ORDER

[As Nos. 1598-1600 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995

1. 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.

IAs Nos. 1601-03 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995

2. The Central Empowered Committee may examine the matter and file its report within two weeks. The interlocutory applications are adjourned for two weeks.

IAs Nos. 1485 and 1507 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995

3. The Government of India and National Mineral Development Corporation may file their response within two weeks. The interlocutory applications are adjourned for three weeks.

IA No. 1574 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995

4. The affidavit dated 15-6-2006 filed by Mr A.K. Srivastava in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 28-4-2006, is utterly vague and does not disclose the relevant information as per the report of the Central Empowered Committee dated 27-4-2006, which, in turn, refers to the restoration of Gangao Dam.

5. It was stated that the first phase of the work would be executed within a period of three months i.e. from 1-4-2006 to 30-6-2006 and the second phase would be executed during the period 1-7-2006 and 30-6-2007. The affidavit does not show whether the first phase, as proposed by the same d 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 2005.

6. Under these circumstances, we direct the Principal Secretary, Irrigation to file a detailed affidavit after verification of all the relevant facts within three weeks.

IAs Nos. 827, 1122, 1216, 1337 and 1473 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995

7. The report of the Central Empowered Committee dated 31-7-2006 regarding non-recovery of the net present value by the Ministry shall be registered as a separate interlocutory application.

8. 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.

IAs Nos. 1122, 1337 and 1473

9. The interlocutory applications are adjourned.

IA No. 1216

10. This application has been worked out. It is, accordingly, disposed of.

IA No. 1591 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995

11. As requested in Letter dated 31-7-2006, the Central Empowered Committee is granted eight weeks' time to file its report. List the interlocutory application after receipt of the report.

IA No. 1535 in IA No. 548 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995

12. 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 Letter dated 2-7-2004 sent by the Central Empowered Committee to all the Chief Secretaries, Principal Chief Conservators of Forests and Chief Wildlife Wardens, which has led to the State Government stopping the issuance of the grazing permits.

13. We have perused the report of the Central Empowered Committee dated 13-7-2006. One of the suggestions made is that, in terms of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Chief Wildlife Warden concerned may be asked to assess the carrying capacity of each of the wildlife sanctuaries i.e. the number and the type of domestic animals 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 immunised along with the mechanism put in place to ensure that overgrazing does not take place.

14. 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 for that purpose within the limit of any sanctuary, he may regulate or control or prohibit, in keeping with the interest of wildlife, the