JUDGMENT :- “CR” ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We have perused the affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue. That affidavit dated 20.4.2011, in our view, is nothing but a candid admission that the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the “DM Act” and the Rules framed thereunder have not been given effect to in the State of Kerala except by doing some paper work and appointing certain officers as Disaster Management Authorities or its members. We say this because, in paragraph 4 of that affidavit, the Additional Chief Secretary vividly states about the notification issued by the Government and mentions that the District Collectors, ADM and the Superintendents of Police in each district are members of the Disaster Management Authority. Though an attempt is made to state that these arrangements were made under the co-ordination and control of the Devaswom Department for the management of the arrangements at Sabarimala and Pullumedu, we are of the view that the buck cannot be passed on to the Devaswom Board. The Devaswom Board is not an authority under the DM Act. Equally, the blame for not appropriately preserving and enforcing the provisions of the DM Act will lie only on the authorities constituted under that Act. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue further mentions as stated in the affidavit dated 14.3.2011 that the District Disaster Management Authority of Idukki district did not anticipate the possibility of occurrence of any accident in Pullumedu are as occurred on 14.1.2011. The whole purpose of constituting a District Disaster Management Authority in terms of the DM Act, has thus been demonstrated to have thoroughly failed. We say this because, in the next paragraph, the opening sentence is only about the support extended after the mishap. The failure to anticipate the possibility of an accident is followed only by the statements regarding the action taken after the mishap. The DM Act is brought in, to take care not only of mishaps after they happen but predominantly as a preventive, protective and prohibitive measure as against disasters. The failure to anticipate the possibility of an accident is followed only by the statements regarding the action taken after the mishap. The DM Act is brought in, to take care not only of mishaps after they happen but predominantly as a preventive, protective and prohibitive measure as against disasters. Looking at the definition of ‘disaster’ in paragraph 2(d) of the DM Act, ‘disaster’ means a catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man made causes, or by accident or negligence which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and destruction of, property, or damage to, or degradation of, environment, and is of such a nature or magnitude as to be beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected area. ‘Disaster management’ means a continuous and integrated process of planning, organizing, Coordinating and implementing measures which are necessary or expedient for (i) prevention of danger or threat of any disaster: (ii) mitigation or reduction of risks of any disaster or its severity or consequences; (iii) capacity-building; (iv) preparedness to deal with any disaster; (v) prompt response to any threatening disaster situation or disaster; (vi) assessing the severity or magnitude of effects of any disaster; (vii) evacuation, rescue and relief; and (viii) rehabilitation and reconstruction. The first and foremost element of disaster management is prevention of danger or threat of any disaster. The Disaster Management Authority is envisaged to be a body which can perceive the danger which could, in all probability, be in the offing. Anticipation of a disaster or a threat of a disaster are matters which have to be perceived by those involved in the process which means that persons of competence, capability, responsibility and commitment who have a flair for identifying the possibilities of danger and threats of danger, will have to man such authorities and such authorities should have a team which would be able to smell a problem in anticipation. Otherwise, in almost every accident or disaster, that limb of Section 2(e) of the DM Act will necessarily fail. Disaster management will only be mitigation or reduction or severity or consequences and other matters which may arise for management only after the mishap occurs or commences its activity. Otherwise, in almost every accident or disaster, that limb of Section 2(e) of the DM Act will necessarily fail. Disaster management will only be mitigation or reduction or severity or consequences and other matters which may arise for management only after the mishap occurs or commences its activity. The laudable object of DM Act has been demonstrated to have totally failed in relation to the management of Pullumedu issue in terms of the provisions of the DM Act. 2. Therefore, what is now required is only to find out as to what really happened and this has to come through the senior police officer who was holding charge of the area of Sabarimala and Pullumedu, apart from the materials already on record through the Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary in the Home Department. We, therefore, direct that the State Government will ensure that the senior most police officer, who had direct immediate control of Sabarimala, including Pullumedu area, files an affidavit on record disclosing his independent assessment and views of what actually happened to his knowledge in relation to the Pullumedu incident. Let that affidavit be filed before the next date of hearing. 3. We think that there should be a deeper look into the different angles of the matter since Pullumedu is a grass land which is plain except for shallow contour depression, going by topography, we visualize as to what would have been the impact of such a mishap in and other terrains in connection with Sabarimala, but hold back our words rather than dictate. 4. We also record the submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader that the Crime Branch investigation is in the final stage and the Cabinet is likely to take a decision on the authority who will conduct the independent enquiry/judicial enquiry as offered by the Government.