ORDER

1. In the case of Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors. [ (2011) 7 SCC 338], this Court, while refusing to interfere with the decisions of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) granting site clearance, EIA clearance read with revised environmental clearance and Stage I forest clearance to the mining project of Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited, laid down some guidelines to be followed in future cases in Part-II of its order dated 06.07.2011. These guidelines have been stated in Para 122 of the said order and sub-para (i.1.) of Para 122, this Court called upon the Central Government to appoint a National Regulator under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for appraising projects, enforcing environmental conditions for approvals and to impose penalties on polluters. Despite the order dated 06.07.2011 of this Court, the Central Government did not appoint a National Regulator under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. On 09.09.2013, this Court therefore requested Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General, to obtain instructions and apprise this Court as to when the direction of this Court will be complied with.

2. When the matter was taken up on 18.11.2013 again, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General, relying on the affidavit filed on behalf of the MoEF, submitted that in the case of Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited, this Court was really concerned with the National Forest Policy, 1988. He submitted that so far as the National Forest Policy, 1988 is concerned, the same relates to forests and under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 the duty of a Regulator has been cast upon the Central Government. He submitted that the responsibility to appraise proposals seeking prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 lies with the Forest Advisory Committee constituted by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. 1980. He argued that these statutory duties of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 cannot be delegated to any other authority.

3. Mr. Parasaran next submitted that Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 similarly confers powers on the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution and the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Sub-section (1) and Clause (v)(b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 had issued the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. He explained that the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 provides that the prior environmental clearance from the Central Government, or as the case may be. from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, shall be taken for construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities mentioned in the Schedule to this Notification. He submitted that the Central Government through MoEF is, thus, undertaking appraisals of projects in accordance with the Notification dated 14.09.2006. He submitted that compliance of the conditions stipulated in the environmental clearance granted to the projects are being monitored and enforced six Regional Offices of the MoEF are functioning at Bangalore. Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, Chandigarh, Lucknow and Shillong. He submitted that as an appropriate mechanism for appraising projects as well as monitoring and enforcing compliance of environmental conditions that govern Environmental Clearances is already in place, it is not necessary for the Central Government to appoint a National Regulator under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Mr. Parasaran finally submitted that Part II of the order dated 0