JUDGMENT : Two interlocutory applications being I.A. No. 9780 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 1873 of 2018 and I.A. No. 9779 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 4850 of 2018 have been filed by the petitioner for extension of stay, which are taken on record. 2. One affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India in pursuance of the order dated 25.07.2019, which is also taken on record. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India Mr. Mr. Pratyush Kumar submits that the matter regarding the forest clearance of the unit of the petitioner is under active consideration of Union of India. Taking all the facts, recommendations and ground situation into accounts, Forest Advisory Committee considered that demolishing or removal of the existing structure and restoring the forest land back will not be right decision for the country at this juncture. He has annexed a copy of the recommendation of the Forest Advisory Committee (F.A.C.) meeting held on 26.09.2019 and he refers to para 3 thereof which has been filed along with the supplementary counter-affidavit and is as under: “3. Further, in the event of consideration of the proposal for approval as a case of irreversible fait accompli in the context of compelling circumstances, conceding the claim by the current successor owner of corporate entity M/s Electrosteel Steels Ltd in all the litigation cases related to title etc. in respect of the lands under the proposal under Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 is essential as a prerequisite for considering grant of approval under Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 over and above the standard conditions and imposition of penalties. Taking all facts, recommendations and ground situation into account, FAC considers that demolishing or removal of the existing structure and restoring the forest land back will not be right decision for the country at this juncture. The proposal is submitted for regularization of encroachment category. This is to be considered under Section 2(ii). Regularisation of such encroachment shall be considered with exemplary penalty so that such instances are not repeated elsewhere and the rule of law is upheld and respected. FAC recommended the proposal for in-principle approval with general, standard and following specific conditions: 1. The proposal is submitted for regularization of encroachment category. This is to be considered under Section 2(ii). Regularisation of such encroachment shall be considered with exemplary penalty so that such instances are not repeated elsewhere and the rule of law is upheld and respected. FAC recommended the proposal for in-principle approval with general, standard and following specific conditions: 1. The State Government, Jharkhand should get a thorough inquiry conducted into the illegitimacy of the settlement or transfer or claims to title, rights (tenancy or otherwise) or interests on the forest lands (“GM Jungle Jhari” lands and notified protected forest lands) involved in this proposal before procurement of these lands by the then User Agency M/s Electrosteel Integrated Ltd before 2010, and the ground for the encroachment over these lands vested in the State to secure the interests of State in the notified forest lands and other forest lands. A report on the findings of the enquiry, the remedial measures taken and the action taken against officials/authorities accountable in this case, despite consistent objections of the Forest Department officials, should be furnished with the compliance report of Stage I approval. 2. The issue of dispute, as held by User Agency, about legal nature of the land irrespective of title etc., being “forest land” (both the notified “Protected Forest” and the “GM Jungle Jhari”) should be settled with finality and the current User Agency/Project Proponent should concede any claims to the contrary. An undertaking in this regard shall be submitted. 3. It is felt that the committee being set up by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), Jharkhand may not be sufficient as the matter involves violation in respect of forest land of both categories- the Protected Forests (99.27 ha) and GM Jungle Jhari forests (84.96 ha). The identification of the erring official, regarding the violation in respect of the GM Jungle Jhari Forest land (84.96 ha) should be done by competent authority of the Land Revenue Department. 4. User agency shall pay five times of applicable NPV for the area used under encroachment. 5. User agency shall provide non forest land equivalent to five times the forest land encroached for the purpose of Compensatory afforestation. The CA scheme shall be prepared and approved by competent authority. The non-forest land shall be mutated and declared as RF/PF prior to stage II approval. Shape file of the area shall be submitted. 6. 5. User agency shall provide non forest land equivalent to five times the forest land encroached for the purpose of Compensatory afforestation. The CA scheme shall be prepared and approved by competent authority. The non-forest land shall be mutated and declared as RF/PF prior to stage II approval. Shape file of the area shall be submitted. 6. User agency shall submit approved CAT (catchment treatment Plan) plan for the area. 7. Government of Jharkhand shall ensure that such incidences of encroachment of forest land are not repeated in future. 8. User agency shall withdraw all the cases against the officials of forest department. 9. User agency shall ensure that compliance of provisions of FRA 2006 prior to stage II approval.” The counsel submits that at least three months time would be required for the Union of India to take a final decision. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board submits that although a petition for vacating the interim relief has been filed and is pending before this Court, but on account of the subsequent development which has been brought on record by the Union of India by filing a supplementary-affidavit today, she does not want to press the stay vacating petition for the present, subject to the condition that the petitioner would comply with all the pollution norms in order to safeguard the interest of the environment. 5. Learned Advocate General submits that in view of the interest of the nation which is pointed out in para 3 of the aforesaid decision and referred to by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, the matter may be adjourned to be listed after three months from today so that the decision is finally taken by the Union of India. He further submits that at this stage, he has no serious objection to the extension of interim relief, which has been prayed for by the petitioner, as the interest of the nation is involved. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the Union of India, this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be adjourned for a period of three months, so that a final decision is ultimately taken in the matter of environmental clearance to the unit of the petitioner. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the Union of India, this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be adjourned for a period of three months, so that a final decision is ultimately taken in the matter of environmental clearance to the unit of the petitioner. 7. This Court is also of the considered view that if the interim order passed earlier is not continued, the parties would suffer irreparable loss and injury. 8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this case is directed to be listed on 26.02.2020 under appropriate heading. 9. Interim order dated 16.07.2018 [passed in W.P.(C) No. 1873 of 2018] and interim order dated 27.09.2018 [passed in W.P.(C) No. 4850 of 2018] are directed to be extended till 26.02.2020 subject to the condition that the petitioner would comply with the pollution norms in order to safeguard the interest of the environment. 10. I.A. No. 9780 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 1873 of 2018 and I.A. No. 9779 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 4850 of 2018 are hereby disposed of.