JUDGMENT : K.S. Radhakrishnan and C.K. Prasad, JJ. - Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Rajashtan sought and granted time till last week of February, 2012, since identical issues are being answered by the Chief Empowered Committee (CEC). List thereafter. In 303: I.A. No. 1117 in W.P. No. 202 of 1995: 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking directions to the State of Jammu & Kashmir to provide land to Members of Association, who are owners and valid licence holders of Saw Mill/Veneer for re-location of their Saw Mills/Veneers. The matter was examined by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and they submitted a Report dated 03/10/2011. The operative portion of the same reads as follows: (i) in modification of this Hon'ble Court's order dated 12.12.1996 regarding the location of the wood based industries in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, (a) the primary wood based industries and the secondary wood based industries may be permitted to be located/operated within the notified industrial estates and the municipal areas as defined in the Draft Jammu & Kashmir Wood Based (Saw Mills, Veneer and Plywood) Industries (Registration and Regulation) Rule, 2011, enclosed at Annexure R-2 to this Report and irrespective of their distance from the demarcated forest and (b) the secondary wood based industries may be permitted to be located in other areas beyond 3 kms. from the nearby demarcated forest; and (ii) the primary wood based industries and secondary wood based industries located within a distance of 8 kms. and 3 kms. respectively from the nearby demarcated forest, other than those located in the notified industrial area/municipal area will be eligible to become operational only after they are relocated in the permissible areas. Till then such units will remain closed. 3. The State of Jammu & Kashmir has also filed an affidavit dated 9th December, 2011. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit, they stated that the State of Jammu & Kashmir is in agreement with the report submitted by Central Empowered Committee dated 03/10/2011. 4. In view of the stand taken by the State Government and after considering the Report (supra), we are inclined to dispose of this IA directing the State Government to give effect to the recommendations of the CEC. 5. Consequentially, the State Government would also take necessary steps for notifying the Rules. In 304: Cont. Pet. 4. In view of the stand taken by the State Government and after considering the Report (supra), we are inclined to dispose of this IA directing the State Government to give effect to the recommendations of the CEC. 5. Consequentially, the State Government would also take necessary steps for notifying the Rules. In 304: Cont. Pet. (C) No. 235/2011 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995: 6. This is a petition complaining that this Court's order in IA No. 941 in I.A. Nos. 754-755 etc. In WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 dated 16.08.2010 has not been complied with so far. 7. The relevant portion of this Order reads as under: "In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the State of Orissa to implement the directions of this Court dated 10.07.2009 and 07.05.2010 and accordingly, make and carry out necessary amendments to the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder in order to give effect to the rehabilitation plan. The industrial estates have to be identified so that these applicants are appropriately rehabilitated in terms of the directions issued by this Court from time to time. The exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of six months from today. In such view of the matter, no further adjudication is required in these applications and they are accordingly, disposed of. 8. A detailed affidavit has also been filed by the State of Odisha, stating that the State Government has passed Odisha Saw Mill and Saw Pits (Control) Amendment Bill, 2010, and submitted that as per the Amendment Act, the Saw Mills are to be rehabilitated in identified industrial estates as per the guidelines issued by the Government in this regard from time to time. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the contempt applicant submitted before us that the State Government has still to give effect to the rehabilitation programme and in such circumstances, Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Odisha prayed for six months' time to give effect to the rehabilitation programme. Time sought for is granted. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. In 305: 10. Delay condoned. 11. Issue notice to the State of Tamil Nadu (Respondent No. 1) and Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest (Respondent No. 2). 12. In the meanwhile there shall stay of eviction and demolition of building for a period of two months. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. In 305: 10. Delay condoned. 11. Issue notice to the State of Tamil Nadu (Respondent No. 1) and Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest (Respondent No. 2). 12. In the meanwhile there shall stay of eviction and demolition of building for a period of two months. In 306: 13. This is an application referred by the State of Himachal Pradesh seeking permission regarding proposed rationalisation of the boundaries of the protected areas as approved by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife vide its resolution passed in its 16th meeting held on 16th September, 2009, so as to enable the State Government of Himachal Pradesh to initiate proceedings under Section 18 to 26A and 35 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 14. This Court passed an Order on 05.08.2011, which reads as under: "Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Permission sought for by the Petitioners is granted since the Committee of National Board for Wild Life vide its resolution in its meeting dated 16th September, 2009 has granted formal approval. However, the State has to follow the procedure laid down under Sections 18 to 26A 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. List after three months. xxx xxx xxx 15. In this view of the matter, we dispose of this IA i.e IA No. 139 in W.P. (C) No. 337 of 1995 directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to take further action in consonance with the aforesaid order with liberty to move this Court. In 307: 16. IA Nos. 5-6 IN SLP (C) No. 17150-17151/2011 for deletion of the name of Petitioner No. 1 are allowed. In 308: 17. LA. No. 3 in SLP(C) 17160/2011 for deletion of the name of Petitioner No. 1 is allowed. In 309: 18. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks and granted two weeks' time to produce report of the Pollution Control Board. In 310: 19. Matter remained part heard. In 311 to 324: 20. Not taken up.