The issuance of a stop memo under the Disaster Management Act must comply with natural justice and must be executed by the correct authority; groundwater level depletion does not constitute an emergency warranting such action.

JUDGMENT :

C. Jayachandran, J.

Ext.P10 – a stop memo issued in purported invocation of the powers under Section 30 (2)(v) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 ('the Act', for short) - is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Ext.P10 called upon the petitioner to stop all construction activities at the subject site, on the allegation that it pumped huge quantities of water from low-lying areas for the construction of an apartment complex, with the result, the groundwater level of the nearby locality has depleted to an extent of 2 to 3 meters. Ext.P10 finds that such decrease in the groundwater level is due to the construction activities undertaken by the petitioner, especially in its conduct of pumping water from natural water resources.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would attack Ext.P10 essentially on the following premises. The first is that, Ext.P10 was issued without complying with the principles of natural justice. No notice, whatsoever, was issued to the petitioner before the issuance of Ext.P10. Secondly, it was pointed out that the District Collector has no power under Section 30 (2)(v) to issue a stop memo, like Ext.P10. The power, if any, available is only to the District Disaster Management Authority; and not to the District Collector, under (2)(v). Thirdly, it was also pointed out that (2)(v) does not contemplate a stop memo or notice to an individual, but only speaks of giving directions to different authorities at the district level and local authorities, in order to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of disaster. Fourthly, the allegation levelled in Ext.P10 hardly constitutes a disaster, as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Act.

3. In answer to the same, learned Government Pleader would submit that the power exercised by the District Collector is, in fact, under Section 26 (2) of the Act; and quoting Section 30 (2)(v) is nothing, but a mistake. Learned Government Pleader would explain that the situation, where there was a steep decrease in the groundwater level, has been treated as an emergency, especially in the backdrop of the summer season, where there will be acute scarcity of water. It is accordingly that the emergency clause has been invoked by the District Collector to issue Ext.P10 stop memo. Learned Government Pleader would also point out that Ext.P10 was necessitated because of the mass complaints from the people in the locality, alleging decrease in the groundwater level, especially in their wells.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court can only endorse the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, Section 30 speaks about the powers and functions of the 'District Authority'. Ext.P10 would not reflect that the same is one issued pursuant to a meeting of the District Authority, consisting of the persons made mention of in Section 25 of the Act. Ext.P10 is issued by the District Collector, apparently in his individual capacity. Learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, would concede that there was no resolution taken by the Disaster Management Authority before issuance of Ext.P10. As a matter of fact, Ext.P10 does not disclose that it is issued by the District Collector in his capacity as the Chairperson of the Disaster Management Authority. All the same it refers to (2)(v) of the Act, just below the heading 'Stop Memo'. It goes without saying that the Chairperson cannot usurp the powers vested with the Disaster Management Authority under (2)(v) of the Act. Ext.P10 is bad for that reason.

5. Secondly, the explanation offered by the learned