Per J.P. Sinqh, J.;— 1. Taking notice of the factors and activities endangering environment, ecology and glory of four Lakes, Dal- Nageen-Khushal Sar and Anchar, on the shores whereof came to be established, the City of Srinagar, And finding that rather than doing their la vvful duties and functions to stop the activities of the wrong doers, who had, inter alia, encroached upon the Water Bodies, named above and the Green Belt therearound, violating the Master Plan and other laws in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the State, its functionaries and other authorities, Statu tory and otherwise, had not only compounded illegal constructions but had been remiss and recalcitrant in the discharge of their duties and functions, This Court, exercising its Extra Ordinary Writ Jurisdiction, initiated proceedings, in Public Interest to ensure Protection, Preservation and Restoration of Pristine Glory of the four Lakes. 2. During the course of these proceedings, initiated in the year 2002, various directions were issued by the Court, to, the State and its functionaries and other Bodies/Authorities, connected with the affairs of the Water Bodies, to achieve the objective for which the proceedings were initiated. 3. To see that the directions were complied with, in letter and spirit and there was no impediment whatsoever in compliance therewith, directions were issued conveying the Subordinate Courts and other Adjudicatory Forums to refrain from dealing with the affairs of the four Water Bodies. Some of the directions issued in this behalf, are as follows:- "29.08.2003: ......We make it clear that notwithstanding any direction from the subordinate Courts or State Tribunal contrary to orders passed in this writ petition, the respondents are at liberty to proceed ahead undeterred by aforementioned directions of the Tribunal and Subordinate Courts. 15.7.2004: ........Registry shall henceforth list any writ petition relating to the subject matter of the present PIL before the Division Bench. 03.03.2005: It is submitted that the directions are being passed by Subordinate Courts in contravention to the orders passed in this petition from time to time. If it is really so, let a motion be laid. However, nothing prevents LAWWDA to bring above referred directions to the notice of the Courts below. 29.10.2005 .......The Special Tribunal is, accordingly, directed to refrain from entertaining any matter relating to the construction in these areas or to any deviation from permissions within the Dal Lake, within 200 meters of its periphery and green belt area, and refer all these cases to this Court-pending or otherwise. 23.11.2005: xii) We are informed that some civil suits/cases have been filed in various courts at Srinagar and interim orders obtained which are likely to run in conflict with the orders passed by this Court. Accordingly, Principal District Judge, Srinagar is directed to find out any pending civil suits on the subject of Dal encroachment and withdraw them from the respective courts and place them before this Bench for joint consideration with this matter. 22.12.2005 .......No Civil court will entertain any claim related to this which shall be put up before this Court only. 12.10.2006 We are informed that some civil courts are being approached by some to wriggle out of the rigour of the orders by this Court. All civil courts are accordingly directed to carefully examine all suits/proceedings filed before them on the subject matter of these two lakes and to refer these to this Court for appropriate consideration to avoid any conflict of Judicial orders in the process. 24.11.2008 .........Details of the cases are given in annexure 'B' to the affidavit. To understand the impact of the orders, all these matters enlisted in annexure 'B' shall be listed along with PIL (OWP) 159/02 on next date of hearing with notice to the learned counsel for the petitioners therein. 22.12.2008: We find that the statements were made by the learned counsel before the other Bench suggesting no relevance of the relief sought in the writ petitions on hand with the subject matter of PIL but perusal of these petitions reveals otherwise, therefore, shall be taken up for consideration along with OWP(PIL) 159/2002. We have heard the learned Advocate General as also Mr. Shaheen. Upon consideration of the matters, we are of the opinion that in view of the directions passed from time to time in Public Interest Litigation 159/2002 the interim directions passed in these petitions filed by individuals are not sustainable, accordingly, vacated. CMPs disposed of." 4. However, despite directions to the State and its Functionaries and the restraint orders to the Subordinate Courts and Authorities, the progress achieved to protect the environment and ecology and arrest further damage to the Water Bodies was found insufficient; this Court, therefore, decided to take the four Lakes under Court custody on behalf of the people, declaring them Custodia Legis vide order dated 23.3.2009, relevant portion whereof reads thus:- "........For seven years past, this Court is monitoring the work of preservation, management and development of these lakes. The Government has established authorities for the purpose of management, preservation and development of these lakes, but still the things done are miniscule. Many a things are required to be done. The Court has passed many ordeis upon many authorities and, accordingly, has received may a compliance reports and many suggestions. Those reveal that things have not improved much and that the matter is required to be looked at from a different angle altogether. There are complaints about new encroachments; there are complaints about new settlements coming into existence and there are complaints about these things taking place at and in connivance with the people associated with various authorities whose primary obligation is to look at preservation, management and development of these water bodies. We, therefore, from this date take these lakes in our custody on behalf of the people and, accordingly, direct the State Government to publish a notification to that effect for information of general public and all concerned. Consequentially, every one associated with the management preservation and development of these water bodies are also directly answerable to us. Since these water bodies from today become custodia legis, it is imperative on our part to know the exact area of these water bodies." 5. It was on 9.6.2012 that the learned Advocate General brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st Civil Subordinate Judge (Municipal Magistrate), Srinagar had passed interim injunction against the Jammu and Kashmir Lakes and Waterways Development Authority, hereinafter 'LAWDA', for short, in Civil Suit titled M/s. RAPL Adventures and anr. v. Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir LAWDA and anr, restraining it from interfering with M/s. RAPL. Adventures' operation of Jet Scooters in Dal Lake, unmindful of the directions passed by the Court in Public Interest Litigation whereby all the Subordinate Courts were requested not to entertain and deal with the matter falling within the ambit of the Public Interest Litigation and the subject matter involved in the PIL was declared Custodia Legis. Taking notice of the submissions of the learned Advocate General, it was directed that the Principal District Judge, Srinagar shall ensure that the records of the Suit were withdrawn from the 1st Civil Subordinate Judge, Srinagar and remitted to this Court for consideration. LAWDA was left free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, notwithstanding the interim directions dated 3.4.2012 of the Civil Subordinate Judge. 6. M/s. RAPL Adventures and M/s NU Angel Adventures, the applicants have moved this Motion, through their respective proprietors seeking recall of above referred order dated 9.6.2012. It is indicated by them that M/s. RAPL Adventures moved the State Government in the year 2009 to seek permission for introducing Jet Skies and Zorbing in Kashmir Valley and the Directorate of Tourism conveyed approval for launching Jet SKI activities in Dal Lake under the Tourism Incentive Scheme, 1995, subject, however, to No Objection for operation of the Equipment in Dal Lake, Srinagar from LAWDA. The Board of Directors of LAWDA, therefore, permitted the applicants to operate four Jet Scooters in Dal Lake subject to certain terms and conditions. The initial permission granted upto October 31,2010 was later extended to October 31, 2011. The applicants operated four Jet Scooters in Dal Lake adjacent to Ghat near fountains and adjacent to Cheshmashahi Ghat to Char Chinari Park; Lam to Char Chinari Park; Nishat Ghat to Hazaratbal Ghat near Shrine; Settling basin park to Hazaratbal Ghat near Shrine. Complaining interference into the running of Jet Scooters, the applicants moved the 1st Civil Subordinate Judge (Municipal Magistrate), Srinagar seeking decree for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against LAWDA from interfering into their activities of operating Scooters in Dal Lake. The Subordinate Court directed maintenance of status quo vide its order dated 5.9.2011. During the currency of the litigation before the Subordinate Judge, the Irrigation and Flood Control Department is stated to have started interference in applicants' operating Jet Scooters in Dal Lake, on the plea that the Scooters could not be operated by the applicants without its permission, for, it was only the Irrigation and Flood Control Department that had the jurisdiction to permit the use of Water Skiing in terms of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Water Resources (Regulation and Management) Act, 2010. The applicants thereafter obtained permission from the Chief Engineer to operate Jet Scooters. The Vice-Chairman, LAWDA, asked the Chief Engineer to withdraw the permission granted to the applicants, in that, it was LAWDA and not the Chief Engineer, I&FC, who had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The applicants thereafter, filed another Suit with the same learned Subordinate Judge seeking restraint directions against LAWDA. An ex-parte interim order was passed on 3.4.2012 against LAWDA which was later made absolute vide order dated 4.6.2012. 7. The applicants seek recall of Court order dated 9.6.2012 on the ground that having been permitted by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, the competent authority so to do, the LAWDA had no jurisdiction to interfere into the affairs of the applicants in operating their Jet Scooters in Dal Lake and the applicants were therefore, entitled to maintain Civil Suit for protection of their rights and the injunctive directions issued by the Civil Court were justified. 8. The Motion is contested by LAWDA, inter alia, urging that the Irrigation and Flood Control Department had no jurisdiction to permit operation of Jet Scooters in Dal Lake and the interim orders issued by the Subordinate Court were unwarranted. It is pleaded that in view of the orders passed by this Court from time to time and the four Lakes having been declared Custodia Legis, the 1st Civil Subordinate Judge, (Municipal Magistrate), Srinagar was not required to entertain applicants' Suit. The applicants are stated to have violated the terms and conditions of the allotment made to them by LAWDA, in not having obtained permission from the State Pollution Control Board and operating in the area where they were not required so to do. 9. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicants in support of their plea for recall of order dated 09.06.2012 and those made by the learned Advocate General and Shri Z. A. Shah, learned Senior Advocate, the Court counsel. 10. Applicants, learned counsel's submission that the Restraint orders issued by this Court against the Subordinate Courts and other Authorities, being only regarding causes relating to encroachment on the four Lakes and Green Belt there around, the Civil Courts were not disabled in any manner, to entertain any Lis on matters, other than those relating to encroachment on the four Lakes, is, in our view, ex-facie, misconceived, for, the Public Interest Litigation initiated by this Court encompasses not only the issues relating to encroachment in and around the four Lakes but several other issues connected with the, Preservation, Management, and Development of these Lakes. Not only that, with the passing of order dated 23.03.2009, whereby four Lakes were brought under Court custody, on behalf of the People, declaring them Custodia Legis, no Court, Authority, Forum or Functionary and for that matter anyone, in any capacity whatsoever, would have the jurisdiction and authority, to deal with any matter relating to these Lakes, unless specifically permitted so to do, by the Court. So long as the property, i.e., the four Lakes, remain in Custodia Legis, i.e., the custody of the law, and under the orders of the Court, no one acquires any right, title, interest or privilege of any type whatsoever over the Lakes and on activities or affairs connected therewith, for, the exclusive and absolute jurisdiction and authority to deal with the affairs of the property, in Custodia legis, vests in the Court. Therefore, neither LAWDA nor the Chief Engineer had any jurisdiction to permit interference with the Waters of the Lakes. The permissions granted, by LAWDA and the Chief Engineer, to the applicants, were, therefore, not only without jurisdiction and unauthorized but amounted to interference with the process of Court. The applicants too, therefore, acquire no right to operate their Jet Scooters in Dal Lake, which they were unauthorizedly and erroneously permitted so to do, by LAWDA and the Chief Engineer and that too without permission of the Court. 11. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the property in Custodia Legis, remains untrampled, by any judicial process, for, if a Court or Tribunal, even of Co-ordinate or exclusive jurisdiction, were to deal with the issues regarding the property in custody of the Court, independently of the Court, in seizin thereof, there was likelihood of confusion in the administration of justice and a possible conflict of jurisdiction. The Courts represent the majesty of law, and would not, therefore, do any such thing that may weaken rule of law or permit any proceedings that may have the effect of putting any party in jeopardy for contempt of Court in taking recourse to unauthorized legal proceedings. Judicial proceedings may, however, be permitted, if so needed, only by the Court, in seizin of the property and by none else, and that too, when approached in this behalf. 12. The Court of 1st Subordinate Civil Judge had, therefore, acted without jurisdiction and in violation of law, in entertaining the applicants' Suit and issuing injunctive directions against LAWDA. 13. The order passed by this Court on 9.6.2012, requiring the Principal District Judge to withdraw the Civil Suit from the learned Subordinate Judge does not, therefore, warrant its recall. The motion moved by the applicants is, accordingly, declined. 14. Before concluding proceedings on the Motion, it needs to be noticed that despite every one's knowledge that the four Lakes were in custody of law and subject to orders of this Court, activities were permitted in Dal Lake, without permission of the Court. The violations committed, therefore, need to be dealt with firmly to uphold the majesty of law. However, before proceeding against the wrong doers, we deem it appropriate to hear them in the matter as to why proceedings in law, as warranted, besides in contempt, be not initiated against them. 15. Show cause notices shall, therefore, issue to the Vice-Chairman, Lakes and Waterways Development Authority, Srinagar, Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Srinagar and the applicants for their Response thereto. They are directed to remain present. 16. Learned Judicial Officer, who entertained the applicants' Suit twice and issued injunctive directions on property, in Custodia Legis, also needs to explain his position for entertaining Suits regarding the property in custody of law. Notice shall also issue to him to explain his position. 17. List this matter before the appropriate Bench in seizin of the Dal Matter. _____________