( 1 ) MR K. N. Raval, Assistant Solicitor-General seeks four weeks time to file a reply. Reply be filed within four weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. List after six seeks. Stay of recovery by coercive process in the meantime. I. A No. . . . (filed by Mr P. K. Manohar, Advocate)

( 2 ) AN application has been filed through the amicus curiae in court, inter alia, praying for clarification that the order dated 12-12-1996 contained a ban against the removal of any fallen trees or removal of any diseased or dry standing tree from the areas notified under Section 18 or 35 of the Wild Life protection Act, 1972. Let the same be taken on record.

( 3 ) ISSUE notice to all the respondents. In the meantime, we restrain respondents 2 to 32 from ordering the removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees, driftwood and grasses etc. from any national park or game sanctuary or forest. If any order to this effect has already been passed by any of the respondent States, the operation of the same shall stand immediately stayed.

( 4 ) REPLY be filed within three weeks.

( 5 ) THE Union of India will also indicate in its reply-affidavit as to what safeguards or steps should be taken in relation to such trees.

( 6 ) THE Registry should communicate this order of stay to the Chief secretaries of all the States immediately without payment of process fee.

( 7 ) IT is submitted by the amicus curiae that it has been reported in the press that the State of Himachal Pradesh has passed some orders lifting the ban on felling of trees in that State. It is submitted that by an order dated 12-12-1996 of this Court in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 felling of trees in any forest, public or private, has been banned and this order has not been varied so far. He, therefore, submits that if there is any order issued by the State of himachal Pradesh giving permission to the felling of trees, that would amount to contravention of this Courts order dated 12-12-1996 and would, therefore, be bad in law.

( 8 ) WE issue notice to the State of Himachal Pradesh to file an affidavit within three weeks so as to inform the Court whether any such order has been passed. We make it clear that if any such order has been passed, the operation of the same shall remain stayed till further orders by this Court. IA No. 513

( 9 ) AN affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the Ministry of environment in reply to this IA. The Chief Secretary, State of M. P. should file his response to this affidavit within two weeks from today. In particular, the Court would require information with regard to para 5 of the said affidavit. If the said affidavit affirms that the land records of Damoh for the period 1910-11 to 1954-55 are missing, then the said affidavit must indicate as to when it was known that the said records are missing and what steps have been taken to trace the said records. Explanation should also be given as to why compensatory afforestation in respect of 1. 03 lakh hectares as stipulated in the Ministrys order of 1990 has not been carried out. The State should show cause that as the condition which was stipulated for granting permission for diversion of 1. 03 lakh hectares for non-forest use has not been fulfilled i. e. compensatory afforestation not having taken place, why should the State not be directed to reclaim the encroached land which had been allowed to be diverted.

( 10 ) IT has been stated in the affidavit of the Ministry that there is some timber which is felled and is lying in the government depots which this Court may consider, allowing it to be moved in public interest due to the dependency of the local population on the said timber. We are informed at the bar, on instructions, that approximately 3 lakh cubic metres of timber is lying in the government depots. This quantity of timber would represent approximately 15 lakh natural-grown trees which have been cut. Be that as it may, as per the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the State of M.