those proposals. 26. Learned counsel appearing for MoEF states that next meeting of National Board of Wild Life may be held in the month of February, 2012, before that entire formalities be completed and the relevant materials be placed before the Committee to take a decision in the matter. 27. Post in the second week of March, 2012. 329. I.A.NOS.3283-3284 IN W.C.(C)NO.202/1995: 28. Learned counsel appearing for MoEF states that next meeting of National Board of Wild Life may be held in the month of February, 2012, before that entire formalities be completed and the relevant materials be placed before the Committee to take a decision in the matter. 27. Post in the second week of March, 2012. 329. I.A.NOS.3283-3284 IN W.C.(C)NO.202/1995: 28. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out the conditions referred to in the minutes of the meeting by National Wild Life Board dated 25.4.2011, which are as follows: "(i) Adequate number of speed breakers at suitable distance for safety of wildlife shall be provided on all the roads. (ii) 5% of the project cost corresponding to the project area failing within the Protected Area would be paid by the user agency for the development of the sanctuary. (iii) The road development shall be carried out with utmost care so as to cause lease impact on wildlife. (iv) It shall be ensured that no damage is caused to the wildlife and its habitats. (v) No realignment shall be permissible. (vi) For movement of run off water and wildlife, minimum of one subway per 3 kms and culverts at appropriate locations for maintaining continuity in flow of water shall be constructed. (vii) Speed limit on stretch of road passing through the sanctuary should be restricted to 20 kms/hr. (viii) All construction materials and other materials will be brought from outside the sanctuary and no digging for extraction of any kind of material will be done within the protected area. (ix) All the conditions laid down by the Government of Madhya Pradesh or any agency shall be binding on the user agency. (x) No further works would be approved on the above roads. (xi) All vehicles will enter sanctuary area after sunrise and shall exit the sanctuary before sunset. (xii) Heavy vehicular traffic should be avoided as it may cause permanent disturbance inside the sanctuary. (xiii) NPV and compensatory afforestation fund charges will be paid by the user agency to the Chief Wildlife Warden as per norms. (xiv) The user agency should also abide by any other conditions that may be prescribed by the Chief Wildlife Warden. (xv) The Chief Wildlife Warden would submit a compliance report on the implementation of the conditions specified to the Standing Committee of NBWL after completion of the project." 29. MoEF to get instructions. 30. (xiv) The user agency should also abide by any other conditions that may be prescribed by the Chief Wildlife Warden. (xv) The Chief Wildlife Warden would submit a compliance report on the implementation of the conditions specified to the Standing Committee of NBWL after completion of the project." 29. MoEF to get instructions. 30. Post after three weeks. 330. I.A.NOS.3302-3304 IN W.C.(C)NO.202/1995 331. I.A.NOS.3311-3313 IN W.C.(C)NO.202/1995: 31. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has already given a copy of the application. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, learned counsel will get instructions in the matter. 32. Issue notice to the State of UP through their Standing Counsel. 33. Post after one month. MM-1 IA NOS. 3297-99 OF 2011 IN IA NOS. 2077-78/2007 IN WP(C) No. 202/1995: 34. Post after Christmas Holidays. MM-2 IA NO. 16 OF 2009 IN WP(C) No. 47/1998: 35. Post after Christmas Holidays. MM-3 IA NO. 334/2011 & IA NO. 319/2010: 36. Post after Christmas Holidays.