SL. No Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 1 8 .0 3 .2 026 WPPIL No. 37 of 2025 Reen u Pau l .....Pet it ion er Vs. Un ion of I n dia & ot h er s ....Respon den t s Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Gu pt a, C.J. Hon ’ble Su bh ash Upadh yay, J. 1. Mr. Abhijay Negi and Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. 3. Ms. Rajni Supyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 4. Mr. Naresh Pant and Mr. Raunak Pant, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Clar ificat ion Ap plicat ion ( MCC No.1 4 of 2 0 2 6 ) 5. In the present PIL, the petitioner has raised the issues arising out of project for construction of a National Highway known as ‘Rishikesh- Bhaniyawal Road Project’. From time to time, different orders were passed and ultimately, by order dated 09.01.2026, the proceedings have been closed. Order dated 09.01.2026 is as follows: - “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General assisted by learned C.S.C., learned Solicitor General of India for NHAI and learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. 2. The issue regarding Elephant Corridor raised in the instant PIL has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hospit alit y Associat ion of Mu d u m alai v s. in Defen ce of En v ir on m en t an d An im als an d ot h er s, reported in ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 0 SCC 5 8 9 . 3. In that view, revisiting the said issue, in our opinion, it would be a duplication and redundant exercise, as this Court and the State are bound by the precedent as set down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid ruling. 4. In that view and in view of the fact that the issue of destruction of forest cover or green cover has been seized of by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Anita Kandwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand’ in SLP No.21058 of 2025, we deem it appropriate that the other issues relating to cutting of trees, it would be appropriate, if this Court awaits the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the alternative, the petitioner is also granted liberty to seek implement in the pending proceedings and seek adjudication of the said issue. 5. With the above observations, we deem it appropriate to close the PIL reserving such liberty as recorded above. The contentions of both sides are left open.” 6. Thereafter, NHAI has filed the present application seeking clarification to the extent that the NHAI be permitted to proceed with the construction of the Highway. The case of the NHAI is that the Forest Officials are not permitting cutting of trees over forest land and, consequently, it is not able to commence the construction work. 7. After going through the order-sheet of the case, we observe that it was only by an order dated 12.03.2025 that the felling of trees was stalled, that too, till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the stay was never extended. In case, the Forest Department is not granting permission to NHAI to cut trees, it would be an independent cause of action, for which, the NHAI can take recourse to legal proceedings. However, we are of the considered opinion that no clarification is required to be issued by this Court in view of what has been stated above. 8. The clarification application filed by the NHAI, accordingly, stands disposed of. ( Su bh ash Up ad h y ay , J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Gu pt a, C.J.) 18.03.2026 18.03.2026 NI SHANT