ORDER : 301. I.A. Nos. 3302-3304 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 1. Two weeks' time granted to the State of Uttar Pradesh to file its counter affidavit. 2. List after two weeks. 302. I.A. Nos. 2981-2982 in I.A. No. 2439 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 3. Perused the affidavit filed by MoEF. 4. It is further submitted that the issue involved is also pending consideration before the National Ganga River Basin Authority and also before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital. 5. In such circumstances, no further orders are necessary. 303. I.A. Nos. 3239-3240 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 6. The report of the CEC is taken on Board. 7. Learned Counsel seeks time to file affidavit. Liberty is granted. 8. List after two weeks. 304. I.A. Nos. 2530-2531 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 9. Let notice be served on Respondent No. 6 through the Standing counsel for the State. 10. Three weeks' time granted to the Learned Counsel for the State to file its response. 11. List after three weeks. 305. I.A. Nos. 3114-3116 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 12. List after two weeks for final disposal. 306. I.A. Nos. 3300-3301 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 13. This is an application filed by Bodinayakanur Panchayat regarding permission to the applicant for the felling of 235 trees of spontaneous growth in the Forest area. Applicant if so advised, may move the MoEF for appropriate permission. The MoEF after receipt of the application will consider the same and dispose of within six weeks. 14. The I. As. are disposed of. 307. I.A. Nos. 2870-2871 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 15. List after two weeks. 308. I.A. Nos. 3133 & 3134 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 16. List after two weeks. 309. I.A. Nos. 3047-3048 in W,P.(C) No. 202/1995: 17. We find no reason to entertain these applications in view of the report dated 12th March, 2012. The I. As. are disposed of. 307. I.A. Nos. 2870-2871 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 15. List after two weeks. 308. I.A. Nos. 3133 & 3134 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 16. List after two weeks. 309. I.A. Nos. 3047-3048 in W,P.(C) No. 202/1995: 17. We find no reason to entertain these applications in view of the report dated 12th March, 2012. Cogent reasons have been stated by the CEC in para 14 of the report which is extracted hereunder: "In the background, the CEC is of the view that the Applicant is not eligible for the grant of saw mill licence in its favour particularly as (a) the permission sought by the State of Maharashtra for grant of saw mill licences in favour of the Applicant's saw mill and other unlicensed saw mills established prior to 16.7.1981 has already been rejected by this Hon'ble Court by order dated 14.7.2003 in I.A. No. 414 and other IAs; (b) the Applicant saw mill was found to be involved in forest offences particularly in illicit felling of timber; (C) the saw mill is located within a distance of hardly 150 meters from the nearby forest, wherein in Maharashtra no saw mill is permitted to be located within a distance of 10 kms from the nearby forest. The contention of the Applicant that it is not covered by this Hon'ble Court's order dated 14.7.2003 is not tenable as it was never granted a saw mill licence under the relevant Saw Mill Rules." 18. In such circumstances I. As. are dismissed. 310. I.A. Nos. 3358-3360 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 19. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that in view of the report of the CEC dated 3rd April, 2012 as well as the recommendations made by the CEC, the State will review the licence granted to the 1st Respondent for running the saw mill within a period of three weeks from today. While reviewing the matter the CEC report (para 9-extracted hereunder) will be taken into account: "9(a): The Chhattisgarh Forest Department will review the permission granted by it for the renewal of the saw mill licence of Shree Ram Saw Mill after taking into consideration the nature of the forest area adjoining the saw mill, the past cases of forest offences registered against the saw mill, the likely impact of the saw mill on forest protection and its distance from the forest. The saw mill licence will be renewed only if the Chhattisgarh Forest Department is fully satisfied that the operation of the saw mill will not have any negative impact on the conservation and protection of the forest and that the Forest Department is in a position to control the illicit felling of trees from the nearby forest areas. 20. The State will submit its report within three weeks. 21. List after three weeks. 311. I.A. Nos. 2191-93/2008 in W.P.(C) 202/1995: 22. Perused the report of the CEC dated 14.10.2009. Para 14 of the report of the CEC is extracted hereunder: "14. The CEC is of the view that no irregularity or illegality has been committed by the Haryana Forest Department in undertaking development of the Herbal Park on a non-Government land particularly when the management of the said area has been given to the Haryana Forest Department and the area has been notified under Section 38 of the Indian Forest Act. Apparently, no mala fides or violation of any Act, Rules or the orders of this Hon'ble Court are involved. 23. In view of the report no ground is made up for interference. 24. I. As. are accordingly dismissed. 312. I.A. Nos. 3344-3345 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 25. In view of the fact that the applicant has obtained orders from the High Court and the Temporary Working Permission (TWP) on 29th November, 2011, Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the I. As. and seeks withdrawal of the applications. 26. I. As. are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 27. Counsel states that he has already approached the High Court, with regard to the remaining issues. 313. I.A. Nos. 152-154/2012 in W.P.(C) 337/1995: 28. Since the NBWL has also given permission in the meeting held on 14th November, 2011, as reflected in Annexure E of the paper book, I. As. are disposed of. 314. W.P.(C) No. 180/2011: 29. IA Nos. 4-6 will be heard along with the main matter and be listed immediately after Elephanta Corridor matters. 315. SLP(C) No. 22856/2011: 30. Two weeks' time granted to file the objections to the report of the CEC. 31. List after two weeks. 316. SLP(C) No. 7031/2010: 32. List after four weeks. 317. SLP(C) No. 33261/2011: 33. Two weeks' time granted to the Learned Counsel appearing for the MoEF to file its affidavit. 34. List after two weeks. 318. 315. SLP(C) No. 22856/2011: 30. Two weeks' time granted to file the objections to the report of the CEC. 31. List after two weeks. 316. SLP(C) No. 7031/2010: 32. List after four weeks. 317. SLP(C) No. 33261/2011: 33. Two weeks' time granted to the Learned Counsel appearing for the MoEF to file its affidavit. 34. List after two weeks. 318. SLP(C) No. 9305/2012: 35. List on 30.4.2012 along with SLP(C) No. 20154/2011. 319. SLP(C) No. 20154/2011: 36. List on 30.4.2012. 320. I.A. No. 1 in Orgnl. Suit No. 3/2011: 37. List on 16/4/2012. 321. SLP(C) No. CC 5278/2012 with SLP(C) No. CC 5312/2012: 38. No orders. 322. SLP(C) No. 12498-12499/2010: 39. Learned Counsel for the State seeks time to get instructions as to whether the security amount could be returned. 40. List after three weeks. PART-B LIST FOR FINAL DISPOSAL 323. I.A. No. 2469 with I.A. Nos. 2782, 2939-2940 and I.A. Nos. 3023-3024 in I.A. 2782, 3030 and 3032 in W.P.(C) No. 202/ 1995 with W.P.(C) No. 130/2011: 41. List after summer vacation. 324. I.A. Nos. 1308, 1323, 1455, 1468, 1478 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 with SLP(C) 30622/2011: 42. List after summer vacation. 325. I.A. Nos. 2785, 3025 & 3390 in W.P.(C) 202/1995: 43. List after summer vacation. 326. SLP(C) No. 3941/2010: 44. List after summer vacation. 327. SLP(C) No....CC.5161/2012: 45. List on 30.4.2012. MM.1: I.A. Nos. 60-61 in SLP(C) No. 19628-29/2009: 46. List next week. MM.2: I.A. Nos. 66-67 & 68-69 in SLP(C) Nos. 19628-19629/2009: 47. List next week.