JUDGMENT : Captioned Writ Petitions are materially connected in respect of quarries operated by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.4022/2017 & 8584/2018. While the aforesaid Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Disaster Management Plan and consequential actions adversely affecting the petitioners to operate the quarry in Kannur District, the other three Writ Petitions are filed basically challenging the environmental clearances issued to the petitioners in the other two Writ Petitions. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass a common judgment. The pleadings and documents filed by the petitioner and the respondents in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017 will be relied upon basically, to dispose of the Writ Petitions. 2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017, a company registered under the Companies Act,1956, was engaged in quarrying granite stones from the year, 2011, in the property comprised in Sy.No.1 of Alakode Village, later included in Udayagiri Village, Taliparamba Taluk, Kannur District and the mining lease area is below 5 hectares. Consequent to the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar v. The State of Haryana ( (2012) 4 SCC 629 ), even for an area of less than 5 hectares for mining minor mineral, environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests is required. As per Ext.P1 judgment, this court declared that, the permit cannot be issued without obtaining environmental clearance. However, as per Ext.P2 judgment in appeal, it was clarified that, if on the date of consideration, if the appellant fulfils all the requirements of law in respect of different enactments including environmental clearance, his application seeking permission can be considered by the statutory authorities. 3. Thereupon, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form IM for mining of minor minerals under category B2 for less than and equal to 5 hectares before the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, hereinafter called “SEIAA”. As per Ext.P8 notification, application has to be considered by the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, hereinafter called, “DEIAA”, constituted as per the provisions of the Disaster Management Act. As per Ext.P8, for mining of minor minerals for project or activity of B2 category upto 25 hectares of mining lease area, general condition shall not apply. As per Ext.P12, this Court directed the DEIAA to consider the application filed by the petitioner for grant of environmental clearance on merit and in accordance with law as early as possible but within two months from 25.10.2016. As per Ext.P12, this Court directed the DEIAA to consider the application filed by the petitioner for grant of environmental clearance on merit and in accordance with law as early as possible but within two months from 25.10.2016. W.P.(C) No.41351/2016 was filed by one Joy. C. Joseph, seeking various directions including issuance of writ of mandamus against the 4th respondent i.e., the District Level Expert Appraisal Committee, hereinafter called, “DEAC” to ensure that, no environmental clearance is granted to the petitioner without obtaining permission from the Standing Committee, National Board for Wildlife. As per Ext.P14 judgment, this court observed that, no orders could have been issued in the said Writ Petition in view of the binding nature of the directions contained in the Division Bench judgment viz., Ext.P12. This Court also made it clear that, if any provisions in the relevant rules, regulations or statutes that permits hearing and considerations of the objections raised by the petitioner therein against the application of the petitioner for environmental clearance is still pending consideration before the authority, there would be no legal impediment on account of Ext.P14 judgment, on the said authority considering the same and passing order strictly in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P12 judgment. However, as per Ext. P20 communication, petitioner has been directed to re-submit his application along with the application for Wild Life Clearance. Therefore, the case as it originally stood in the Writ Petition was seeking to quash Ext.P20 on the ground that, it has no legal basis or reason, since as per Ext.P8 notification dated 15.1.2016, the general conditions will not apply to a project or activity of mining of B2 category of 25 hectares of mining area. It is further submitted, as per Ext.P7 certificate, the Range Officer of the Forest Department, Karnataka has certified that, the property where the mining was proposed to be held is at a distance of 5.3 Kms. from the buffer zone of Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary. However, as per Ext.P10 notification dated 25.6.2014 the distance of 10 Kms. was reduced to 5 Kms. from the buffer zone of Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary. However, as per Ext.P10 notification dated 25.6.2014 the distance of 10 Kms. was reduced to 5 Kms. While the Writ Petition was pending, petitioner has realised that, there are adverse circumstances remaining against the petitioner consequent to the mining plan and other action taken by the respondents under the Disaster Management Act, to which high hazard zones are prescribed and the quarrying operations proposed by the petitioner is remaining within the area of red zone as per the plan prepared by the State Disaster Management Authority. Thereupon, the writ petition was amended incorporating necessary pleadings and reliefs accordingly raising contention that, the State as well as the District Authorities under the Disaster Management Act have not prepared the plans in accordance with the requirements contained under the provisions of the said Act and therefore, plans prepared are illegal and arbitrary, and approval of Ext.P58 plan of the DDMA and Ext.59 plan of the State Authority are liable to be interfered with by this court, and also seeking consequential reliefs. The Managing Director of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is the 10th respondent in W.P.(C) No.24261/2018. 4. Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8584/2018 has secured quarrying licence in respect of 4.4520 hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.1/1 of Payyavoor Village, Thaliparamba Taluk, Kannur District as per Ext.P1 order issued by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, as per Ext.P2, quarrying lease was executed and was issued with Ext.P9 environmental clearance by the 5th respondent i.e., DEIAA for quarrying operations in the property. Petitioner has also secured consent of the Pollution Control Board and is said to have complied with the conditions contained in Ext.P9 environmental clearance. Therefore, on account of the lease deed, environmental clearance, Panchayat licence, consent of the Pollution Control Board and other statutory authorities, petitioner commenced quarrying operations in the property. 5. While so, the 5th respondent i.e., DEIAA as per Ext.P11 minutes decided to revoke the environmental clearance on the ground that, the 4th respondent i.e., the DEAC reported that, as per the Google Earth File available in the website page of the State Disaster Management Authority, the quarry falls in high hazard landsl....de prone area. It is the case of the petitioner that, quarry does not fall in high hazard landslide prone area and there was no instance of landslide in that area. It is the case of the petitioner that, quarry does not fall in high hazard landslide prone area and there was no instance of landslide in that area. It is also pointed out that, the Disaster Management Plan was prepared by the authorities under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 based on Google Earth File without actual physical inspection of the properties and complained that, on the basis of Ext.P11 minutes DEIAA directed the petitioner as per Ext.P12 communication to stop all quarrying activities until further orders. It is thus seeking to quash Exts.P11 and P12 minutes and communication and seeking other consequential reliefs, the said Writ Petition is filed. 6. In W.P.(C)No.40816/2016 filed by a third person, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8584/2018 is the 8th respondent, seeking to declare that, petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8584/2018 i.e., Sabu Abraham is a violator of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, in regard to conduct of mining without environmental clearance and to declare that the said quarry operator above is not entitled for ex post facto environmental clearance and for other consequential reliefs. 7. W.P.(C) No.23836/2018 is filed challenging Ext.P9 environmental clearance issued by the DEIAA dated 2.5.2017, valid upto 1.5.2022 issued to said Sabu Abraham and also to quash related decisions taken. W.P.(C) No.24261/2018 is filed by third persons against the quarry operations conducted by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017, and seeking to quash environmental clearance viz., Ext.P20 therein, dated 27.4.2017, valid upto 26.4.2022, and also to quash Ext.P17 and P19 minutes of DEAC dated 17.3.2017 and DEIAA dated 26.4.2017 respectively. 8. Statement are filed by the 7th respondent i.e., the State Disaster Management Authority refuting the claims and demands raised by the quarry operators. According to the 7th respondent, the Hazard Susceptibility Assessment, Kerala 2014, hereinafter called, HSAK - 2014 has two components; they being a portion with ‘maps’ and ‘tables’. HSAK 2014 was primarily prepared as a handbook for the use of revenue authorities. Hence, the tables in HSAK - 2014 only mention local place names that help newly posted officials from outside the local area to understand the general localities wherein various industrial hazards may occur. HSAK 2014 was primarily prepared as a handbook for the use of revenue authorities. Hence, the tables in HSAK - 2014 only mention local place names that help newly posted officials from outside the local area to understand the general localities wherein various industrial hazards may occur. However, if the hazard susceptibility of a particular location or humanly laid boundary is needed, the required latitudea and longitude of the location or the various corners of the boundary need to be obtained and such obtained latitude and longitude information will have to be plotted on the already prepared hazard susceptibility map. In every cartographically prepared map, the latitude and longitude information of the area is only marked along the boundary. In order to plot a location/a boundary the latitude and longitude is traced from these boundaries and such locations are identified. In the modern days, commonly available technology named Geographic Information Systems such as Google Earth, Bhuvan, etc., permit basic mobile phone users and computer users to plot one’s location and identify if a particular location falls within a hazard zone. In order to enable common public the State Disaster Management Authority for the first time in the country has openly published all scientifically prepared hazard susceptibility maps in a format which could be used in any Geographic Information System. Thus it is only to confuse this court that the petitioners keep on insisting that the table in the HASAK - 2014 only has local names. 9. According to the said respondent, all the places available with the data base of the State Disaster Management Authority is as per authentic topographic maps prepared by Survey of India. All local names and colloquial names need not feature in the authentic place name records of Survey of India and the place names shown in the HSAK - 2014 is not the criteria to verify whether the land is included in the high hazard zone in HSAK - 2014. The place names are mentioned in HSAK -2014 only for the easy reference for the public and the revenue authorities. The actual areas can be identified only through the geo co-ordinates. Hence the contention of the petitioner that, the properties where the quarry is situated comes under Udayagiri Village in Muthusserymala and that the same does not come within the high hazard zone is an incorrect statement. The actual areas can be identified only through the geo co-ordinates. Hence the contention of the petitioner that, the properties where the quarry is situated comes under Udayagiri Village in Muthusserymala and that the same does not come within the high hazard zone is an incorrect statement. Therefore, according to the 7th respondent, Ext.P39 certificate issued by the Village Officer is an incompetent one and there is no power vested with the Village Officer to issue such a certificate under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. That apart it is stated, Ext.P39 certificate is issued without any consultation with the 7th respondent and the said certificate can never be relied upon. Similarly, Ext.P38 letter issued by the Tahsildar is also an incompetent one since there is no authority vested with the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Act, 2005. That apart it is stated, the process of map reading is to be adopted, if someone needs to identify, as to whether location falls within a particular hazard zone. Internationally accepted cartographic [principle of map making] is strictly followed by mentioning the latitude and longitude of the area along the boundaries. Same procedure is adopted for preparing the topographic maps of the country. Further, National Centre for Earth Science Studies (NCESS) is not impleaded as a respondent. Since the areas are identified by the said authority, NCESS is a necessary party to the writ proceedings. The National Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Project (NLSM) of Geological Survey of India started during the financial year 2014-2015 and a true copy of the web-page of the Geological Survey of India is produced as Annexure R7(a). The State of Kerala completed the statutory obligation of mapping of natural hazard vulnerable area of the State way back in 2009 with the help of Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS), which is presently, ‘the National Centre for Earth Science Studies (NCESS)’. Annexure R7(b) newsletter issued by CESS during September, 2009 contained information regarding the release of District Level Multi Hazard Zone Maps for helping planners in preparing District and State Disaster Management plans. Kerala was the first State in the country to achieve the said target. The Geological Survey of India has started preparing such land slide hazard zone maps only from 2014-2015 and that, the complete map of Kerala prepared by Geological Survey of India will be ready only by 2019-2020. Kerala was the first State in the country to achieve the said target. The Geological Survey of India has started preparing such land slide hazard zone maps only from 2014-2015 and that, the complete map of Kerala prepared by Geological Survey of India will be ready only by 2019-2020. Thus the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority in terms of preparing maps indicating areas vulnerable to landslide hazard is way ahead of the country and hence whether GSI has mapped a particular area or not is irrelevant for the purpose of the State Disaster Management Plan, 2016. It is further submitted that, the table in Ext.P50 is providing only District wise and Taluk wise area statistics and is not intended for any other purposes. An area cannot be represented by a single latitude and longitude. Revenue Survey Boundaries as recorded in the revenue records are not naturally identifiable but are demarcated in maps using multiple latitude longitude information, and on field by survey stones. So much so it is submitted, the contention that, no hazard has occurred is not a scientific reason to assess the vulnerability of a location to any particular hazard. Moreover, the Village Officer or the Tahsildar are not technically competent authorities for verifying any location for its hazard vulnerability and hence their so called reports have no technical value as far as State Disaster Management Authority is concerned. As per section 5.11 of State Disaster Management Plan 2016, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority is statutorily bound to consult the Disaster Management plans and hazards susceptibility maps. Once laid in the Disaster Management Plan, the stakeholder departments and Government Organizations are bound by the plan to follow the prescriptions therein to reduce the disaster risks. The Disaster Management Plan prepared under Act, 2005 has the protection, ‘of overriding effect of the Act’ as provided under Section 71 of the Act, 2005. Hence any environmental clearance issued by the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority or any other local body without any consultation with the Disaster Management Authorities is null and void, and can only be subject to the provisions of Act, 2005. 10. That apart it is stated that, Ext.P51 letter of the District Collector, Kannur has been duly replied by the respondent clarifying the said position. 10. That apart it is stated that, Ext.P51 letter of the District Collector, Kannur has been duly replied by the respondent clarifying the said position. Further in order to enable the public with basic skills in using computers and smart mobile phones, to identify his or her location or house with respect to the hazard prone zones of the State, the authority has under the voluntary disclosure clause of the Right to Information Act, has disclosed and provided in public domain, the entire hazard maps available to it in open source format for using geographic Information System such as Google Earth or Bhuvan. Therefore, the human laid boundaries cannot be plainly demarcated in scientifically prepared maps unless the boundary co-ordinates are provided. That apart it is submitted, it is very simple for any smart phone users to identify the latitude and longitude information of any quarry boundary and over lay it on the hazard susceptibility maps published online by the State Disaster Management Authority. Also they are entitled to approach the District Management Authorities to help them to plot their boundaries. Thus the ground level demarcation is not required and the HSAK - 2014 has not been prepared on the basis of the revenue records and therefore, the site inspection report with reference to the survey numbers is immaterial. From the recent devastating landslides that have occurred in Kattipara in Kozhikode District, it is evident that, destructive land use has triggered and aggravated the impact of landslide resulting in fatality of 14 human beings. 11. The claim of the petitioner that the District Level National Hazard Zone Maps were an in-house R&D Project of CESS is incorrect. From Ext,R7(b), it is evident that, the CESS published the maps and handed it over to the then Revenue Minister of Kerala in the presence of the then Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and District Collectors with the specific intention of using it in preparing the State and District Disaster Management plans. Further CESS also conducted two days stakeholder workshop with key functionaries of the Government related to Disaster Management, officials from the District Administration involved in the preparation of the Disaster Management Plan, representatives of various NGO, researchers and students and scientists and trained and impressed upon them the use of the maps in preparing the disaster management plans. Further CESS also conducted two days stakeholder workshop with key functionaries of the Government related to Disaster Management, officials from the District Administration involved in the preparation of the Disaster Management Plan, representatives of various NGO, researchers and students and scientists and trained and impressed upon them the use of the maps in preparing the disaster management plans. The State Government and the Disaster Management Authority cannot ignore such credible findings and reports and maps prepared by a competent scientific organization such as CESS particularly when it pertains to Disaster Management and involvement of safety of life and property. As per the internationally accepted scientific methodology for preparing landslide susceptibility maps, the site visits are not required, instead, only a validation exercise requiring them to visit only selected area, by the Principal Investigator, to ascertain the general prudence of the prepared maps is required. Usually, locations of previous occurrences of landslides are considered as a whole for validation and Scientists are required to visit only selected field areas as deemed appropriate by the Scientist. A methodology similar to Annexure R7(a) was used for preparing these maps by CESS. Various technologies are also employed in the process and also the prescriptions by Bureau of Indian Standards. The State Disaster Management Plan of Kerala was prepared after completing detailed District Disaster Management Plans in which all the hazard susceptibility maps were included and circulated at the District Level to all relevant stakeholders including District Panchayat, District Panchayat Presidents, who are considered as stakeholders in the Kerala State Disaster Management Rules, 2007 and all District Management Authorities were specifically directed to circulate the copies of all the draft district plans inclusive of the hazard zone maps to all its members including the representatives of the local authorities. The Kerala State Disaster Management Authority conducted specific one day awareness workshop on landslide and climate change in collaboration with Geological Survey of India, Government of India and United Nation Development Programme and discussed in detail the landslide hazard zone maps of the State on 25.8.2014 as part of conducting stakeholder consultation for Disaster Management Plan Preparation. Further inter departmental consultation meetings were held on 30.12.2014 for discussing the hand book prepared and cited in the State Disaster Management Plan enlisting various Disaster Risk Reduction standard operating procedures. The plan was also sent to National Disaster Management Authority as a draft for their comments on 16.1.2015. Further inter departmental consultation meetings were held on 30.12.2014 for discussing the hand book prepared and cited in the State Disaster Management Plan enlisting various Disaster Risk Reduction standard operating procedures. The plan was also sent to National Disaster Management Authority as a draft for their comments on 16.1.2015. After preparing the first draft of the plan on 7.7.2015, State Disaster Management Authority further conducted State level consultation on main stream Disaster Risk Reduction and climate change adaptation into development planning, which was attended by 57 different stakeholders. The National Disaster Management Authority replied with comments on 1.9.2015, to include the conditions and mitigation measures for addressing the conditions of disabled people during disaster. Thereupon, State Disaster Management Authority again conducted a consultation on 11.5.2016 and 30.6.2016 with the draft plan and after receiving the resolution of all DDMAs, the State Disaster Management Authority met on 5.10.2015 and discussed in detail and passed the District Disaster Management Plans. It was only after all these due procedures as deemed fit by the State Executive Committee of the State Authority and based on the order passed in W.P.(C) No.444/2013 by the Apex Court that, the State Disaster Management Authority and State Executive Committee of State Authority jointly met on 7.9.2016 and discussed in detail and thereafter approved the State Disaster Management Plan. Hence the contention of the petitioner that, no consultation with the local authorities were carried out by the State Executive Committee before preparing the State Disaster Management Plan, 2010 is incorrect and hence denied. 12. It is also pointed out that, only peer reviewed, internationally accepted journals, articles and research works have been quoted as prescribed in scientific writing methodologies for reiterating non-scientific facts pertaining to Kerala’s landslide susceptibility. To the contention raised by the petitioner with respect to Ext.P7 information given under the Right to Information Act to Ext.P56 application submitted by the petitioner that high hazard zone prepared by CESS does not have information on the location of the quarries, it is asserted that, the NCESS has only identified and mapped the high hazard zone in HSAK - 2014 and the above map is available with the NCESS, where the location of the petitioner’s quarry can be identified only if the geo co-ordinates are provided by the person who has given Ext.P56 application. The entire area of high hazard zone has been mapped in the HSAK - 2014, which has been included in the State Disaster Management Plan, 2016 as per the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The State Authority has no interest in blanket prohibition of quarrying in the State. But it is for the sake of ensuring safety to life and property from landslides, it was directed that, no blasting shall be undertaken in high landslide hazard zones of the State as blasting is known to cause landslides in adjoining landslide hazard zones within and outside the quarry boundaries wherever the blast vibrations will propagate. 13. It is also submitted that, the individuals recruited for drafting the plans were technically qualified competent professionals as deemed appropriate by the State Executive Committee. The templates for the plans were prescribed by the National Disaster Management Authority. In section 1.9 of the State Disaster Management Plan, 2016, the time line adopted is given in detail. From the same it is evident that, two members of the State Disaster Management Authority attended a National training for the preparation of plan during November, 2013 in Gujarat Institute of Disaster Management, which was organized by the National Authority. The said members provided necessary training to the recruited professionals in drafting District Disaster Management Plans and State Disaster Management Plan in line with national guidelines. It is evident from page 163 of the Plan 2016 that, the plan was edited by one of the trained members of the State Authority, who is also the member Secretary at present. The statement made by the petitioner that, the data gathered from national and research institutions and departments were not independently verified is baseless, as they are the most authentic Government gathered data sets available for planning. Therefore, according to the 7th respondent, there is no material in the contentions put forth by the petitioner. 14. An additional statement is also filed by the 7th respondent and has produced additional documents also, wherein it is stated that, the matter of restricting quarrying by blasting in landslide prone area, which has been marked as high hazard zone in HASAK-2014 is not at all related to the circulation of draft of Kerala State Disaster Management Plan among the local authorities and the date of preparation of final Disaster Management Plan. The 7th respondent has not directed any office or authority in the State to ban quarrying, however, it was only directed through the State Disaster Management Plan, 2016 that “In the high-hazard zones, quarry blasting is known to increase the probability of triggering landslides and therefore, the DDMAs of Kerala shall ensure that, permission is not granted for quarry blasting in the landslide high-hazard zones as given in HSAK - 2014”. Therefore, the State Executive Committee has only complied with its statutory responsibility in Section 22(2) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 to reduce the risk to life and property, wherein it entrusted to examine the vulnerability of different parts of the State to different forms of disasters and to specify measures to be taken for their prevention or mitigation. It is also pointed out that, Section 1.9 of State Disaster Management Plan, 2016 provides time line and the plan was prepared without any haste and after necessary consultations as deemed fit by the State Executive Committee starting from 2010. The time line prepared are also pointed out by the 7th respondent. Therefore, according to the 7th respondent, it is clear that, it has maintained time line and there was no haste at all in preparing the plans by taking 6 years from the year 2010. The directions given to the District Disaster Management Authority to circulate the copies of the draft District plans inclusive of the Hazard Zone Map to all its members are evident from Annexures R7(c) and R7(d). Therefore, according to the said respondent, every process was carried out taking into account the guidelines provided under Plan, 2016 and in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2005. 15. A communication dated 2.7.2018 of the Chairman, DDMA is produced addressing the Advocate General stating that, the HSAK-2014 prepared by the State Disaster Management Authority has not mentioned the extent and boundaries of the area in the table, instead, stressed only the local name of the area and therefore, he is not in a position to physically verify whether the alleged quarry fall under any of the four places mentioned in high hazard zone in the Natural Hazard Zonation Map of Kannur District and at this juncture assistance of State Management Authority was sought for to provide the latitude and longitudes demarcating the four places mentioned in the Order in I.A.No.18813/2017 in W.P.(C) No.4022/17 dated 23.1117. Accordingly, the State Disaster Management Authority instructed to use the Google Earth file uploaded in the official portal of the said authority to ascertain the high hazard landslide prone area in the District. But the Google Earth map also, has not demarcated in the field and in order to comply with the directions of this court, a physical site verification was conducted in the four places viz., 1.Alakatle Mala 2. Udayagiri 3.North Rayarome 4.Thadikkadavu. 16. While conducting the physical verification, the authority inspected the above places, conducted local enquiry along with the revenue officials concerned and GPS co-ordinates were taken from different points. Thereupon, it was found that, the region known as “Alakatle Mala” is not in any record and does not exist in the vicinity of concerned region and also found that, the place Rayarome exist instead of North Rayarome. That apart it is stated thereunder, the State Authority has not mentioned the extent and the boundaries of the area in HSAK-2014, instead, stressed only the local name of the area and the Google Earth map has also demarcated the area. Hence geo co-ordinates were taken from different points of the above three areas in the HSAK-2014 and found that, above three places are not in the high hazard landslide prone area as per the Google Earth map uploaded in the portal of SDMA. That apart it is stated that, DDMA has not prepared any high-hazard landslide prone area list. The HSAK-2014 and the Google Earth map are prepared by the State Disaster Management Authority. All the steps and consultation for preparation of the HSAK - 2014 and the google earth map were done by the State Disaster Management Authority. 17. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner refuting the allegations and statements made in the statements filed by the 7th respondent and reiterated the stand adopted in the Writ Petition. The submissions contained in the statement that, the plans were circulated to the local authorities and stakeholder is not true or correct and there are no data furnished before this court as to when the plan was circulated. Other statements contained in the statement with respect to the efforts taken by the statutory authorities to secure the training and to train the relevant stakeholders for the preparation of the plan are all disputed by the petitioner. Other statements contained in the statement with respect to the efforts taken by the statutory authorities to secure the training and to train the relevant stakeholders for the preparation of the plan are all disputed by the petitioner. The qualifications of the person, who has edited the SDM Plan, 2006 is also disputed by the petitioner by stating that, he was appointed as Assistant Professor from April, 2012 to March, 2016 in Disaster Management Centre with full independent charge of Head (Scientist), State Emergency Operation Centre and the said post was permanently converted as Head (Scientist), State Emergency Operation Centre and the said post was shifted permanently to Kerala State Disaster Management Authority in March, 2016. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the person who has been appointed as Associate Professor is presently holding the post of Member Secretary of the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority and Head (Scientist) State Emergency Operation Centre. Petitioner has sought for details of appointment of the said authority under the Right to Information Act. 18. Apart from the pleadings put forth, various interlocutory applications were preferred at different point of time and has also produced various documents from either side. That apart another statement is filed by the 7th respondent dated 10.7.2018 and among others it is submitted that the contention that names of certain local areas like Alaketele Mala, Udayagiri, Thodikkadavu, North Rayarome are not seen in the mapand hence, not seen in the hazard zonation map, have of no relevance while considering whether quarry blasting can be permitted in high hazard zone or not. It is further submitted that, if any question arose as to whether any particular plot is included in the red zone of the Landslide Hazard Zonation Map, it can be easily derived by gathering the geo co-ordinates of the boundaries of the plot which could be obtained by any smart phone. That apart it is stated that, the District Authority has not prepared any map since preparation of map needs technical expertise. However, the Disaster Management Plan is discussed thoroughly by the Disaster Management Authority and approved by the Authority after following necessary consultation as per Annexure-R7(Q). It is also pointed out that, the latitude and longitude of the area can be super imposed in any map prepared using the Survey of India topography. However, the Disaster Management Plan is discussed thoroughly by the Disaster Management Authority and approved by the Authority after following necessary consultation as per Annexure-R7(Q). It is also pointed out that, the latitude and longitude of the area can be super imposed in any map prepared using the Survey of India topography. In place of multi hazard zonation map of Alakkode Village, petitioner has sought landslide hazard susceptibility map of Alakkode Village from the State Emergency Operation Centre, which was issued and produced as Ext.P46 by the petitioner in which the boundary co-ordinates of Alakkode Village is clearly given. For plotting any location in Ext.P46, the fundamental principle of graph paper reading can be employed whereby if a person has to plot a particular latitude, he can use a simple scale and measure the distance between two bounding latitude marks given in the map and draw straight line perpendicular to the boundary into the map and similar is the case of longitude. It is also submitted that, the letter of the Chairman of the DEIAA to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, marked as Ext.P51 may not be relevant in the present case. It is submitted, in the said letter, what is stated is that, the red zone area is not demarcated in the ground level. But there is no necessity as per the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to mark the high landslide hazard zone in the ground level. However, the red zone can be easily identified by the use of geo co-ordinates when a particular case arises. That apart it is stated that, in accordance with the directions issued by this court in W.P.(C) No.8584/2018, the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority conducted physical measurements to ascertain whether or not the property of the petitioner would fall in the natural hazard zonnation map of Kannur District and a report is submitted. The National Disaster Management Guidelines is produced as Ext.R7(e). So also the details with respect to the efforts taken in the preparation of the maps and the articles and journals relied upon are all produced along with the said additional reply affidavit. The said additional counter affidavit is filed probably to defend the contentions put forth in the reply affidavit submitted by the petitioner that, there are no materials produced before this court in order to establish that such efforts were made by the State Authority. The said additional counter affidavit is filed probably to defend the contentions put forth in the reply affidavit submitted by the petitioner that, there are no materials produced before this court in order to establish that such efforts were made by the State Authority. So also as per the directions issued by this court on 18.9.2018, an inspection was conducted and necessary informations, through the Village Officer and other Officials concerned, and visiting the site in question and the same is produced along with a memo dated 10.10.2018 in which location of landslides occurred in Alakkode Village from June to 15th September, 2018, Ervasseri Village, Vellad Village and Payyavoor Village of Taliparamba, Kannur District are also produced. Certain photographs with respect to the landslides are also produced apparently for the purpose of establishing the fact that the conclusions arrived at by the State Authority in respect of the high hazard zones are on the basis of the specific factual circumstances available in the place in question. 19. Almost typical contentions are raised in W.P(C)No.8584/2018 and the contentions in the counter are also typical in nature. However, along with the same, a report relating to an inspection conducted on 24.8.2018 is also produced, along with direction issued by this court, on 3.4.2018, to conduct actual physical measurement to ascertain whether or not the property of the petitioner would fall under any of the four places mentioned as high hazard landslide zone in the natural hazard zonation map of Kannur District. It is stated in the report that, field inspection of the quarry was held on 24.8.2018 in the presence of the petitioner therein and the quarry is located at latitude 12o 5’17.4”N and longitude 75o37’18.5”E and presently it is working. The quarry boundary is defined by 10 iron rod and for better accuracy, apart from the quarry boundary pointed out by the petitioner, 16 more GPS survey points were taken along with 10 iron rods and the details are also given. It is also reported that, the general trend of the slope varies from 30o to 33o towards the south which is rather steep and the thickness of overburden varies from 4 to 7 metres. It is also pointed out that, the area in general is characterised by rugged topography. There is also a cursing unit at a height of 480 metres from MSL on top right side of quarry. It is also pointed out that, the area in general is characterised by rugged topography. There is also a cursing unit at a height of 480 metres from MSL on top right side of quarry. Photographs are also produced along with the report showing the plantations in the area, quarry as well as the crusher unit and the nearby hilly terrains are also evident from the photographs produced. Along with the additional statement filed by the State Disaster Management Authority dated 6.7.2018, Annexure R6(c) Judgment of the Apex Court is produced and the learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that, the Apex Court has taken note of the fact that, out of 684 districts in the country, District Disaster Management Plan is in place in 615 districts while it is under process in the remaining districts. It was also further held thereunder that, on a review of the steps that have been taken by the National Disaster Management Authority, the Court was of the opinion that, there has been sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act and it is unnecessary for the court to issue any particular directions. However, the National Authority constituted at the national level and State Authority at the State level was directed to be ever vigilant and ensure that if any unfortunate disaster strikes, there should be total preparedness, and maximum reliefs are provided to all concerned. It was also observed that, it would be advisable for the National Authority to regularly publish its annual reports to review and update all plans on the basis of experience and to make its website ndma.gov.in,multilngual, so that, all concerned may benefit. Various other documents are also produced along with the said statement in order to justify that sufficient steps were taken for the preparation of the Plan, 2016 right from the year, 2010 onwards and to significantly point out, that the contentions raised by the petitioners are not legally or factually sustainable. 20. As pointed out above, W.P.(C) No.40186/2016 is filed seeking declaration that, the 8th respondent i.e., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8584/2018 is a violator since no clearances are secured for the operation of the quarry and further to declare that, he is not entitled for ex post facto environmental clearance. 20. As pointed out above, W.P.(C) No.40186/2016 is filed seeking declaration that, the 8th respondent i.e., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8584/2018 is a violator since no clearances are secured for the operation of the quarry and further to declare that, he is not entitled for ex post facto environmental clearance. Virtually the said Writ Petition has become infructuous since thereafter environmental clearance was issued to the said quarry operator, which is under challenge in W.P. (C) No.23836/2018. The predominant contention advanced by the petitioner, who is allegedly an Agriculturist near to the quarry operated by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.8584/2018 is that, as per Ext.P11 Office Memorandum, any new mining projects/extension of existing mining projects require prior environmental clearance. The said quarry operator has extended the mining project from 12 cents to 213 cents after Ext.P12 without obtaining environmental clearance. Therefore, it is a clear violation of the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 21. That apart the area where the quarry of the 8th respondent situate is identified as high-hazard landslide prone area by the State Disaster Management Authority. It is also pointed out that, without disclosing the pendency of W.P.C, No.40186/2016, 8th respondent has approached the 3rd respondent to obtain ex post facto environmental clearance for an extent of 4.5 hectares including illegally mined area. Even the 3rd respondent, DEIAA found that, 8th respondent had submitted false information in the application, but it has decided to grant environmental clearance by redrafting the application without any appraisal and deviating from several conditions laid down by the 4th respondent in clause 8 of EIA Notification. The Central Government has issued Ext.P5 notification dated 14.3.2017 stating that, application for environmental clearance with cases involving violation can be dealt by the Central Government only and therefore, it was in violation of Ext.P5, DEIAA has processed the application and has granted Ext.P9 environmental clearance, filed along with W.P.(C) No.8584/2018, akin to Ext.P20 in this Writ Petition valid upto 1.5.2022, which according to the petitioner, is issued without following the statutory requirements under law and without taking note of the plan prepared by the State Authority as well as District Authority in terms of Act, 2005. 22. A counter affidavit is filed by the quarry operator stating that, the clearance issued by the statutory authority is in accordance with law and taking into account necessary requirements in contemplation of facts and law. 22. A counter affidavit is filed by the quarry operator stating that, the clearance issued by the statutory authority is in accordance with law and taking into account necessary requirements in contemplation of facts and law. According to the quarry operator, the quarry operator is entitled to carry on with the quarry operations in view of the clearances secured from the statutory authorities. 23. W.P.(C) No.24261/2018 is filed challenging the clearance given to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017, who is the 10th respondent in this Writ Petition making typical contentions against the grant of environmental clearance. Therein also it is pointed out that, expansion was made in violation of Exts.P12 and P12(a) office memorandums of the Government of India dated 19.8.2010 and 18.5.2012. According to the petitioner, consequent to the imperative directions contained in Ext.P12 in contravention to the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 amounts to violation of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and would attract penal action under the provisions thereto. That apart the project proponents may note that, in case of any project, where conditions have been prescribed for undertaking detailed EIA study and where, construction activities relating to the project have been initiated by them, the clearances may be suspended or withdrawn in addition to initiating penal action under the provisions of Act, 1986. So also Ext.P12(a) Office Memorandum dated 18.5.2012 issued in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court in I.A No.12-13 of 2011 in SLP(C) No.19628-19629 of 2009 in the matter of Deepak Kumar etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors., dated 27.2.2012 all the quarries operated in less than 5 hectares are also liable to secure environmental clearance. Therefore, the quarry operated by the petitioner without securing necessary clearance from the statutory authority is hit by the directives contained under Exts.P12 and P12(a). So petitioner heavily relying up on Ext.P13 minutes of the 1st meeting of the DEAC held on 6.12.2016, significantly points out that, the project proponent namely the 10th respondent i.e., the Managing Director of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017 was present and the proponent has agreed to the decision taken thereunder. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the quarry operator has got sufficient knowledge with respect to the nature of work undertaken by the statutory authorities for the purpose of acting upon the plan prepared during the year 2016. 24. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the quarry operator has got sufficient knowledge with respect to the nature of work undertaken by the statutory authorities for the purpose of acting upon the plan prepared during the year 2016. 24. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the quarry operator supporting the environmental clearance issued by the statutory authority. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners especially traversing through the contentions with respect to the agreement executed by the mother of the 1st petitioner with respect to the transfer of the property, payments effected etc., etc., and also contending that, no payments against the property deed was paid by the 10th respondent and the onus of proof lies apparently on the 10th respondent. 25. Anyhow that is not a subject matter to be considered by this court to decide the vital issues raised in the Writ Petition. However, the contentions of the 10th respondent is that, it is due to the animosity that is nurtured by the 1st petitioner against the 10th respondent on account of the transactions so entered, the Writ Petition is filed with the hopeful intention of coercing the respondent to concede to the terms and conditions of the 1st petitioner. Petitioner as well as 10th respondent have produced various documents along with interlocutory applications in that regard. But I.A.No.8/2018 is an application seeking to initiate prosecution against the 1st petitioner for filing false affidavit before this court, which will be dealt with by me through a separate order. 26. Heard learned counsel Sri.Santhosh Mathew, Sri.T.B.Hood, Sri.Harish Vasudevan for petitioners in the writ petitions, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Renjith Thampan along with Sri.Y.Jafar Khan, Government Pleader, Sri.S.Sreekumar, Senior Counsel along with Sri.Shiraz Abdulla for the respondents and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 27. Multi faceted contentions are advanced by learned counsel appearing for the quarry operators. The first and foremost contention advanced is that, action of the respondents are interfering with the rights of the property owners guaranteed under Art.300A of the Constitution of India. It is also argued that, the District Disaster Management Plan has been prepared and forwarded by the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority as per Annexure R7(c) letter dated 14.1.2015 produced along with the statement dated 30.6.2018. It is also argued that, the District Disaster Management Plan has been prepared and forwarded by the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority as per Annexure R7(c) letter dated 14.1.2015 produced along with the statement dated 30.6.2018. So also it is contended, from Ext.R7(q) dated 7.2.2015 it is evident that, the District Collector, Kannur forwarded the draft District Disaster Management Plan to the members of DDMA, pursuant to which, the same was approved on 12.2.2015. The District Panchayat President was informed in his capacity as the member of the DDMA and that cannot be treated as a sufficient consultation with the local authority as contemplated under the Disaster Management Act. As per the Disaster Management Plan for Kannur District, there is one District Panchayat, 81 Grama Panchayats and 6 Municipalities. Therefore, the contention advanced is that, these local authorities were not consulted prior to finalisation of the District Disaster Management Plan for Kannur District. So much so no consultation was carried out by the DDMA or the State Authority before the finalisation of the District Disaster Management Plan for Kannur District. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the respective counsel is that, in the light of Section 31, the process of drawing up the District Management Plan is totally vitiated, therefore, arbitrary and illegal. 28. Yet another contention advanced is that, in the District Disaster Management Plan for Kannur District in Taliparamba, 15 villages have been identified as vulnerable to landslide, however, the Udayagiri village in which the quarry of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017 is functioning is not identified so. It is further argued that, as per Ext.P39 certificate produced along with the said Writ Petition, issued by the Village Officer of Udayagiri Village, the petitioner’s quarry is situated in Udayagiri Village and not in any other village mentioned as vulnerable to landslide in table No.17 of the District Disaster Management Plan. It is also the case of the quarry operators that, the Village Officer has the authority to certify whether a particular area comes within that village or not. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be interdicted from carrying on quarrying operations in the property situated in Udayagiri Village and Payyavoor Village respectively for the reason that, in HSAK-2014 the place names were mentioned. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be interdicted from carrying on quarrying operations in the property situated in Udayagiri Village and Payyavoor Village respectively for the reason that, in HSAK-2014 the place names were mentioned. That apart it is mentioned in Ext.R7(i) report prepared by Mr.John Mathai & Mr.Sreejesh Kumar produced along with the additional statement dated 10.7.2018 that, the output maps at District level are on 1:100000 scale. In Ext.R7(k) minutes of the First High Level meeting of HVRA Cell (Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Cell) held on 12.5.2011, Mr.John Mathai stated that multiple hazard map is valid up to 1:50000 scale and not in a scale larger than this. However, the results are in 1:100000 scale. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the said information cannot be relied upon either by the SDMA or DDMA without collecting proper data and the blind reliance placed on this data by the SDMA is therefore, arbitrary and illegal. 29. It is further submitted that, as per R7(h), the 7th respondent has produced guidelines for preparation of landslide hazard zonation map in mountainous terrains and the procedure for macro zonation is clearly mentioned in clause 5. According to the petitioners, landslide hazard zone mapping comprises of two components; (a) Desk study (b) Field investigation. The study shall involve preparation of various types of pre-field maps of 1:50000 scale such as lithological map, structural map, slope morphometry map, relative relief map, rock out crop and soil cover map, land use and land cover map and hydrogeological map. The information collected from the desk study helps to plan and execute the field investigation systematically. During field study a more detailed lithological and structural map shall be prepared. The details of other maps prepared during desk study could be verified in the field and modified wherever necessary. That apart, the field studies shall be carried out to collect the required data facet-wise, for estimating the total hazard of facets. Case projected on the basis of the said information by the petitioner is that, no field study had admittedly been carried out either by the State Disaster Management Authority or by the Center for Earth Science Studies before preparing the zonation map and therefore, the maps prepared without following due process cannot be relied upon to restrain the petitioner from carrying out quarrying operations in his land. 30. 30. That apart it is pointed out that, in the letter of the Chairman, DDMA addressed to the Advocate General dated 2.6.2018, produced with the memo dated 6.7.2018 it is admitted that, DDMA is not in a position to physically verify whether the quarry falls under any of the four places mentioned in high hazard zone in the Natural Hazard Zonation Map for Kannur District. It is also stated thereunder that, HSAK-2014 prepared by the State Disaster Management Authority has not mentioned the extent and boundaries of the area in the table, instead, stressed only the local name of the area. It is further pointed out that, though the State Disaster Management Authority instructed that, the Google earth file uploaded in State Authorities official portal be used to ascertain the high hazard landslide prone area in the district, the Google Earth maps has also not been demarcated in the field. That apart it is reported that, Alakatle Mala and North Rayorame are not seen in the area. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that, as per Ext.P38 report of the Tahsildar, Taliparamba dated 23.5.2017 to the District Collector, Kannur that, quarry of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017 is not included in the natural hazard zone map. Petitioner is also relying upon Exts.P43, 45 & 46 informations received under the Right to Information Act to show that, the property of the petitioners in question are not seen and the latitude longitude of Udayagiri and Thdikkadavu were furnished. It is clear from Ext.46 that, no latitude and longitude mentioned to the areas is marked as high hazard. The thrust of the contention advanced by learned counsel for quarry operators is that, having not prepared the District Disaster Management Plan as is contemplated under the Act, 2005, the preparation of the map is arbitrary and illegal, especially for the reason that, there was no consultation done by the State Authority in contemplation of Section 31 of Act, 2005. 31. 31. Learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that, the documents produced along with the statements filed in the Writ Petitions make it amply clear that, the State Authority has undertaken intense study in the matter and has finalised the map prepared by the Centre for Earth Science Studies by relying upon various articles and study materials and after providing sufficient training to the staff in contemplation of the provisions of the Disaster Management Act and Environment (Protection) Act and all the relevant rules. It is also submitted that, the names are shown in the zonation map not on the basis of the villages but on the basis of the name of the places known to the public, and therefore, arguments advanced by the petitioners on the basis that, in Udayagiri Village the quarry is not situated cannot be sustained under law. It is also pointed out that, State of Kerala is the first to achieve the target of preparation of State Disaster Management Plan as well as the District Disaster Management Plan. It is also pointed out that, sufficient discussions are made by the State Authorities with the Members, and District Plans were prepared taking into account also the State Plan prepared and after circulating the same to all the authorities. Moreover, it is submitted that, even if assuming that there are any shortcomings in the preparation of the District Disaster Management Plan, that will not in any manner interfere with the State Plan, which is bound to be taken note of by the District Authorities and then prepare the District Plan. Moreover, the District Authority is liable under Act, 2005 to take into account the State Plan and follow the same. Merely because the District Authority is empowered to incorporate specifically more vulnerable areas in the zonation map, it was not entitled to overlook the places earmarked by the State Authority as vulnerable and susceptible to disaster. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the plan prepared by the State Authority as well as the District Authority are in order, and taking into account all the relevant provisions of law and scientific details and datas available from the study. 32. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the plan prepared by the State Authority as well as the District Authority are in order, and taking into account all the relevant provisions of law and scientific details and datas available from the study. 32. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners, who are opposing the quarry operators submitted that, going by Annexure (m) in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017, the Agricultural Officer has disbursed compensation amounts to various persons for damage caused to agriculture as a result of landslide in Udayagiri Grama Panchayat. Ext.P24 State Disaster Management Plan specifically states that, quarry blasting is prohibited in high hazard prone areas as per HSAK-2014, evident from Ext.P23. It is also stated thereunder that, DDMA has to ensure the same. As per Ext.P23 map, the quarry site falls within the high hazard zone. Since the maps were prepared in the year 2014, based on the inputs given by the Centre for Earth Science Studies in 2010, the Udayagiri village was not specifically mentioned in the list of villages in Kannur District, as Udayagiri Village was then a part of Alakode Village which was shown specifically in Ext.P23. That apart it is also stated that, the brief report of the site inspection conducted on various dates by the hazard analist of State Emergency Operation Centre under the State Authority, it is categorically found by the subject expert that, the quarry site falls in red zone. The report also stated that, landslip occurred at two sites within the quarry site of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017 and out of the 12 landslides that had occurred in Taliparamba Taluk between June, 2018 and September, 2018, two landslides had occurred within the quarry site of the petitioner. That apart it is submitted that, as per Section 2(h) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 “local authority” includes Panchayati Raj Institutions, Municipalities, District Board, Cantonment Board, Town Planning Authority or Zila Parishad or any other body or authority, by whatever name called, for the time being invested by law, for rendering essential services or, with the control and management of civic services, within a specified local area. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, consultation can be done with any one of the above mentioned authorities and so far as the present case is concerned, the consultation was done with the Zila Parishad and the same is not denied by the petitioner either. 33. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, consultation can be done with any one of the above mentioned authorities and so far as the present case is concerned, the consultation was done with the Zila Parishad and the same is not denied by the petitioner either. 33. That apart it is submitted, even if the District Disaster Management Plan is prepared without following the due process of law, Ext.P24 imposes a specificbar/prohibition of quarry blasting in the quarry site of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017, as is identified by the experts. Therefore, reliance placed by the quarry operators on certain documents issued by the District Collector, Tahsildar or Village Officer or for that matter, any revenue officials are not subject experts or technical experts appointed by the authority under Act, 2005 and therefore, no reliance can be placed on any such documents to arrive at a conclusion that the District Plan prepared by the authority is not in accordance with law. That apart it is submitted that, the argument with respect to the resolution and size of the map advanced by the quarry operator cannot be sustained since the digitalized version of the maps prepared by the Centre for Earth Science and Studies are already uploaded in the site of the 4th respondent and has been made available to the public. That apart, the scale of the map is relevant only when the printed version is used. However, the digital map provides more clarity and the size of the resolution is immaterial as the same can be zoomed to the required magnification. Maps are thus uploaded as .klm files. A layman can easily open this file and plot the same on Google Earth software for easy identification of natural hazard susceptibility. Therefore, contention advanced by the quarry operators that, the Google images are used for the imposition of the restriction is incorrect and against the factual scenario. It is also pointed out that, based on the study report, site inspection conducted by the State Disaster Management Authority, evident from Ext.P24 in W.P.(C) No.24261/2018, all technical contentions regarding the maps and plans are immaterial to decide whether the quarry site of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017 falls within the high hazard zone. 34. It is also pointed out that, based on the study report, site inspection conducted by the State Disaster Management Authority, evident from Ext.P24 in W.P.(C) No.24261/2018, all technical contentions regarding the maps and plans are immaterial to decide whether the quarry site of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017 falls within the high hazard zone. 34. I have evaluated the rival contentions made by the respective counsel and also perused the entire pleadings and documents and other files and maps produced before me for adjudication of the issues raised by the parties. 35. A reference to few of the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 would be worthwhile. Section 2(d) defines ‘disaster’ to mean 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’ is defined under Section 2(e) means a continuous and integrated process of planning, organising, coordinating and implementing measures which are necessary or expedient for-- (i) prevention of danger or threat of any disaster (ii) mitigation or reduction of risk 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; (viii) rehabilitation and reconstruction 36. Therefore, reading of the aforequoted provisions would make it clear that, the intention behind Act, 2005 is to identify any natural causes or man-made causes or by accident or negligence substantial loss of human suffering or damage by destruction of property, and prevent and take adequate steps to avoid such mishap or calamity. Further more, Disaster Management is a continuous and integrated process necessary or expedient for prevention of danger etc., etc., and it is not a static or stagnant process”. Which thus means it is a continuous process of integrated activity in order to avoid the mishap and calamities so as to protect the life and liberty of the citizens and the environment at large. Which thus means it is a continuous process of integrated activity in order to avoid the mishap and calamities so as to protect the life and liberty of the citizens and the environment at large. Section 11 deals with preparation of national plan for Disaster Management for the whole of the country to be called the National Plan. Section 23(1) deals with State Plan for Disaster Management for every State to be called the State Disaster Management Plan. Sub-section (2) thereunder confers power for preparation of the State Plan with the State Executive Committee having regard to the guidelines laid down by the National Authority and after consultation with the local bodies, the district authorities and the people’s representatives as the State Executive Committee may deem fit. Sub-section (3) stipulates that the State Plan prepared by the State Executive Committee under sub-section (2) shall be approved by the State Authority. Sub-section (4) deals with the State Plan and shall include; (a) the vulnerability of different parts of the State to different forms of disasters. (b) the measures to be adopted for prevention and mitigation of disasters. (c) the manner in which the mitigation measures shall be integrated with the development plans and projects. (d) the capacity-building and preparedness measures to be taken. (e) the roles and responsibilities of each department of the Government of the State in relation to the measures specified in clauses (b), (c) and (d) above. (f) the roles and responsibilities of different Departments of the Government of the state in responding to any threatening disaster situation or disaster. 37. One of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for quarry operators is that, the State Plan is prepared not in accordance with the aforequoted provisions. However, it is an admitted fact that, HSAK-2014 is prepared, and as per Ext.P51 produced along with W.P.(C) No.4022/2017, what the District Collector, Kannur has pointed out is that, the areas stated as red zone in HSAK-2014 is not clearly demarcated in the ground level and no map prepared demarcating the areas as red zone, according to the District Collector, it is difficult to identify the areas mentioned as red zone. It is also pointed out by the petitioner therein that, the CESS has prepared District level natural hazard zone maps of Kerala which is an in-house research and development project. It is also pointed out by the petitioner therein that, the CESS has prepared District level natural hazard zone maps of Kerala which is an in-house research and development project. Moreover, it is also submitted that, as per the information gathered under the Right to Information Act, CESS has prepared the plan under a project and place names in the said map was extracted from the toposheet published by the Survey of India. So also it is argued, in Ext.P45 it was mentioned by the Kerala State Emergency Operation Centre that, as per the toposheet prepared by the Geological Survey of India and the plan prepared by the Centre of Earth Science Studies, there is no place called “Alakatle Mala” and “North Rayarome”. That apart it is stated that, the geo co-ordinates of Udayagiri and Thadikadavu was given, but the geo co-ordinates of Alakkod Village is not mentioned. 38. To counter the said contention, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that, the National Disaster Management Authority has issued guidelines for preparation of disaster management plan in July, 2007. Annexures R7(e) and (f) are the relevant portion of the said guidelines. As per section 2.3.3 of Annexure R7(g) it is clear that, the BIS guidelines may be adopted for carrying out the local hazard mapping at the macro level. It is also clear from the said guidelines that, till the BIS methodology is revised and codified, the present guidelines should be followed. Annexure R7(g) is the guidelines issued by the National Disaster Management Authority regarding landslides and snow avalanches. Clause 4.5 deals with indiscriminate quarrying and mining operations for construction materials and also have expressed serious concern of such activities in the hill and is strictly regulated. Annexure R7(h) produced along with an additional statement filed is the BIS guidelines for preparation of landslide hazard zonation map in mountain terrains. As per the guidelines for preparation of zonation map in mountain terrain, the map shall be prepared by superimposing the terrain evaluation, maps in a particular seismic zone, such as lithological map, structural map, slope morphometry map, relative relief map, land use and land cover map and hydro geological condition map using landslide hazard evaluation factor etc., and all are done in accordance with the guidelines. As per clause (4) of Annexure R7(h), the maximum landslide hazard evaluation factors are clearly mentioned as (i) to (vi) having a total value of ‘10’. As per clause (4) of Annexure R7(h), the maximum landslide hazard evaluation factors are clearly mentioned as (i) to (vi) having a total value of ‘10’. Clause 4.2.1 provides the erodibility or the response of the rocks, rock types, steep slopes etc. That apart various factors including lithology, structure, slope, land use and hydro-geological conditions etc., are to be the conditions for preparing the hazard zonation map in the mountain terrain. After evaluation, it is also clearly stated in Ext.R7 (h) that, the map has to be submitted. The evaluation map shall be prepared in the first stage. Annexure 7.1 of R7(h) provides for interpretation of macro zonation land-hazard map. That apart the preparation of pre-field maps is also clearly stipulated. So also the method of collection of data including satellite imagery, which is considered to be more accurate data of the area of land use and land cover is obtained. Other methodologies are also provided for the preparation of slope facet maps, preparation of factorial maps and preparation of landslide hazard zonation map. That apart, the Centre for Earth Science Studies is the premier Earth Science Institute in the State of Kerala and even in the year,2008 the State Authority has prepared the District level hazard zone map in the State of Kerala as is evident from Annexure R7(i). Data regarding the landslide takes rating as per the BIS standards i.e., different marks are awarded for different parameters like slope, lithology, land use, hydrological condition totalling to 10 marks. Landslide prone area in each district, taluk and whole of the State is given in Table 2 and the place ‘Taliparamba’ is mentioned thereunder. That apart it is pointed out, as evident from Annexure R7(c) Chapter 9 of the guidelines of the National Disaster Management Authority for preparing hazard susceptibility maps, the hazard susceptibility map is to be prepared on the basis of BIS guidelines. Annexure R7(h) is the relevant portion of the BIS guidelines. 39. Therefore, according to the Additional Advocate General, the said guidelines have been followed by the CESS while preparing the hazard susceptibility map for the State of Kerala as is evident from Annexure R7(b). That apart, as per Annexure R7(j) letter issued to Sri.G.Sankar dated 19.10.2010 by the State Project Officer, UNDP Disaster Risk Reduction Programme, the consultation papers of the land brief report of HVRA workshop is forwarded. That apart, as per Annexure R7(j) letter issued to Sri.G.Sankar dated 19.10.2010 by the State Project Officer, UNDP Disaster Risk Reduction Programme, the consultation papers of the land brief report of HVRA workshop is forwarded. It is also stated, two day workshop was attempted, to figure out the spectrum of HVRA starting from identification of individual hazards in the State to vulnerability parameters, and ascertained. Annexure R7(k) is a letter issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the participants of the workshop including the Director of CESS and forwarded the minutes of the meeting dated 12.5.2011. It is also evident from Annexure R7(k), the details of the minutes are mentioned, and it was decided that, data will be collected from various agents and Nodal Officers. It is also clear that, data used for preparing the hazard susceptibility is to be obtained from CESS, apart from other data including earth quake location, by spatial data of Munnar KDH village, building foot print maps etc. Ext.R7(i) is a Government Order dated 29.7.2011, by which the Disaster Management Department had entrusted various institutions to provide data to the Head, HVRA Cell. Annexure R7(m) is the letter addressed to Director of CESS to handover data including vector layer of landslide prone area of all districts. That apart it is stated that, the Government of India, Home Affairs as per letter dated 4.6.2018 has granted various disaster score card of the State and Union Territories in India, and State of Kerala is ranked ‘5’ as can be seen from Annexure R7(O) and the said ranking is based on risk assessment capacities of the Disaster Management, in which the Disaster Management Plan to play a key role. That apart it is significant to note that, the Apex Court as per Annexure R7(n) has approved the Disaster Management Plan also. 40. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the respective counsel based on the pleadings and documents referred to above, lead to me a conclusion that, substantial efforts were made by the State Government in order to prepare the plan as provided under Act, 2005. It is also evident from the documents produced along with the statements filed that, various datas, scientific methods and technologies were adopted for the preparation of the State Plan. It is also evident from the documents produced along with the statements filed that, various datas, scientific methods and technologies were adopted for the preparation of the State Plan. As I have pointed out earlier, the intention of preparation of the State Plan is with the larger interest of protecting the life and liberty of the citizens of this country and it is a continuous and integrated process. In the process of preparation of the plan, various factual and scientific matters were taken into account in order to identify the vulnerable areas and a zonation map is prepared. In that map, the property belonging to the quarry operators are included in the red zone. The contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioners therein is that, the properties shown in the zonation map their villages are not included. However, it is pointed out that, it is not on the basis of the villages that the places are named and places are named in accordance with the name of the places that are known to the public. I find force in the said contention. That apart the State as well as the petitioners in the other Writ Petition have a case that, at that point of time, the properties of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017 was included in a different village and on bifurcation of the village, now the property is included in the Udayagiri Village. Therefore, in my considered view, substantial efforts were made and the State plan is the outcome of the product generated on the basis of detailed study and taking into account the scientific datas and other aspects. The trust of the contention advanced by quarry operators is dependent on Exts.P38 & P39 letters dated 23.5.2017 issued by the Tahsildar, Taliparamba and the Village Officer, Udayagiri, wherein the quarries are situated, is not included in the national hazard zonation map. So also a letter addressed by the District Collector to the Advocate General is also relied upon. However, fact remains, the said letters cannot have any supervening power over the decision taken by the State Authority in the matter of preparation of the State Plan. 41. So also petitioners have a contention that, in accordance with the letter written by Mr.John Mathai, macro zonation can be done only in 1:50000 scale. However, fact remains, the said letters cannot have any supervening power over the decision taken by the State Authority in the matter of preparation of the State Plan. 41. So also petitioners have a contention that, in accordance with the letter written by Mr.John Mathai, macro zonation can be done only in 1:50000 scale. However, it is clear from Annexure-R7(k) that, zonation was done in that scale, however, the result of the work are printed in 1:100000 such that it provides a comprehensive outlook for district administrators and State Administrator regarding the vulnerability of the District to various hazards. That apart it is clearly stated that, landslide macro zonation in the scale at 1:50000 is available to the State Disaster Management Authority in geographic information systems format and is provided in public domain as GIS maps in KMZ format. Therefore, the authorities are capable of closely examining any quarry boundary by over laying them on this detailed 1:50000 macro zonation along with various other data including satellite images in GIS software prior to arriving at whether a particular quarry boundary falls within a high landslide hazard zone. That apart it is evident from the documents produced that, the field verification was adequately taken care of as per scientific needs, and the BIS standards laid for landslides hazard zonation, and it does not mandate visiting every inch of land for preparing such maps. Therefore, it is noticeable that, there is no requirement either under Act, 2005 or as per the guidelines for conducting study that, only on making a field verification and satisfaction thereunder alone can lead to preparation of successful zonation map. Further there is nothing wrong in using modern technology in order to evaluate the environmental aspects and then to arrive at conclusions. It is true certain conclusions and datas arrived at by the State Authorities may be presumptive in nature on the basis of probabilities. Further there is nothing wrong in using modern technology in order to evaluate the environmental aspects and then to arrive at conclusions. It is true certain conclusions and datas arrived at by the State Authorities may be presumptive in nature on the basis of probabilities. But however, the intention behind making such a plan is to protect the nature, and the life and liberty of the people, and therefore, even if there is any minor deficiencies in the data available with respect to the property of the quarry operators, since in the zonation map, the properties of the quarry operators in question are shown in red zone, in my considered view, that would suffice the situation in order to meet up with the requirements under the provisions of Act, 2005. 42. So far as the preparation of the district plan is concerned, yet another contention advanced by the quarry operators is that, the preparation of the District Plan was not after sufficient consultation in contemplation of Section 31 of Act, 2005. The paramount contention advanced by the quarry operators is that, the District plan shall be prepared by the District Authority after consultation with the local authorities and having regard to the National Plan and the State Plan to be approved by the State Authority. Sub-section(3) thereunder stipulates necessary requirements for preparing the District Plan. However, fact remains, it cannot be said that, merely because the District Plan was not prepared in terms of the requirements provided thereto, the State plan prepared in accordance with law based on scientific studies will suffer with any disqualification or deficiency. The National Plan, State Plan, District Plan and Plan by different Authorities at district level and their implementation all survive together so far as the protection of the environment is concerned. However, it cannot be said that, if a plan is not prepared by one of the authorities in accordance with the stipulations contained under Act, 2005, the other Plan will be disabled. 43. That apart on going through the documents produced along with the statements filed by the District Disaster Management Authority, it is also evident that, necessary steps were taken in order to have a coordinated activity. So far as the preparation of the District Plan was concerned, it is an admitted fact that, the letter was addressed to the District Panchayat President of Kannur. So far as the preparation of the District Plan was concerned, it is an admitted fact that, the letter was addressed to the District Panchayat President of Kannur. Merely because the letter was addressed in the name of the District Panchayat President, that by itself can never be turn out to be a personal letter issued to the President of the District Panchayat. By forwarding such a letter, it was meant to be discussed by the Panchayat President in the Panchayat Committee and arrive at their own conclusions in the subject matter. Therefore, what is important is that, there should be effective discussion so as to identify the vulnerable areas taking into account the National Plan and the State Plan. There is no case for the quarry operators that, the State Plan was not forwarded to the District Authority. The contention advanced is that, the local authorities were not discussed. In my considered view, even assuming that, such consultation was not made with all the local authorities, that by itself is not a disabling factor for the District Authority to prepare the District Plan, having regard to the State Plan. This is more so, since the Disaster Management is a continuous and integrated process of planning, organising, co-ordinating and implementing the measures to prevent the dangers, threat or any disaster. Therefore, it is not a static process, but however, it is a continuous process and therefore, if at all there is any infirmity with respect to the District Plan prepared, the District Authority can take all the adequate steps and include any vulnerable areas. 44. So far as quarry operators in question are concerned, they are included in the red zone of the zonation map prepared by the State Authority. The District Authority is not vested with any power under Section 31 or other provisions of Act, 2005 to overreach, the vulnerable areas fixed by the State Authority in the zonation map. 45. That apart, the National Authority is preparing the plan taking into account the vulnerable areas in the entire country. In that process the red zone are also fixed by the National Authority, however, the State is not deprived or disabled from identifying any vulnerable areas in the State Plan. In the same manner, District Authority is also entitled to incorporate any more vulnerable areas into the zonation map in accordance with any material change in nature. In that process the red zone are also fixed by the National Authority, however, the State is not deprived or disabled from identifying any vulnerable areas in the State Plan. In the same manner, District Authority is also entitled to incorporate any more vulnerable areas into the zonation map in accordance with any material change in nature. The local authorities are also vested with powers under Section 32 to identify such vulnerable areas locally. That is how the scheme of Act, 2005 works out in a homogeneous manner. Therefore, at a later point of time, after preparation of the entire maps, if there is any change to be made with respect to the areas identified in the red zone in zonation map, or by making necessary discussion with the authorities right from the National Authority, such changes may be incorporated. 46. As I have pointed out earlier, when public interest comes into play, the court need look into whether there is any foundational flaw or material illegality, irregularity or arbitrariness in the action taken by the statutory authorities. On going through the documents produced along with the Writ Petitions, as well as other datas provided to me during the course of arguments lead to me a safe conclusion that sufficient steps were taken by the statutory authorities in the matter of preparation of the State Plan and District Plan. I also find force in the contention advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General that, what is mandatory in Section 31(2) of Act, 2005 is the preparation of the District Plan by the District Authority and the consultation with the local authorities are directory in nature. It is also an admitted fact that, the consultation was done with the District Panchayat. Therefore, the requirement as is contemplated under Section 31(2) of Act, 2005 is substantially complied with. Moreover, the quarry operators are unable to point out any deficiency in the preparation of State Plan as well as in the District Plan, consequent to failure on the part of the State authority in the matter of consultation. Further more what is imperative is preparation of the District Plan. 47. It is also clear from section 31(2) that, the District Plan is to be prepared by the District Authority having regard to the National Plan and the State Plan to be approved by the State Authority. Further more what is imperative is preparation of the District Plan. 47. It is also clear from section 31(2) that, the District Plan is to be prepared by the District Authority having regard to the National Plan and the State Plan to be approved by the State Authority. So that, the State Authority was satisfied with the District Plan prepared in terms of the State Plan. Moreover, as per sub-section (7) of Section 31 of Act, 2005, it is clear that, the District Authority shall review from time to time as it may deem necessary for the implementation of the plan thereof. So is the case with Section 23(5) of Act, 2005 in respect of the preparation of State Plan, whereby it is stipulated that, State Plan shall be reviewed and updated annually. Therefore, as discussed earlier, the National Plan, State Plan as well as plan to be prepared by other local authorities are flexible in nature and it is never expected to be a rigid and static formation. Therefore, if at all any change is caused to the environmental behaviour, the same can be taken note of by the said authorities and take appropriate action in order to alter the plan in accordance with the change that takes place to the environment. That apart the issue is intrinsically connected with various risk factors, and if the scientific datas gathered evince probability of adverse circumstances against exploitation of nature that evaluation should be applied to the advantage of the life and liberty of the people at large, than the private interest of a few. So much so, in a situation like this any crystal clear formula may not be possible, and after all it is nature having its own course of action and no power and human intervention can control it, rather than to take precautionary measures to save and protect, as far as possible, human beings and life of other creatures. So much so the findings rendered above on all aspects will squarely apply to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8584/2018. 48. So much so the findings rendered above on all aspects will squarely apply to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8584/2018. 48. The State Plan, and District Plan of Kannur are made part of the records and going through them, I am satisfied and convinced, indepth analysis are done taking into account various factors, using modern technology and the assumptive and presumptive findings founded on scientific datas by the respective experts in the field cannot be overlooked, and arrive at a different conclusion by this court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when there is substantial compliance with the procedure established by law and no mala fides are alleged against the authorities making it clear that there is no colourable exercise of power. 49. So far as the 3rd persons challenging environmental clearances issued to the quarry operators are concerned, one thing is clear, before issuance of the environmental clearance, the statutory authority has not taken into account the zonation map finalised by the State as well as the District Authority. Even though it is stated in the clearance certificate that, various aspects are taken into account by the District Authority, nowhere it is stated that, zonation map prepared by the State Authority as well as the District Authority was taken into account. Moreover, as contended by the said petitioners, the quarry operators have conducted illegal quarrying in Sy.No.1 of Udayagiri Village (erstwhile Alakkode Village) in accordance with the mining permit, however, illegal mining operations were carried out in violation of EIA notification, 2006 without obtaining prior environmental clearance. It is quite clear from Ext.P1 judgment that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4022/2017 conducted quarry operations illegally. The said decision was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1384/2016, evident from Ext.P2 judgment. However, the Division Bench directed that, the concerned authorities are at liberty to consider the application, if the quarry operator fulfils all the requirements in respect of different enactments on the date of consideration of the application seeking permit. The Central Government had issued a notification on 14.3.2017 prescribing provision for consideration of application involving cases of violation of the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. As on the date of the said notification, there was no provision to consider the applications involving violation or ex post facto environmental clearance, by other authorities than the Central Government. The Central Government had issued a notification on 14.3.2017 prescribing provision for consideration of application involving cases of violation of the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. As on the date of the said notification, there was no provision to consider the applications involving violation or ex post facto environmental clearance, by other authorities than the Central Government. While so the application submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017 was considered by DEAC on 17.3.2017 and by the DEIAA on 26.4.2017. Therefore, as on the date of consideration, the said authorities did not have power or jurisdiction to consider the application submitted by the said quarry operator. Therefore, it is clear that, on that count also, the environmental clearance secured by the said quarry operator cannot be sustained under law. So is the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8584/2018. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the applications for environmental clearance were not considered by the statutory authority in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2005 and the notification specified above. Taking into account the said aspects, I have no reasons to subscribe otherwise than to accept the contention advanced by the third persons in their Writ Petitions in respect of the environmental clearances. 50. Taking into account all these aspects, I do not find any reason to grant any reliefs as is sought for in W.P.(C) No.4022/2017 and W.P.(C) No.8584/2018. Therefore, the said Writ Petitions are dismissed. W.P. (C)No.40186/2016 is closed as infructuous and W.P.(C) Nos.23836/2018 & 24261/2018 are allowed to the extent and environmental clearances granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid two Writ Petitions are quashed. However, I make it clear that, consequent to any change in circumstances during the course of events and when the plans are revised, petitioners will be at liberty to approach the statutory authorities taking into account such developments advantageous to them. Moreover, the issue with regard to notification under the Wildlife Protection Act etc., are all left open since the said issue on account of the findings above have become inconsequential. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, will stand closed.