ORDER : K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, C.K. Prasad, JJ. Item No. MM IA No. 100 in WP (C) No. 337 of 1995. 1. List this matter next week. Item No. 301 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Permission sought for by the petitioners is granted since the Committee of National Board for Wildlife vide its resolution in its meeting dated 16-9-2009 has granted formal approval. However, the State has to follow the procedure laid down under Sections 18 to 26-A and 35 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and before finalising the notification under Section 26-A of the Act, the State has to get permission of the Court. 4. List after three months. Item No. 302 5. Issue notice to Respondent 7 by dasti. Mr Ramesh Babu M.R., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 to 6 accepts notice. 6. In the meantime, CEC to submit its report within four weeks. Counter affidavit, if any, shall be filed. Item No. 303 7. The State of Tamil Nadu is directed to file the status report within one month. Counter-affidavit, if any, be filed within one month. List after one month. 8. On the State of Tamil Nadu filing proper application, records be made available by the Registry. Item No. 304 9. Adjourned for two weeks. Mr Mohan Jain, learned ASG appears for MoEF. A copy of the LA be served by the applicant to MoEF. Response be filed within two weeks. 10. In the meantime, parties shall exchange their pleadings. Leave is granted to file reply. Item No. 305 11. LA No. 2989 has been preferred seeking a direction to exempt the applicant unit from the provisions of the Bihar Saw Mills Regulation Act, 1990 and also to exclude the petitioner from the seniority list. As things stand today, the petitioner has been shown in the seniority list at No. 82. Against that he has preferred an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge and we are informed that the appeal is pending consideration before the District and Sessions Judge. 12. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his unit does not fall under the category of sawmills. If that be so, he can approach the Regional Forest Conservation Officer and it is for that officer to look into the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 13. 12. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his unit does not fall under the category of sawmills. If that be so, he can approach the Regional Forest Conservation Officer and it is for that officer to look into the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 13. With the above observations, IA No. 2979 is disposed of. No order on the application for impleadment. Item No. 306 14. Post this IA along with IAs Nos. 2971-73. Item No. 307 15. This application is disposed of directing CEC to take decision on the request for renewal of licence for sawmill within one month. Item No. 308 16. Issue notice. Item No. 309 17. Perused the report of CEC. 18. The application for grant of licences is allowed subject to the following conditions: (mentioned at p. 4 of the CEC Report) (i) The plywood units will deposit Rs. 9.0 lakhs per press as one-time penalty for operating in violation of the relevant sawmill rules (and also in violation of this Court's order dated 4-3-1997 ( T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267 )); (ii) The installation of additional hot press, peeler and/or horizontal band saws will not be permissible. The number of peelers, slicers and vertical band saws, will be regulated as per the existing guidelines/ decision in respect of other plywood units in the State; and (iii) Conditions imposed by the Uttarakhand Forest Department for grant of licence will be strictly complied with. Item No. 310 19. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that they intend to file a fresh application as per the order of this Court dated 27-7-2007. The appropriate authority will consider the same and pass appropriate order, if a fresh application is submitted. 20. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of. Item No. 311 21. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that they intend to file a fresh application as per the order of this Court dated 27-7-2007 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India IA No. ... in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995, order dated 27.7.2007 (SC)). The appropriate authority will consider the same and pass appropriate order. 22. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of. Item No. 312 23. in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995, order dated 27.7.2007 (SC)). The appropriate authority will consider the same and pass appropriate order. 22. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of. Item No. 312 23. An application has been filed seeking direction to Respondent 2 to cancel the sawmill licence granted to Respondent 1 which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the order dated 12-12-1996 (T.N. Godavarnam Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 312 ) passed by this Court. If so advised, he may file an application before the licensing authority and that authority will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 24. The application for directions is disposed of. No order on the application for impleadment. 25. We do not find any reason to treat this application as contempt petition as there is no willful defiance of the order passed by this Court. We, therefore, treat this contempt petition as an IA, not as a contempt petition. 26. Issue notice to Respondents 2 and 8 returnable within three weeks. There shall be interim stay for a period of one month. Item No. 314 27. CEC to file its report within four weeks. Item No. 315 28. CEC to file its report within one month. Item No. 316 29. Mr R. S. Narasimha, learned Senior Counsel (amicus curiae) resumed his arguments at 2.55 p.m. and was on his legs when the Court rose for the day. 30. The matter remained as part-heard. Item No. 317 31. Not taken up.