2011 INSC 0249
                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                         T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad

                                          Vs.
                                Union of India (UOI)

              (B.Sudershan Reddy, R.M.Lodha and S.S.Nijjar JJ.)

                                 21.02.2011

                                 ORDER

MM-1: I.A. No. 1421

1. List on 28th February, 2011.

MM-2: I.A. No. 2854

2. List on 28th February, 2011.

MM-3: I.A. No. 100

3. List on 7th March, 2011.

Item No. 301

4. To be kept in Part-B (Final Disposal Matters) after the Sandalwood matters.

Item No. 302

5. Stand over for three weeks.

6. In the meanwhile, C.E.C. to submit its response.

Item No. 303

7. Stand over for three weeks.

Law Information Center                       1                   SpotLaw
8. In the meanwhile, C.E.C. to submit its response.

Item No. 304

9. The Report on Disappearance of Tigers from Panna Tiger Reserve submitted by
the Special Investigation Team, 2009 under the signatures of learned Counsel
appearing in I.A. No. 1478 of 2006, a copy of which is made available to the Court
is returned for its proper filing in the Registry.

10. To be kept in Part-B (Final Disposal Matters) list.

Item No. 305

11. We have elaborately heard this matter.

12. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14th July, 2003 specifically
records that learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in the High
Court made a statement that the Petitioner will file a fresh application for grant of
license and accordingly, requested the Court to issue directions to the competent
authority to consider the application to be so filed.

13. The High Court having considered the request permitted the Petitioner to file a
fresh petition "for grant of license to run the saw mill within a period of two
weeks". It appears thereafter that the Respondent Petitioner filed the application on
28th July, 2003 which was disposed of on the same day.

14. The dispute in this interlocutory application surrounds as to whether the
application filed by the Respondent- Petitioner was that of seeking renewal or a
fresh petition seeking fresh license in terms of the directions of the High Court.
The copy of the said application is not made available on record. Learned Counsel
for the Respondent-Petitioner undertakes to produce the copy of the same.

15. Stand over for four weeks.

Item No. 306

16. The Respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the
Petitioner pursuant to their notice dated 4.5.2009 and 4.6.2009 provided the 20
Petitioners deposit a sum of ` 6,94,51,570/- within eight weeks from today.

Law Information Center                      2            SpotLaw
17. In the meanwhile, liberty to the applicant to file its response to the report of the
C.E.C.
Item No. 307
18. List on 28th February, 2011 as first item.
Item No. 308
19. List along with Item No. 316 listed 30 today.
Item No. 309
20. The C.E.C. to submit its response within four weeks.
21. Stand over for four weeks.
Item No. 310
22. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned amicus curiae commenced arguments at 3.40 p.m.
and was on his legs when the Court rose for the day. The matter remained 40 as
part heard.
Item Nos. 311 to 316
23. Not taken up.

Law Information Center  3  SpotLaw