Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bin K. Kuriakose and others, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging a notice dated 21st February 2009 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, K/West ward, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The notice was purportedly issued under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The petitioners contended that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the authority to issue such a notice as the power under Section 34 could only be exercised by the District Authority as defined under the Act. The court examined the relevant provisions, particularly Section 34, Section 2(f), and Section 25 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Section 2(f) defines 'District Authority' as the District Disaster Management Authority constituted under Section 25(1). Section 25(2) specifies the composition of the District Authority, which includes the Collector or District Magistrate as Chairperson, an elected representative as co-Chairperson, the Chief Executive Officer, the Superintendent of Police, the Chief Medical Officer, and not exceeding two other district level officers. The court noted that the impugned notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, who is not part of the District Authority as constituted under Section 25. The respondents argued that the Assistant Commissioner had been authorized by resolution to discharge the functions of the District Authority. However, the court rejected this argument, holding that the statutory requirement under Section 34 read with Section 25 cannot be diluted by any resolution to permit an officer other than the District Authority to exercise such powers. The court also referred to Section 25(4), which provides for the appointment of an officer not below the rank of Additional Collector or Additional District Magistrate or Additional Deputy Commissioner to be the Chief Executive Officer of the District Authority, but this does not authorize delegation of the power under Section 34 to any other officer. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice, holding that it was issued without authority of law.
Headnote
A) Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Section 34 - Competent Authority - The power under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 can only be exercised by the District Authority as defined under Section 2(f) read with Section 25 of the Act. A notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, who is not the District Authority, is without authority of law and liable to be quashed. (Paras 1-3) B) Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Section 25 - Constitution of District Authority - The District Authority must be constituted as per Section 25(2) comprising the Collector/District Magistrate as Chairperson, elected representative as co-Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Superintendent of Police, Chief Medical Officer, and not exceeding two other district level officers. No other officer can exercise powers under Section 34. (Paras 1-3) C) Delegation of Powers - Non-delegable Statutory Power - The requirement under Section 34 read with Section 25 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 cannot be diluted by any resolution to permit an officer other than the District Authority to exercise powers under Section 34. Such delegation is impermissible. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Assistant Commissioner of a municipal corporation is competent to issue a notice under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, or whether such power can only be exercised by the District Disaster Management Authority constituted under Section 25 of the Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice dated 21st February 2009, holding that it was issued without authority of law as the Assistant Commissioner is not the District Authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Law Points
- Statutory interpretation
- Delegation of powers
- Competent authority under Disaster Management Act
- 2005
