JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A.C.J. (Oral) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought as many as 10 reliefs, delineated in the relief clause at page 48 of the Paper Book, on the grounds taken in the writ petition, which consists of 58 paragraphs. Respondents have filed the reply. This Court, in the order dated 20th May, 2013, has observed that most of the issues raised in the present petition have been answered in the judgment and order made by this Court in Public Interest Litigation, being CWP No.1293 of 2009, titled as Barang Sain & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., decided on 18th November, 2009, reported in 2009(3) SLC 262. However, the writ petitioners were asked to file affidavit indicating therein the issues which were not raised in the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation and not covered by the decision referred to above. In compliance to the above direction, the writ petitioners have filed the affidavit, dated 30th May, 2013, which is at page 650 of the Paper Book, to which the respondents have not responded so far. 2.During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that though the order, dated 18th November, 2009, passed in Barang Sain’s case (supra), has been challenged by way of Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, but the same has not been stayed. 3.In the given circumstances, coupled with the order, dated 20th May, 2013, the question for consideration is whether the Writ Petition, in hand, is maintainable and whether this Court can take cognizance and pass orders on the basis of the affidavit filed by the petitioners. 4. In order to marshal and thrash out these issues, it is necessary to reproduce the operative part of the order, dated 18th November, 2009, passed in Barang Sain’s case (supra), which reads as under: “The writ petitions, as far as the main issues are concerned, stand disposed of in view of the observations made hereinabove. However, to ensure that there is no flagrant violation of the environmental, mining and forest laws as stipulated in the environmental clearance and forest clearance and to ensure that the effective rehabilitation of the affected people is carried out along with the developmental activities, this Court, if necessary, will keep on issuing necessary directions as and when the reports of two Secretaries are received. No costs.” 5. No costs.” 5. Thus, it is clear that this Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition with liberty to every party to approach this Court in case any violation is detected or any breach is committed by the respondents, and particularly, by respondent No.9. 6.In the given circumstances, we dispose of the present Writ Petition by providing that the affidavit, dated 30th May, 2013, filed in the present Writ Petition, shall be treated as Civil Miscellaneous Petition in CWP No.1293 of 2009, titled Barang Sain and others versus Union of India and others, in terms of the order, dated 18th November, 2009, passed in the said Writ Petition. The Registry is directed to diarize the present affidavit as CMP in the aforesaid Writ Petition. The writ petitioners are at liberty to supplement the submissions made in the affidavit, dated 30th May, 2013, by way of supplementary affidavit, which be filed within two weeks. Response to the affidavit as also to the supplementary affidavit, if filed, within four weeks thereafter. 7.Registry to place a copy of this order on the file of CWP No.1293 of 2009 and list the same on 26th June, 2014. 8.With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.