Public safety overrides interim relief; authority must reconsider prohibition post-safety certification with hearings.

The appellants are the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.8498 of 2026. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the interim order dated 10.04.2026, through which and for the reasons stated therein, the learned Single Judge refused interim relief. WP(C) No.8498 of 2026 has been filed challenging Ext. P8 communication issued by the Deputy Collector on behalf of the District Collector, Idukki, in his capacity as the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority, as also Ext. P16 communication issued by the District Collector, Idukki (the 4^th respondent) as the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority prohibiting the use of a glass bridge constructed and operated by the petitioners at Anachal, Munnar for tourism- related activities. A reading of Ext. P16 communication would show that the District Collector, Idukki, as the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority, has directed the petitioners to stop the use of the glass bridge, exercising his jurisdiction under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. A reading of Ext. P16 also indicates that, according to the District Collector, the glass bridge was constructed without permission from the Kerala Adventure Tourism Promotion Society, the 2^nd respondent herein. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 10.04.2026, refused to grant an interim order staying Ext.P16, taking the view that since the matter involves the safety of the public, the question of granting an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P16 does not arise for consideration.

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that after Ext.P16 was issued, by a subsequent communication dated 30.12.2025 (Ext.P24), a study was directed to be conducted regarding the safety of the glass bridge and that such study has been conducted through the National Institute of Technology, Calicut. It is also submitted that, taking into consideration the report of the National Institute of Technology, Calicut, the 2^nd respondent herein has issued a communication bearing No.KATPS/70/2020 dated 16.04.2026, finding that the glass bridge constructed by the petitioners is safe for use and can be opened to the public. This communication is not on record in this writ appeal. However, a copy of the said communication has been handed over to us across the bar by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 7 & 8 (Pallivasal Grama Panchayat) would submit that no permission had been taken from respondents 7 & 8 for the construction of the glass bridge. It is submitted that the matter has to be ultimately decided by the District Collector as Ext.P16 is an order issued by the District Collector, Idukki, in his capacity as the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority constituted under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

5. The learned Government Pleader would also submit that the matter has to be decided by the District Collector.

6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 7 & 8 and in the facts and circumstances noticed above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was right in refusing the interim relief staying the operation of Ext.P16 as any permission to use the glass bridge would involve issues of public safety. However, we think that in the light of the subsequent developments, including the communication dated 16.04.2026