Deepak Gupta, J. - (1.) By means of this application the State of Himachal Pradesh has prayed that it may be permitted to carry out silviculture felling including thinning and other cultural operations in accordance with the Working Plan approved by the Government of India up to an elevation of 1500 metres above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in Chil Pine, Khair and broad-leaved forests only.
(2.) On 12.12.1996, this Court issued directions to a large number of States. The relevant directions with regard to the State of Himachal Pradesh read as follows: "1. There will be no felling of trees permitted in any forest, public or private. This ban will not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted in any area which is not a forest; and which has not been converted from an earlier "forest". This ban will not apply to permits granted to the right holders for their bonafide personal use in Himachal Pradesh. 2. In a "forest", the State Government may either departmentally or through the State Forest Corporation remove fallen trees or fell and remove diseased or dry standing timber from areas other than those notified under Section 18 or 35 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 or any other Act banning such felling or removal of trees. 3. For this purpose, the State Government is to constitute an expert committee comprising a representative from MOEF, a representative of the State Government, two private experts of eminence and the MD of the State Forest Corporation (as Member Secretary), who will fix the qualitative and quantitative norms for the felling of fallen trees and diseased and standing timber. The State shall ensure that the trees so felled and removed are in accordance with these norms. 4. Felling of trees in any forest or any clearance of forest land in execution of projects shall be in strict conformity with the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and any other laws applying thereto. Moreover, any trees so felled, and the disposal of such trees shall be done exclusively by the State Forest Corporation and no private agency is to be involved in any aspect thereof."
(3.) Despite such order having been passed, the amicus curiae on 14.02.2000 submitted before this Court that there were reports in the press that the State of Himachal Pradesh had passed some orders lifting the ban on felling of trees. This Court, thereafter, issued notice to the State of Himachal Pradesh and also made it clear that if any such orders have been passed, the operation of the same were stayed and no felling of trees be done. In the affidavit filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, in response to the order dated 14.02.2000, it was pointed out that the intention of the State was to resume silviculture operations consisting of regeneration, felling and thinning of the trees as per the Working Plan duly approved. The State of Himachal Pradesh also informed this Court that though the State had intended to do silivicultural felling but in actual fact this decision has not been given effect to. It was clearly mentioned that no felling of trees has taken place except of those allowed by this Court specifically. It is also pertinent to mention that the Government of India vide G.O. dated 11.10.2002 suspended the Working Plan for various States including the State of Himachal Pradesh. The State then approached the Central Empowered Committee (for short "the CEC"), which advised the State to approach this Court for modification or vacation of the earlier stay order. This led to the filing of the present application.;