Point of Law :
it is an enabling provision which bestows a power upon the National Authority, as constituted under Section 3, to issue guidelines for the minimum standards of relief to be provided to persons affected by disaster. It is further goes on to even indicate the classes of people for whom the guidelines need to be issued such as providing relief camps in relation to shelter, food, drinking water, medical cover and sanitation with regard to widows and orphans; with regard to ex gratia assistance on account of loss of life and such other reliefs, as may be necessary. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any guidelines issued by the National Authority, which would debar the respondents from demolishing any building. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the provisions of Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act are being violated

ORDER :

1. The petitioners have filed the present Public Interest Litigation challenging the continuation of the demolition of the present Secretariat buildings by the respondents, in order to construct a new Secretariat building in the same campus.

2. Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:-

“Firstly, on an earlier occasion, the Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2019 was challenged in a series of writ petitions filed before this Court, namely W.P. (PIL) Nos. 136, 142 and 145 of 2016 and in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 66 and 71 of 2019. By the said decision, the Cabinet had decided to demolish the present Secretariat buildings and to construct a new Secretariat. While arguing in the said writ petitions, the State had taken a categorical stand that the Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2019 is only an interim decision of the Cabinet, and not a final one. Accordingly, the learned Advocate General had pleaded that there were two options which were under consideration of the Cabinet, either to modify and renovate the standing structures in the Secretariat campus, or to demolish the standing buildings and to raise a new construction in order to build an iconic secretariat complete with latest technology and modern architecture. Therefore, the learned Advocate General had pleaded that it is too early in the day for the petitioners to challenge an interim decision claiming that it is, indeed, a final decision of the Cabinet. Now, the learned counsel submits that without having a final decision of the Cabinet, the demolition process has commenced from July 07, 2020 and is presently continuing.

Secondly, the demolition work has been stayed by this Court by its order dated 10.07.2020. Therefore, as of today, there is no demolition activity going on in the secretariat campus.

Thirdly, relying on the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016 (‘the Rules of 2016’ for short), the learned counsel contends that under Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2016, a waste generator, who generates 20 tons or more in one day, or 300 tons per project in a month, is required to submit a waste management plan before the appropriate authority, before commencing the demolition. However, in the present case, no such management plan has been submitted and no such approval has been sought from the appropriate authority. Therefore, the demolition, which has commenced on July 07, 2020, violates the Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2016.

Fourthly, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ for short) the Central Government had issued the notification dated 14.09.2006. The said notification not only makes it mandatory that prior to the commencement of a construction, or “preparation of a land” Environmental Clearance (‘EC’) has to be sought from the regulatory authority, but also prescribes an elaborate procedure before the Environmental Clearance Certificate (‘ECC’) can be issued by the regulatory authority. Relying on Para 2 and Para 6 of the said Notification, the learned counsel has strenuously pleaded that ECC is required after the identification of the prospective site, but before the land can be prepared, or the construction can be commenced. According to the learned counsel, since certain buildings already stand in the Secretariat campus, the demolition of these buildings would fall within the words “preparation of land.” After all, the buildings are being demolished only in order to “prepare the land” for the next set of new construction of the Secretariat as envisaged by the respondents.

Fifthly, relying on the case of S.P. Muthuraman vs. Union of India, (a Full Bench decision of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi decided on 01.09.2015), the learned counsel has pleaded that the learned Tribunal has already opined that both the Act, and the Notification, 2006 are mandatory in nature. Therefore, before any construction can be raised, or a land can be prepared, a prior ECC is mandatory. In