Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2012 DIGILAW 240 (SC)

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

2012-02-27

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2012
ORDER : ITEM NO. 301 1. One month's time is granted for filing Rejoinder Affidavit. ITEM NO. 302 2. We have perused the application and also the directions sought for. We are of the view that the prayers in the application are vague and no directions could be given in this application and this Court is not expected to make a roving enquiry. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. However, the petitioner may, if so advised, file a proper application with details. ITEM NO. 303 4. We have perused the application and also the directions sought for. We are of the view that the prayers in the application are vague and this Court is not expected to make a roving enquiry. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. However, the applicant may, if so advised, file a proper application with details. ITEM NO. 304 6. We have perused the applications and also the directions sought for. We are of the view that the prayer in the applications is vague and this Court is not expected to make a roving enquiry. Applications are, accordingly, dismissed. The applicant, if so advised, may file a proper application with details. ITEM NO. 305 7. Report of the C.E.C. is awaited. 8. Post after four weeks. ITEM NO. 306 9. As a last opportunity, on the request made by learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan, one week's time is granted to answer the queries made by the C.E.C. 10. Post after two weeks. ITEM NO. 307 11. Post after two weeks. ITEM NO. 308 12. Learned counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir submitted that the report from the Himalaya Forest Research Institute (H.M.R.I.) has already been forwarded to C.E.C. and C.E.C. will look into the report and submit its report within six weeks. 13. Learned counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir also submit that a copy of the report will also be furnished to the learned amicus curiae. ITEM NO. 309: 14. In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the applicants, post after Holi Holidays, 2012. ITEM NO. 310 15. For the present, issue notice to Respondent No.6 and with regard to the question as to whether notice should go to other respondents will be decided after getting the response from Respondent No.6. 16. Post after one month. ITEM NO. 311 17. ITEM NO. 310 15. For the present, issue notice to Respondent No.6 and with regard to the question as to whether notice should go to other respondents will be decided after getting the response from Respondent No.6. 16. Post after one month. ITEM NO. 311 17. The State of Haryana is directed to file Counter Affidavit within a period of one month. Mr. Manjit Singh, learned standing counsel for the State of Haryana be given notice. 18. Liberty is given to the applicant to file relevant additional documents. 19. Post after one month. ITEM NO. 312 20. This matter is adjourned by one month to enable the MoEF to get instructions in the matter and to submit a reply. 21. Post after one month. ITEM NO. 313 22. No one is present on behalf of the applicant. 23. List after one month. 24. The Registry may make available copy of the application to the learned amicus curiae. ITEM NO. 314 25. The State of Maharashtra sought one month's time to file its reply in view of the various affidavits and documents filed by the applicant. Time, as prayed for, is granted. 26. Post after one month. 27. Liberty is also granted to the applicant to submit additional affidavits. ITEM NO. 315 28. I.A. No.6 has been filed for restoration of Special Leave Petition No. 29274 of 2011. Order dated 14.10.2011 is recalled and the Special Leave Petition is restored to its original number. I.A. No.6 is, accordingly, allowed. 29. Post the Special Leave Petition after two months. Item No.316(PH) 30. This application has been preferred seeking directions to the respondents to implement the project for the relocation/re-introduction of the lions from the Gir sanctuary and National Park to its proposed second home at Kuno Wildlife sanctuary in the State of Madhya Pradesh as recommended by Wildlife Institute of India as well as the National Board for Wildlife and MoEF. 31. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of gujarat, submitted that the State Board for Wildlife, Gujarat, had no occasion to examine this issue in its meeting, nor was it moved. 32. In the circumstances, we feel it appropriate to give a direction to Respondent No.2 to place this matter before the State Wildlife Board for their views with regard to the issue of re-location/reintroduction of lions in the Kuno Wildlife sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. 32. In the circumstances, we feel it appropriate to give a direction to Respondent No.2 to place this matter before the State Wildlife Board for their views with regard to the issue of re-location/reintroduction of lions in the Kuno Wildlife sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. The views of the State Wildlife Board be placed before this Court on or before 19th March, 2012. Urgent meeting be summoned for the said purpose, since the matter is being heard by this Court. 33. We are informed that the Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat is the member-Secretary of the Board, and hence he may also participate in the deliberations. ITEM NOS. 317 AND 318 34. Not taken up. ITEM NO. 319 35. List after Holi Holidays, 2012. MM : I.A.NO.3402 in I.A.NO. 2378 AND IN I.A. NO. 2164 IN W.P.(C) NO. 202 OF 1995 36. List on 12th March, 2012.