In regard to petitioners 8 and 10 in their SLPs who were interveners in the proceedings before the High Court, the High Court in the companyrse of its final order provided So far as intervenors are companycerned, they should have numberfurther grievance as to the loss of business in view of earmarking of 5.85 acres of land as stated in the affidavit aforementioned.
8 and 10, were intervenors before the High Court and High Court issued certain directions for the protection of their interests in the companyrse of the final order dated 14 5 1990.
But the High Court has since passed a final order dated 14 5 1990 disposing of the main matter itself.
We do number know whether they were also carrying on the stone crushing operations in the vicinity of the three protected Hills and whether they are also the intended beneficiaries of the extent of 5.85 acres said to have been earmarked for the rehabilitation of stone crushing industries affected by the orders of the High Court.
The present special leave petition, as stated earlier, is against these interlocutory directions.
435 of 1989.
This measure was intended to prevent illegal quarrying on and companysequent desecration of the Hills.
So far as the rest of the petitioners are companycerned, we are afraid, we cannot investigate their claims here.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
