Bhaskar Bhattacharya, C.J.

1. By filing these three Misc. Civil Applications, the petitioners of Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 114 of 2012 have prayed for review of the common order dated 24th June, 2013 passed by this Bench in Civil Application Nos. 6181, 6184 and 6189 of 2013 thereby interpreting our earlier order dated 25th April, 2013 passed in Civil Application No. 3858 of 2013 arising out of Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 114 of 2012 whereby we passed an interim order to this effect that the State-respondent should see that no mining activity was carried on within the safety zone of 1 km. from the boundary of Balaram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary until further order. It appears from the records that in view of our above order dated 25th April, 2013 passed in Civil Application No. 3858 of 2013, the Assistant Geologist, Geology Science and Mineral Department, Palanpur, Banaskanma, passed an order against the applicants of Civil Application Nos. 6181, 6184 and 6189 of 2013 informing them that they should stop their mining activities as their quarry lease of marble mineral falls within 1 km. of the forest/ sanctuary area. In view of such order passed by the Assistant Geologist, Geology Science and Mineral Department, Palanpur, they came up with three Civil Applications, being Civil Application Nos. 6181, 6184 and 6189 of 2013 for clarification of our order dated 25th April, 2013 passed in C.A. No. 3858 of 2013, and in those applications, Mr. Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of those applicants, contented that the quarry lease of his clients do not fall within 1 km. from the boundary of Balaram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary, and as such, there was no justification on the part of the State-respondent of issuing such restraint order on the basis of our order. According to Mr. Joshi, Balaram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary is not a sanctuary declared under Sec. 26A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ('the Act', for short, hereafter) nor can it be said to be a "deemed sanctuary" in terms of Sec. 66(4) of the said Act. Mr. Joshi further contended in those three Civil Applications that in respect of the Balaram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary, a mere notification under Sec. 18 of the Act was issued, and final notification in terms of Sec. 26A of the Act was yet to be issued. In view of such assertion, we clarified our order only to the extent that unless a notification in terms of either under Sec. 26A of the Act has been passed in respect of the Balaram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary or if the said sanctuary comes within the purview of "deemed sanctuary", no restraint order should be passed upon a quarry lease holder unless the activity falls within 1 km. from the sanctuary as indicated in Sec. 26A of the Act or "deemed sanctuary" within the meaning of Sec. 66(4) of the Act. We further observed in the said order dated 24th June, 2013 passed in the aforesaid three Civil Applications that we had otherwise not gone into the question whether the mining activities of the applicants fall within the aforesaid area and it was for the State-respondent to satisfy whether the activities of the applicants fall within 1 km. of the sanctuary or "deemed sanctuary" indicated in the said order, and if the mining activities do not fall within 1 km. area, the State Government was directed to modify its order.

2. The original writ-applicants of W.P. (P.I.L.) No. 114 of 2012 have preferred the present three applications, praying for review of our order dated 24th June, 2013 passed in the aforesaid Civil Application Nos. 6181, 6184 and 6189 of 2013 clarifying our order dated 25th April, 2013 in C.A. No. 3858 of 2013. According to them, while issuing the order dated 24th June, 2013 clarifying our earlier order dated 25th April, 2013, we have committed an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as in the order dated 4th August, 2006 passed by the Supreme Court, which is the basis of the Public Interest Litigation it is stated that no temporary