PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has struck down an order of the North Goa Collector who had invoked the Disaster Management Act to order the PWD Department “to undertake the work of repair and reconstruction of the said road with immediate effect” saying that it was “illegal, ultra vires, null and void” to invoke provisions of the Disaster Management Act (DMA) when there was no disaster involved.
Petitioner Shyamsundar Kamat claimed that the road in question was his private property and was presently under dispute and that the Collector’s decision to invoke the DMA was a deliberate ploy to bypass the ongoing civil dispute.
But the High Court was not amused.
“According to us, this is a case of legal malafide, where the provisions of the DMA have been invoked even though there was no situation of “disaster" as defined under Section 2(d) thereof. This is also a case where the Chairperson/Collector has exercised powers that were not even vested in her under the DMA, assuming that the provisions thereof could have been invoked in a situation of this nature. According to us, the provisions of the DMA cannot be invoked to deal with civil disputes involving two sets of persons or civil disputes involving a citizen and the Government by elevating such disputes to the status of a disaster,” the High Court bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Mahesh Sonak, said.
The petitioner Kamat alleged that in May 2020, the PWD began to interfere with the un-acquired portion of his property in Bainguinim along the Panaji Old-Goa bypass where he runs a fuel pump. He was orally informed by the officials at the site that they were directed to carry out repairs/reconstruction to the said road, including by way of asphalting the same.
In a bid to protect his private road he instituted a civil suit before the District Court, North Goa on May 18, 2020, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the PWD, the State of Goa from interfering with the said property or the said road, which he claimed is a private road.
Advocate General Devidas Pangam, on the other hand, claimed that the complaints made by nearby residents indicated that the said road provided access to hundreds of school children and residents of the houses in and around the said property. He submitted that the said road was unauthorisedly blocked by Kamat and removal of such blockage was necessary.
The said road was damaged by the Petitioner and such damage would result in road accidents thereby threatening the life of the commuters in the said area. “Such a situation is covered by the expression “disaster” and therefore, there was no infirmity in the impugned order,” the Advocate General argued.
“The complaint (by the nearby residents) even if taken as correct can hardly qualify as some catastrophe, mishap, calamity, or grave occurrence. Besides, there is no material to even suggest that the blockage of the said road or its digging up, would result in some substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage,” the High Court ruled.
“The complaint even if taken as correct does not have the potential of the destruction of property or damage to or degradation of the environment. Besides, there is no material whatsoever on record that all this alleged destruction, damage, or degradation is of such a nature or magnitude as to be beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected area. Unless all these parameters exist, there was no question of the Chairperson/Collector invoking the provisions of the DMA and making the impugned order,” the High Court said.
