C.A. JALEEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P9 is under challenge in this Writ Petition, which is an Order passed by the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority, calling upon the 3 rd respondent/ Secretary of the Grama Panchayath concerned to demolish the building, wherein the petitioner is a tenant. The nature of the Order passed is the essence of the dispute involved in this Writ Petition. The petitioner would assail Ext.P9 under the following premises: If it is one passed under Sec. 30(2)(v) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, ('the Act', for short), the 5th respondent/District Collector, in his capacity as the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority, has no power. Per contra, if it is one passed under Sec. 26(2) of the Act, there is no pressing emergency enabling the issuance of such an Order. Nor was there any ratification of the same by the Authority, as enjoined by Sec. 26(2) of the Act. Thus Ext.P9 is bad in law, is the petitioner's contention.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader would submit that, Ext.P9 is issued by the District Disaster Management Authority, represented by the Chairperson; and not by the Chairperson in her individual capacity. According to the learned Government Pleader, Ext.P9 Order is liable to be treated as one under Sec. 30(2)(v) of the Act, which has been specifically recited towards the end of the Order.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Panchayath would submit that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition, and the same requires emergent demolition, for the purpose of reconstruction. All the Government offices in the building have been vacated, and the solitary person now occupying the building, is the petitioner, who is a tenant under the Panchayath. Since Ext.P9 recites that the building is lying in a dangerous condition, the emergent situation, as contemplated in Sec. 26(2) is quite reflected, wherefore, the Chairperson of the Authority, by himself, is empowered to pass Ext.P9 Order.