दिनांक 04-08-2006 को WP 202 के 1995 GODAVARMAN में IA में आदेश
ITEM NOS.301 & 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.1598-1600 IN WRIT PETITION (C)
NO.202 OF 1995
T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(For Directions, impleadment and exemption from filing O.T.)
With I.A. Nos.1601-1603 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Directions, impleadment and exemption from filing O.T.)
I.A. Nos.1485 and 1507 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(Recommendations of C.E.C.)
(Appln.(s) for permission to file affidavit along with documents)
I.A. No.1574 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(Report of C.E.C. in Appln(s) No.845)
I.A. Nos.827,1122,1216,1337 and 1473 in Writ Petition (C) No.202/1995
Recommendations of C.E.C. regarding transfer of funds, Report of
C.E.C. in Appln.(s) No.847 for direction)
I.A. No.1591 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Directions)
I.A. No.1535 in I.A. No.548 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(Appln.(s) on behalf of the Raika-Camel and livestock breeders and
pastoralists-for protecting their traditional grazing rights)
I.A. No.1413 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Directions)
I.A. No.1414 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Directions)
I.A. No.1426 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Directions)
I.A. No.1428 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Directions)
I.A. No.1440 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(Appln.(s) for intervention and directions)
(For Directions)
I.A. No.1441 in I.A. No.566 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Direction and recommendation of C.E.C.)
I.A. No.1454 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Directions)
...2/-
- 2 -
I.A. No.1459 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Directions/modification)
I.A. No.1460 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For impleadment and directions)
I.A. Nos.1466-1467 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Directions and impleadment)
I.A. No.4 in Cont. Pet. (C) No.193/2001 in W.P. (C) No.202 of 1995
(For Directions)
Writ Petition (C) No.603 of 2000
(With appln.(s) for stay and office report)
I.A. No.1614 in Appln.(s) Nos.863 and 905 in W.P. (C) No.202 of 1995
(Report of the C.E.C. in Appln.(s) Nos.863 and 905 filed before C.E.C.)
Date: 04/08/2006 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA
Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. U.U. Lalit,Sr.Adv. (A.C.) (N/P)
Mr. Sidhartha Choudhary,Adv. (A.C.)
For Applicant(s) Mr. R.K. Jain,Sr.Adv.
In I.As.1598-1600: Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv.
In I.As.1601-1603: Mr. Vivek K. Tankha,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Joseph Pookkatt,Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar,Adv.
In I.A. 1535: Mr. Vinoo Bhagat,Adv.
In I.As.1413 and
1414: Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.
In I.As. 1426 and Mr. Arun Jaitley,Sr.Adv.
1454: Mr. Gopal Jain,Adv.
Ms. Nandini Gore,Adv.
Mr. Debmalya Banerjee,Adv.
Mr. Jayant Mohan,Adv.
Ms. Manik Karanjawala,Adv.
In I.A. 1428: Mr. Anil Karnwal,Adv.
Mr. S.K. Pillania,Adv.
Dr. K.P.S. Dalal,Adv.
Mr. Sushil Balwada,Adv.
...3/-
- 3 -
In I.A. 1440: Mr. Arun Jaitley,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar,Adv.
Mr. S. Rakshit,Adv.
for M/s. Khaitan & Co.,Advs.
In I.A. 1441: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha,Adv.
In I.A. 1459: Mr. Arun Jaitley,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sunil Dogra,Adv.
for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.,Advs.
In I.A. 1460: Mr. Kailash Vasdev,Sr.Adv.
Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv.
In I.As.1466-1467: Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.
Mr. L.R. Singh,Adv.
In I.A.1591: Mr. Rajiv Dutta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra,Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
In I.A.4 in Cont. Ms. Sangeeta Kumar,Adv.
Pet. No.193/2001: Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Garg,Adv.
In W.P. 603/2000: Mr. K.K. Rai,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. P.K. Manohar,Adv.
Ms. Rachna Srivastava,Adv.
Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv.
Mr. Naveen Sharma,Adv.
Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.
Mr. Arun Jaitley,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr.Adv.
Mr. K. Raghavacharulu,Adv.
Mr. P.S. Narasimha,Adv.
Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv.
Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.
Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.
Mr. J.K. Bhatia,Adv.
Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.
Mr. Ritu Raj Biswas,Adv.
Dr. R.G. Padia,Sr.Adv.
Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey,Adv.
Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.
...4/-
- 4 -
Mr. Anil Srivastava,Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Dutta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra,Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv.
Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv.
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.
Mr. Arun Jaitley,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jain,Adv.
Ms. Nandini Gore,Adv.
Mr. Debmalya Banerjee,Adv.
Mr. Jayant Mohan,Adv.
Ms. Manik Karanjawala,Adv.
Mr. Manoj Saxena,Adv.
Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh,Adv.
Ms. Sameena Ahmed,Adv.
Mr. Rahul Shukla,Adv.
Mr. T.V. George,Adv.
Mr. J.K. Das,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.
Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Adv.
Ms. Pooja Matlani,Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.
Ms. Sangeeta Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Garg,Adv.
Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv.
Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.
Mr. E.C. Agarwala,Adv.
Ms. Revathy Raghavan,Adv.
Mr. Ajay K. Agrawal,Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.
Mr. Kuldip Singh,Adv.
Mr. R.K. Pandey,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Katyal,Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sinha,Adv.
...5/-
-
5 -
Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Ajay Siwach,AAG.,Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG.,Haryana Mr. Harikesh Singh,Adv. Mr. T.V. George,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv. Ms. B. Sunita Rao,Adv. Mr. N.M. Popli,Adv. Mr. Bhawanishankar V. Gadnis,Adv. Ms. Ritu Solanki,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A.Nos.1598-1600 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995: Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned counsel,
accepts notice on behalf
of the respondents.
Reply to the applications be filed within four
weeks. Two weeks'
time thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
I.A.Nos.1601-1603 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995:
The Central Empowered Committee may examine the matter and
file its report within two weeks.
The interlocutory applications are adjourned
for two weeks.
I.A. Nos.1485 and 1507 in W.P. (C) No.202 of 1995:
The Government of India and the National
Mineral Development
Corporation may file their response within two weeks.
The interlocutory applications are adjourned
for three weeks.
I.A. No.1574 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995:
The affidavit dated 15th June, 2006, filed by
Mr. A.K. Srivastava
in compliance with the orders of
...6/-
- 6 -
this Court dated 28th April, 2006, is utterly vague and does not disclose
the relevant information as per the Report of the
Central Empowered
Committee dated 27th April, 2006, which, in turn, refers to the restoration
of Gangao Dam. It was stated that first phase of
the work would be
executed within a period of three months, i.e., from 1st April, 2006, to 30th
June, 2006, and the second phase would be executed during the period 1st
July, 2006 and 30th June, 2007. The affidavit does not show whether the
first phase, as proposed by the same officer, is complete or not. It does
not even show whether the work has even commenced or
not.
Undisputedly, the damage came to the notice of the respondent in July,
-
Under these circumstances, we direct the Principal
Secretary,
Irrigation, to file a detailed affidavit after verification of all relevant facts
within three weeks.
I.A. Nos.827,1122,1216,1337 and 1473 in Writ Petition (C) No.202/1995:
I.A. No.827:
Report of the Central Empowered Committee dated
31st July,
2006, regarding non-recovery of the Net Present Value by the Ministry
shall be registered as a separate interlocutory application.
As prayed by Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel,
Ministry of
Environment and Forests is granted four weeks' time to file its response.
Audit Report is taken on record.
I.A. Nos.1122, 1337 and 1473:
The interlocutory applications are adjourned.
I.A. No.1216:
This application has been worked out. It is,
accordingly,
disposed of.
...7/-
- 7 -
I. A. No.1591 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995:
As requested in the letter dated 31st July,
2006, the Central
Empowered Committee is granted eight weeks' time to file its Report.
List the interlocutory application after receipt of the
Report.
I.A.No.1535 in I.A. No.548 in W.P. (C) No.202 of 1995:
The prayer in the interlocutory application is to direct the
State of
Rajasthan to continue grant of grazing permits in the
Kumbalgarh
Sanctuary to the right-holders and concessionists `Raika'. According to the
applicants, the cause for approaching this Court is the letter dated 2nd July,
2004, sent by the Central Empowered Committee to all
the Chief
Secretaries, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and
Chief Wildlife
Wardens, which has led to the State Government stopping the
issuance of
the grazing permits.
We have perused the Report of the Central
Empowered
Committee dated 13th July, 2006. One of the suggestions
made is that, in
terms of the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the concerned
Chief Wildlife Warden may be asked to assess the carrying capacity of each
of the wildlife sanctuary, i.e., the number and type of domestic animal which
can safely be allowed to graze in the sanctuary area
without adversely
affecting the requirement of the herbivores in area.
Further, the Chief
Wildlife Warden should also provide the details of the livestock which have
been immunized along with the mechanism put in place to ensure that over-
grazing does not take place.
Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972, vests in the
Chief Wildlife Warden the authority to control, manage and maintain
all
sanctuaries and
...8/-
- 8 -
for that purpose within the limit of any sanctuary, he
may regulate or
control or prohibit, in keeping with the interest of wildlife,
the grazing or
movement of livestock. Immunization measures are required to be taken, as
stipulated. The Chief Wildlife Warden shall submit a
report as to the
carrying capacity of the sanctuary in question, namely,
Kumbalgarh
Sanctuary, in terms of the suggestion made in Paragraph (17) of the Report
of the Central Empowered Committee dated 13th July, 2006, including the
details of immunization measures and the mechanism which is in
place in
the said sanctuary.
Paragraph (17) of the Report reads as under:
"It is submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, the concerned Chief Wildlife Warden
may
be asked to assess the carrying capacity of each of the wildlife
sanctuary, i.e. the number and type of domestic animal which
can safely be allowed to graze in the sanctuary area without
adversely effecting (affecting?) the requirement of
the
herbivores in area. The Chief Wildlife Warden should
also
provide the details of the livestock which have
been
immunized alongwith the mechanism put in place to
ensure
that over grazing does not take place. After
receipt of the
above information, if required, appropriate directions
may
be issued by this Hon'ble Court for allowing
grazing in the
Sanctuary area."
The Report shall be submitted within three weeks.
List the interlocutory application after four weeks.
I.A. Nos.1413, 1414, 1454 in I.A. No.1413, 1426,1428, 1440,1439,1441,1444-
1445, 1459 and 1460 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995:
By order dated 16th September, 2005, it was, inter
alia, directed
that no Temporary Working Permissions or Temporary Permit
or any
other permission, by whatever name called, shall be granted
...9/-
- 9 -
for mining activities in the National Parks, Sanctuaries and Forest areas. It
was further directed that no mining activity would
continue under any
Temporary Working Permit or Permission (T.W.P.), which may have been
granted. This order was later relaxed on the applications filed by some of
the applicants. Suggestions have been filed by the learned Amicus Curiae
and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, besides the
Federation of
Indian Minerals Industries (FIMI) regarding the conditions,
which would
govern grant of T.W.P.
On consideration thereof, the conditions precedent for the
grant of
T.W.Ps. as well as the procedure for their grant shall
be as provided
hereinafter. At the outset, it is clarified that T.W.Ps. shall be granted only
where the following conditions are satisfied.
PRE-CONDITIONS:
i] T.W.PS. can only be granted for renewal of mining leases, and not
where the lease is being granted for the first time
to the applicant user
agency;
ii] The mine is not located inside any National
Park/Sanctuary
notified under Section 18, 26-A or 35 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972;
iii] The grant of the T.W.P. would not result in
any mining activity
within the safety zone around such areas referred to in
(ii) above, (as an
interim measure, one kilometer safety zone shall be
maintained subject to
the orders that may be made in I.A. No.1000 regarding
Jamua Ramgarh
Sanctuary);
iv] The user agency who has broken up the area
of the mine (in
respect of which the T.W.P. is being sought) has or
had the requisite
environmental clearances and at no time prior to the
grant of the T.W.P.
was any mining being carried on by the user agency in relation to the mine
in question, in violation of the provisions of the Forest
(Conversation) Act
[for short, "F.C. Act"]. In cases
...10/-
- 10 -
involving violation of the F.C. Act, a formal decision
on merit should be
taken under the F.C. Act after considering the gravity
of the violation.
However, the grant of a T.W.P. may be considered where
past violations
have been regularized by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests [for
short, "M.O.E.F."] by the grant of an approval under
the F.C. Act with
retrospective effect;
v] The conditions attached to the approval under the F.C. Act for the
grant of the mining lease (or the renewal of the
mining lease), have been
fulfilled, particularly those in respect of (but not limited to) compensatory
afforestation, reclamation plan and over burden dumping on the
specified
site;
vi] The user agency has, within the stipulated
time, already filed a
proposal in conformity with the Forest (Conversation)
Rules, 1980, for
seeking an approval under the F.C. Act along with the complete details as
are required to be furnished. An application for the grant of the T.W.P. in
favour of the user agencies, who have either not filed
a proper proposal
and/or have not provided complete information, particularly
in respect of
(but not limited to) compensatory afforestation, phased
reclamation plan,
felling of trees, details of minerals extracted in the past, etc., should not be
entertained;
vii] A T.W.P. shall be granted only limited to
working in the area
broken up legally and during the validity of the lease.
No T.W.P. can be
granted in respect of, or extending to either unbroken
area or the areas
which have been broken after the expiry of the mining lease or have
been
broken in violation of the F.C. Act or any other law for the time being in
force;
viii] In no circumstances can the duration of a T.W.P. extend
beyond
the period of one year. Where an application for grant of permission under
the F.C. Act
...11/-
- 11 -
is not disposed of during the currency of T.W.P., the
applicant, on the
strength of the same T.W.P., may continue to operate
for a period not
exceeding three months unless specific orders are obtained from this Court.
ix] A valid lease under the M.M.R.D. Act exists (including by way of a
deemed extension in terms of Rule 24-A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules)
in respect of the area of the T.W.P.
PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF CLEARANCES UNDER THE F.C. ACT
AND THE ISSUANCE OF TWPS (in relation to renewal of mining leases:
i] the user agency shall submit, in the first
instance, to the State
Government, proposals seeking renewal of the mining lease under the F.C.
Act not less than two years prior to the expiry of the mining lease, except the
leases which are due to expire before August, 2008,
provided applications
are made on or before 31st October, 2006;
ii] On receipt of the proposal within the stipulated time as aforesaid,
and upon its examination, where the State Government is of the view that
further details (besides the information submitted by the user agency in the
prescribed formats) are necessary, the State Government
shall give
intimation thereof not later than ninety days of the receipt of the proposal;
iii] the State Government shall forward the proposal
together with
their recommendations to the Central Government not later
than nine
months after receipt of the proposal;
iv] the Central Government shall ordinarily dispose of the application
for grant of permission not later than four months of its receipt;
Provided where the Central Government is unable to
dispose of the
application within four months as aforesaid, it shall record special reasons
explaining the delay;
...12/-
- 12 -
v] Where the application for grant of permission under the F.C. Act
is delayed beyond the periods stipulated hereinabove, the user agency may
then apply for the grant of a T.W.P. In such cases, the user agency will have
the option of applying for a T.W.P. through the State
Government in the
proforma prescribed by M.O.E.F. with an advance copy both
to the
M.O.E.F. and the Regional Office of the M.O.E.F. Such applications shall
be made at any time after the expiry of thirteen months
from the date of
filing of the proposal with the State Government but
not later than nine
months prior to the expiry of the existing approval under the F.C. Act.
In
cases where lease/renewal was granted prior to the
enactment of the F.C.
Act and the lease period has not expired, the application shall be made at
least nine months prior to the expiry of lease period;
vi] the proposal seeking the T.W.P. shall be
processed by the State
Government and forwarded to the M.O.E.F. within a period
of three
months, who shall place the proposal before the F.A.C. constituted
under
Section 3 of the F.C. Act in its next meeting. The information/details, which
have not been filed by the user agency, either in
respect of the proposal
under the F.C. Act or in the proposal for the T.W.P. shall also be sought by
the State Government and made available by the user
agency during this
period;
vii] in the event of failure on the part of the State Government to send
its recommendations on the proposal submitted by the user agency for grant
of T.W.P. within the stipulated period, the advance copy of the application,
already sent by the user agency to the Central Government, shall be placed
before the F.A.C. for its consideration. The F.A.C.
shall provide an
opportunity to the State Government and user agency to
be heard before
giving its recommendations on the merits of the case.
...13/-
- 13 -
viii] if the State Government, for reasons to be
recorded in writing,
recommends a refusal of the request to grant a T.W.P.,
the F.A.C. shall,
after giving the user agency and the State an opportunity to present their
views pass such orders as it thinks fit. The F.A.C.
shall be at liberty to
evolve a suitable procedure for this purpose;
ix] in respect of cases where no recommendation has
been received
from the State Government within the stipulated time, the
F.A.C. shall,
after giving the State an opportunity to be heard, examine the proposal on
merit and pass appropriate orders. The F.A.C. should
evolve a suitable
procedure that shall be fair and reasonable and would
ensure adherence
with the time schedule;
x] All proposals for grant of F.C. Act clearances
and T.W.Ps. in
respect of mining leases shall be placed before the F.A.C. Where the F.A.C.,
by order recommends the grant of a clearance or a T.W.P.,
the M.O.E.F.
shall, within a period of four weeks from the date of such order, issue
orders for the grant of clearance on the usual terms, including those relating
to payment of N.P.V.;
Provided where a T.W.P. is being granted, it shall only be for a period not
exceeding one year and upon payment of N.P.V. for the already broken up
area;
xi] decision on grant of T.W.P. shall be taken before the expiry of the
mining lease. Decision of the M.O.E.F. on the proposal
for diversion of
forest land for mining lease under the F.C. Act shall be conveyed to the user
agency before the expiry of the T.W.P.
xii] in case the M.O.E.F. disagrees with the
recommendation of the
F.A.C., it shall record its reasons in writing and communicate the same to
the F.A.C., and the F.A.C. may, after considering such
reasons, pass such
further orders as it thinks fit;
...14/-
- 14 -
Provided where the Government still disagrees with the order passed by the
F.A.C., it may seek appropriate directions from this Court;
xiii] all the orders of the F.A.C. shall be made
available to the user
agency and the State Government;
xiv] in cases where the recommendations have been made by the F.A.C.
without ascertaining the views of the State Government,
the T.W.P. shall
become effective only after the details made available by the user agency are
confirmed by the State Government within a maximum
period of one
month. In case the information furnished by the user agency is found to be
at variance with the factual position, the State Government shall refer
the
matter back to the M.O.E.F., who may, if so advised, suspend the grant of
the T.W.P.;
xv] the T.W.P. shall become effective only after the payment towards
the N.P.V. for the already broken up area is deposited by the user agency;
xvi] in cases where site inspection by the Regional C.C.F. is mandatory,
the proposal for the T.W.P. shall be examined by the
F.A.C. after
considering the site inspection report of the Regional C.C.F.; the Regional
C.C.F. shall ensure that the inspection is completed in such time as may be
directed by the F.A.C.; and
xvii] at the time of payment of N.P.V. at the
present rate, the user
agency shall also give an undertaking to pay the
additional N.P.V., if so
determined as per the final decision of this Court.
Those who are continuing to operate on the
strength of the
temporary permit under the interim protection granted by
this Court,
would continue, as before, for a period of not exceeding four months. We
direct that their cases shall be decided by the F.A.C.
within the said
period of four months. The State Governments are directed to consider
and send
...15/-
- 15 -
their recommendations to the M.O.E.F. forthwith, and not later than six
weeks from today, with a view to ensure decision within
the stipulated
period of four months.
To consider the question of constitution of appropriate
F.A.C.,
adjourned to 25th August, 2006.
I.A.Nos.1466-1467 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995:
The learned counsel seeks leave to withdraw the
interlocutory
applications. They are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
I.A. No.4 in Cont. Pet. (C) No.193/2001 in W.P. (C) No.202 of 1995:
Not taken up.
Writ Petition (C) No.603 of 2000:
Not taken up
I.A. No.1614 in Appln.(s) Nos.863 and 905 in W.P. (C) No.202 of 1995:
The learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat,
states
that all the conditions recommended in the Report of
the Central
Empowered Committee dated 28th July, 2006, are acceptable to the State
Government. In this view, permission sought for in I.A. Nos.863 and 905
is granted on the State Government complying with the
conditions as
under:
"i] the requisite approval under the Forest
(Conservation) Act for use of the forest land
will be
obtained;
ii] the NPV for the forest land will be
deposited in
the Compensatory Afforestation Fund with an undertaking
to pay additional NPV as per the decision taken
by this
Hon'ble Court;
iii] 5% of the project cost will be
deposited in the
Compensatory Afforestation Fund for undertaking
conservation and protection works in the sanctuary;
...16/-
-
16 -
iv] as recommended by the Standing Committee
of
the National Board for Wildlife, a ten year master plan for
the revitalization of the sanctuary with focused
attention
and concerted efforts on wildlife conservation and
management will be immediately prepared and
implemented for rehabilitation of the sanctuary
area.
Funds for this purpose will be made available by the State
Government on priority basis; and
v] no area presently falling within the sanctuary will
be used for mining purposes in future.
Appln. Nos.863 and 905 are disposed of accordingly.
[ T.I. Rajput ] [ V.P. Tyagi ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar
Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.
No analysis has been generated for this document yet.