JULY 2010 ORDERS ITEM NO.98 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IA Nos.2134 IN 1324 and 1474/2010 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAH T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (for inspection of disposed of court's file and office report) Date: 07/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Dr. Saif Mohammad, Adv. Mr. A. Venyagam Balan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw I.A No.2134/2007. For filing appropriate I.A. for the same cause permission is granted. (S.G. SHAH) Registrar rd ITEM NO.101 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO..../2010 IN I.A.NO.2134 IN I.A.NOS. 1324 & 1474 IN WRIT PETITION(C)NO.202 OF 1995 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAH T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for inspection of Court's file and office report) Date: 12/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Naushad Alam,Adv. Mr A Venyagam Balan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr Naushad Alam, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr.A Venyagam Balan for the third party petitioner, confirms that vakalatnama is filed by the deponent alongwith the affidavit; which is filed with the application; namely, Sanjay Kumar Karn, who is General Manager Corporate affairs with the original applicant, Sterlite Industries(India) Ltd. -2- Item No.101 On disclosure of such facts, at present inspection is permitted. However, certified copies shall be issued only after filing of vakalatnama and proper disclosure on record regarding above status. IA is allowed as prayed for thereby, third party applicant is permitted to take inspection of the original record which is to be carried out as per rules, i.e., no original documents is to be allowed to be taken out of the registry and inspection is to be done in the presence of the Court staff that may be deputed by the concerned Assistant Registrar of the concerned Section. Petitioner is also permitted to take certified copies of the relevant documents for which they have to apply as per rules. At that stage, no further orders of this Court is required. (S.G. SHAH) Registrar hj ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment and direction) [For fixing a date for hearing] Date: 16/07/2010 This Matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Ms. Jayashree Wad,Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad,Adv. Ms. Tamali Wad,Adv. Mr. Chirag S. Dave,Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.C. Mishra,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi,AAG.,UP. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey,Adv. Mr. Kapil Misra,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. K.K. Tyagi,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Ms. Priya Hingorani,Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. Mohan Jain,ASG. Mr. D.K. Thakur,Adv. Ms. Rohini Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matters will be taken up from 23rd July, 2010, in the chronological order mentioned below: S.No. Description 1. [Construction of Park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary] I.A. Nos.2609-2610 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 2. [Hoarding matter ­ I.As. filed by MCD against Railways in response of EPCA Report] I.A. Nos.321 and 322 in W.P. (C) No.13029/1985 3. [Lafarge Matter] I.A. No.1868 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 4. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Haryana] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 5. [Construction of Multi-storeyed buildings in Forest land, Maharashtra, where SIT has been formed] I.A. No.2079 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 6. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Rajasthan] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 7. [Mining in the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh] S.L.P. (C) Nos........CC 5969-5970 of 2010 and connected matters 8. [Buffer zone matters] I.A. No.1000 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 9. [CAMPA MATTERS] I.A. No.2143 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.828 WITH 833-835, 837-838, 846-847, 893-894, 901-902, 903, 904, 1310-1310A IN I.A. NO.833 IN I.A. NOS.828, 1329, 1330, 1331-1332, 1450-1452 IN I.A. NOS.1310, 2086 IN 1329-1330 IN 1310, 2447, 2602, 2758-2759, 2803, 2814-2815, 2817-2819, 2822-2824, 2825-2827, 2828-2830, 2834-2836, 2837-2839, 2840, 2874-2876, 2877-2879, 2883-2886, 2887-2890, 2891-2893 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (Monitoring report of C.E.C. regarding illegal mining in Aravalli Hills and appln(s) for directions/impleadment/ modification/clarification/amendment in I.A./exemption from filing O.T., intervention and permission to file additional documents) With S.L.P. (C) No.3353 of 2003 (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, accepting English translation, permission to place additional documents on record, exemption from filing O.T., permission to file affidavit, c/delay and office report) [For Final Disposal] Civil Appeal No.7363 of 2000 (With appln(s) for directions, permission to place additional documents on record and office report) Civil Appeal No.7364 of 2000 (With appln(s) for directions, permission to place additional documents on record and office report) Civil Appeal No.7365 of 2000 (With appln(s) for directions, permission to place additional documents on record and office report) S.L.P. (C) No.6419 of 2008 (With prayer for interim relief) I.A. No.2478 in I.A. Nos.1980-1981 in Writ Petition (C) No.202/1995 [For impleadment and Directions] ....2/- - 2 - Date: 16/07/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) In WP 202/1995: In SLP 3353/2003: Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Adv. In SLP 6419/2008: Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Adv. For Appellant(s) Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG.,Rajasthan. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv. Mr. Anil Nag,Adv. Mr. Praveen Jain,Adv. Mr. Navin Chawla,Adv. Ms. Sandhya Goswami,Adv. Group Captain Karan Singh Bhati,Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv. Mr. Rashid Khan,Adv. ....3/- - 3 - Mr. S.K. Sinha,Adv. Ms. Seema Kashyap,Adv. Mr. Dhiraj Nair,Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. Maninder Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Angad Mirdha,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukherji,Adv. Ms. Sheetal Ashrani,Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain,Adv. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma,Adv. Mr. Debasis Misra,Adv. Mr. Manu Nair,Adv. for M/s. Suresh A. Shroff and Co.,Advs. Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya,Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh,Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari,Adv. Mr. Anubhav Singhvi,Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matters will be taken up from 23rd July, 2010, in the chronological order mentioned below: S.No. Description 1. [Construction of Park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary] I.A. Nos.2609-2610 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 2. [Hoarding matter ­ I.As. filed by MCD against Railways in response of EPCA Report] I.A. Nos.321 and 322 in W.P. (C) No.13029/1985 3. [Lafarge Matter] I.A. No.1868 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 4. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Haryana] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 5. [Construction of Multi-storeyed buildings in Forest land, Maharashtra, where SIT has been formed] I.A. No.2079 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 6. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Rajasthan] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 7. [Mining in the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh] S.L.P. (C) Nos........CC 5969-5970 of 2010 and connected matters 8. [Buffer zone matters] I.A. No.1000 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 9. [CAMPA MATTERS] I.A. No.2143 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.304 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) [For fixing a date for hearing] With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 16/07/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. ....2/- ­ 2 - Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Avinash Menon,adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matters will be taken up from 23rd July, 2010, in the chronological order mentioned below: S.No. Description 1. [Construction of Park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary] I.A. Nos.2609-2610 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 2. [Hoarding matter ­ I.As. filed by MCD against Railways in response of EPCA Report] I.A. Nos.321 and 322 in W.P. (C) No.13029/1985 3. [Lafarge Matter] I.A. No.1868 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 4. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Haryana] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 5. [Construction of Multi-storeyed buildings in Forest land, Maharashtra, where SIT has been formed] I.A. No.2079 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 6. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Rajasthan] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 7. [Mining in the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh] S.L.P. (C) Nos........CC 5969-5970 of 2010 and connected matters 8. [Buffer zone matters] I.A. No.1000 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 9. [CAMPA MATTERS] I.A. No.2143 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.305 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2079-2080, 2301-2303, 2760 and 2856 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impeladment/direction, exemption from filing O.T. and permission to file additional documents/affidavits) With Writ Petition (C) No.301 of 2008 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay and exemption from filing O.T.) [For fixing a date for hearing] Date: 16/07/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In WP 301/2008: Mr. Anil B. Divan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta,Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora,Adv. Mr. Sarv Mitter,Adv. for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.,Advs. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. Anil B. Divan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta,Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora,Adv. Mr. Sarv Mitter,Adv. for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.,Advs. Ms. Shobha,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kharde,Adv. Mr. Mohinder Thakur,Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matters will be taken up from 23rd July, 2010, in the chronological order mentioned below: S.No. Description 1. [Construction of Park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary] I.A. Nos.2609-2610 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 2. [Hoarding matter ­ I.As. filed by MCD against Railways in response of EPCA Report] I.A. Nos.321 and 322 in W.P. (C) No.13029/1985 3. [Lafarge Matter] I.A. No.1868 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 4. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Haryana] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 5. [Construction of Multi-storeyed buildings in Forest land, Maharashtra, where SIT has been formed] I.A. No.2079 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 6. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Rajasthan] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 7. [Mining in the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh] S.L.P. (C) Nos........CC 5969-5970 of 2010 and connected matters 8. [Buffer zone matters] I.A. No.1000 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 9. [CAMPA MATTERS] I.A. No.2143 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.306 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NO.1000 WITH I.A. NOS.982-984, 1026-1028, 1123-1124, 1197-1199, 1210-1211, 1250-1251, 1512 AND 1412 IN I.A. NO.887 WITH I.A. NO.1992 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For directions) With I.A. Nos.170-175,176,177,178 and 180 in W.P. (C) No.460/2004 [For Directions, impleadment and exemption from permission to file additional documents] With S.L.P. (C) No.9241 of 2007 (with appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T., prayer for interim relief and office report) S.L.P. (C) No.14575 of 2007 (With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP, prayer for interim relief and office report) S.L.P. (C) No........CC 6594/2007 (with appln.(s) for c/delay filing SLP) Date: 16/07/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. ....2/- - 2 - Ms. Purnima Bhat,Adv. Mr. Viplav Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. Mr. Anurag Singh,Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed,Adv. Ms. Naghma Imtiaz,Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Mr. Prateek Jalan,Adv. Mr. Biju Mattam,Adv. Mr. Samir Malik,Adv. Mr. Tarun Johri,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. Mr. Viplav Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv. For Goa SPCB & Sec., Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis,Adv. Environment Deptt., Ms. B. Sunita Rao,Adv. State of Goa Ms. Suchitra A. Chitale,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Nupur Kanungo,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool,Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv. Mr. M.P.S. Tomar,Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. ....3/- ­ 3 - Ms. Prabha Swami,Adv. Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar,Adv. for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.,Advs. Ms. Manik Karanjawala,Adv. Mr. Anip Sachthey,Adv. Mr. Bhupender Yadav,Adv. Mr. S.S. Shamshery,Adv. Ms. Debaleena Kilikdar,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kohli,Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Mr. Dileep Poolakkot,Adv. for M/s. K.J. John & Co.,Advs. Ms. Praveena Gautam,Adv. Mr. Bharat Sangal,Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. M.K. Dua,Adv. for M/s. Gagrat & Co.,Advs. Ms. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Ms. B. Sunita Rao,Adv. Ms. Nandini Gore,Adv. Mr. G. Prakash,Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. Ravindra K. Adsure,Adv. ....4/- ­ 4 - Mr. A. Mariarputham,Sr.Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv. for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co.,Advs. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv. Mr. Edward Belho,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh,Adv. for Mahadayi Bacho Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis,Adv. Abhiyan: Ms. B. Sunita Rao,Adv. Mr. Navneet Kumar,Adv. for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs. Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Rituraj,Adv. Mr. KH. Nobin Singh,Asdv. Ms. Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. K.L. Janjani,Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao,Adv. Mr. G. Seshagiri Rao,Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv. Ms. Sudha Gupta,Adv. Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv. Mr. T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat,Adv. ....5/- - 5 - UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matters will be taken up from 23rd July, 2010, in the chronological order mentioned below: S.No. Description 1. [Construction of Park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary] I.A. Nos.2609-2610 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 2. [Hoarding matter ­ I.As. filed by MCD against Railways in response of EPCA Report] I.A. Nos.321 and 322 in W.P. (C) No.13029/1985 3. [Lafarge Matter] I.A. No.1868 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 4. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Haryana] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 5. [Construction of Multi-storeyed buildings in Forest land, Maharashtra, where SIT has been formed] I.A. No.2079 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 6. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Rajasthan] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 7. [Mining in the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh] S.L.P. (C) Nos........CC 5969-5970 of 2010 and connected matters 8. [Buffer zone matters] I.A. No.1000 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 9. [CAMPA MATTERS] I.A. No.2143 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.308 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NO.2143,2283 WITH 827,1122,1337,1473,1620 AND 1693 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) [Report of CEC regarding the non-utilisation of funds received towards the Net Present Value [NPV] Compensatory Afforestation Etc., modification of order- [For Directions and fixing a date for hearing] Date: 16/07/2010 This Matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. Ameet Singh,Adv. Ms. Pareena Swarup,Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. ....2/- ­ 2 - Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matters will be taken up from 23rd July, 2010, in the chronological order mentioned below: S.No. Description 1. [Construction of Park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary] I.A. Nos.2609-2610 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 2. [Hoarding matter ­ I.As. filed by MCD against Railways in response of EPCA Report] I.A. Nos.321 and 322 in W.P. (C) No.13029/1985 3. [Lafarge Matter] I.A. No.1868 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 4. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Haryana] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 5. [Construction of Multi-storeyed buildings in Forest land, Maharashtra, where SIT has been formed] I.A. No.2079 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 6. [Mining in Aravalli Hills, Rajasthan] I.A. No.828 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 7. [Mining in the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh] S.L.P. (C) Nos........CC 5969-5970 of 2010 and connected matters 8. [Buffer zone matters] I.A. No.1000 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters 9. [CAMPA MATTERS] I.A. No.2143 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 and connected matters [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment and direction) Date: 23/07/2010 This Matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.C. Mishra,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi,AAG.,UP. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. ....2/- - 2 - Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the applicants, commenced his submissions at 2.10 p.m. and was on his legs when the Court rose for the day. The matter remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 23/07/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. F.S. Nariman,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Avinash Menon,adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.301 to 338 COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NO. 941 IN I.A.NO.754-755 WITH I.A.NO. 777,1131-1133, 1138- 1146, 1148,1184, 1272 IN I.A.NO.754-755, 1361,1579-1580, 2714-2715 IN I.A. NO.941 IN WP(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD PETITIONER(S) Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS RESPONDENT(S) (RECOMMENDATION OF CEC IN IA.NO.754-755 AND FOR IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTION/MODIFICATION AND VACATION OF STAY) WITH W.P(C)No.356/2007 CHARIDHAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR STAY) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 302. I.A.NOS.1117-1118 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR DIRECTIONS AND IMPLEADMENT) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 303. I.A.NO.1274-1275, 2423-2425, 2460-2461,2522-2523,2537-2538 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTIONS, PERMISSION, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 304. I.A.NO.1442 & 2446 IN 1442 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR DIRECTION) FOR DIRECTIONS] 305. I.A.NO. 1484 In W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR RECALLING AND MODIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 30.10.2002) FOR DIRECTIONS] 306. I.A NOS. 1584-1586 IN W.P.(C) NO. 202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTION AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) [FOR DIRECTIONS] -2- 307. I.A NOS. 1708-1709 IN W.P.(C) NO. 202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 308. I.A NOS. 1799-1800 IN 385 IN W.P.(C) NO. 202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR MODIFICATION AND IMPLEADMENT) FOR DIRECTIONS] 309. I.A NO. 1963 IN W.P.(C) NO. 202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR DIRECTIONS) FOR DIRECTIONS] 310. I.A.NOS.2213-2215 IN 948-948A IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR INTERVENTION, DIRECTIONS)AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING OT) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 311. I.A NOS. 2287-2288 IN W.P.(C) NO. 202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 312. I.A. 2320 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR DIRECTIONS) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 313. I.A.NO.2365 IN 1406 In W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR DIRECTIONS) FOR DIRECTIONS] 314. I.A.NO.2434-2436 IN 1399 In W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 315. I.A.NOS.2440-2441,2443-2444,2261-2263,2258-2260,2450-2452,2453- 2454,2455-2457 IN 1399 WITH 2462-2464 WITH 2244 ALONGWITH 2512-2521 WITH 2544-2545, 2572-2573,2548-2549,2065,2114-2115, 2481- 2482,2489, 2551-2552, 2553-2554,2711, 2559-2560, 2561-2562, 2563- 2564, -3- 2565-2566, 2592-2593,2750-2752, 2753-2754, 2755-2756,2683-2685, 2779-2780, AND 2738-2739 IN W.P.(C) NO.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR DIRECTION, IMPLEADMENT,EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T AND INTERVENTION) WITH W.P(C)No.117/2008 MERAJ BEG Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH W.P(C)No.547/2008 SAHIR BEG & ANR. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND OFFICE REPORT) WITH W.P(C)No.43/2009 M/S.SHAFI TIMBER STORE & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND OFFICE REPORT) WITH W.P(C)No.55/2009 AJIT PRATAP SINGH & ANR. Vs. CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE & ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND OFFICE REPORT) WITH W.P(C)No.284/2009 RAJESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND OFFICE REPORT) WITH W.P(C)No.414/2009 ABDUL KAYUM KHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND OFFICE REPORT) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 316. I.A.NO. 2458-2459 IN 1406 IN WP(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs.UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTION) FOR DIRECTIONS] 317. I.A.NO. 2465-2466, 2467-2468IN WP(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTION) FOR DIRECTIONS] -4- 318. I.A. NOS.2487-2488 IN W.P.(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs.UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR DIRECTION & EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 319. I.A.NO.2539-2540 IN 1429 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR DIRECTION AND STAY) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 320. I.A. 2632-2633 In W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR INTERVENTION AND DIRECTIONS) FOR DIRECTIONS] 321. I.A.NO.2650-2651 IN 1429 IN WP(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR DIRECTIONS AND SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE DIRECTIONS) FOR DIRECTIONS] 322. I.A.2663 In W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT/DIRECTIONS) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 323. I.A.NOS.2664-2665, 2860-2861 IN 2664-2665 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING OT AND PERMISSION TO FILE REJOINDER) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 324. I.A.NOS.2854-2855 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTIONS AND INTERIM RELIEF) FOR DIRECTIONS] 325. I.A.NOS.288O IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADVs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (RECOMMENDATION OF CEC IN APPLN. NO. WBI -2081 ON BEHALF OF M/S. NAVDURGA WOOD PRODUCTS LTD) FOR DIRECTIONS] -5- 326. W.P(C)No.193/2008 CHHOTE LAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 327. SLP(C)No.3941/2010 STATE OF KERALA & ANR. Vs. E.MOIDU & ANR. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND C/DELAY IN REFILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 328. W.P(C)No.84/2004 KISAN ET UDYOG GOHAWAR TEHSIL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DIRECTIONS AND OFFICE REPORT) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 329. SLP(C)No.13015/2006 STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Vs. M/S. ITKI SAW MILL & ANR. FOR DIRECTIONS] 330. SLP(C)...CC 3372/2007 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Vs. FURNISCAPE INDIA PVT.LTD.& ANR. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 331. SLP(C)No.7031/2010 VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR TRANSPOSING RESPONDENTS AS PETITIONERS AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 332.SLP(C)No.15796/2006 MADAN SINGH LADWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND PERMISSION TO FILE REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 333. SLP(C)......CC 12541/2007 STATE OF H.P.& ORS. Vs. M/S NCL INDUSTRIES LTD.& ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 334. SLP(C)No.28519/2008 STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Vs. VINA ARRA MILL (WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) [FOR DIRECTIONS] -6- 335. SLP(C)...CC 1526/2008 M/S A.K.CHATTERJEE & BROTHERS & ORS.Vs.STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND C/DELAY IN REFILING SLP) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 336. I.A.NOS.2333-2334 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) [FOR DIRECTIONS] 337. I.A.NO.2848-2850 IN W.P(C)No.202/1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) [FOR DIRECTIONS] CNG/VEHICULAR POLLUTION MATTER ------------------------------ 338.I.A. NO.D46108 IN WP.(C)No.13029/1985 M.C. MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (FOR DIRECTIONS WITH OFFICE REPORT) Date: 26/07/2010 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR For the appearing parties :- Mr. P.S. Narsimha, Sr.Adv. Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr.Adv. (AC) (NP) Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr.Adv.(AC) (NP) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury (AC) Mr. A.D.N. Rao (AC) Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. Mr. J.R. Das, Adv. -7- Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.N. Rao, Adv. Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr. Shwetaketu Mishra, Adv. Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv. Respondent-in-person Mr. R.S. Jena, adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Adv. IA 2714-2715 IN Mr. A.K. Sahu, Adv. IA 754-755 Mr. Pravir Chaudhary, Adv. IA 1579-1580 IA 1579,1580 Mr. Jitendra Mohapatra, Adv. & W.P.356/06 Ms. Sweta Verma, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. Sudharshan Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. State of Goa Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv. Mr. D.K. Garg, Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. MR. Ajit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Malviya, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, adv. -8- Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Paban K. Sharma Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bharti, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, Adv. For M/s. Khaitan & Co., Advs. Mr. Anil Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Adv. Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Chandan Ramamurthi, Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mrs. Vinitha Sasidharan, Adv. For Lawyers Knit & Co., Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. C.L. Sahu, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. Irshad Hanif, Adv. Mr. D.K Sinha, Adv. Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Adv. -9- Mr. Navneet Kumar, Adv. For M/s. Corporate Law Group, adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. S. Balaji, Adv. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr.Adv.(Appearance slip not given) Mr. P.K. Jain, Adv. Mr. Navneet Kumar, Adv. For M/s. Corporate Law Group, Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. K.H. Nobin Singh, Adv. Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Anil Srivastava, Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Mr. B.S. Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajay Veer Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashish Saini, Adv. Mr. Irshad Hanif, Adv. Mr. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khare, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, Adv. Mr. S.A. Khan, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv. Mr. C.P. Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Geeta Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Santosh Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, Adv. -10- Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Adv. Mr. Y.P. Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. Mr. C.P. Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Geeta Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Santosh Singh, Adv. Mr. K.H. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Bijon Ghosh, Adv. Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Adv. For M/s Corporate Law Group, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. -11- Mr. Jogy Scaria, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. For M/s Manoj Swarup & Co., Advs. Mr. Anil K. Jha, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Poddar, Adv. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. State of Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv. Maharashtra Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. Vinod Bobde, Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Pitale, Adv. Mr. Wasim Haider, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Adv. Mr. S.S. Shamsharey, Adv. Mr. P.N. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mrs. Vinitha Sasidharan, Adv. For M/s Lawyer's Knit & Co., Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Adv. -12- Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Suresh Kumari, Adv. Item 336 Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bharati, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Item 337 Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Item 338 Mr. M.C. Mehta, Adv. Mr. Mohan Jain, ASG Mr. D.K. Thakur, Adv. Ms. Rohini Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. W.S.A.Quadri, Adv. Mr. M.P.S. Tomer, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Ms. Gunwant Dara, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. Ms. Anuja Chopra, Mr. Parag Tripathi, ASG Mr. Jitendra, Adv. Ms. Monika Gusain, Adv. Mr. Hariom Yaduvanshi, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In order to ensure that the public interest is fully protected, we request Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned senior counsel, who is present in the Court, to appear as Amicus Curiae in these matters and all other matters which may be listed before this Special Bench. He has readily given his consent to act as Amicus Curiae. -13- We request all the learned counsel for the petitioners to provide necessary information and papers as may be required by the learned Amicus Curiae. The petitioners shall continue to assist the Amicus Curiae. The Central Empowered Committee (C.E.C.) already appointed by this Court shall continue to assist the Court. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (J.P. Sharma) Court Master Court Master PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610, 2896 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment, direction and permission to file additional documents Date: 30/07/2010 This Matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.C. Mishra,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi,AAG.,UP. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey,Adv. Mr. Kapil Mishra,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. ....2/- - 2 - UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the applicants, made his submissions from 2.00 p.m. to 2.10 p.m. and from 2.35 p.m. till 4.00 p.m. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned amicus curiae, made his submissions from 2.10 p.m. to 2.35 p.m. The letter dated 17th September, 2009, written by Mr. Rituraj Singh, Deputy Conservator of Forests (C), Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India and affidavit dated 30th July, 2010, filed by Ministry of Environment and Forest are taken on record. The matters remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 30/07/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Suman J. Khaitan,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610, 2896 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment, direction and permission to file additional documents Date: 30/07/2010 This Matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.C. Mishra,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi,AAG.,UP. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey,Adv. Mr. Kapil Mishra,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. ....2/- - 2 - UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the applicants, made his submissions from 2.00 p.m. to 2.10 p.m. and from 2.35 p.m. till 4.00 p.m. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned amicus curiae, made his submissions from 2.10 p.m. to 2.35 p.m. The letter dated 17th September, 2009, written by Mr. Rituraj Singh, Deputy Conservator of Forests (C), Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India and affidavit dated 30th July, 2010, filed by Ministry of Environment and Forest are taken on record. The matters remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 30/07/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Suman J. Khaitan,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar AUGUST 2010 ORDERS ITEM NO.MM-A Court No.8 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. D. No. 2471/2010 in I.A. No. 2178-79 of 2007 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 4677 OF 1985 M.C.MEHTA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date: 02/08/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. R.P.Bhatt, Sr Adv. Ms. Anita Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R To be listed along with I.A. No. 2447-2448 in I.A. No. 22 in W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 1985. (Shashi Sareen) (Shashi Bala Vij) Court Master Court Master PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610, 2896 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment, direction and permission to file additional documents) With I.A. No.2900 in I.A. Nos.2609-2610 (Appln(s) for permission to file additional documents) Date: 06/08/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Ms. Sweety Manchanda,Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar,Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.C. Mishra,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi,AAG.,UP. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey,Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar,Adv. Mr. Kapil Mishra,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. Atul Jha,Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, and Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned amicus curiae, made submissions from 2.00 p.m. to 2.45 p.m. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel, resumed his submissions at 2.45 p.m. and had not concluded when the court rose for the day. The matters remained part-heard. ******* In the matter of: Urban forests and their role in mitigating environmental problems: Note given by learned amicus curiae is treated as interlocutory application. Issue notice to the Ministry of Environment. Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel accepts notice. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 06/08/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Suman J. Khaitan,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.301& 302 COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IA Nos.2440-2441, 2443-2444, 2261-2263, 2258-2260, 2450-2452, 2453- 2454, 2455-2457 in 1399 with 2462-2464 with 2244 along with 2512- 2521 with 2544-2545, 2572-2573, 2548-2549, 2065, 2114-2115, 2481- 2482, 2489, 2551-2552, 2553-2554, 2711, 2559-2560, 2561-2562, 2563- 2564, 2565-2566, 2592-2593, 2750-2752, 2753-2754, 2755-2756, 2683- 2685, 2779-2780, and 2738-2739 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction, impleadment, exemption from filing O.T. and intervention) WITH W.P.(C) No.117 of 2008 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T.) with W.P.(C) No.547 of 2008 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report) with W.P.(C) No.43 of 2009 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T and office report) with W.P.(C) No.55 of 2009 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report) with W.P.(C) No.284 of 2009 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report) with W.P.(C) No.414 of 2009 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Item 302 – I.A. No.2663 in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 (For impleadment/Directions) Date: 09/08/2010 These applications/petitions were called on for hearing today. ...2/- -2- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR For the appearing parties : Mr. P.S. Narsimha, Sr.Adv. (AC) Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. Mr. Anil Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. Ms. Shobha Dixit, Sr.Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ajay Veer Singh, Adv. Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Saini, Adv. Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv. Mr. Uday Ram, Adv. Mr. Irshad Hanif, Adv. Mr. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khare, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Santosh Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Rekha Giri, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, adv. Mr. Y.P. Dhingra, Adv. ...3/- -3- Mr. Piyush Sharma, adv. Mr. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash Shukla, Adv. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan singh, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Parul Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Adv. Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. For TISCO Ms. Nandini Gore, adv. Ms. Ashlesha Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Sonia Nigam, Adv. Mr. Kartik Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, adv. Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R IA Nos.2440-2441, 2443-2444, 2261-2263, 2258- 2260, 2450-2452, 2453-2454, 2455-2457 in 1399 with 2462- 2464 with 2244 along with 2512-2521 with 2544-2545, 2572- 2573, 2548-2549, 2114-2115, 2481-2482, 2489, 2551-2552, 2553-2554, 2711, 2559-2560, 2561-2562, 2563-2564, 2565- 2566, 2592-2593, 2753-2754, 2755-2756, 2683-2685, 2779- 2780, and 2738-2739 These applications are disposed of in terms of the signed order. I.A. No. 2065 This application is dismissed requiring no further orders as such. I.A. Nos.2750-2752 These applications are dismissed requiring no further orders. No orders on the applications for direction, impleadment and intervention. ...4/- -4- W.P.(C) NO.117 OF 2008 This Writ Petition is dismissed. W.P.(C) NO. 547 OF 2008 This Writ Petition is dismissed. W.P.(C) NO. 43 OF 2009 This Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of this Court's Order dated 30th April, 2010 made in I.A. Nos. 1137 with 1319 and batch of I.As. and Writ Petitions. W.P.(C) NO. 55 of 2009 No further adjudication as such is required in this Writ Petition. The same is accordingly, disposed of. W.P.(C) NO. 284 OF 2009 This Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of this Court's Order dated 30th April, 2010 made in I.A. Nos. 1137 with 1319 and batch of I.As. and Writ Petitions. W.P.(C) NO.414 OF 2009 This Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of this Court's Order dated 30th April, 2010 made in I.A. Nos. 1137 with 1319 and batch of I.As. and Writ Petitions. I.A.NO.2663 IN WRIT PETITION(C) NO.202 OF 1995 This application is disposed of in terms of this Court's Order dated 30th April, 2010 made in I.A. Nos. 1137 with 1319 and batch of I.As. and Writ Petitions (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (J.P. Sharma) Court Master Court Master (Common Signed Order in all the matters is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IA Nos.2440-2441, 2443-2444, 2261-2263, 2258-2260, 2450-2452, 2453- 2454, 2455-2457 in 1399 with 2462-2464 with 2244 along with 2512- 2521 with 2544-2545, 2572-2573, 2548-2549, 2065, 2114-2115, 2481- 2482, 2489, 2551-2552, 2553-2554, 2711, 2559-2560, 2561-2562, 2563- 2564, 2565-2566, 2592-2593, 2750-2752, 2753-2754, 2755-2756, 2683- 2685, 2779-2780, and 2738-2739 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Appellant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) W I T H W.P.(C) No.117 of 2008 W.P.(C) No.547 of 2008 W.P.(C) No.43 of 2009 W.P.(C) No.55 of 2009 W.P.(C) No.284 of 2009 W.P.(C) No.414 of 2009 I.A. No.2663 IN W.P.(C) NO. 202 OF 1995 O R D E R IA Nos.2440-2441, 2443-2444, 2261-2263, 2258-2260, 2450-2452, 2453-2454, 2455-2457 in 1399 with 2462-2464 with 2244 along with 2512-2521 with 2544-2545, 2572- 2573, 2548-2549, 2114-2115, 2481-2482, 2489, 2551-2552, 2553-2554, 2711, 2559-2560, 2561-2562, 2563-2564, 2565- 2566, 2592-2593, 2753-2754, 2755-2756, 2683-2685, 2779-2780, and 2738-2739 We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned Amicus Curiae. Having regard to the submissions made and the material available on record and having regard to the ...2/- -2- availability of the timber as at present, we direct the Government of U.P. to dispose of all the pending applications seeking grant of licenses for establishment of saw mills/veneer/plywood within a period of two months from today in accordance with law and the Orders passed by this Court from time to time and more particularly, the Order dated 30th April, 2010. We make it clear that all the earlier orders passed by this Court on this subject culminating in the Orders dated 30th April, 2010 made in I.A. Nos. 1137 with 1319 and batch of I.As. and Writ Petitions shall continue to be in operation and the same is not varied or modified in any manner whatsoever. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted to the Government of U.P. for disposal of the said applications. In such view of the matter, these applications are disposed of as they do not require any further adjudication and no further directions as such are required to be issued in these applications. These applications are accordingly, disposed of. I.A. No. 2065 This application is dismissed requiring no further orders as such. ...3/- -3- I.A. Nos.2750-2752 These applications are dismissed requiring no further orders. No orders on the applications for direction, impleadment and intervention. W.P.(C) NO.117 OF 2008 This Writ Petition is dismissed. W.P.(C) NO. 547 OF 2008 This Writ Petition is dismissed. W.P.(C) NO. 43 OF 2009 This Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of this Court's Order dated 30th April, 2010 made in I.A. Nos. 1137 with 1319 and batch of I.As. and Writ Petitions. W.P.(C) NO. 55 of 2009 No further adjudication as such is required in this Writ Petition. The same is accordingly, disposed of. W.P.(C) NO. 284 OF 2009 This Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of this Court's Order dated 30th April, 2010 made in I.A. Nos. 1137 with 1319 and batch of I.As. and Writ Petitions. ...4/- -4- W.P.(C) NO.414 OF 2009 This Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of this Court's Order dated 30th April, 2010 made in I.A. Nos. 1137 with 1319 and batch of I.As. and Writ Petitions. I.A.NO.2663 IN WRIT PETITION(C) NO.202 OF 1995 This application is disposed of in terms of this Court's Order dated 30th April, 2010 made in I.A. Nos. 1137 with 1319 and batch of I.As. and Writ Petitions. ....................J. (B.SUDERSHAN REDDY) ...................J. (R.M. LODHA) ....................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) New Delhi, August 09, 2010 PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610, 2896 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment, direction and permission to file additional documents) With I.A. No.2900 in I.A. Nos.2609-2610 (Appln(s) for permission to file additional documents) Date: 13/08/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) (N/P) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Ms. Sweety Manchanda,Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar,Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. Satish C. Misra,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi,AAG.,UP. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey,Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar,Adv. Mr. Kapil Misra,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. Atul Jha,Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel, resumed his submissions at 2.00 p.m. and had not concluded till the Court rose for the day. The matters remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 13/08/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) (N/P) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Suman J. Khaitan,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.301 to 305 COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL AND 307 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ORISSA SAW MILL MATTERS 301. IA Nos.941 in I.A.No.754-755 with I.A.No.777, 1131-1133, 1138-1146, 1184, 1272 in I.A.No.754-755, 1361, 1579- 1580, 2714-2715 in I.A.No.941 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (RECOMMENDATION OF CEC IN IA NO.754-755 AND FOR IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTION/MODIFICATION AND VACATION OF )STAY WITH W.P.(C) NO. 356 OF 2007 CHARIDHAM SAHU VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. (With application for stay) BIHAR SAW MILL MATTERS 302. I.A.NOS.1274-1275, 2423-2425, 2460-2461, 2522-2523, 2537-2538 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (For impleadment, directions, permission, exemption from filing O.T.) WEST BENGAL SAW MILL MATTERS 303. I.A. NO.1484 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (For recalling and modification of order dated 30.10.2002) 304. I.A.NO.2539-2540 IN 1429 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (For direction and stay) 305. I.A.No.2650-2651 in 1429 in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 (For direction and seeking leave to file directions) CONSTRUCTION/WIDENING OF ROADS/HIGHWAYS 307. I.A. NO.2899 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (For directions) Date: 16/08/2010 These applications/petitions were called on for hearing today. ...2/- -2- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR For the appearing parties : Mr. P.S. Narsimha, Sr.Adv. (AC) Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv. Mr. J.R. Das, Adv. Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv. Mr. T.N. Rao, Adv. Mr. Shwetaketu Mishra, Adv. Respondent-in-person Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pravir Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Shweta Verma, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Malviya, adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. For Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Adv. Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Gargi Bhatia Baruli, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. ...3/- -3- Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, adv. Mr. Sachin Das, Adv. Ms. M. Indrani, Adv. Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bijon Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr.Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. For M/s A.P. & J Chambers UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Item Nos. 301 to 305 IA Nos.941 in I.A.No.754-755 with I.A.No.777, 1131-1133, 1138-1146, 1184, 1272 in I.A.No. 754-755, 1361, 1579-1580 IN I.A.941 These applications are disposed of in terms of the signed order. I.A. No.2714-2715 These applications are dismissed. W.P.(C) No.356 of 2007 This Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No orders on the application for impleadment, direction/modification and vacation of stay. I.A.No.1484, I.A.No.2539-2540 in 1429 I.A.No.2650-2651 in 1429 These applications are disposed of in terms of the signed order. ...4/- -4- I.A.No.2423-2425, 2460-2461, 2522-2523, 2537-2538 These applications are disposed of in terms of the signed order. I.A.No.1274-1275 These applications are dismissed. No orders on the applications for impleadment and directions. Item No.307 I.A. No.2899 in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 List this matter on 30th August, 2010 along with I.A. No.2897. We request the learned Amicus Curiae to inspect the site and submit his comments. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master (Common Signed Order in Item Nos. 301 to 305 is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IA Nos.941 in I.A.No.754-755 with I.A.No.777, 1131-1133, 1138-1146, 1184, 1272 in I.A.No. 754-755, 1361, 1579-1580, 2714-2715 IN I.A.941 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Appellant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) W I T H WRIT PETITION(C) NO.356 OF 2007 O R D E R ORISSA SAW MILL MATTERS : IA Nos.941 in I.A.No.754-755 with I.A.No.777, 1131-1133, 1138-1146, 1184, 1272 in I.A.No. 754-755, 1361, 1579-1580 IN I.A.941 We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae. These applications relate to the saw mills in the State of Orissa. This Court had earlier directed that no saw mills should be established within a radius of 10 kms. from the boundary of the forest area. Pursuant to the directions of this Court many of the saw mills in the State of Orissa were closed down. At the same time, this Court having realised ...2/- -2- that those saw mills which were closed down are required to be rehabilitated, passed the orders on 10.7.2009 directing the State of Orissa to make necessary arrangements to have industrial estates and take appropriate steps in that regard, if necessary, by making amendments to the provisions of Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pit (Control) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder. The Court vide its order dated 10.7.2009 accordingly, directed the State of Orissa to take urgent steps in that regard and ensure appropriate amendments to the said provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder so that the eligible amongst the closed saw mills could be appropriately rehabilitated in due course. By another order dated 7.5.2010 based on the instructions submitted before the Court, a direction was issued requiring the State to take appropriate decision concerning amendments to the provisions of the said Act and Rules within a period of six weeks therefrom. We are now informed that the Government has already taken appropriate decision in the matter and complied with the directions of this Court. The necessary amendments to the provisions of the Act are required to be made by the Legislature. ...3/- -3- In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the State of Orissa to implement the directions of this Court dated 10.7.2009 and 7.5.2010 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. I.A.No.2714-2715 We are not inclined to make any modification of our Order dated 10.7.2009. These applications are accordingly, dismissed. W.P.(C) No.356 of 2007 The cause in this Writ Petition does not survive requiring any further adjudication. This Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous. ...4/- -4- No orders on the application for impleadment, direction/modification and vacation of stay. WEST BENGAL SAW MILL MATTERS I.A. NO. 1484, I.A. NO. 2539-2540 IN 1429 I.A.NO.2650-2651 IN 1429 This Court vide its Order dated 20th October, 2008 having accepted the report of the CEC that there is adequate timber available only to accommodate 750 saw mills directed the State Government to consider as to whether the conditions suggested by the CEC for grant of licenses were acceptable to the Government and if they were so acceptable, to process the applications in accordance with the guidelines/suggestions issued by the CEC. Further directions have been issued directing the State Government to issue licenses based on the said guidelines/suggestions. It is now brought to our notice by learned counsel for the State that the State Government having accepted the guidelines/suggestions and having processed the pending applications had already issued licenses to the eligible applicants. In such view of the matter, no further directions as such are required to be issued in these interlocutory applications. They are accordingly, disposed of. ...5/- -5- BIHAR SAW MILL MATTERS : I.A.NO.2423-2425,2460-2461,2522-2523,2537-2538 This Court vide its Order dated 7.5.2010 passed the following order :- “A large number of applications are pending with the Government for Saw Mill licenses in the State of Bihar. The CEC has filed its Report containing broad guidelines as regards grant of saw mill licenses. The State of Bihar has neither passed any final orders nor it has prepared a seniority list as directed by this Court. The State Authorities are directed to prepare a seniority list of the eligible applicants who could be granted saw mill licenses. The State should take action within a period of six weeks.” Shri Gopal Singh, learned standing counsel for the State of Bihar prays for grant of further time to take an appropriate decision in the matter to implement the directions of this Court. Having considered the request so made by the learned standing counsel, we direct the State of Bihar to prepare a seniority list of the eligible applicants who could be granted saw mill licenses in terms of our directions issued from time to time within a period of ten weeks from today and report compliance to this Court. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted to implement the directions of this Court dated 10.5.2010. ...6/- -6- Since no further directions are required to be issued in these interlocutory applications, they are disposed of accordingly. I.A. NO.1274-1275 These interlocutory applications are dismissed. No orders on the applications for impleadment and directions. ....................J. (B.SUDERSHAN REDDY) ...................J. (R.M. LODHA) ....................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) New Delhi, August 16, 2010 PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610, 2896 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment, direction and permission to file additional documents) With I.A. No.2900 in I.A. Nos.2609-2610 (Appln(s) for permission to file additional documents) Date: 20/08/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Ms. Sweety Manchanda,Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar,Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. Satish C. Misra,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi,AAG.,UP. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey,Adv. Mr. Kapil Misra,Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. Atul Jha,Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel, resumed his submissions at 2.10 p.m. and concluded at 4.00 p.m. The matters remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 20/08/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) (N/P) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Suman J. Khaitan,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.3 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NO.1849 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 4677 OF 1985 M.C.MEHTA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for modification/clarification of the order dt. 16.2.2007, 7.12.1999 on behalf of Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corpn. Ltd.) WITH I.A.NO.1851-1853 IN W.P.(C) NO.4677/1985 (For clarification of Court's order dated 10.5.1996, impleadment and permission to file application for clarification on behalf of Raghunath Builders) I.A.NOS.1915-1916 IN W.P.(C) NO.4677/1985 (For permission to file additional documents on behalf of Raghunath Builders) I.A.NO.2262 IN W.P.(C) NO.4677/1985 (For permission to file additional documents on behalf of Raghunath Builders) I.A.NOS.2339-2340 IN W.P.(C) NO.4677/1985 (For permission to file rejoinder affidavit on behalf of Raghunath Builders) Date: 25/8/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-In-Person For Respondent(s) Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Ms. Gunwant Dara, Adv. Mr. M.P.S. Tomar, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. C.K. Sharma, Adv Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. .....2. - 2 - ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.3 DATED 25.8.2010 .....contd. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Veera Kaul Singh, Adv. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Naresh Bakshi, Adv. Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Inder Preet Singh Josh, Adv. Mr. V.K. Jain, Adv. Ms. Gouri Karuna Das, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Adv.s Ms. Anu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. for M/s. Saharya & Co., Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused the letter. Adjourned by two weeks. ( Ravi P. Verma ) ( M.S. Negi ) Court Master Court Master ITEM NO.301 to 315 COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL AND MM-9A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 301. CONSTRUCTION/WIDENING OF ROADS/HIGHWAYS I.A.NO.2899, 2897 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For directions and recommendations of CEC) PANCHMARHI MATTERS (TIGER RESERVE ETC.) 302. I.A.NOS.2202-2203, I.A. NO.2601 IN I.A.NOS. 2202-2203, I.A.NO.1697, 2595-2596 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS, EXEMPTION, PERMISSION AND CLARIFICATION/MODIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 14.2.2000) along with 315. I.A. Nos. 2915-2917 in IA Nos.2202-2203 in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 (For intervention, clarification/Modification of recommendation of CEC dated 16.09.2008 and exemption from filing O.T.) SAWMILL MATTERS (STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 303. I.A.NO.1442, I.A.NO.2446 IN I.A.NO.1442 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS) SAW MILL MATTERS (STATE OF NAGALAND) 304. I.A.NOS.2287-2288 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) SAW MILL MATTERS (STATE OF ASSAM) 305. I.A.NOS.2320, 2632-2633 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS AND INTERVENTION) SAW MILL MATTERS (STATE OF MANIPUR) 306. I.A.NO.2365 IN I.A. NO.1406, I.A.NOS.2458-2459 IN I.A.NO.1406 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS) 307. I.A.NOS.2359 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS) -2- FOR DIRECTIONS FOR FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 308. I.A.NOS.1708-1709, 1963, 2465-2466, 2467-2468 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) STATE OF CHHATISGARH 309. I.A.NOS.2213-2215, 2487-2488 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR INTERVENTION, DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH W.P.(C) NO.193 OF 2008 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) STATE OF KERALA 310. I.A.NOS. 2854-2855 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT/DIRECTIONS AND INTERIM RELIEF) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 311. I.A.NO.2880, 1584-1586 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF CEC, DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION AND IMPLEADMENT) STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 312. I.A.NOS.1799-1800, 2434-2436, 2333-2334, 2605-2607 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 5.5.1998 PASSED IN I.A.NO.385, IMPLEADMENT DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH S.L.P.(C) NO.13015 OF 2006 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 313. SLP(C)........ CC NO.12541 OF 2007 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP) SANDALWOOD MATTERS 314. I.A.NOS.1287, 1570-1571, 1624-1625, 1978, 2395, 2795-2796 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (REPORT OF CEC, IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTION AND EXEMPTION) MM-9A : I.A.Nos.2790-91 and 2794 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 -3- Date: 30/08/2010 These applications/petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR For the appearing parties : Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr.Adv. (AC) Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. For TISCO Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv. Ms. Ashlesha Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Sonia Nigam, Adv. Mr. Kartik Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Adv. Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Adv. For Karanjawala & Co Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. For M/s A.P. & J Chambers Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. L.R. Singh, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Shashank S. Parihar, Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Saswat Acharaya, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Uppadhyay, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, Adv. For M/s Khaitan & Co., Advs. Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Adv. -4- Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. Navneet Kumar, Adv. For M/s Corporate Law Group, Adv. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr.Adv. Mr. P.K. Goswami, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. P.K. Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. KH. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, ASG Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. Tarun Satija, Adv. Ms. Anindita Pujari, Adv. Mrs. Vinita Sasidharan, Adv. For M/s Lawyers' Knit & Co. Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Adv. Mr. B. Suyodhan, Adv. Mr. Amarpal, Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. B.S. Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Saini, Adv. Mr. Uday Ram, Adv. Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Mr. Irshad Hanif, Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. -5- Mr. Dushyant Parashar, Adv. Mrs. Chandana Ramamurthi, Adv. State of Maharashtra Ms. Aparajita Singh, Adv. Mrs. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. Charan Lal Sahu, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Devasis Bharuka, Adv. Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv. Mr. K.R. Sasisprabhu, Adv. Mr. M.P. Maharia, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. T.N. Rao, Adv. Mr. Amarender Saran, Sr.Adv. Mr. R.K. Das, Sr.Adv. Mr. Haneef Mohammad, Adv. Mr. Zafar Siddique, Adv. Mr. Abanikanta Sahu, Adv. Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv. Mr. Bipin Kalappa, Adv. Mr. M.N. Krishna, Adv. Mr. N. Ganpathy, Adv. For M/s Aruputham Aruna & Co., Advs. -6- Mr. Pravin Parekh, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sumit Goel, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Srivastava, Adv. For M/s Parekh & Co., Advs. Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, Adv. Mr. L.R. Singh, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. Mr. Harish Beeran, Adv. State of Assam Mr. Navneet Kumar, Adv. (Item 9A) For M/s Corporate Law Group UOI Mr. Mohan Parasaran, ASG (Item 9-A) Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Item Nos.308,309,313 and MM-9A I.A.Nos. 1708-1709, 1963, 2465-2466, 2467-2468 I.A.Nos.2213-2215, 2487-2488 SLP(C) NO........CC NO.12541 OF 2007 I.A.NOS.2790-91 AND 2794 List these interlocutory applications and CC No.12541 of 2007 on 6th September, 2010. Item Nos.310, 311 and 312 I.A.Nos.2854-2855 I.A.Nos.2880, 1584-1586 I.A.Nos.1799-1800,2434-2436, 2333-2334, 2605-2607 SLP(C) No.13015 of 2006 List these interlocutory applications & SLP on 13th September, 2010. -7- Item No.314 I.A.Nos.1287,1570-1571,1624-1625,1978,2395, 2795-2796 List these interlocutory applications on 20th September, 2010. Item Nos.302 along with 315 I.A. No.1697, I.A.Nos.2595-2596 As prayed by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel, this application is adjourned. I.A.Nos.2202-2203,I.A.No.2601in I.A.Nos.2202-2203 I.A.Nos.2915-2917 in I.A.Nos.2202-2203 List these interlocutory applications along with I.A.No.2602 on 4th October, 2010 for hearing. Item No.306 I.A.No. 2365 in I.A.No. 1406 In the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the petitioner in this Court on 24th March, 2009 it is inter alia stated that the state level committee in order to re- examine the facilities/infrastructes of the industrial estates for the Government of Manipur and applicant Association held two meetings on 21.11.2008 and on 18.12.2008 and discussed the proposal of working out the possibility of accommodating additional 3 or 4 more saw -8- mills within the campus of existing bigger saw mills and declare such campus of bigger saw mill as industrial estate. It is brought to our notice that thereafter the Government did not initiate any steps whatsoever and examined the feasibility of the proposals made in the meetings so held on 21.11.2008 and 18.12.2008. Learned standing counsel for the State expressed his inability to say anything specifically as to what transpires after the proposal were discussed in the said meetings. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to direct the State of Manipur to file a detailed comprehensive affidavit as to the steps taken to decide about the feasibility of the proposals that were made in the meetings held on 21.11.2008 and 18.12.2008. The affidavit shall also contain the complete details as to the steps taken by the State of Manipur pursuant to the directions issued by this Court from time to time and more particularly, the Order dated 15th January, 1998. Such affidavit shall be filed within four weeks from today. List this interlocutory application on 4th October, 2010. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master (Signed Order in Item Nos. 301, 303, 304, 305, I.A.No.2458-2459/08 in Item No.306 and 307 is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A.Nos. 2899, 2897 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Appellant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) W I T H I.A. No.1442, I.A.No.2446 in I.A.No.1442 I.A.Nos. 2287-2288 I.A.No.2320, I.A.Nos.2632-2633 I.A.Nos. 2458-2459 of 2008 I.A. No.2359 O R D E R I.A.Nos. 2899, 2897 We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae and perused I.A. No.2897 - recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (C.E.C.). I.A. No.2899 has been filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for directions seeking the implementation of the recommendations of ...2/- -2- the C.E.C. in Application No.1290 filed by the NHAI seeking permission for use of 2.8 Hectares of forest land falling in the Southern Ridge for upgradation of National Highway No.236 between Andheria More to Delhi Haryana border. I.A. No.2899 is ordered, as prayed for, subject to complying with the conditions suggested by the C.E.C. namely :- (i) for the use of the forest land approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 will be obtained; (ii)wherever technically feasible instead of felling of trees, transplanting of trees will be resorted to; (iii)the area to be handed over by the NHAI to the IAF should be maintained as part of the Ridge/green area except the minimum area required for the essential services and infrastructure for meeting their security requirements; and (iv) 5% of the project cost will be deposited with the Delhi Ridge Management Board for undertaking conservation and protection of the ridge areas. I.A. No.1442, I.A.No.2446 in I.A.No.1442 These applications are dismissed. Interim orders shall stand vacated. ...3/- -3- I.A.Nos. 2287-2288 These applications are dismissed. I.A.No.2320 We have heard Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel. This application is dismissed. I.A.Nos.2632-2633 The order of the High Power Committee (HPC) is in conformity with the Order dated 15.1.1998. We confirm the order dated 15.1.1998. These applications are accordingly, dismissed. I.A.Nos. 2458-2459 of 2008 These applications are dismissed. I.A. No.2359 This is an application on behalf of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, represented by ITBPF seeking permission of this Court to widen and improve the roads leading to the China Border under the Border Road Development Board project for mobilization of troops and to carry out operational ...4/- -4- maintenance of the troops deployed on the border running along China and Nepal. This application is ordered, as prayed for. ....................J. (B.SUDERSHAN REDDY) ...................J. (R.M. LODHA) ....................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) New Delhi, August 30, 2010 SEPTEMBER 2010 ORDERS ITEM NO.301 to 304, COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL MM-9A & MM-9B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 301. I.A.NOS.1708-1709, 1963, 2465-2466, 2467-2468 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) STATE OF CHHATISGARH 302. I.A.NOS.2213-2215 IN I.A.NOS.948-948A, 2487-2488 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR INTERVENTION, DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH W.P.(C) NO.193 OF 2008 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 303. SLP(C)........ CC NO.12541 OF 2007 CC No.12541 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP) CONSTRUCTION/WIDENING OF ROADS/HIGHWAYS 304. I.A.Nos.2790-91 and 2794 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (For permission, exemption from filing O.T., exemption from requirement of clearance under the FCA 1980) MM-9A : I.A.No.2717 in I.A.No.1135-36 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 MM-9B : I.A.No.2785 in I.A.No.566 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 Date: 06/09/2010 These applications/petition were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR ...2/- -2- For the appearing parties : Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr.Adv. (AC) Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. I.A.2717 in Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Sr.Adv. I.A.1135-36 Mr. Himinder Lal, Adv. I.A.2785 in Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Sr.Adv. I.A.566 Mr. Himinder Lal, Adv. State of Karnataka Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Malviya, Adv. IA 1708-1709 Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. For Lawyers Knit & Co., Advs. IA 2465-2466 & Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Adv. IA 2467-2468 Mr. B. Suyodhan, Adv. Mr. Amarpal, Adv. Mr. Bharat J. Joshi, Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. Irshad Hanif, Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Adv. Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. For Lawyer's Knit & Co., Advs. Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. ...3/- -3- UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R MM-9A & MM-9B I.A.No.2717 in I.A.No.1135-36 AND I.A.NO.2785 IN I.A.NO.566 List these interlocutory applications on 27th September, 2010. Item 301 I.A.Nos. 1708-1709 Stand over for two weeks. Liberty to file additional documents. I.A.No.1963 List this interlocutory application on 8th November, 2010. I.A.Nos. 2465-2466, 2467-2468 Stand over for 29th November, 2010. In the meanwhile, the applicants shall file a proper affidavit duly indicating as to what steps have been taken by them to establish plantations either on their own land or leased land, if any. Item 302 I.A.Nos. 2213-2215 Stand over for 27th September, 2010 at the request of learned counsel for the applicant. By the next date of hearing the applicant shall make available all the records as to when the licenses ...4/- -4- were actually transferred in their favour and the relevant orders under which licenses have been transferred as such. I.A. Nos.2487-2488 These interlocutory applications are dismissed in terms of the signed order. W.P.(C) No.193 of 2008 The Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Item 303 SLP(C)..........CC 12541 of 2007 Delay condoned. Leave granted. This appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Item 304 I.A.Nos. 2790-2791, 2794 List these interlocutory applications along with interlocutory application Nos. 2626, 2642 and 2914 on 25th October, 2010. The C.E.C. shall file its report in I.A. Nos. 2790-2791. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master (Signed Order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. Nos.2487-2488 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Appellant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 193 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7467/2010 ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO.26056/2010 (CC NO.12541 OF 2007) O R D E R I.A. NOS.2487-2488 We find no merit in these interlocutory applications. The same are accordingly, dismissed. W.P.(C) NO.193 OF 2008 The Writ Petitioner may file a proper application before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Respondent No.2 herein) requesting him to consider for change of place of Saw Mill No.407 from Gureliya Bazar Raipur Chhattisgarh to Balaudabazar Raipur. The application to be so filed shall be considered and disposed of by the Respondent No.2 within eight weeks from the date of filing of such application. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. ...2/- -2- CIVIL APPEAL NO.7467/2010 ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO.26056/2010 (CC NO.12541 OF 2007) Delay condoned. Leave granted. This appeal is disposed of in terms of this Court's Order dated 29th February, 2008 made in I.A. No.1797 in W.P. (C) No.202 of 1995. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondent- NCL Industries Limited that the respondent had already complied with the direction to deposit certain amounts and accordingly, deposited an amount of Rs.30 lacs (Rupees thirty lacs only) on 24th September, 2008 for the purpose of granting ex-post facto permission for establishment of MDF/Particle Board plant and for composite plant for the manufacture of MDF and Particle Board respectively. The appellant shall verify and if it is found that the amount has already been deposited by the respondent the necessary licenses may accordingly, be granted. This appeal is accordingly, disposed of. ....................J. (B.SUDERSHAN REDDY) ...................J. (R.M. LODHA) ....................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) New Delhi, September 6, 2010 PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610 AND 2896 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment, direction and permission to file additional documents) With I.A. No.2900 in I.A. Nos.2609-2610 (Appln(s) for permission to file additional documents) Date: 10/09/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Ms. Sweety Manchanda,Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar,Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.C. Mishra,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi,AAG.,UP. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey,Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. Atul Jha,Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel started his submissions at 2.00 p.m. and concluded at 3.15 p.m. Thereafter Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, resumed his submissions and had not concluded at 4.00 p.m. The matters remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 10/09/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Suman J. Khaitan,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. C.P. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.301 to 312 COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL AND MM-9A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DIRECTIONS 301. I.A.NO. 2848-2850 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment and directions and exemption from filing O.T.) FOR DIRECTIONS 302. I.A.NO.2912-2913 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 (For impleadment and directions) FOR DIRECTIONS 303. I.A.NO.2920 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR PERMISSION) FOR DIRECTIONS 304. I.A.NO.1794-1795 WITH 1791-1792 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTION AND PERMISSION TO DEMARCATE BOUNDARIES OF ASKOT MUSK DEER WILDLIFE SANCTUARY AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) FOR DIRECTIONS 305. I.A.NO.2647 IN APPLN. NO.1124, 2687-2688, 2689-2690, 2696- 2697, 2703-2704, 2709 & 2718 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (RECOMMENDATION OF CEC IN APPLN. NO.1124, FOR INTERVENTION, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) FOR DIRECTIONS 306. I.A.NOS.2470-2471, 2472-2473, 2474-2475, 2476-2477 IN 1287 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTION) STATE OF KERALA 307. I.A.NOS. 2854-2855 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT/DIRECTIONS AND INTERIM RELIEF) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 308. I.A.NO.2880, 1584-1586 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF CEC, DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION AND IMPLEADMENT) ...2/- -2- STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 309. I.A.NOS.1799-1800, 2434-2436, 2333-2334, 2605-2607 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 5.5.1998 PASSED IN I.A.NO.385, IMPLEADMENT DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. & INTERVENTION) STATE OF JHARKHAND 310. SLP(C) No.13015 of 2006 311. I.A. NO.2918-2919, 2921-2922 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) FOR DISPOSAL 312. I.A.NO. 2460-2461 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR PERMISSION AND DIRECTIONS) MM-9A : I.A. NO.2863-64 IN I.A.NO.1620 IN I.A. 566 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS AND STAY) Date: 13/09/2010 These applications/petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR For the appearing parties : Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr.Adv. (AC) Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. MM-9A Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Adv. For Mr. Debasis Mishra, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Adv. Ms. Shobha Dixit, Sr.adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. ...3/- -3- Mr. Santhan Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Pandey, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Sumer Chand (Applicant-in-person) Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, Adv. Mr. Ashok Srivastav, Sr.Adv. Mrs. Angha S. Desai, Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, Adv. Mr. Sanjay K. Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, ASG Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. For M/s. AP & J Chambers, Advs. Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr.Adv. Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, Adv. For M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advs. Mr. Jogy Scaria, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Parashar, Adv. Mr. Sachin J. Patil, Adv. Mrs. Chandana Mramamurthi, Adv. Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. Charan Lal sahu, Adv. Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gargi Bhatta Bharli, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. ...4/- -4- Mr. Devasis Bharuka, Adv. Ms. Jaya Bharuka, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Ray, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K. Bhardwaj, Adv. Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha, adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.s Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, adv. Ms. Shobha Dixit, Sr.Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Item No. : MM-9A I.A. NO.2863-64 IN I.A.NO.1620 IN I.A. 566 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 List these interlocutory applications on 20th September, 2010. 301. I.A.NO. 2848-2850 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 Issue notice returnable in eight weeks. In the meantime, the C.E.C. shall submit its report. ...5/- -5- 302. I.A.NO.2912-2913 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 Issue notice returnable in eight weeks. In the meantime, the C.E.C. shall submit its report. 303. I.A.NO.2920 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 The C.E.C. shall submit its report in this matter. Item No.304 I.A.No.1791-1792 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 List these interlocutory applications for hearing on 15th November, 2010 I.A.No.1794-1795 List these interlocutory applications for hearing on 20th September, 2010. 305. I.A.NO.2647 IN APPLN. NO.1124, 2687-2688, 2689-2690, 2696-2697, 2703-2704, 2709 & 2718 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 List these interlocutory applications on 18th October, 2010. 306. I.A.NOS.2470-2471, 2472-2473, 2474-2475, 2476-2477 IN 1287 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 List these interlocutory applications on 20th September, 2010. The Union of India, State of Kerala, State of Karanataka and the State of Tamil Nadu are required to be present on the date of hearing of these matters. ...6/- -6- 307. I.A.NOS. 2854-2855 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 List these interlocutory applications on 15th November, 2010. In the meantime, liberty to file additional documents and additional affidavits. 308. I.A.NO.2880, 1584-1586 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 I.A.No.2880 Learned standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra prays for two weeks' time to get instructions as to the stage of the case registered on 4.11.1999 by the Maharashtra Forest Department against the applicant herein. List this interlocutory application on 4th October, 2010 for directions. I.A.No. 1584-1586 The C.E.C. to submit its report within four weeks as to whether there are any unauthorised/unlicensed saw mills in Ahmednagar District and if so, the steps that are required to be taken in the matter. 309. I.A.NOS.1799-1800, 2434-2436,2333-2334, 2605-2607 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 I.A. 1799-1800 These interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of in terms of our Order dated 2.5.2008 made in I.A. No.208-209 and batch. ...7/- -7- I.A.2434-2436 These interlocutory applications are dismissed as withdrawn. However, the issue is left open and shall be considered in an appropriate application. I.A.2333-2334 List these interlocutory applications on 20th September, 2010. I.A.2605-2607 These interlocutory applications are dismissed. 310. SLP(C) No.13015 of 2006 Leave granted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. 311. I.A. NO.2918-2919, 2921-2922 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 These applications are disposed of in terms of our order dated 9th August, 2010 made in I.A. No.2440-2441 and batch. There shall be an order accordingly. ...8/- -8- 312. I.A.NO. 2460-2461 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 These applications have already been disposed of on 16th August, 2010. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master (Signed Order in Item 310 (SLP(C) 13015/06 is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8002 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.13015 of 2006) STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS Appellant(s) Versus M/S ITKI SAW MILL AND ANOTHER Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted. This Court vide its Order dated 18th August, 2006 while directing notice made it clear that the Special Leave Petition to be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order, condoning the delay and to remit the matter for disposal of appeal on merits. Vide the impugned order the Division Bench refused to condone the delay in filing the LPA and accordingly, dismissed the LPA No.625 of 2004. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay in filing the LPA and accordingly, remit the LPA No.625 of 2004 for fresh consideration and disposal on merits by the High Court. ...2/- -2- We request the High Court to dispose of the LPA as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from today. This appeal is accordingly, disposed of. ....................J. (B.SUDERSHAN REDDY) ...................J. (R.M. LODHA) ....................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) New Delhi, September 13, 2010 PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610 AND 2896 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment, direction and permission to file additional documents) With I.A. No.2900 in I.A. Nos.2609-2610 (Appln(s) for permission to file additional documents) Date: 17/09/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Ms. Sweety Manchanda,Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar,Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.C. Mishra,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi,AAG.,UP. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey,Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. Atul Jha,Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, resumed his submissions at 1.30 p.m. and had not concluded till the Court rose for the day. The matters remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 17/09/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Suman J. Khaitan,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. C.P. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.301 to 306(MM) COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 301. SANDALWOOD MATTERS I.A.Nos.1287, 1570-1571, 1624-1625, 1978, 2395, 2795-2796 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (Report of CEC, impleadment, direction and exemption) STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 302. I.A.NOS. 1708-1709 IN WRIT PETITION(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) 303. I.A.NOS.1794-1795 IN WRIT PETITION(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTION AND PERMISSION TO FILE APPLN. FOR DIRECTIONS) 304. I.A.NOS.2470-2471, 2472-2473, 2474-2475, 2476-2477 IN 1287 IN WRIT PETITION(C) 202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTION) STATE OF UTTRAKHAND 305. I.A.NOS.2333-2334 IN WRIT PETITION(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) 306. I.A.NOS.2863-2864 IN I.A.1620 IN I.A.566 IN WRIT PETITION(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS AND STAY) Date: 20/09/2010 These applications were called on for mentioning today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR For the appearing parties : Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr.Adv.(AC)(Mentioned by) Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. ...2/- -2- Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Adv. Mr. M.P. Maharia, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. T.N. Rao, Adv. Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv. For M/s Aruputham Aruna & Co. For M/s Parekh & Co. For Lawyer's Knit & Co. Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. Sumer Chand (Appliant-in-person) Mr. Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Debasis Mishra, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. UPON being mentioned, the Court made the following O R D E R List these interlocutory applications on 27th September, 2010. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master OCTOBER 2010 ORDERS PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610 AND 2896 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment, direction and permission to file additional documents) With I.A. No.2900 in I.A. Nos.2609-2610 (Appln(s) for permission to file additional documents) I.A. No.2928 in I.A. Nos.2609-2610 in W.P. (C) No.202 of 1995 (With appln(s) for permission to file additional affidavit) Date: 01/10/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) (N/P) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. K.K. Venugopal,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.C. Mishra,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi,AAG.,UP. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey,Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General, resumed his submissions at 2.00 p.m. and concluded at 2.50 p.m. Thereafter, Mr. Jayant Bhushan and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, made their submissions. Hearing concluded. Judgement reserved. Liberty is granted to the parties to file written submissions/affidavit within one week. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 01/10/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) (N/P) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. Suman J. Khaitan,Adv. M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NOS.301-310 COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Part-Heard ITEM NO.301: (SANDALWOOD MATTERS) I.A.Nos.1287, 1570-1571, 1624-1625, 1978, 2395, 2795-2796 in WRIT PETITION (C) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (Report of CEC, impleadment, direction and exemption) With I.A.Nos.2470-2471, 2472-2473, 2474-2475, 2476-2477 in 1287 in WRIT PETITION (C) NO.202 OF 1995 (For impleadment and direction) AND ITEM NO.302 & 310:(PANCHMARHI MATTERS (TIGER RESERVE ETC.) I.A.Nos.2202-2203, 2601 & 2915-2917 in I.A.Nos.2202-2203 in WRIT PETITION (C) NO.202 OF 1995 (For directions, exemption from filing O.T., permission & clarification/modification of recommendation of C.E.C. dated 16.09.2008, intervention) With I.A.No.2602 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (For intervention) I.A.Nos.2929-2931 in I.A.Nos.2202-2203 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (For impleadment, directions and exemption from filing O.T.) AND ITEM NO.303:SAW MILL MATTERS (STATE OF MANIPUR) I.A.No.2365 in I.A.NO.1406 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (For directions) AND ITEM NO.304:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA I.A.No.2880 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (For recommendation of CEC in Appln.No.WBI No.2081) AND ITEM NO.305: I.A.No.2717 in I.A.Nos.1135-1136 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (For directions) AND ITEM NO.306: I.A.No.2785 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (For directions) ...2/- -2- AND ITEM NO.307:STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH I.A.Nos.1708-1709 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (For impleadment & directions) STATE OF UTTARAKHAND: ITEM NO.308: I.A.Nos.2333-2334 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (For impleadment and directions) AND ITEM NO.309: I.A.Nos.2863-2864 in I.A.1620 in I.A.566 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (For directions and stay) Date: 04/10/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. For the parties: Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. Mr. M.P. Maharia, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. T.N. Rao, Adv. Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv. M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advs. M/s. Parekh & Co., Adv. Mr. N. Ganapathy, Adv. Mr. Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advs. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. For TISCO: Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv. Ms. Ashlesha Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Sonia Nigam, Adv. Mr. Kartik Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Adv. Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Adv. ...3/- -3- Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG. Mr. KH. Nobin Singh, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG., Rajasthan Mr. D.K. Devesh, Adv. Mr. Sahil S. Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv. Mr. L.R. Singh, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, Adv. Gp.Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. Himinder Lal, Adv. Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matters are adjourned. (N. Annapurna) (Renuka Sadana) AR-cum-PS Court Master ITEM NO.302 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380 AND 2568 N WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 08/10/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) (N/P) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Bharat Ram,Adv. For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Beeran,Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. ....2/- ­ 2 - M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Edward Belho,Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.301 to 313 COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 301. FOR FIXING DATES SANDALWOOD MATTERS PART HEARD I.A.NO. 1287, 1570-1571, 1624-1625, 1978, 2395, 2795- 2796 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (Report of CEC, impleadment, direction and exemption) with I.A. NOS. 2470-2471, 2472-2473, 2474-2475, 2476-2477 IN 1287 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTION) PANCHMARHI MATTERS (TIGER RESERVE ETC.) 302. I.A. NOS.2202-2203, I.A.NOS.2601 AND 2915-2917 IN I.A.NOS.2202-2203 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., PERMISSION AND CLARIFICATION/MODIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATION OF CEC DATED 16.9.2008, INTERVENTION) WITH I.A.NO.2602 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR INTERVENTION) I.A.NOS.2929-2931 IN I.A.NOS.2202-2203 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) PENCH TIGER RESERVE 303. I.A.NO.2647 IN APPLN. NO.1124, 2687-2688, 2689-2690, 2696- 2697, 2703-2704, 2709 AND 2718 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (RECOMMENDATION OF CEC IN APPLN. NO.1124, FOR INTERVENTION, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) FOR DIRECTION 304. I.A.NO.2847 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND PERMISSION) 305. I.A.NO.2255-2256 IN 972 IN I.A. 757 WITH 789-790, 1217-1219, 1536-1538, 2660-2661, 2064 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (DIRECTION, IMPLEADMENT, STAY, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O/T AND RECOMMENDATION OF CEC) -2- 306. I.A.NOS.2863-2864 AND 2938 IN I.A.1620 IN I.A.566 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS AND STAY) FOR DISPOSAL SAW MILL MATTERS (STATE OF MANIPUR) 307. I.A.NO.2365 IN I.A.NO.1406 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 308. I.A.NO.2880 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF CEC IN APPLN. NO. WBI NO.2081 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 309. I.A.NOS.1708-1709, 2926 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) STATE OF UTTRAKHAND 310. I.A.NOS.2333-2334 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) 311. I.A.NO.2717 IN I.A.NOS.1135-1136 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS) 312. I.A.NO.2785 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS) CONSTRUCTION/WIDENING OF ROADS/HIGHWAYS 313. I.A.NOS.2790-2791, 2794, 2626, 2642 AND 2914 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR PERMISSION, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. EXEMPTION FROM REQUIREMENT OF CLEARANCE UNDER THE FCA 1980 AND DIRECTIONS) Date: 25/10/2010 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR For the appearing parties : Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr.Adv. (AC) Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. ...3/- -3- Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Adv. Mr. M.P. Maharia, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. T.N. Rao, Adv. Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv. For M/s Aruputham Aruna & Co. Mr. Sumit Goel, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. For M/s Parekh & Co. Mr. Bipin Kalappa, Adv. Mr. N. Ganpathy, Adv. Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, Adv. Mr. Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Krutin r. Joshi, Adv. Mr. Ramesh K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Adv. For UOI Mr. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. 302. Mr. L.R. Singh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tankha, ASG Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, Adv. -4- Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Adv. 303. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, Adv. Mr. Sanjay K. Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tankha, ASG Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. For M/s AP & J Chambers Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mrs. Angha S. Desai, Adv. Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Adv. 304. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. 305. Ms. Meera Mathur, Adv. Mr. V. Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Jatin Zaveri, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, Adv. Ms. Indra Jaising, ASG Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Adv. Mr. Mehul Rathod, Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, Adv. Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Adv. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Adv. (Appearance slip not given) 306. Mr. Debasis Mishra, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. 307. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. State of Manipur Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv. (NP) 308. Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Adv. -5- Mr. Surya Kant, Adv. 309. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. (Appearance slip not For M/s Lawyers Knit & Co. given) Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Adv. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. 310. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. 311. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, Sr.Adv. (Appearance slip not Mr. Himinder Lal, Adv. given) Mr. Sanjay R. hegde, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG Mr. D.K. Devesh, Adv. Mr. Sahil S. Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. 312. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, Sr.Adv.(Appearance slip not Mr. Himinder Lal, Adv. given) 313. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, ASG Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. Ms. Indra Jaising, ASG Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Item No.301 We request the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to further examine the matter and submit additional report for our consideration within two weeks. -6- List on 22nd November, 2010. The State of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh shall file additional affidavit giving details of the sandalwood forests. Item No.302 Stand over for eight weeks at the request of Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned ASG appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh. Item No.303 List on 6th December, 2010. Item No.304 The CEC is requested to file its report, if necessary, after inspection of the site. List after submission of the report. Item No.305 List these interlocutory applications on 10th January, 2011. Item No.306 The CEC is requested to submit its report. List after submission of the report. -7- Item No.307 Learned counsel for the State of Manipur is not present. List on 22nd November, 2010. Item No.308 We request the Trial Court to dispose of the Complaint bearing No.153 of 2000 filed on 21.2.2000 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Igatpuri, District Nashik as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by the fact of the pendency of these applications before this Court. It shall be open to the petitioner i.e. M/s. Navdurga Wood Products Limited to approach the authorities concerned for de-sealing its unit after the disposal of the criminal case. The application is accordingly ordered. Item No.309 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Amicus Curiae. We are not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in these applications. However, in the applications, it is stated that a proper application was filed in the month of May, 2006 before the CEC which has not even fixed any date for hearing of the matter nor taken up the same till date. -8- In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to request the CEC to dispose of the application stated to have been filed by the petitioner in the month of May, 2006 as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from today. Liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in law after the disposal of the said application by the CEC. The applications are accordingly, ordered. Item No.310 This matter was passed over. Item No.311 Issue notice to the respondents-concerned State Governments for the response in the matter to be submitted within eight weeks from today. Item No.312 The CEC and the State of Karnataka to submit their response in the matter within eight weeks from today. Item No.313 I.A. Nos.2790-2791 The CEC to submit its response within six weeks from today. Stand over for six weeks. -9- I.A.Nos. 2794, 2626, 2642 and 2914 List these interlocutory applications on 13th December, 2010. Liberty to file additional documents. In the meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment to submit its response before 13th December, 2010. The concerned Ministries shall explore to arrive at a consensus which shall be duly taken into consideration by this Court for the purpose of disposal of these applications. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380, 2568 AND 2937 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record, challenging the revised environmental clearance dated 19th April, 2010 and forest clearance dated 22nd April, 2010) [Lafarge Matter] With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 29/10/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv, Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. ....2/- - 2 - Mr. F.S. Nariman,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Rajat Jariwal,Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir,Adv. for M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,ASG. Mr. Anuj Bhandari,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv. Mr. Edward Belho,Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. G.E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. C.P. Sharma,Adv. Mr. D.D. Kamat,Adv. Mr. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned amicus curaie, started his arguments at 2.00 p.m. and has not concluded till 4.00 p.m. when the Court rose for the day. The matters remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2079-2080, 2301-2303, 2760 AND 2856 N WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment/direction, exemption from filing O.T. permission to file additional documents/affidavits) With Writ Petition (C) No.301 of 200 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay and exemption from filing O.T.) Date: 29/10/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Bharat Ram,Adv. For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In WP 301/2008: for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.,Advs. For Respondent(s) Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. ....2/- - 2 - M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.,Advs. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar NOVEMBER 2010 ORDERS PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380, 2568 AND 2937 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record, challenging the revised environmental clearance dated 19th April, 2010 and forest clearance dated 22nd April, 2010) [Lafarge Matter] With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 12/11/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv, Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma,Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. F.S. Nariman,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Rajat Jariwal,Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir,Adv. for M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,ASG. Mr. Anuj Bhandari,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Edward Belho,Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv. Mr. G.E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. C.P. Sharma,Adv. Mr. D.D. Kamat,Adv. Mr. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned amicus curiae, resumed his arguments at 2.00 p.m. and has not concluded till 4.00 p.m. when the Court rose for the day. Place the matters on 15th November, 2010, at 2.00 p.m. as part-heard below Writ Petition (C) No.562 of 2009. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2079-2080, 2301-2303, 2760 AND 2856 N WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment/direction, exemption from filing O.T. permission to file additional documents/affidavits) With Writ Petition (C) No.301 of 200 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay and exemption from filing O.T.) Date: 12/11/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Bharat Ram,Adv. For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) In WP 202/1995: In WP 301/2008: Mr. Sarva Mitter,Adv. for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.,Advs. For Respondent(s) Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. ....2/- ­ 2 - Mr. Sarva Mitter,Adv. for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.,Advs. Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar PART-HEARD ITEM NO.302 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380, 2568 AND 2937 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record, challenging the revised environmental clearance dated 19th April, 2010 and forest clearance dated 22nd April, 2010) [Lafarge Matter] With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 15/11/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv, Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma,Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. F.S. Nariman,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Subhash Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Rajat Jariwal,Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir,Adv. for M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,ASG. Mr. Anuj Bhandari,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. G.E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. C.P. Sharma,Adv. Mr. D.D. Kamat,Adv. Mr. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned amicus curiae, resumed his arguments at 2.20 p.m. and has not concluded till 4.00 p.m. when the Court rose for the day. The matters remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380, 2568 AND 2937 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record, challenging the revised environmental clearance dated 19th April, 2010 and forest clearance dated 22nd April, 2010) [Lafarge Matter] With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 19/11/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv, Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma,Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. F.S. Nariman,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Subhash Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Rajat Jariwal,Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir,Adv. for M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,ASG. Mr. Anuj Bhandari,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv. Mr. G.E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. C.P. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. D.D. Kamat,Adv. Mr. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned amicus curiae, resumed his arguments at 3.15 p.m. and has not concluded till 4.00 p.m. when the Court rose for the day. The matters remained part-heard. Place these matters on 26th November, 2010, at 12.30 p.m. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2079-2080, 2301-2303, 2760 and 2856 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment/direction, exemption from filing O.T. and permission to file additional documents/affidavits) With Writ Petition (C) No.301 of 2008 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay and exemption from filing O.T.) Date: 19/11/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In WP 301/2008: M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.,Advs. For Respondent(s) Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co,Advs. ....2/- - 2 - Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.301 to 313 COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 301. SANDALWOOD MATTERS PART HEARD I.A.NO. 1287, 1570-1571, 1624-1625, 1978, 2395, 2795- 2796 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (Report of CEC, impleadment, direction and exemption) with I.A. NOS. 2470-2471, 2472-2473, 2474-2475, 2476-2477 IN 1287 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTION) FOR DISPOSAL SAW MILL MATTERS (STATE OF MANIPUR) 302. I.A.NO.2365 IN I.A.NO.1406 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS) 303. I.A.NOS.2333-2334 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) 304. C.A. NO. 8133 OF 2003 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR PERMISSION TO PLACE ADDL. DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND OFFICE REPORT) WITH C.A. NO.8134 OF 2003 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR PERMISSION TO PLACE ADDL. DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF) C.A. NO.8135 OF 2003 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR PERMISSION TO PLACE ADDL. DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF) 305. I.A.NO.2882 IN IA 2342 IN I.A. NO.2119 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 306. I.A.NO.2342 IN I.A.NO.2119 IN I.A.NO.1483, 1997, 2023 IN W.P. (C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR PERMISSION, MODIFICATION/DIRECTION) 307. I.A.NO.2939-2940 IN I.A.NO.2782 WITH 2469 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR INTERVENTION, DIRECTION AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND PERMISSION) -2- 308. I.A. NO.2938 IN I.A.NO.2863-2864 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 309. I.A.NOS.2848-2850 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT/DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. I.A.NO. 2950 (APPLN. FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) STATE OF KERALA 310. I.A.NOS. 2854-2855 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT/DIRECTIONS AND INTERIM RELIEF) 311. I.A.NOS. 29122913 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) 312. I.A.NO.1791-1792 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR PERMISSION TO DEMARCATE BOUNDARIES OF ASKOT MUSK DEER WILDLIFE SANCTUARY AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 313. I.A.NO.1 IN S.L.P(C) NO. 22718 OF 2007 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR INTERIM STAY AND WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) Date: 22/11/2010 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR For the appearing parties : Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr.Adv. (AC in all the Mr. K. Paremeshwar, Adv. matters except Item No.310) Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Adv. Mr. M.P. Maharia, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. T.N. Rao, Adv. -3- Mr. A. Sharan, Sr.Adv. Mr. Zafar Sadique, Adv. Mr. Anil Vyas, adv. Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv. For M/s Aruputham Aruna & Co. Mr. P.H. Parekh, Sr.Adv. For M/s Parekh & Co. Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr.Adv. Mr. Bipin Kalappa, Adv. Mr. M.N. Krishna, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar M., Adv. Mr. N. Ganpathy, Adv. Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ambuj Agrawal, Adv. for Mr. Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Adv. For UOI Mr. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. 302. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv. 303. Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Gargi B. Bhurali, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. 304. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv. Mr. Vinay Arora, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kochar, Adv. -4- 305. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. 306. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. 307. Mr. F.S. Nariman, Sr.Adv. Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Adv. Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Yashwant Varma, Adv. Mr. Jatin Mongia, Adv. Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Deepti Sarin, Adv. For M/s Karanjawala & Co., Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajiv K. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. 308. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Debasis Mishra, adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. 309. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, Adv. 310. Mr. Siddharth Choudhry, A.C. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr.Adv. Mr. Zulfikar Ali, Adfv. Mr. Mahesh N.G., Adv. Mr. Rajesh B., Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. 311. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. 312. Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Sr.Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. -5- 313. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Item No.301 The report of the Central Empowered Committee (C.E.C.) is taken on record. List on 10th January, 2011. Item No.302 Stand over for two weeks at the request of Saw Mills Owners Welfare Association to submit its response to the affidavit filed by the State. Item No. 303 Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned amicus curiae and also perused the report submitted by the C.E.C. These applications for seeking permission for setting up Khair manufacturing unit by the applicant are allowed subject to the following conditions :- i) The unit will be established inside the Industrial Estate approved for setting up of wood based industries in the State. -6- ii) Khair wood be procured only from the Uttrakhand Forest Development Corporation. iii)The ownership of the units will not be transferred, including by way of transfer of majority shareholding or change of partnership before the unit starts commercial production. iv) One-time payment of Rs.9 lacs will be made by the Applicant unit. This amount will be kept in the designated account opened by the Forest Department for wood-based industries and v) The unit will maintain records and will submit periodical returns in respect of receipt, conversion, sale, balance stock etc. of Khair wood and finished products as prescribed by the Uttrakhand Forest Department. The applications are accordingly, ordered. Item No.304 The C.E.C. vide its report dated 7th September, 2005 inter alia observed that it will be appropriate that the State of Himachal Pradesh notifies the definition of Compact Wooded Block as decided by the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department. Learned counsel for the State of H.P. submits that so far the State did not issue any such Notification. In the circumstances, we direct the State -7- of H.P. to examine the issue and issue appropriate Notification accepting the said definition of Compact Wooded Block as has already been decided by the H.P. Forest Department. The appropriate Notification in this regard shall be issued within three months from today. Stand over for three months. Item Nos. 305, 306 and 312 List these matters on 10th January, 2011. Item No. 307 The State of U.P. is the applicant in this application. In this application the applicant prays for issuance of the following directions - a) Direct the State of U.P. To renew and transfer the mining leases as promised to the applicant and detailed in the Memorandum of Information issued by the Official Liquidator U.P. and Uttarakhand; b) Declare the right of the applicant to be granted renewed and transferred mining leases as promised in the Court sale confirmed in its favour without any further fetters or encumbrances. It is doubtful as to whether this Bench can take up this matter for hearing and disposal. In the circumstances, we direct the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions for listing of this matter. Item No.308 Learned Counsel for the applicant prays for leave to withdraw this interlocutory application. Leave as prayed for, is granted. The application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to avail such remedy as may be available to the applicant in law. Item No.309 Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file objections to the report submitted by the C.E.C. Stand over for four weeks. Item No.310 Mr. Sidharth Choudhry, counsel appeared as amicus curiae in this matter. Learned senior counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the response to the report of the C.E.C. Stand over for three weeks. Item No.311 The applicants may approach the State Empowered Committee seeking relief of renewal for grant of licence to their saw mills. In case of any necessity they may also approach the C.E.C. which shall look into the matter and pass appropriate orders. These applications are accordingly, disposed of. -9- Item No.313 List this interlocutory application along with the Special Leave Petition. The Registry is directed to list the Special Leave Petition before the appropriate regular Bench as it is not required to be heard by a Forest Bench. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380, 2568 AND 2937 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record, challenging the revised environmental clearance dated 19th April, 2010 and forest clearance dated 22nd April, 2010) [Lafarge Matter] With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 26/11/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv, Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma,Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. ...2/- - 2 - Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. F.S. Nariman,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Subhash Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Rajat Jariwal,Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir,Adv. for M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,ASG. Mr. Anuj Bhandari,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv. Mr. G.E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. C.P. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. D.D. Kamat,Adv. Mr. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned amicus curiae, resumed his submissions at 12.30 p.m. and did not conclude till 4.00 p.m. The matters remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2079-2080, 2301-2303, 2760 and 2856 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment/direction, exemption from filing O.T. and permission to file additional documents/affidavits) With Writ Petition (C) No.301 of 2008 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay and exemption from filing O.T.) Date: 26/11/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. In WP 202/1995: In WP 301/2008: M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.,Advs. For Respondent(s) Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co,Advs. ....2/- - 2 - Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.301 to 325 COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 301. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH I.A.NOS.2465-2466 & 2467-2468 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTINS) T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD ....PETITINER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) 302. I.A.NO. 1963 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTINS) 303. I.A.NO.2365 IN 1406 IN W.P.(C)202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTINS) 304. I.A.NO.2914 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS) 305. SLP(C)7031 OF 2010 (FOR TRANSPOSING RESPONDENTS AS PETITIONERS AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF) 306. SLP(C) NO.3941 OF 2010 (FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND C/DELAY IN REFILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) 307. SLP(C)NO.28519 OF 2008 (WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) 308. SLP(C) NO.15796 OF 2006 (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND PERMISSION TO FILE REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT) 309. SLP(C)........../2010(2008) (CC NO. 1526) (FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND C/DELAY IN REFILING SLP) 310. I.A.NO.2000-2000A IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR INTERVENTION AND DIRECTIONS) 311. I.A.NO.2100 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR CLARIFICATION/MODIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 29.10.2004) 312. I.A.NO.1606 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION OF ORDER DATED 14.2.2000 AND 25.11.2005) 313. I.A.NOS.2002-2004 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT, CLARIFICATION/MODIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 14.2.2000 AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) -2- 314. I.A.NOS.2421-2422 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND CLARIFICATION) 315. I.A.NOS.2542-2543 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) 316. I.A.NOS.2622-2624 AND 2813 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR PERMISSION, IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTION AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDL. AFFIDAVIT) 317. I.A.NOS.2741-2742 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) 318. I.A.NOS.2942-2944 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT, PERMISSION AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 319. I.A.NOS.2945-2946 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT AND PERMISSION) 320. I.A.NOS.1226 AND 1231 IN W.P.(C)NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTION AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDL. DOCUMENTS) 321. I.A.NOS.1308, 1323, 1455, 1468, 1478 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS, INTERVENTION AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 322. I.A.NO.2011 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR MODIFICATION/DIRECTIONS AND PERMISSION) 323. I.A.NOS.2923-2925 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 324. I.A.NO.2717 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS) 325. SLP(C) ......./2010 (CC NO.7887 (FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP) Date: 29/11/2010 These applications/petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR For the appearing parties : Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr.Adv. (A.C.) 301. Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. -3- For M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co. Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, adv. Mr. B. Suyodhan, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. Harish Chandra, Sr.Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Tanwar, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. 302. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Adv. (NP) Mr. T.V. George, adv.(NP) 303. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. K.H. Nobin Singh, Adv. 304. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. 305. Mr. V.A. Bobde, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Sanyal, Adv. Mr. Manish Pitale, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. State of Maharashtra Ms. Madhavi Diwan, Adv. Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv. 306. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. E.M.S. Anam, Adv. 307. Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Adv. 308. Mr. R.S. Suri, Sr.Adv. Mr. K.S. Prasad, Adv. Ms. Sampa Sengupta Ray, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Adv. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. P.N. Gupta, Adv. 309. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. 310. Mrs. Shilpa Chouhan, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Adv. -4- Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Adv. 311. Mr. Harish Chander, Sr.Adv. Mr. Y.P. Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. 312. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Adv. 313. Mrs. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Z.K. Jami, Adv. Mr. W. Ansari, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Adv. 314. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. State of Bihar Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. State of Tripura Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. for Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. 315. Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. 316. Ms. S. Janani, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. 317. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr.Adv. Mr. W.A. Nomani, Adv. Mr. Shah Alam, Adv. Ms. Atishi Dipankar, Adv. For M/s. Corporate Law Group, Adv. 318. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Dubey, adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. 319. Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv. -5- Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. 320. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. 321. Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. Krishnanand Pandey,Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, adv. Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Anil Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Renuka Sahu, Adv. For M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs. Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Anita Shenoy, Adv. Mr. Shibashish Mishra, Adv. 323. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. 324. Mr. Himinder Lal, Adv. -6- Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. 325. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Item No. 301 List on 10th January, 2011. Item No. 302 None present even on the second call. I.A. No.1963 is dismissed for non-prosecution. Item No. 303 Deleted. Item No. 304 Deleted Item No. 305 C.E.C. to subject its response within six weeks. List on 7th February, 2011. Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2010 for transposing the applicants/respondents as petitioners in the Special Leave Petition is ordered. Item No. 306 Stand over for one week. -7- Item No. 307 Stand over for one week. Item No. 308 The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Item No. 309 Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit fresh application, if he may choose so, which shall be considered by the authorities in terms of our Orders dated 20.10.2008 and 16.8.2010. Item No. 310 The grievance in this interlocutory application is that the C.E.C. having heard the application stated to have been filed by the petitioner herein did not pass any order whatsoever. We, accordingly, request the C.E.C. to dispose of the application stated to have been filed by the petitioner and which is stated to have already been heard. An appropriate order in this regard shall be made within three months from today. The interlocutory application is accordingly, ordered. Item No.311 This interlocutory application is ordered in terms of the prayer made in the application. Item Nos. 312 List along with Panchmarhi matters. -8- Item No.313 List along with Panchmarhi matters. In the meanwhile, State to file its response within four weeks. Item No. 314 C.E.C. to file its response within three months from today. Item No.315 Learned counsel for the applicant prays for leave to withdraw these interlocutory applications. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The interlocutory applications are accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. Item No.316 I.A. No.2624 Issue notice. C.E.C. to submit its response within eight weeks from today. Item No.317 Liberty to amend the prayer within two weeks from today. Stand over for two weeks. Item No.318 C.E.C. to submit its report within four weeks. Item No. 319 It is stated that C.E.C. vide its letter dated 10th March, 2010 transmitted the application, stated to -9- have been filed by the petitioner, for consideration of the West Bengal State Committee. It is submitted that the said application is yet to be disposed of by the State Committee. In the circumstances, we direct the State Committee to dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner which has been forwarded to it by the C.E.C. within eight weeks from today. There shall be an order accordingly. The application is accordingly, ordered. Item No.320 No cause of action survives requiring further adjudication in the matter. The applications are accordingly, dismissed. Item No. 321 List on 14th February, 2011 for hearing. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing in I.A.No. 1478 of 2006 handed over a Report on Disappearance of Tigers from Panna Tiger Reserve submitted by the Special Investigation Team, 2009. The same may be filed in the Registry within two weeks. The State may file its response to the report on Disappearance of Tigers from Panna Tiger Reserve submitted by the Special Investigation Team 2009 copy of which is made available to the learned counsel for the State. -10- In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall also make appropriate suggestions for consideration of the Court and place the same before the Court. Item No. 322 List along with Panchmarhi matters. Item No. 323 List this interlocutory application along with I.A. No.2882 and batch on 10th January, 2011. Item No.324 Deleted. Item No.325 This Special Leave Petition is not required to be considered by the Forest Bench. The Registry may place the same before the appropriate Bench. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master DECEMBER 2010 ORDERS 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NOS.2609-2610 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY ANAND ARYA & ANR. APPLICANTS/ T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD PETITIONER Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH I.A. NOS.2896/10 & 2900/10 IN I.A. NOS.2609-2610 OF 2009 AND I.A. NO.2928/10 IN I.A. NOS.2609-2610/09 IN W.P. (C) NO.202 OF 1995 JUDGMENT AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. At the centre of the controversy is a very large project of the Uttar Pradesh government at 2 NOIDA. Objecting to the project are the two applicants who are residents of Sector 15A, NOIDA, U.P. They claim to be public spirited people, committed to the cause of environment. According to them, the project, undertaken at the instance of Uttar Pradesh Government is a "huge unauthorized construction". The applicants state that a very large number of trees were cut down for clearing the ground for the project. The trees that were felled down for the project formed a "forest" as the term was construed by this Court in its order dated December 12, 1996 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 267 and the action of the Uttar Pradesh Government in cutting down a veritable forest without the prior permission of the Central Government and this Court, was in gross violation of section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereafter "the FC Act"). The project involved massive constructions that were made without any prior environmental clearance from the Central Government based on Environment Impact Assessment. The constructions were, therefore, in 3 complete breach of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter "the EP Act") and the notification issued under the Act. More importantly, the project was causing great harm, and was bound to further devastate the delicate and sensitive ecological balance of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary to which the site of the project lay adjacent. The project was, thus, in complete disregard of this Court's directions concerning `buffer zones'. 2. The State of Uttar Pradesh, of course denies, equally strongly, all the allegations made by the applicants. According to the State, it was setting up a park that would develop and beautify the area in a unique way. The park was conceived as a fine blend of hard and soft landscaping with memorial structures and commemoration pieces. The construction of the park did not violate any law or the order of the Court. There was no infringement of the provisions of the FC Act or the EP Act or the notification made under it. Further, the setting up of the park caused no harm to the bird sanctuary. The applicants' objections to the construction of the park were fanciful and imaginary 4 and actuated by oblique motives. THE PROJECT: 3. Before proceeding to examine the arguments of the two sides in greater detail it would be useful to take a look at the project and to put at one place the basic facts concerning it that are admitted or at any rate undeniable. i.The project is sited at sector 95, Noida. According to the applicants, at the site of the project previously there used to be five parks on the Yamuna front, namely, Mansarovar, Nandan Kanan, Children's Park, Smriti Van and Navagraha, opposite Sectors 14A, 15A and 16A, Noida. The project site, on its western side, lies in very close proximity to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The bird sanctuary was formed as a large water body with the adjoining land-mass of the embankment as a result of the construction of the Okhla Barrage. It falls partly in Delhi and partly (400 hectares in area) in the district of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. The administrative control of the area of the Sanctuary is under the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department and its management is with the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department. The Sanctuary is home to about 302 species of birds. According to the Bombay Natural History Society, out of the bird species found here, 2 are critically endangered, 11 are vulnerable and 7 are nearly threatened. About 50 species are migratory in nature and come here mainly during the winter months. The annual population/visit is estimated as under: 2006- 2007 - 24166 2007-2008 - 17111 2008-2009 - 21272 This haven for birds was declared a bird sanctuary 5 ("the Okhla Bird Sanctuary") vide notification dated May 8, 1990 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh under section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The project, subject of the present controversy, is sited in very close proximity to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary on its eastern side. The applicants refer to it as adjoining the left afflux bund of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary but to be accurate it lies about 35-50 metres away from the outer limit of the Sanctuary. According to the applicants, the boundary of the project site is as under: North- Delhi-UP DND Toll Road South- Not clearly stated East- Dadri Road West- Okhla Bird Sanctuary, left afflux bund ii. The project is spread over an area of 33.43 hectares, equal to 334334.00 square metres of land surrounded by a boundary wall made of stone, 2 metres in height and 0.3 metres in thickness. The estimated cost of the project is Rupees 685 crores. iii. At the site of the project there used to be a tree cover, thin to high- moderate in density and for clearing the ground for the project six thousand one hundred and eighty six (6186) trees were cut down and one hundred and seventy nine (179) were "shifted". These trees were of Subabul, Bottle Brush, Bottle Palm, Morepankhi, Ficus benjamina, Cassia siamia, Eucalyptus, Fishtail palm, Rubber plant, Silver oak, etc. iv. The project, though insisted upon by the Uttar 6 Pradesh Government is nothing but a `recreational park', involves the construction of dedicatory columns, commemorative plaza, national memorial, plinth with sculptures, larger than life-size statues on tall pedestals, large stone tablets with tributary engravings, pedestrian pathways, service block, boundary wall, hard landscape, soft landscape, etc. As initially planned the breakup of the area under different uses was as under: v. 1 Total Area within 3,34,334.00 boundary Wall sq.m. 2 Total built up covered area for activities 3,499.50 1.05% a)Memorial sq.m. Building & 1.05% toilet blocks 3,500.00 b)Utilities & sq.m. facilities 3 Area Under Hard 1,29,140.80 38.62% Landscape sq.m. (including platforms, plinth, sculptures & surrounding paved areas, paths) 4 Total area under Soft Landscape a) Area under 1,57,161.79 47.01% grass & sq.m. plantation 1.85% b) Area under 6,181.91 planters sq.m. built within paved areas 5 Total area for 34,850.00 10.42% vehicular movement sq.m. with grass pavers (maintenances, fire path etc.) 7 vi. According to the State Government, the work on the project commenced in January 2008. The applicants filed IA no.1179 before the Central Empowered Committee (hereafter "CEC") constituted by this Court on March 5, 2009. They filed IA nos. 2609-2610 of 2010 (presently in hand) before this Court on April 22, 2009. According to the State Government, by that time 50% of the construction work of the project was complete. The report from the CEC was received in this Court on September 4, 2009 and on October 9, 2009, this Court by an interim order restrained the State Government from carrying on any further constructions till further orders. By that time, according to the government, 70- 75% of the construction work of the project was completed. vii. In course of hearing of the matter, on a suggestion made by the Court, the State Government modified the layout plan increasing the soft/green area from 47% to 65.28% of the total area of the project. The revised layout plan is as under: S. DESCRIPTION EXISTING MODIFIED No. (in sq. (in sq. metres metres + + %) %) 1. Green Area 157161. 218246.51 79 (65.28%) (47%) 2. Hard Landscape 129140. 98544.99 80 (29.48%) (38.6%) a Boundary Wall 2700.79 2700.79 8 (0.81%) (0.81%) b Platforms, 126440. 95844.99 Plinths, 00 (29.48%) Sculpture & (37.79%) Surrounding Paved Areas 3. Area for 34850.0 0.00 (NIL) vehicular 0 movement (10.42%) 4. Area under 0.00 6302.00 ornamental (NIL) (1.88%) water feature (may be considered part of the Eco Friendly Area) 5. Area under 0.00 4241.00 parking with (NIL) (1.27%) grass pavers (may be considered part of the Eco Friendly Area) 6. Utilities and 3500.00 3500.00 Facilities (1.05%) (1.05%) 7. Memorial 3499.50 3499.50 Building and (1.05%) (1.05%) Toilets 8. Total Area 334334. 334334.00 00 (100%) (100%) Under the amended plan, around 7300 trees, more than 4 years of age and measuring 8-12 feet in height, belonging to the native species such as Neem, Peepal, Pilkhan, Maulsari, Imli, Shisham, Mango, Litchi and Belpatra will be planted in the project area. 4. According to the State Government, the revised 9 plan that includes planting of trees in such large numbers would not only restore the tree cover that was in existence at the site earlier but would make the whole area far better, more beautiful and environment friendly. The applicants however, would have none of it. On their behalf it is contended that the whole project is bad and illegal from every conceivable point of view; its construction was started and sought to be completed at a breakneck speed in flagrant violation of the laws. According to the applicants therefore, all the structures at the project site, complete, semi-complete or under construction must be pulled down and the project site be restored to its original state. THE PROJECT AND SECTION 2 OF THE FC ACT: 5. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that over six thousand trees were admittedly cut down for clearing the area for the construction of the project and it was, thus, clearly a case of forest land being put to use for non-forest purpose in complete violation of section 2 (ii) of the FC Act. 10 Section 2 of the FC Act, in so far as relevant for the present, provides as follows: "2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing.- (i) xxxxxxx (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. (iii)xxxxxxx (iv) xxxxxxx Explanation.- For the purpose of this section "non- forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for- (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than re-afforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild-life, namely, the establishment of check- posts, ire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes." The restriction imposed by section 2(ii) is in respect of forest land. It, therefore, needs to be ascertained whether the project area can be said to be forest land where there was a forest that was cut to make the site clear for the project. 6. In support of the contention that the trees 11 that were cleared for the construction of the project comprised a forest, the applicants rely heavily on the order passed by this court on December 12, 1996 in the case of T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad [Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995), (1997) 2 SCC 267], being the first in a series of landmark orders passed by this Court in an effort to save the fast diminishing forest cover of the country against the greedy and wanton plundering of its natural resources. In that order the Court gave a number of directions. One such direction, at serial no.5 to each of the State Governments, is as under: "Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to: (i) Identify areas which are "forests", irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognized or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest; (ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and (iii)identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons. " 7. In pursuance of the direction of the Court, the Uttar Pradesh Government constituted the State Level Expert Committee for identifying forests and forest- like areas. The Committee in its report dated December 12, 2007 framed certain parameters for identification 12 of forest-like areas according to which, in the plains, any stretch of land over 2 hectares in area with the minimum density of 50 trees per hectare would be considered as "forest". On January 11, 2008 (as taken note of in the order of that date) it was reported to this Court that the guidelines were issued for identification of forest-like areas and steps would be taken to identify "forest-like areas" in all the districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh within four months and such areas would be handed over to the forest department, excepting the private areas, if any. As the process of search and identification of forest like areas in the districts of Uttar Pradesh proceeded, the District Level Committee headed by the District Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar, by its letter dated February 26, 2008 addressed to Conservator Forests & Regional Director intimated that there was no forest-like area in the district and consequently the project site was not identified as a forest or forest-like area by the State Level Expert Committee constituted in pursuance of this Court's order dated December 12, 2006. 13 8. It was in this background that the project started, according to the State Government, in January 2008. When the work on the project became noticeable from the outside the applicants filed their complaint before the CEC on March 5, 2009. As the controversy erupted with regards to "large scale construction near the Okhla Bird Sanctuary by the State Government" the Ministry of Environment and Forests (hereafter "MoEF") asked the Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF), Central Region, Lucknow, to make a site inspection of the project and to give his report. The CCF in his report dated July 10, 2009 did not accept the stand of the State Government that there was no forest on the project site. He stated that 6000 trees were "sacrificed" in an area of 32.5 hectares and that showed that the area had sufficiently dense forest cover and would qualify as "forest" according to the dictionary meaning of the word and as directed by the Supreme Court. He, however, suggested that before taking a final view on the matter a report may be called for from the Forest Survey of India (hereafter "FSI") in order to verify the vegetation cover over 14 the area before the construction work started there. In light of the report by the CCF, the MoEF noted that the number of cut trees, in ratio to the project area, was apparently more than three times in excess of the criterion fixed by the State Level Expert Committee for identification of forest like areas (i.e., minimum of 50 trees per hectare). As suggested by the CCF, therefore, the MoEF called for a report from the FSI based on satellite imagery and properly analysed by GSI application from the year 2001 onwards (vide letter dated July 17, 2009 from the Dy. Conservator of Forest (C) to the Director, Forest Survey of India). The FSI gave its report on August 7, 2009 which we shall examine presently. In light of the report of the CCF and the report from the FSI, the MoEF in its first response to applicants' complaint before the CEC (under covering letter that is undated, received at the CEC on August 12, 2009) stated that at the project site "there was good patch of forests and which could be treated as deemed forest". It further said that the report of the FSI showed that the forest cover existed there up to 2006 and the felling of trees might have 15 taken place after that only. 9. In the meeting convened by the CEC on the applicants' complaint on August 12, 2009, the Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF) MoEF, Lucknow stated that the plantation done in the project area was naturalized and having regard to the number of trees that existed in the area, the project area should be seen as "deemed forest" and, therefore, it attracted the provisions of the FC Act, and any non-forest use of the land required prior approval of the Central Government. In view of the stand taken by the CCF, the CEC by its letter of August 13, 2009 requested the MoEF to give its response on the issue. Here it may be noted that till that stage the stand of the MoEF, based on the reports of the CCF and the FSI, though tentative seemed to be definitely inclined towards holding that the trees that were felled for clearing the site comprised a forest/deemed forest and the construction at the project site was hit by the provisions of the FC Act. But now in a perceptible shift in its stand the MoEF informed the CEC by its letter of August 22/24, 2009 that in its view, the 16 project site did not attract the provisions of the FC Act. It referred to the order of this Court dated December 12, 1996 and pointed out that the project site did not appear in the list of deemed forest land identified by the State Level Expert Committee in pursuance of the order of the Court. It concluded by saying as follows: "In view of the above, it is informed that the area under discussion is neither recorded as forest nor deemed forest and actually an urban tree park. Therefore, construction work in this area does not attract the provision of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980." 10. The letter dated August 22/24, 2009 from the MoEF was followed by another letter of September 2, 2009. This was purportedly to put the observation in the previous letter that "...[C]onstruction work in this area does not attract the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980'' in context. This letter referred to the satellite images provided by the FSI and the reports submitted by the CCF but in the end, "given the sensitivity of the matter and the high degree of public interest" left it to the CEC to draw appropriate conclusions from the materials furnished to it. 17 11. The CEC on a consideration of all the materials made available to it, including the report of the FSI (on which the applicants heavily rely), came to hold and find that the project site was not a forest or a deemed forest or a forest-like area in terms of the order of this Court dated December 12, 1996. In its report to this Court dated September 4, 2009 it observed in this regard as follows: "28..... In the present case, even though as per the Report of the Forest Survey of India, the area was having good forest/tree cover and the project area had more than 6000 trees, it does not fall in the category of "forest" for the purpose of section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and therefore does not require any approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act. The project area does not have naturally grown trees but planted trees. The area has neither been notified as "forest" nor recorded as "forest" in the Government record. In the exercise carried out by the State of Uttar Pradesh, after detailed guidelines for identification of deemed forest were laid down, the project area was not identified to be deemed forest. The CEC does not agree with the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, MoEF, Lucknow that the plantation done in the area has naturalised because of natural regeneration and therefore now falls in the category of deemed forest. Most of the trees are of species such as Subabul, Bottle Brush, Bottle Palm, Morepankhi, Ficus benjamina Cassia siamia, Eucalyptus, Fishtail Palm, Rubber plant, Silver oke etc which are not of natural regeneration. As such hardly any tree of natural regeneration exist. 29. As per the definition of "forest" as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 12.12.1996, the project area therefore cannot be treated as 18 "forest" for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act." (emphasis added) 12. Mr. Jayant Bhushan strongly assailed the finding of the CEC as erroneous. Learned counsel stated that the CEC took the view that the project area could not be described as "forest" and did not attract the provisions of FC Act mainly because the trees in the project area that were cut down for making space for the constructions were planted trees and not naturally grown trees. He contended that the reason given by the CEC was quite untenable being contrary to the judgments of this Court where it is held that forest may be natural or man-made. He further submitted that the view that in order to qualify as forest the trees must be "naturally grown" is fraught with grave consequences inasmuch as a very large portion of the forests in India are planted forests and not original, natural forests. Further, any afforested area would also cease to be recognized as a forest if the view taken by the CEC were to be upheld. 13. The other reasons given by the CEC for holding 19 that the project area was not a forest was that it was neither notified as "forest" nor recorded as "forest" in the Government record and even in the exercise carried out by the State of Uttar Pradesh, after detailed guidelines for identification of deemed forest were laid down, the project area was not identified to be deemed forest. Mr. Bhushan contended that these reasons were as misconceived as the previous one. The area was not notified or recorded as forest meant nothing since this Court had passed a series of orders with the object to bring such areas within the protection of the FC Act that were not notified or recorded as forest. In the same way the failure of the State Level Expert Committee to identify the project area as forest even though it fully satisfied the criterion set by the Committee itself for the purpose will not alter the true nature and character of the area as forest land. 14. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P. strongly supported the view taken by the CEC. Learned counsel submitted that the omission to identify the trees at the project site 20 as forest or deemed forest was not due to any mistake or by chance. He pointed out that in the parameters set out by the State Level Expert Committee for identification of forests or forest-like areas it was clarified that "trees mean naturally grown perennial trees" and it was further stipulated that "the plantation done on public land or private land will not be identified as forest like area". Mr. Venugopal submitted that the guidelines made by the Expert Committee were reported to this Court and accepted by it on December 12, 2007. The project site clearly did not come within the parameters fixed by the Expert Committee and it was rightly not identified as a forest like area. The parameters fixed by the expert committee for identification of forests or forest like area were never challenged by anyone and now it was too late in the day to question those parameters, more so after those were accepted by this Court. Mr. Venugopal contended that the non inclusion of the project site as a forest or forest-like area by the State Level Expert Committee should be conclusive of the fact that the area was not forest land and the 21 trees standing there were no forest. 15. Mr. Bhushan contended that a tract of land bearing a thick cluster of trees that would qualify as forest land and forest as defined by the orders of this Court would not cease to be so simply because the parameters adopted by the Expert Committee were deficient and inconsistent with this Court's orders. In support of the submission that there was actually a forest in that area that was cut down for the project he relied upon the report of the FSI dated August 7, 2009 in which the forest cover status at the project site based on IRS 1D/P6 LI88 III data is shown as follows: Forest Cover Status in the Area of Interest (AOI) of NOIDA from 2001 to 2007 Area in ha. Date of Very Moderatel Open Total Non Total Satellit Dense y Forest Forest Forest Area Assessm e Data Forest Dense Cover ent (sic) Forest (State of Forest Report) 8th October- 0 3.74 10.42 14.16 32.27 46.43 (2001) 2000 9th November 0 6.05 10.71 18.76 29.67 46.43 (2003) -2002 10th November 0 7.54 14.23 21.77 24.66 46.43 (2005) -2004 11th October- 0 9.04 12.73 21.77 24.66 46.43 (2007) 2006 22 16. In the report it was also stated that the latest forest cover assessment by the FSI was based on satellite data of 2006 and it did not have any data of the later period. It further stated that the felling of trees might have taken place after October, 2006. Mr. Bhushan invited our attention to the order of this Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 28 (paragraphs 16, 18, 33, 37, 38) to show that this Court had accepted the reliability of the FSI report based on satellite imagery. 17. Mr. Bhushan also relied upon the report of the CCF, MoEF, Lucknow, a reference to which has already been made above. He also relied upon the first response of the MoEF, where it was stated that at the project site there was a "good patch of forests and which could be treated as a deemed forest" and further that the report of the FSI showed that the forest cover existed there up to 2006 and the felling of trees might have taken place after that only. Mr. Bhushan lastly relied upon the Google image which has a dark patch in approximately 1/3rd of the area 23 interpreted by him as a dense cover of trees. 18. In support of the submissions learned counsel relied greatly on the order passed by this Court on December 12, 1996 in the case of T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad. He also relied upon the decisions of this court in Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 191 (paragraphs 119, 120, 121, 123) and M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 12 SCC 118 (paragraphs 55, 56, 57). 19. The point raised by Mr. Bhushan may be valid in certain cases but in the facts of the case his submissions are quite out of context. In support of the applicants' case that there used to be a forest at the project site he relies upon the report of the CCF based on site inspection and the Google image and most heavily on the FSI report based on satellite imagery and analysed by GSI application. A satellite image may not always reveal the complete story. Let us for a moment come down from the satellite to the earth and see what picture emerges from the government records and how things appear on the ground. 20. In the revenue records, none of the khasras (plots) falling in the project area was ever shown as 24 jungle or forest. According to the settlement year 1359 Fasli (1952A.D.) all the khasras are recorded as agricultural land, Banjar (uncultivable) or Parti (uncultivated). 21. NOIDA was set up in 1976 and the lands of the project area were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act mostly between the years 1980 to 1983 (two or three plots were notified under sections 4/6 of the Act in 1979 and one or two plots as late as in the year 1991). But the possession of a very large part of the lands under acquisition (that now form the project site) was taken over in the year 1983. From the details of the acquisition proceedings furnished in a tabular form (annexure 9 to the Counter Affidavit on behalf of respondents no. 2 & 3) it would appear that though on most of the plots there were properties of one kind or the other, there was not a single tree on any of the plots under acquisition. The records of the land acquisition proceedings, thus, complement the revenue record of 1952 in which the lands were shown as agricultural and not as jungle or forest. There is no reason not to give due credence to these records 25 since they pertain to a time when the impugned project was not even in anyone's imagination and its proponents were no where on the scene. Further, in the second response of the MoEF, dated August 22/24, 2009 there is a reference to the information furnished by the Deputy Horticulture Officer, NOIDA according to which plantations were taken up along with seed sowing of Subabul during the year 1994-95 to 2007-08. A total of 9,480 saplings were planted (including 314 saplings planted before 1994-95). NOIDA had treated this area as an "Urban Park". 22. It is, thus, to be seen that on a large tract of land (33.45 hectares in area) that was forever agricultural in character, trees were planted with the object of creating an urban park (and not for afforestation!). The trees, thus, planted were allowed to stand and grow for about 12-14 years when they were cut down to make the area clear for the project. 23. The satellite images tell us how things stand at the time the images were taken. We are not aware whether or not the satellite images can ascertain the different species of trees, their age and the girth of their trunks, etc. But what is on record does not give 26 us all that information. What the satellite images tell us is that in October, 2006 there was thin to moderately dense tree cover over about half of the project site. But this fact is all but admitted; the State Government admits felling of over 6000 trees in 2008. How and when the trees came up there we have just seen with reference to the revenue and land acquisition proceedings records. Now, we find it inconceivable that trees planted with the intent to set up an urban park would turn into forest within a span of 10 to 12 years and the land that was forever agricultural, would be converted into forest land. One may feel strongly about cutting trees in such large numbers and question the wisdom behind replacing a patch of trees by large stone columns and statues but that would not change the trees into a forest or the land over which those trees were standing into forest land. 24. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Bhushan are also of no help in this case and on the basis of those decisions the trees planted in the project area can not be branded as "forest". 25. In order dated December 12, 1996 in Godavarman 27 Thirumulkpad this Court held and observed as under: "3. It has emerged at the hearing, that there is a misconception in certain quarters about the true scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short the 'Act') and the meaning of the word "forest" used therein. There is also a resulting misconception about the need of prior approval of the Central Government, as required by Section 2 of the Act, in respect of certain activities in the forest area which are more often of a commercial nature. It is necessary to clarify that position. 4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest: must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. and recently in the order dated 29.11.1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these 28 subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay." 26. In the above order the Court mainly said three things: one, the provisions of the FC Act must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification of the forest; two, the word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning and three, the term "forest land", occurring in section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. The order dated December 12, 1996 indeed gives a very wide definition of "forest". But any definition howsoever wide relates to a context. There can hardly be a legal definition, in terms absolute, and totally independent of the context. The context may or may not find any 29 articulation in the judgment or the order but it is always there and it is discernible by a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances in which the definition was rendered. In the order the Court said "The term `forest land occurring in section 2, will not only include `forest' as understood in the dictionary sense, but also an area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership" (emphasis added). Now what is meant by that is made clear by referring to the earlier decision of the court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi, (1985) 3 SCC 643. In the earlier decision in Banshi Ram Modi the Court had said: "10......Reading them together, these two parts of the section mean that after the commencement of the Act no fresh breaking up of the forest land or no fresh clearing of the forest on any such land can be permitted by any State Government or any authority without the prior approval of the Central Government. But if such permission has been accorded before the coming into force of the Act and the forest land is broken up or cleared then obviously the section cannot apply....." 27. The observation in Banshi Ram Modi (which again was made in the peculiar context of that case!) was sought to be interpreted by some to mean that once the land was broken in course of mining operations it 30 ceased to be forest land. It was in order to quell the mischief and the subversion of section 2 of the FC Act that the court in the order dated December 12, 1996 made the observation quoted above italics. 28. In Samatha, this Court was dealing with cases of grant of mining leases to non tribals in reserved forests and forests that were notified as scheduled area under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. It was contended on behalf of the lease holders that the Regulation and the Mining Act do not prohibit grant of mining leases of government land in the scheduled area to non-tribals. The Forest (Conservation) Act or the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, does not apply to renewal of leases. The observations in regard to what constitutes a forest made in paragraphs 119, 120, 121 and 123, relied upon by Mr. Bhushan, was made when it was sought to be argued by the leaseholders that unless the lands are declared either as reserved forests or forests under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, the FC Act had no application. Hence, there was no prohibition to grant mining lease or to renew it by 31 the State government. The context in which the Court expanded the definition of forest is, thus, manifest and evident. 29. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 12 SCC 118, in the paragraphs relied upon by Mr. Bhushan, this Court was considering the question of permitting mining in Aravalli Hills where large scale afforestation was done by spending crores of rupees of foreign funding in an effort to repair the deep ravages caused to the Aravalli Hills range over the years by mostly illegal mining. The context is once again evident. 30. Almost all the orders and judgments of this Court defining "forest" and "forest land" for the purpose of the FC Act were rendered in the context of mining or illegal felling of trees for timber or illegal removal of other forest produce or the protection of National Parks and wild life sanctuaries. In the case in hand the context is completely different. Hence, the decisions relied upon by Mr. Bhushan can be applied only to an extent and not in absolute terms. To an extent Mr. Bhushan is right in contending that a man made forest may equally 32 be a forest as a naturally grown one. He is also right in contending that non forest land may also, with the passage of time, change its character and become forest land. But this also cannot be a rule of universal application and must be examined in the overall facts of the case otherwise it would lead to highly anomalous conclusions. Like in this case, Mr. Bhushan argued that the two conditions in the guidelines adopted by the State Level Expert Committee, i.e., (i) "trees mean naturally grown perennial trees" and (ii) "the plantation done on public land or private land will not be identified as forest like area" were not consistent with the wide definition of forest given in the December 12, 1996 order of the Court and the project area should qualify as forest on the basis of the main parameter fixed by the Committee. If the argument of Mr. Bhushan is accepted and the criterion fixed by the State Level Expert Committee that in the plains a stretch of land with an area of 2 hectares or above, with the minimum density of 50 trees/ hectare would be a deemed forest is applied mechanically and with no regard to the 33 other factors a greater part of Lutyens Delhi would perhaps qualify as forest. This was obviously not the intent of the order dated December 12, 1996. 31. In light of the discussion made above, it must be held that the project site is not forest land and the construction of the project without the prior permission from the Central Government does not in any way contravene section 2 of the FC Act. THE PROJECT AND THE EIA NOTIFICATION 2006: 32. Mr. Jayant Bhushan next contended that the construction of the project was started by the U.P. Government (and was sought to be completed in great haste!) without obtaining the prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority in complete violation of the notification issued by the Central Government on September 14, 2006 under section 3 (3) of the EP Act. 33. Before proceeding to examine the issue in detail it would be useful to see the views taken by the different authorities, agencies and the MoEF on the question whether the law required prior 34 environmental clearance for the project. It appears that once the controversy was raised, the project proponents, by letter dated April 24, 2009 approached the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Uttar Pradesh constituted under the EIA notification, 2006, seeking environmental clearance for the project. In reply the SEIAA by its letter dated May 7, 2009 stated that having regard to the nature and the area of the project it was not covered by the schedule of the notification No. S.O.1533 (E) dated September 14, 2006 issued by the Government of India. 34. Before the CEC, the MoEF in its first response dated August 22/24, 2009 took the stand that the project would not require any prior environmental clearance under the EIA notification 2006. It further stated that in the EIA notification 2006, all building/ construction projects/ area development projects and townships, were categorized as category `B' projects and the `general condition' prescribed in the notification was not applicable to construction projects. It went on to say that the project did not 35 require any prior environmental clearance under the EIA notification 2006 even though "being within the prescribed distance from a wildlife sanctuary/national park or inter-state boundary". It needs to be stated here that the first response of the MoEF before he CEC was evidently based on the inputs received from the UP Government about the nature of the project and the extent of constructions involved in it. 35. In the second response before the CEC dated September 2, 2009 the MoEF did not appear so sure of its earlier stand. It stated that after its earlier letter of August 22, 24, 2009, the MoEF had received further information about the project from various sources and the fresh findings raised far-reaching issues of public concern that extended beyond the parameters set by the EIA notification of 2006. It further stated that the certificate issued by the SEIAA of UP stated that the total built-up covered area was only 9,542 square metres and the report of the CCF was not clear as to the extent of the covered area vis-à-vis concrete landscaping, pillar(s), platform(s), lawn(s), tree planting, etc. To put it 36 simply, the MoEF was not fully in possession of the basic facts relating to the project and its likely impact on the environment. It left the decision in the hands of the CEC. 36. The CEC in its report to this Court dated September 4, 2009 held and found that the project was covered by the EIA notification 2006 and it required prior environmental clearance in terms of the notification. In its report, the CEC observed as follows: "30. The CEC does not agree with the stand taken by the State Government as well as the MoEF that the project does not require environmental clearance in terms of the MoEF notification dated 14.9.2006. The MoEF, as well as the State of Uttar Pradesh has taken this view primarily on the ground that the built up area of the project is less than 20,000 sq. meter and therefore the project does not require environmental clearance. The built up area has been calculated by the State of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of its building bye-laws. The CEC is of the view that for the purpose of environmental clearance, the building bye- laws of the State Government have no relevance at all. As per the details provided by the State Government itself, out of 33.43 ha of the project area, 3499.50 sq. meter is being used for memorial building & toilet blocks, 3500 sq. meter is being used for utilities and facilities, 129140.80 sq. meter area is being used for hard landscape including for platforms, plinth, sculptures & surrounded paved area, path etc. Another 34850 sq. meter area is to be used for vehicular movement. The above comes to more than 50% of the project area which in CEC's view qualify to be included in the activity area. The project cost is about Rs. 685 crores. As per the MoEF notification 37 dated 14.9.2006, for building/construction project, in the case of facilities open to the sky, the activity area is to be included in the built up area. In the present case, after including the activity area the total built up area, for the purpose of environmental clearance, far exceeds the threshold limit of 20,000 sq. meter of built up area provided in the Notification. The MoEF, on its own admission, has merely relied on the details of the built up area as provided by the State Government without independently verifying it and has not included the area falling in the category of activity area. In any case, even if there was any doubt in the MoEF regarding the applicability of the environmental clearance in the present case, in view of precautionary principle it should have erred on the side of the caution and should have insisted for the environmental clearance." 37. When the matter finally came up before the Court the MoEF was once again asked to take a clear stand on the issue whether the project was covered by the EIA notification 2006. The MoEF filed a brief affidavit on October 21, 2009 in which it acknowledged that the CEC in its report dated September 4, 2006 had stated that the State of UP should be directed to seek environmental clearance for the project from the MoEF in terms of the notification. The MoEF, however, reiterated its stand in very definite and unequivocal terms that the project in question did not fall within the ambit of the EIA notification 2006 and no 38 environmental clearance was required for such kind of projects. The stand of the MoEF was based on the premise that the area of the project (33.43 hectares) was less than 50 hectares and its built up area (9,542 square metres) was less than 20,000 square metres. Having thus made its stand clear, the MoEF went on to say that in case the Court desired the project to be appraised from the environmental angle it would do so and submit its recommendations. It, however, put in a caveat that such appraisals were made before the commencement of the construction activity at the site and in the present case the project was already in the advanced stage of construction. 38. On April 22, 2010, this Court passed an order in which after extracting the relevant passage from the affidavit it directed the MoEF, to make a study of the environmental impact of the project. The MoEF was further directed to suggest measures for undoing the environmental degradation, if any, caused by the project and the amelioration measures to safeguard the environment, with particular reference to the adjacent bird sanctuary. 39. As directed by the Court, the MoEF asked the 39 project proponents to submit the details concerning the project in the format prescribed under the EIA notification. It also asked the project proponents to have the environmental impact assessment of the project done by some expert agencies. As required by the MoEF, NOIDA submitted the requisite details concerning the project and the reports on the environmental impact assessment of the project based on studies made by three different agencies (We shall have the occasion to consider those reports in the latter part of the judgment). Thereafter, the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) constituted by the Central Government for the purpose of the EIA notification examined the project in its 88th meeting held on June 28-29, 2010 and gave its report which is brought on record along with an affidavit filed by the State Government on July 22, 2010. In this report the EAC made as many as 15 recommendations to check any environmental degradation or any harm to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary by the project. 40. The MoEF filed yet another affidavit before the Court on August 19, 2010 in which it tried to explain 40 the distinction between clauses 8(a) and 8(b) in the schedule to the EIA notification, 2006 without changing its stand that the project in question did not come within the ambit of the notification. 41. In course of the oral hearing as well, Mr. Raval, learned ASG, firmly maintained that the project did not come under the notification and no prior environmental clearance was required for it under the notification. 42. Mr. Harish Salve, learned amicus curiae and Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Counsel appearing for the applicants, both staunchly contended that the stand of the MoEF was patently wrong and incorrect. The project clearly fell within the ambit of the EIA notification 2006. The CEC had taken the correct view on the issue. And to start the construction of the project and take it into an advanced stage of construction without obtaining prior environmental clearance from the Central Government was in blatant violation of the provisions of the notification. Mr. Salve also criticized the Central Government for taking a shifting and inconsistent stand on the issue. 43. Now is the time to take a closer look at the 41 provisions of the EIA notification no. S.O.1533(E). dated September 14, 2006 issued by the Central Government under section 3 (3) of the EP Act and to consider the submissions advanced by the two sides on that basis. Section 3 (3) of the EP Act provides as follows: "3. Power of Central Government to take measures to protect and improve environment. (1) xxxxxx (2) xxxxxx (3) The Central Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of this Act, by order, published in the Official Gazette, constitute an authority or authorities by such name or names as may be specified in the order for the purpose of exercising and performing such of the powers and functions (including the power to issue directions under section 5) of the Central Government under this Act and for taking measures with respect to such of the matters referred to in sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the order and subject to the supervision and control of the Central Government and the provisions of such order, such authority or authorities may exercise and powers or perform the functions or take the measures so mentioned in the order as if such authority or authorities had been empowered by this Act to exercise those powers or perform those functions or take such measures." 44. In exercise of the powers conferred by the above provision the Central Government in the Ministry 42 of Environment and Forests issued notification no. S. O. 1533(E) on September 14, 2006, which in so far as relevant for the present is reproduced below: "MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS Notification New Delhi, the 14th September, 2006 S.O. 1533(E).- whereas xxxxxx And whereas xxxxxx And whereas xxxxxx 2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC):- The following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category `A' in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category `B' in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity: (i)All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification; (ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization; (iii) Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the 43 specified range. 3. xxxxxx 4. Categorization of projects and activities:- (i) All projects and activities are broadly categorized in to two categories - Category A and Category B, based on the spatial extent of potential impacts and potential impacts on human health and natural and man made resources. (ii) All projects or activities included as Category `A' in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities and change in product mix, shall require prior environmental clearance from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) on the recommendations of an Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) to be constituted by the Central Government for the purposes of this notification; (iii) All projects or activities included as Category `B' in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities as specified in sub paragraph (ii) of paragraph 2, or change in product mix as specified in sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph 2, but excluding those which fulfill the General Conditions (GC) stipulated in the Schedule, will require prior environmental clearance from the State/Union territory Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The SEIAA shall base its decision on the recommendations of a State or Union territory level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) as to be constituted for in this notification. In the absence of a duly constituted SEIAA or SEAC, a Category `B' project shall be treated as a Category `A' project; 5. xxxxxx 44 6. xxxxxx 7. Stages in the Prior Environmental Clearance (EC) Process for New Projects:- 7(i) xxxxxx I. Stage (1) - Screening: In case of Category `B' projects or activities, this stage will entail the scrutiny of an application seeking prior environmental clearance made in Form 1 by the concerned State level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) for determining whether or not the project or activity requires further environmental studies for preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for its appraisal prior to the grant of environmental clearance depending up on the nature and location specificity of the project . The projects requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment report shall be termed Category `B1' and remaining projects shall be termed Category `B2' and will not require an Environment Impact Assessment report. For categorization of projects into B1 or B2 except item 8 (b), the Ministry of Environment and Forests shall issue appropriate guidelines from time to time. 8. xxxxxx 9. xxxxxx 10. xxxxxx 11. xxxxxx 12. xxxxxx SCHEDULE (See paragraph 2 and 7) LIST OF PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRING PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE LIST OF PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRING PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE 45 Category with threshold limit Conditions if Project or Activity any A B 8 Building /Construction projects/Area Development projects and Townships (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 8(a) Building and 20000 sq.mtrs and #(built up area Construction projects <1,50,000 sq.mtrs. for covered of built-up area# construction; in the case of facilities open to the sky, it will be the activity area ) 8(b) Townships and Area Covering an area ++All projects Development projects. 50 ha and or built under Item 8(b) up area 1,50,000 shall be sq .mtrs ++ appraised as Category B1 Note:- General Condition (GC): Any project or activity specified in Category `B' will be treated as Category A, if located in whole or in part within 10 km from the boundary of: (i) Protected Areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (ii) Critically Polluted areas as notified by the Central Pollution Control Board from time to time, (iii) Notified Eco-sensitive areas, (iv) inter-State boundaries and international boundaries." Specific Condition (SC): xxxxxx (I) Basic Information xxxxxx (II) Activity 1. Construction, operation or decommissioning of the Project involving actions, which will cause physical changes in the locality (topography, land use, changes in water bodies, etc.) 46 Details thereof S.No. Information/Checklist confirmation Yes/No (with approximate quantities /rates, wherever possible) with source of information data 1.1 Permanent or temporary change in land use, land cover or topography including increase in intensity of land use (with respect to local land use plan) 1.2 Clearance of existing land, vegetation and buildings? 1.3 Creation of new land uses? 1.4 Pre-construction investigations e.g. bore houses, soil testing? 1.5 Construction works? 1.6 Xxxxxx | | | | 1.31 Xxxxxx 45. In substance the EIA notification provides that all projects and activities enumerated in its Schedule would require prior environmental clearance before any construction work or preparation of land for the project is started on the project or activity. The projects and activities depending upon various factors such as the potential hazard to environment, location, the extent of area involved, etc. are categorized in categories `A' or `B'. For projects or activities falling in category `A', the competent authority to grant prior environmental clearance is the MoEF and 47 for projects or activities falling in category `B', the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The constitution of the SEIAA is provided for in clause 3 of the notification with which we are not concerned in this case. In certain cases a project or activity, though categorized in category `B' may be treated as category `A' by application of the general condition (on account of its location being within a distance of ten km from a protected area notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act etc.). In other words, if a project or activity attracts the general condition, the competent authority to grant prior environmental clearance in that case would be the Central Government, even though, the project or activity may figure in the Schedule in category `B'. Further, projects or activities categorized as category `B' may or may not require an environmental impact assessment before the grant of environmental clearance depending on the nature and location specificity of the project. The projects requiring an EIA report shall be termed as category `B1' and the remaining shall be termed as `B2' and will not require 48 an EIA report. For categorization of projects into B1 and B2, the MoEF would issue appropriate guidelines from time to time. The schedule to the notification has a table that is divided into five columns. The first column contains the serial numbers, and the second the description of the project or activities; the third column lists those projects or activities that fall in category `A' and the fourth, those falling in category `B'; the fifth column against each item indicates whether any general or specific condition applies to the project or activity described in that item. In some cases where the project or the activity is shown in column 4 as category `B', the application of the general condition is expressly indicated in column 5 of the table. 46. For the project under consideration, the relevant entries in the schedule are 8(a) and 8(b). Both items 8 (a) and 8 (b) are listed in column 4, i.e., in category `B'. In column 5, against any of the two items, there is no mention of application of the general condition but it is expressly said that all projects in item 8(b) would be appraised as category 49 `B1', that is to say, for a project under item 8(b) the prior environmental clearance must be preceded by an environmental impact assessment. 47. Item 8(a) deals with Building and Construction projects and the threshold mark that would bring the project within the ambit of the notification is equal to or more than 20,000 square metres and less than 1,50,000 square metres of `built-up area'. It is further clarified that the aforementioned figures relate to built-up area for covered construction; in case of facilities open to the sky, the built up area would be the activity area. Item 8(b) deals with Townships and Area Development projects and the threshold mark for the project to come within the ambit of the notification is an area equal to or more than 50 hectares or built-up area of more than 1,50,000 square metres. 48. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, supported by the amicus curiae forcibly argued that the project under consideration would clearly fall under item 8 (a) of the Schedule. He submitted that though the area of covered construction in the project was only 6999.50 square metres, the project by its very nature provided 50 facilities open to the sky and in that case, the whole of the activity area would constitute the built-up area. He then referred to the definition of activity [that includes (i) permanent or temporary change in land use, land cover or topography including increase in intensity of land use (with respect to local land use plan), (ii) clearance of existing land, vegetation and buildings? (iii) creation of new land uses? and (iv) pre-construction investigations e.g. bore houses, soil testing?]. He contended that in view of the definition of activity, virtually the entire area of 33.43 hectares from where over 6000 trees were removed for clearing the project site would come within the `activity area' and would, thus, form the built-up area under item 8 (a) of the schedule. Further, since the project was located adjacent to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary, it would, without doubt, attract the general condition which provided that any project or activity specified in category `B' will be treated as category `A', if located within 10km from the boundary of protected areas notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Mr. Bhushan insisted that the 51 general condition would apply to the project by virtue of its very close proximity to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary, regardless of the fact that in column 5 of the table there is no mention of application of the general condition against item 8(a). The application of the general condition would take the project out of category `B' and put it in category `A' for which the competent authority to grant prior environmental clearance is the MoEF. He then referred to the office memo dated December 2, 2009 issued by the MoEF which in course of hearing was, in all fairness, produced by Mr. Raval, learned ASG, appearing for the MoEF. The office memorandum inter alia provides that ".....while granting environmental clearance to projects involving forestland, wildlife habitat (core one of elephant/tiger reserve, etc.) and or located within 10km of the National Park/ Wildlife Sanctuary (at present the distance of 10km has been taken in conformity with the order dated 4.12.2006 in writ petition no. 460 of 2004 in the matter of Goa Foundation v. Union of India), a specific condition shall be stipulated that the environmental clearance 52 is subject to their obtaining prior clearance from forestry and wildlife angle including clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife as applicable.....". Mr. Bhushan submitted that the project under consideration thus does not only require a prior environmental clearance but also a clearance from forestry and wildlife angle including clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife as precondition for the grant of environmental clearance by the MoEF. 49. Mr. Bhushan's arguments proceed in four steps. He first puts the project in item 8(a) of the Schedule as a Building and Construction project. Then, in the second step, in order to cross the threshold marker he refers to the definition of "activity" to contend that since the project provides facilities open to sky its entire area of 33.43 hectares would constitute the built-up area. In the third step, he brings in the general condition (even though in regard to item 8(a) its application is not mentioned in column 5 of the table) that would make the Central Government as the competent authority for granting prior environmental 53 clearance for the project. And lastly, in the fourth step he refers to the office memorandum dated December 2, 2009 to contend that a clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife was a precondition for the grant of the prior environmental clearance by the MoEF. 50. Long and elaborate submissions were made from both sides in regard to the application of the general condition to this project. Mr. Venugopal, senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P. and Mr. Raju Ramachandran, senior counsel appearing for NOIDA submitted that the general condition would have no application to projects under items 8(a) or 8(b) for the simple reason that in regard to those items there was no mention of the general condition in column 5 of the table. Mr. Venugopal submitted, and not entirely without substance that if the general condition were to apply to items 8(a) and 8(b) without being mentioned in column 5 of the table then it would not make any sense to expressly mention it in column 5 in respect of some other projects and activities classified in category `B' in the schedule. 51. Mr. Raval, learned ASG, produced before the 54 Court, the draft notification no. S.O. 1324E, published in the Gazette of India: Extraordinary of September 15, 2005. In the draft notification there were two general conditions, GC1 and GC2 and in regard to (a) "Construction of all projects (residential and non residential)", and (b) "New Townships and Settlement Colonies, the application of GC2 was expressly indicated in column 5 of the table. Later on, in a meeting held on July 6, 2006, chaired by none else than the Prime Minister, it was decided to leave all construction and township projects, housing and area development projects in the hands of the State Government. It was further decided that for all projects involving more than 1,50,000 square metres of built up area and/or covering more than 50 hectares, the EIS requirements should correspond to category `A, even though the clearance would be granted by the State Government. Mr. Raval submitted that in light of the decision taken in that meeting, in the final notification issued on September 14, 2006, the application of general condition was removed in respect of items 8(a) and 8(b) in the schedule. In 55 view of the changes made in the two items in the final notification, Mr. Raval also contended that the general condition has no application to items 8(a) and 8(b), regardless of the project's proximity to any sanctuary or reserved area. 52. But before considering the latter three limbs of Mr. Bhushan's arguments it is necessary to examine whether the project in question can be legitimately categorized as a Building and Construction project falling under item 8(a) of the schedule which is the first premise of his arguments. 53. In the schedule to the notification "Building and Construction projects" and "Townships and Area Developments projects" are enumerated separately, the former in item 8(a) and the latter in item 8(b). This would normally suggest that the notification treats those two kinds of projects separately and differently. It would, therefore, be reasonable to say that an "Area Development project" though involving a good deal of construction would yet not be a "Building and Construction project". When it was pointed out to Mr. Bhushan that the project in question may be put more appropriately in category 8(b) as an "Area 56 Development project" rather than a "Building and Construction project" under category 8(a), in reply he took a line that nullifies any distinction between the two. Mr. Bhushan submitted that so far as construction projects are concerned there is no qualitative difference between items 8(a) and 8(b) and the difference between the two items was only quantitative. Projects were categorized under items 8(a) or 8(b) as "Building and Construction projects' or "Townships and Area Development projects" not on the basis of their nature and character but depending upon the extent of construction. Learned counsel pointed out that the upper limit under item 8(a) (1,50,000 square metres of built-up area) was the threshold mark under item 8(b) and contended that this was a clear indication that projects with built up area up to 1,50,000 square metres would be defined as "Building and Construction projects" and projects with built up area in excess of 1,50,000 square metres would be categorized as "Townships and Area Development projects". In support of the contention, Mr. Bhushan gave the example of a "Building and 57 Construction project", consisting of a number of multi-storied buildings, the aggregate of the built-up area of which exceeds 1,50,000 square metres. Mr. Bhushan submitted that since the total built-up area of the project crosses the upper limit of item 8(a) the project would not fall within that item. But at the same time since the project is a "Building and Construction project" and not a "Township and Area Development project", it would not come under item 8(b) and this would be indeed a highly anomalous position where a project with a smaller built-up area would fall within the ambit of the notification, whereas a project with a larger built-up area would escape the rigours of the notification. 54. The amicus, also arguing in the same vein, submitted that as far as building and construction projects are concerned there was no qualitative difference in items 8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule to the notification. A combined reading of the two clauses of item 8 of the schedule would show the continuity in the two provisions; 1,50,000 square metres of built up area that was the upper limit in 58 item 8(a) was the threshold marker in item 8(b). This clearly meant that building and construction projects with built-up area/activity area between 20000 square metres to 1,50,000 square metres would fall in category 8 (a) and projects with built up area of 1,50,000 square metres or more would fall in category 8 (b). The amicus further submitted that though it was not expressly stated, the expression "Built Up area" in item 8(b) must get the same meaning as in item 8(a), that is to say, if the construction had facilities open to sky the whole of the "activity area" must be deemed to constitute the "built-up area". 55. It is extremely difficult to accept the contention that the categorization under items 8 (a) and 8 (b) has no bearing on the nature and character of the project and is based purely on the built up area. A building and construction project is nothing but addition of structures over the land. A township project is the development of a new area for residential, commercial or industrial use. A township project is different both quantitatively and 59 qualitatively from a mere building and construction project. Further, an area development project may be connected with the township development project and may be its first stage when grounds are cleared, roads and pathways are laid out and provisions are made for drainage, sewage, electricity and telephone lines and the whole range of other civic infrastructure. Or an area development project may be completely independent of any township development project as in case of creating an artificial lake, or an urban forest or setting up a zoological or botanical park or a recreational, amusement or a theme park. 56. The illustration given by Mr. Bhushan may be correct to an extent. Constructions with built up area in excess of 1,50,000 would be huge by any standard and in that case the project by virtue of sheer magnitude would qualify as township development project. To that limited extent there may be a quantitative correlation between items 8(a) and 8(b). But it must be realized that the converse of the illustration given by Mr. Bhushan may not be true. For example, a project which is by its nature and 60 character an "Area Development project" would not become a "Building and Construction project" simply because it falls short of the threshold mark under item 8 (b) but comes within the area specified in item 8 (a). The essential difference between items 8(a) and 8(b) lies not only in the different magnitudes but in the difference in the nature and character of the projects enumerated there under. 57. In light of the above discussion it is difficult to see the project in question as a "Building and Construction project". Applying the test of `Dominant Purpose or Dominant Nature' of the project or the "Common Parlance" test, i.e. how a common person using it and enjoying its facilities would view it, the project can only be categorized under item 8(b) of the schedule as a Township and Area Development project". But under that category it does not come up to the threshold marker inasmuch as the total area of the project (33.43 hectares) is less than 50 hectares and its built-up area even if the hard landscaped area and the covered areas are put together comes to 1,05,544.49 square metres, i.e., 61 much below the threshold marker of 1,50,000 square metres. 58. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that the project does not fall within the ambit of the EIA notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006. This is not to say that this is the ideal or a very happy outcome but that is how the notification is framed and taking any other view would be doing gross violence to the scheme of the notification. 59. Since it is held that the project does not come within the ambit of the notification, the other three arguments based on the activity area, the application of general condition and the application of the office memorandum dated December 2, 2009 become irrelevant and need not be gone into in this case. THE PROJECT AND THE OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY: 60. Mr. Bhushan next raised the issue of the project being located virtually adjoining the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The very close proximity of the project site to the bird sanctuary actually raises issues of serious concern and poses a dilemma. On the one hand the project proponents can not be said to have broken any law or violated a definite order or 62 direction of the court but on the other hand the project may possibly cause serious and irreparable harm to the bird sanctuary. 61. Before the CEC the State Government took the plea that the project area was situated well outside the boundaries of the bird sanctuary and the construction of the project had caused no adverse impact on the Sanctuary. It was further stated that NOIDA which was the project proponent was equally conscious about its responsibility in regard to the preservation and conservation of the habitat of the Sanctuary. A management plan for the Sanctuary was being prepared by the Wildlife Institute of Dehradun for which NOIDA had released Rs.17,35,350.00 in favour of the Institute and the NOIDA was also planning to set up a corpus for the Scientific and effective implementation of the Management Plan. 62. On this issue the MoEF in its responses before the CEC put the blame squarely on the State Government. It stated that despite its letter of May 27, 2005 followed by a number of reminders the Government of Uttar Pradesh did not submit its 63 proposal for declaration of "Eco-sensitive Zone" around the Sanctuaries and National Parks. It further stated that the State Government failed to take any steps in this regard even after the order of this Court passed on December 4, 2006 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460/2004 by which the MoEF was directed to give all the States final opportunity to send their proposals for declaration of "Eco-sensitive Zones" to the MoEF within four weeks. The MoEF made the accusation that in the case of the present project the State Government of Uttar Pradesh was trying to take advantage of its own omission. In its second response dated August 22-24, 2009, however, the MoEF, though still blaming the UP Government for its failure to notify the "Eco-sensitive Zones" conceded that "till Eco-sensitive zone is declared the construction work did not seem to violate any law/Act". But it went on to say that having regard to its location the project was better suited to be made part of extension of the bird sanctuary. 63. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh took the stand that no proposals were sent from its side 64 because the MoEF failed to issue the necessary guidelines for the purpose. On behalf of the State of UP, reference was made to a meeting called by the Director General of Forests and Special Secretary, MoEF on May 13, 2010. In that meeting it was decided that the Director General of Forests, MoEF would constitute a committee of officers to finalize the guidelines for declaration of eco-sensitive zones. A reference was also made to a subsequent meeting held on July 4, 2010 at Lucknow in which the attention of the Government of India was drawn to the decision taken in the earlier meeting. Yet, no guidelines were issued by the Government of India so far. 64. The CEC in its report to the Court dated September 4, 2009 put the blame on the State Government of UP for its omission to identify the Eco- sensitive zones but like the MoEF seemed to accept that in the absence of a decision/notification there was no legal bar against the construction of the project on the ground that it was sited adjacent to the bird sanctuary. In its report to the Court, the CEC observed as follows: 65 32. The issue regarding identification/notification of Eco-Sensitive Zone around the National Park and Sanctuaries is presently pending for consideration before this Hon'ble Court. The National Board of Wild Life (NBWL) had earlier decided that area within 10 km around National Parks/Sanctuaries should be the Eco- Sensitive Zone. Later on, it was decided by the NBWL that Eco-Sensitive Zone should be specific to each National Park/Sanctuary. The CEC had recommended that 500 meter around National Park/Sanctuary should be declared as Eco-Sensitive Zone. The recommendation of the CEC has not so far been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after the Learned Amicus Curiae took a view that 500 meter may not be adequate. Pursuant to this Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 4.8.2006 in the TWP matter, mining is presently prohibited up to a distance of one kilometre from the boundary of National Parks/Sanctuaries. For other projects, no restriction has so far been imposed. The MoEF has time and again requested the States/UT's to identify the eco-sensitive zone around the National Parks/Sanctuaries. However, the State of Uttar Pradesh has so far not prepared any proposal in this regard. The CEC is of the view that in the absence of a decision/notification, presently there is no legal restriction against the implementation of the project on the ground that the project is adjacent to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. 33. However, it has to be borne in mind that the project area is hardly at a distance of 50 meter from the Okhla Bird Sanctuary and that in all probability the project site would have fallen in the Eco- Sensitive Zone, had a timely decision in this regard been taken by the State Government/ MoEF. (emphasis added) 65. The report of the CEC succinctly sums up the situation. Though everyone, excepting the project 66 proponents, views the construction of the project practically adjoining the bird sanctuary as a potential hazard to the sensitive and fragile ecological balance of the Sanctuary there is no law to stop it. This unhappy and anomalous situation has arisen simply because despite directions by this Court the authorities in the Central and the State Governments have so far not been able to evolve a principle to notify the buffer zones around Sanctuaries and National Parks to protect the sensitive and delicate ecological balance required for the sanctuaries. 66. But the absence of a statute will not preclude this Court from examining the project's effects on the environment with particular reference to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. For, in the jurisprudence developed by this Court Environment is not merely a statutory issue. Environment is one of the facets of the right to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution1. Environment is, therefore, a matter 1 M.C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 985 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 463 M.C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 1115 Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangarsh Samiti v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 2060 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420 Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577 B.L. Wadehra v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 594 67 directly under the Constitution and if the Court perceives any project or activity as harmful or injurious to the environment it would feel obliged to step in. The question of the likelihood of the project causing any adverse effects on the Okhla Bird Sanctuary must, therefore, be examined from this angle. 67. We may note here that Mr. Venugopal presented before us some photographs trying to show the situation on the western boundary of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary at its Delhi end. In the photographs there is a road, about forty to sixty feet wide, (The Kalindikunj-Irrigation Colony-Batla Road) running right next to the wire mesh fencing of the Sanctuary. Next to the road is a long row of cheek by jowl concrete structures/houses that seem to lean against one another. The road has the bustling traffic of Delhi where all kinds of vehicles (and cattle!) appear jostling for space. The situation on the western boundary of the Sanctuary is indeed deplorable but Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715 Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606 Ramji Patel v. Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch, (2000) 3 SCC 29 State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389 68 that is no reason to strangulate the Sanctuary from the NOIDA side as well. 68. Earlier in the judgment, it is noted that on April 22, 2010, the Court had asked the MoEF to make a study of the environmental impact of the project and to suggest measures for undoing the environmental degradation, if any, caused by the project and the amelioration measures to safeguard the adjacent bird sanctuary. In pursuance of the Court's directions the MoEF had asked the project proponents to have the environmental impact assessment of the project done by some expert agencies. NOIDA, the project proponent got three studies made of the impact assessment of the project. One is a joint study prepared by the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON), Deccan Regional Station, Hyderabad and the All India Network Project on Agricultural Ornithology, Aacharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad (Annexure II of Paper book Volume IV); the other by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) (Annexure III of Paper book Volume IV); and the third by a group of three individuals that was vetted by the Indian 69 Institute of Technology, New Delhi (Annexure IV of Paper book Volume IV). 69. The SACON, in its report practically gave a clean chit to the project and made the following observations in connection with the felling of trees and the impact of the project construction on the Okhla Bird Sanctuary: · The Okhla Bird Sanctuary is primarily an urban wetland and supports primarily water birds majority of them migrating and using in the winter season. These are confined to the water bodies and peripheral marshy vegetation and were not nesting or roosting on the trees of the adjacent parks. The extent of terrestrial habitat is the sanctuary is very small or insignificant. · The entire development works including removal of trees and construction had taken place outside the boundary of the sanctuary and the construction and felling of trees in the project site has not altered or interfered with the wetland ecosystem of the OBS and the area was undisturbed. · The birds in the wetland of Okhla Bird Sanctuary are estimated during the month of January by the Wildlife Wing of U.P. Forest Department during winter, which is the period for the migratory birds. The estimation of birds are as under: 2007-08 : 17,111 2008-09 : 21,272 2009-10 : 22,004 · The clearing of the project site for construction and landscaping was started in the month of the January, 2008 and continued till 9th October, 2009. The bird estimates during migratory season 70 clearly shows that there has been no reduction in the number of birds in the sanctuary despite developmental activities in the park. This clearly shows that the construction and felling of trees in the project site has no impact on OBS. · It appears that the existence of High tension line along the boundary wall of the project site before the start of the project might have been a barrier for movement of the birds from OBS as high electro magnetic influence would restrict the movement of birds. Hence, the construction and the felling of trees in the project site has minimal influence on the OBS. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that felling of trees and construction have no perceptible impact on the OBS habitat." 70. The SACON suggested certain proactive environmental measures (see Paper book Volume IV, page 110) that would form part of this judgment. 71. The other report by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) is not so sanguine about the project's impact on the bird sanctuary. In the WII report under the heading "Assessment of the Impact" it was observed as under: "....From this, it is concluded that the erstwhile woodland would have been used by 51-101 species of terrestrial birds and was an extended habitat for the wildlife of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary, primarily terrestrial birds. Some of these birds may be using the erstwhile woodland for breeding as well... 71 ".....The erstwhile woodland was acting as a buffer against these disturbances. The project area which was in continuation with the vegetation along the left afflux bund was providing a green belt approximately 2 km long and 218 m wide on and average. Before the felling of trees this patch might have acted as a protective green belt of approximately 190 m width with a tree density of 203.5 trees/ ha (density of trees felled) which is now reduced to approximately 28 m (between the western wall of the project and OBS boundary of left afflux dam). From this it is concluded that the Sanctuary lost its buffer of around 33.43 ha that will have significant impact on the OBS and its tranquility.... "...Such carbon sequestration value of the erstwhile woodland was lost, though the NOIDA has already taken up ameliorative steps in form of afforestation in and around the project site.... "....With the loss of buffer and increased artificial light at the project site, it is likely that the migratory bird population may get affected in long run. Bird friendly diffused light with blue tinge may reduce the negative impacts, though much research on this aspect is required." 72. The WII also suggested certain mitigation measures (see Paper book Volume IV, page 134) that would form part of this judgment. 73. The IIT, New Delhi in its review of the report prepared by the group of three people does not record any serious negative finding in regard to the effects that the project may have on the Sanctuary. 74. Finally, the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) 72 constituted by the Government of India, MoEF in its 88th meeting held on June 28-29, 2010, reviewed the project in question in light of the aforementioned reports and made a number of recommendations (Paper book Volume III, page 32) that would form part of this judgment. 75. It is significant to note that none of the expert bodies has taken the view that the project is so calamitous or ruinous for the bird sanctuary that it needs to be altogether scrapped in order to save the Sanctuary. The expert bodies have given recommendations which allow the completion of the project subject to certain conditions. On behalf of the State of U.P. it is unequivocally stated that all the conditions laid in the reports of the Expert Bodies are acceptable to the State Government/ NOIDA in their entirety. In light of the two study reports and the report submitted by the EAC, we see no justification for directing the demolition of the constructions made in the project, as prayed for on behalf of the applicants. We would rather allow the project to be completed, subject, of course to the 73 conditions suggested by the three expert bodies and further subject to the directions contained herein below. 76. It may be noted that the report of the WII has focused on the felling of trees resulting in the disappearance of the woodland that acted as a protective buffer for the bird sanctuary and its first recommendation is to compensate the loss of vegetation. It has secondly focused on the increased artificial light at the project site, which is likely to affect the migratory bird population in the long run. Apart from this, we feel that the extent of stone and concrete constructions in the name of "hard landscaping" is highly out of proportion. In the modified layout plan, the project proponents have reduced the area under hard surface to 35.54% of the total project area. In our opinion, even that is unacceptable from the environmental point of view. The area under hard surface, whether covered, uncovered (including pathways and boundary wall etc.) or of any kind whatsoever must not exceed 25% of the total project area; of the rest, 25% should be used for 74 soft/green landscaping and the remaining, preferably 50% must have a thick cover of trees of the native variety, a list of which is given by the State of UP (Annexure 4(b), Paper book Volume IV) The plantation of trees should be especially dense towards the Okhla Bird Sanctuary on the western side of the project area. Any construction work should commence only on completion of the planting of the trees. 77. In order to ensure full compliance with the recommendations of the expert bodies (which form part of the judgment) and the directions of this Court, the construction of the project needs to be overseen by an expert committee. One member of the committee, preferably an ornithologist will be nominated by the MoEF, the other member will be nominated by the CEC in consultation with the amicus and the Chairman-cum-CEO of NOIDA will be the member-secretary of the committee. The committee should be constituted within two weeks from today. 78. It is made clear that the above directions are given in the peculiar facts of this case and nothing said in the judgment shall form precedent when the court is hearing the matter of the "buffer zones". 75 79. Before putting down the records of the case a few observations may not be out of place. The EIA notification dated September 14, 2006 urgently calls for a close second look by the concerned authorities. The projects/activities under items 8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule to the notification need to be described with greater precision and clarity and the definition of built-up area with facilities open to the sky needs to be freed from its present ambiguity and vagueness. The question of application of the general condition to the projects/activities listed in the schedule also needs to be put beyond any debate or dispute. We would also like to point out that the environmental impact studies in this case were not conducted either by the MoEF or any organization under it or even by any agencies appointed by it. All the three studies that were finally placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee and which this Court has also taken into consideration, were made at the behest of the project proponents and by agencies of their choice. This Court would have been more comfortable if the environment 76 impact studies were made by the MoEF or by any organization under it or at least by agencies appointed and recommended by it. 80. The IAs stand disposed of with the above observations and directions. ........................CJI. ..........................J. (AFTAB ALAM) ...........................J. (K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN) New Delhi, December 3, 2010 77 APPENDIX I (by SACON): 7. SUGGESTED PROACTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES Although there appears to be no perceptible impact, as a precautionary approach, we suggest following measures for the overall improvement of the OBS: 1. The periodical removal of water hyacinth should be ensured for better quality of water. 2. Artificial nest boxes should be placed along the western boundary of the sanctuary and adjoining parts to enhance breeding potential of birds. 3. Periodical monitoring of water quality parameters should be undertaken to enhance wetland dependent species and their population. 4. Regular monitoring of population of avi fauna should be undertaken. On the terrestrial habitat, also monitoring of small mammals may be carried out. 5. Extensive planting of native species suitable for urban habitat should be done more than 10 times in and around the project area. This will in turn help in sustainability of key bird species. It is noteworthy to mention that NOIDA Authority has already planted 1,70,000 saplings. 6. For the scientific management of the OBS, the prescriptions of the Management Plan under preparation by the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun should be followed with necessary financial support. 7. Inside the sanctuary, battery operated vehicles should be used for visitors. 8. For the effective protection and management of 78 the OBS, the sanctuary should be suitably fenced. 9. In view of its unique location and interspersion of ecological settings of various landscape elements, it is suggested that the proposed park may have an ecological interpretation centre. APPENDIX II (by WII): 5. SUGGESGED MITIGATION MEASURES To mitigate the loss of tree cover and the change in landscape structure due to the construction of the Park and subsequent anticipated increase in disturbance due to the increased human activities adjacent to the OBS, following mitigation measures have been suggested: (1)Re-vegetation of the Project site to compensate the loss of vegetation: Ameliorative measures have already been taken up by the NOIDA by planting both native and exotic species within in the project area and on the eastern flank of left afflux bund of the Yamuna River/OBS at close spacing. However, emphasis should be given to propagate only the native species. (2)Reduction of adverse impact on the OBS: It is suggested that buffer at the north and north eastern side of the Sanctuary to reduce direct disturbance to the OBS may be created. The area north of the weir bund of the OBS is a promising site for water birds which prefer shallow water or grass growth particularly geese and waders. It is suggested that the waterlogged Yamuna floodplain north to the OBS and up to the DND flyover having an area of 130 ha (Fig.1) may be included with the OBS or protection to it as the buffer under the provision of WPA, 1972 be provided. 79 The strip of woodland with an area of 24 ha immediately to the north of the project area (Fig.1) needs to be protected as buffer of the OBS also and its land-use needs to be maintained unaltered. Being in close proximity of the OBS it will have an ameliorative effect on the Sanctuary. It would also provide additional habitat to the terrestrial bird species of the OBS. Efforts should also be made to keep the intensity of artificial light and noise at the project site to a bare minimum during night, especially after sunset in migratory seasons of birds (October- March). Bird friendly diffused light with blue tinge during night, may reduce the negative impacts if any on OBS, though much research on this aspect is required. It is suggested that at the periphery of the OBS, fence wherever not existing be created and the breach in the existing fence be mended on priority. (3)Eliciting support from the Government of Delhi for the conservation of OBS: As the OBS is a interstate Protected Area having open access from all side it is imperative that the Government of Delhi may also be persuaded to take active part in its management. (4)Ensuring financial commitment for the improved conservation management of the Park: As per the Order of the Honorable Supreme Court granted for other development project adjacent to Protected Area (e.g. IA No.856/2006), 5% of the total costs of the project be deposited with the Forest Department, Government of U.P. to improve the ecosystem structure and functions, waterbird habitat, public amenities and interpretation centre and improved management of the OBS. APPENDIX III (by EAC): During discussions following points emerged: 80 i) Noida Authority, while making presentation, informed that the project involves the renovation, preservation and beautification of Park on a total plot area is 33.43 Ha. The total built-up area of the covered construction is 6,999 sq. m. Before the development of site there were 6,803 trees of different species out of which 6241 trees were cut and 562 trees were shifted to other parks. Further they informed that the following components of the project have already been completed: (a) Boundary wall and gate - 90% (b) Construction of Monument building - 60% (c) Landscaping and plantation - 80% (d) Pavements - 75% The other infrastructural works proposed by Noida Authority for environmental safeguards/measures and for effective EMP are use of treated waste water, sold waste management, energy saving, tree plantation and parking etc. The other works which are important in the context of Okhla Bird Sanctuary are control of noise, glare and efficient traffic management. (ii) Possibility should be explored to increase the greenery and plant broad leaf native trees along the pathways inside and outside the park. This will help in the reduction of surface runoff. (iii) The water quality and water balance are key elements and require detailed management and monitoring. No fresh water/ground water should be used for gardening/horticulture purposes. The requirement of water should be met from self recycling treated sewage without placing of strain on the supply system for the nearby residential and commercial areas. (iv) Treated waste water from Sector 54 Sewerage Treatment Plant is proposed for horticulture purposes. It must also be utilised as much as possible for such purposes as toilet flushing and pavement/ floor washing. The aforesaid purposes will need tertiary 81 treatment of sewage. v) No more than 20 per cent of rain water shall be discharged out of the project site into the existing drain. The rain water harvesting system should be designed based on the soil characteristics and highest level of ground water table. vi) The species of trees inside the park and in buffer zone both on Okhla Bird Sanctuary side and road side should be of indigenous types that do not disturb the water balance of the area. The grass and artificial plantations which are not native should be avoided. vii) Adequate noise barriers in the form of thick plantation of appropriate species of trees and bushes laid in a tiered form to create a green screen on either side of bund road should be provided. A no horn zone should be declared and maintained around the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The development of green belt and tree plantation shall be carried out in consultation with Indian Council of Forest Research and Education, Dehradun. (viii) Solar energy should be utilized for illumination of common areas, lighting of gardens and paved footpaths etc. (ix) No artificial illumination on tall poles or towers should be allowed inside the park during the night hours. The street lights on the bund road and the round about should be of special design, low intensity and low height with least disturbance to the birds' habitat. (x) The solid waste generated should be properly collected and segregated before disposal. The in- vessel bio-conservation technique should be used for composting the organic waste. (xi) The opening of the park would increase the traffic load on the front road and adjoining link road intersections. A detailed traffic study should be 82 carried out and proposals for necessary widening redesign of intersections and strengthening of road structure should be prepared. (xii) Provision of a parking area is proposed inside the park. Allocation and configuration of spaces for other modes of transport like mini buses, 2-3 wheelers, cycle-rickshaws and bicycles and even pedestrians have to be considered for realistic assessment of traffic and parking management. (xiii) All required sanitary and hygienic measures should be in place before the opening of the park and should be maintained through out the operation. (xiv) Adequate drinking water and sanitary facilities should be provided in the park. (xv) A monitoring committee should be constituted for overseeing the project so as to ensure effective implementation and compliance to environmental safeguards. ********* 83 ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2609-2610/2009 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 WITH I.A. NO.2896/2010, I.A. NO.2900/2010 AND I.A. NO.2928/2010 IN I.A. NOS.2609-2610 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY ANAND ARYA & ANR. Applicant(s)/ T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment, direction, permission to file additional documents and permission to file additional affidavit) Date : 03/12/2010 This Matter was called on for judgement today. Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) In WP 202/1995: For Respondent(s) Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. Satish C. Misra,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv. Mr. Shail K. Dwivedi,Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey,Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. ....2/- 84 - 2 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam pronounced the judgement of the Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice, His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan. The interlocutory applications stand disposed of with observations and directions made in the judgment. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar [Signed reportable judgement is placed on the file] 85 PART-HEARD ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL & XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380, 2568 AND 2937 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For direction and intervention on behalf of Lafonge Union Mining P. Ltd., vacation of interim order dated 23.11.2007, seeking permission to bring additional facts and documents on record, challenging the revised environmental clearance dated 19th April, 2010 and forest clearance dated 22nd April, 2010) [Lafarge Matter] With Transfer Petition (C) No.277 of 2010 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay, exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 03/12/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) In WP 202/1995: In TP 277/2010: Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv, Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma,Adv. Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. ...2/- 86 - 2 - Mr. Somiran Sharma,Adv. Mr. F.S. Nariman,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Subhash Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Rajat Jariwal,Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir,Adv. for M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,ASG. Mr. Anuj Bhandari,Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv. Mr. G.E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. C.P. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Mihir Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. D.D. Kamat,Adv. Mr. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi,Adv. Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned amicus curiae, resumed his submissions at 2.00 p.m. and did not conclude when the court rose for the day. The matters remained part-heard. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar 87 ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.1 SECTIONS PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. NOS.2079-2080, 2301-2303, 2760 and 2856 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For impleadment/direction, exemption from filing O.T. and permission to file additional documents/affidavits) With Writ Petition (C) No.301 of 2008 (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay and exemption from filing O.T.) Date: 03/12/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,Adv.(A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.(A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv. (N/P) In WP 202/1995: In WP 301/2008: M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.,Advs. For Respondent(s) Mr. Haris Beeran,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co,Advs. 88 ....2/- - 2 - Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar ITEM NO.301 to 306 COURT NO.9 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 301. PENCH TIGER RESERVE I.A. NO. 2647 IN APPLN. NO. 1124, 2687-2688, 2689-2690, 2696-2697, 2703-2704, 2709 & 2718 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD ....PETITINER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) (RECOMMENDATION OF CEC IN APPLN. NO.1124, FOR INTERVENTION, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS) CONSTRUCTION/WIDENING OF ROADS/HIGHWAYS 302. I.A.NOS.2790-2791 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR PERMISSION, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 303. I.A.NO.2365 IN I.A.NO.1406 IN W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995 (FOR DIRECTIONS) 304. SLP(C) NO.3941 OF 2010 (FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND C/DELAY IN REFILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) 305. SLP(C) NO.28519 OF 2008 (WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) 306. I.A.NOS.114-115, 133, 140, 128-129 IN W.P.(C) NO.337 OF 1995 (FOR MODIFICATION OF COURT'S ORDER DATED 13.11.2000, 22.4.2009, 13.11.2000, 22.4.2009, 13.11.2010, PERMISSION TO IMPLEMENT PAKOL DAL PROJECT, DIRECTIONS IN TERMS OF CEC RECOMMENDATION AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O/T) Date: 06/12/2010 These applications/petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR For the appearing parties : Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr.Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. -2- 301. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, adv. Mr. Sanjay K. Agarwal, adv. Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr.Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. For M/s. AP & J CHAMBERS Mr. Ashok Srivastav, Sr.Adv. Mrs. Angha S. Desai, Adv. Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, adv. Mr. Prashant Dahat, Adv. Mr. Somnath, Adv. Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. 302. Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. 303. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, adv. Mr. Amitava Chauhan, Adv. Mr. A.S. Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv. 304. Mr. G. Prakash, adv. Mr. E.M.S. Anam, adv. 305. Mr. Mohit Shaha, Adv. for Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. S.B. Sanyal, Sr.Adv. Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Adv. 306. Mr. Raj Panjwani, Sr.Adv. Mr. Vijay Panjwani, adv. Mr. Ajit Pudussery, adv. Mr. K. Vijayan, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Khurana, Adv. Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Adv. -3- Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Item No.301 Heard in part. List on 17th January, 2011 as part heard. Item No.302 Await C.E.C. Report. Item No. 303 The State of Manipur is directed to file a comprehensive affidavit in response to the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the petitioners-Association. The State shall furnish complete details as to the manner of consideration of the proposals submitted by the members of the petitioners ­ Association. Stand over for 2nd week of January, 2011. Item No.304 Liberty to file additional documents. Stand over for four weeks. -4- Item No.305 Liberty to file additional documents. Stand over for four weeks. In the meantime, Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed. Item No.306 I.A. Nos. 114-115, 133 and 140 These applications are disposed of and the relief as prayed for by the applicants is granted subject to the prior compliance of the conditions dated 10.9.2007 imposed by National Board for Wild Life (N.B.W.L.) and that of C.E.C. report dated 22.2.2010. There shall be an order accordingly. I.A. No. 128-129 Learned standing counsel for the Union of India undertakes to file a proper affidavit in the matter of N.B.W.L. within four weeks from today. Stand over for four weeks. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master