JUDGMENT : All these batch of cases are filed challenging order No. DCKLM/1827/2020-DM2(5) dated 02.07.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority, Kollam. Since all these cases are filed challenging the very same order, I am disposing of this batch of writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. The impugned order passed by the Chairman is a detailed order that deals with the environmental aspects and the need to protect the same for the well being of the people. It is stated in the impugned order that the land in Kollam district is rich in natural freshwater reservoirs that includes fields, creeks, and other wetlands. It is stated that, during the Monsoon season, these reservoirs contain floodwaters which in summer helps keep the water table of the nearby wells, ponds, and other freshwater sources low. It is further stated that all that has become a myth throughout the Kollam District. It is further stated that much of the area in the district was waterlogged, and today the area is shrinking and is on the verge of oblivion. The apprehension raised by the Chairman in the impugned order is that there is a rush to fill up the last few wetlands and use them for commercial purposes. This has been brought to the notice of the Chairman by the general public through social media. According to the Chairman, Disaster Management Authority, the above acts will endanger the very existence of man. It is also stated that it is impossible to restore the wetlands that have been subjected to such malpractices. It is further stated that, in a densely populated district like Kollam, permission is given to remove soil with restrictions for a number of reasons. The most important of these reasons is granting permission to remove soil to avoid the threat of disaster as part of the Disaster Management activities. It is conceded by the Chairman, Disaster Management Authority that such permission is strictly legal and is granted only on the basis of site inspection and favourable recommendations of the Tahsildar concerned and Geologist. It is only to avoid the threat of disaster. It is also stated that the Disaster Management permissions are issued with strict conditions to monitor where the soil is deposited and to ensure that it is not dumped into the ground or other wetlands for any reason. It is only to avoid the threat of disaster. It is also stated that the Disaster Management permissions are issued with strict conditions to monitor where the soil is deposited and to ensure that it is not dumped into the ground or other wetlands for any reason. The permit also stipulates that the earth soil is to be deposited in such places only with the prior permission of the Jurisdictional Tahsildar. 3. It is submitted that the permission for the removal of soil for various development purposes is being granted by the Department of Geology. The permission issued by the Department of Geology does not contain any provision as to where the soil so removed is to be placed. It is submitted by the Chairman, Disaster Management Authority that, complaints have also been received that the soil removed in this way is being used to fill wetlands and paddy fields. According to the Chairman, Disaster Management Authority, conditions similar to those set out in the permit issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (In short, the Act 2005) is necessary to prevent this utterly undesirable acts. Hence a condition is imposed in the impugned order passed by the Chairman, Disaster Management Authority to deposit the removed earth on dry lands only, as the practice of paddy and wetland filling is on the rise which has already led to various environmental disaster. According to the Chairman, Disaster Management Authority, unless this prior permission of depositing the removed soil is obtained, there is a chance to deposit the same in paddy/wetlands. Under such situation, the impugned order in this batch of writ petitions was passed by the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority, Kollam. Aggrieved by the above order, this writ petition is filed. 4. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Vidya Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader. 5. Counsels for the petitioners submitted that the Chairman, Disaster Management Authority has no authority to pass an order like this, which is impugned in these writ petitions. The counsels submitted that the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority passed the impugned order invoking the powers under Section 26(2), 30, 33 and 34 of the Act, 2005. The counsels for the petitioners submitted that the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority has no such power to issue such an order. The counsels submitted that the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority passed the impugned order invoking the powers under Section 26(2), 30, 33 and 34 of the Act, 2005. The counsels for the petitioners submitted that the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority has no such power to issue such an order. Moreover, it is also submitted that the Geologist is permitting to remove the soil for development activities as per the powers vested with them under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (for short 'MMDR Act and MMCR Rules'). Counsels for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority is a transgression of the powers of the Geologist as per the MMDR Act and MMCR Rules. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader seriously opposed the contentions of the petitioners. The Government Pleader takes me through the detailed counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. The Government Pleader, Adv.Vidya Kuriakose also filed an argument note. In the argument note, the Government Pleader clearly defended all the points raised in these writ petitions. The Government Pleader submitted that, the District Collector, who is the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority had issued the impugned order by taking note of certain aspects, and they are as follows: “1. Complaints have been received that the soil removed on the basis of transit passes issued by the Mining and Geology Department is being illegally used to fill wetland and paddy fields in various parts of Kollam District. The activity was carried out for commercial purposes, and the same was widely published in social media. 2. The condition imposed in the impugned order is to deposit the removed earth in dry lands only, as the practice of filling up paddy and wetlands are on the rise in Kollam District, which results in environmental disaster." 7. Thereafter, the Government Pleader submitted that the term "Disaster" is defined as per Section 2(d) of the Act, 2005, and the circumstances which lead to the impugned order issued will come under the definition of "Disaster" as defined under the Act, 2005. The Government Pleader also takes me through Section 2(e) of the of the Disaster Management Act, which defines the term Disaster Management. The Government Pleader also takes me through Section 2(e) of the of the Disaster Management Act, which defines the term Disaster Management. The Government Pleader submitted that the issuance of the impugned order is intended to prevent the threats of disaster as a long term measure, and the same falls within the definition of disaster management. The Government Pleader also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum V. Union of India [1996 KHC 940]. The Government Pleader also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in N.D Jayal and Another V. Union of India and Others [2004 KHC 898]. The Government Pleader submitted that Section 72 of the Act, 2005, gives statutory recognition and will override the provisions of other laws because the Act is intended to protect the very life of the citizens. The Government Pleader also submitted that the impugned order was passed because of the geographical conditions in Kollam District. She submitted that the Nature of disaster varies from place to place, and the circumstances in which the impugned order was issued are well explained in the order itself. The Government Pleader submitted that there are no valid contentions raised by the petitioners and the ordinary earth is intended to be used for genuine activities nothing prevent the petitioners from disclosing the place of area in which the same is deposited. It is the contention of the Government pleader that the Act, 2005 is a special enactment, which has an overriding effect over any other statute in the light of Section 72 of the said Act. Hence the Government Pleader supported the impugned order. 8. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Government Pleader. By the impugned order, the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority, Kollam imposed a condition to deposit the removed earth in dry lands. As per the impugned order, a certificate from the Tahsildar concerned of the place where the earth is going to be dumped is necessary for sanctioning the earth removal and transportation. The impugned order is passed invoking the powers under Sections 26(2), 30, 33, and 34 of the Act, 2005. 9. As per the impugned order, a certificate from the Tahsildar concerned of the place where the earth is going to be dumped is necessary for sanctioning the earth removal and transportation. The impugned order is passed invoking the powers under Sections 26(2), 30, 33, and 34 of the Act, 2005. 9. The Government has decided to enact a law on disaster management to provide for the requisite institutional mechanism for drawing up and monitoring the implementation of the disaster management plans, ensuring measures by various wings of the Government for preventing and mitigating the effects of disasters and for undertaking a holistic, coordinated and prompt response to any disastrous situation. As per the Act, 2005 there will be a National Disaster Management Authority, State Disaster Management Authority, and District Disaster Management Authority. Chapter II of the Act, 2005 deals with the National Disaster Management Authority. Chapter III deals with the State Disaster Management Authority, and Chapter IV of the Act, 2005 deals with the District Disaster Management Authority. 10. Section 2 is the definition clause. Section 2 (f) defines District Authority. District Authority means the District Disaster Management Authority constituted under sub section (1) of Section 25. Section 25 of the Act 2005 is extracted hereunder : 25. Constitution of District Disaster Management Authority - (1) Every State Government shall, as soon as may be after issue of notification under subsection (1) of section 14, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a District Disaster Management Authority for every district in the State with such name as may be specified in that notification. Constitution of District Disaster Management Authority - (1) Every State Government shall, as soon as may be after issue of notification under subsection (1) of section 14, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a District Disaster Management Authority for every district in the State with such name as may be specified in that notification. (2) The District Authority shall consist of the Chairperson and such number of other members, not exceeding seven, as may be prescribed by the State Government, and unless the rules otherwise provide, it shall consist of the following, namely: (a) the Collector or District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, of the district who shall be Chairperson, ex officio; (b) the elected representative of the local authority who shall be the co Chairperson, ex officio: Provided that in the Tribal Areas, as referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the Chief Executive Member of the district council of autonomous district, shall be the co-Chairperson, ex officio; (c) the Chief Executive Officer of the District Authority, ex officio; (d) the Superintendent of Police, ex officio; (e) the Chief Medical Officer of the district, ex officio; (f) not exceeding two other district level officers, to be appointed by the State Government. (3) In any district where Zila Parishad exists, the Chairperson thereof shall be the co-Chairperson of the District Authority. (4) The State Government shall appoint an officer not below the rank of Additional Collector or Additional District Magistrate or Additional Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, of the district to be the Chief Executive Officer of the District Authority to exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be prescribed by the State Government and such other powers and functions as may be delegated to him by the District Authority.” 11. As per Section 25(2), the District Authority shall consist of the Chairperson and such number of other members not exceeding seven as may be prescribed by the State Government. The Constitution of the District Authority is mentioned in Section 25(2). 12. Section 2(g) defines District Plan, and it means the plan for disaster management for the districts prepared under Section 31. Section 31 deals with the District Plan. As per Section 31, there shall be a plan for Disaster Management for every district of the State. The Constitution of the District Authority is mentioned in Section 25(2). 12. Section 2(g) defines District Plan, and it means the plan for disaster management for the districts prepared under Section 31. Section 31 deals with the District Plan. As per Section 31, there shall be a plan for Disaster Management for every district of the State. Section 31(2) states 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. Section 31(3) deals with the details of the District Plan. 13. Section 14 of Chapter 3 of the Act 2005 deals with the establishment of the State Management Authority. The powers and functions of the State Authority are clearly stated in Section 18. 14. The impugned order, in this case, is passed by the Chairman, District Authority by invoking the powers under Sections 26(2), 30, 33, and 34. First, I will consider the powers under Sections 30, 33 and 34. Admittedly in these cases, the impugned order is not passed by the District Authority, but it is an order passed by the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority. A bare perusal of Sections 30, 33, and 34 would show that those are the powers and functions of the District Authority. The only power that can be exercised by the Chairman, District Authority is by invoking Section 26. It will be better to extract Section 26 of the Act, 2005 here: “26. Powers of Chairperson of District Authority.- (1) The Chairperson of the District Authority shall, in addition to presiding over the meetings of the District Authority, exercise and discharge such powers and functions of the District Authority as the District Authority may delegate to him. (2) The Chairperson of the District Authority shall, in the case of an emergency, have power to exercise all or any of the powers of the District Authority but the exercise of such powers shall be subject to ex post facto ratification of the District Authority. (2) The Chairperson of the District Authority shall, in the case of an emergency, have power to exercise all or any of the powers of the District Authority but the exercise of such powers shall be subject to ex post facto ratification of the District Authority. (3) The District Authority or the Chairperson of the District Authority may, by general or special order, in writing, delegate such of its or his powers and functions, under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be, to the Chief Executive Officer of the District Authority, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as it or he deems fit.” 15. The impugned order is passed invoking the powers under Section 26(2). The Chairman, District Authority is given power in the case of an emergency as per Section 26(2). As per Section 26(2), the Chairperson of the District Authority shall, in the case of an emergency, have the power to exercise all or any of the powers of the District Authority, but the exercise of such power shall be subject to ex post facto ratification of the District Authority. Therefore, to invoke the powers under Section 26(2), an emergent situation is necessary. This Court perused the impugned order. A perusal of this order will show that it is not an order passed in an emergent situation. It is a general order passed by the Chairman of Disaster Authority, Kollam, as far as the Kollam District is concerned. This Court appreciates the genuine intention of the Chairman of the District Authority while passing the impugned order. The intention is to avoid a disaster and to protect natural resources. But the Chairman of the District Authority can invoke such a power only in certain emergent situations, as stated in Section 26(2). A bare perusal of the impugned order will show that there is no emergent situation, but it is a general order passed to prevent the disaster. The Chairman of the District Authority has no power to issue such general orders except in emergent situations. As I stated earlier, Sections 30, 33, and 34, the other sections relied on by the Chairman of the District Authority, are powers vested with the District Authority, and the Chairman of the District Authority cannot invoke such powers individually. The Chairman of the District Authority has no power to issue such general orders except in emergent situations. As I stated earlier, Sections 30, 33, and 34, the other sections relied on by the Chairman of the District Authority, are powers vested with the District Authority, and the Chairman of the District Authority cannot invoke such powers individually. Hence there is no situation to invoke the powers under Section 26(2) for the Chairman of the District Authority to pass the impugned order. Similarly, the Chairman of the District Authority has no power to pass the impugned order invoking the powers under Sections 30, 33, and 34. In such circumstances, the impugned order in these writ petitions is passed without any source of power. 16. A perusal of the impugned order will show that it ought to have been a district plan as per Section 31 of the Act, 2005. As per Section 31(1) of the Act, 2005, there shall be a plan for disaster management for every district of the State. As per Section 31(2), 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. There is no such case to the Chairman of the District Authority that the impugned order is passed after consultation with the local authorities and having regard to the national plan and state plan to be approved by the State Authority. Therefore, according to me, the impugned order cannot be treated as District Plan. 17. Section 23 of the Act, 2005 deals with the State Plan. As per Section 23(1), there shall be a plan for disaster management for every State to be called State Disaster Management Plan. As per Section 23(2), the State Plan shall be prepared by the State Executive Committee having regard to the guidelines laid down by the National Authority, and after consultation with the local authorities, district authorities, and the people's representatives as the State Executive Committee may deem fit. As per Section 23(3), the State Plan shall be prepared by the State Executive Committee under sub-section (2) and shall be approved by the State Authority. Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 23(4) deal with the inclusions in the State Plan. As per Section 23(3), the State Plan shall be prepared by the State Executive Committee under sub-section (2) and shall be approved by the State Authority. Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 23(4) deal with the inclusions in the State Plan. In this case, a bare perusal of the impugned order will show that the reasoning in the impugned order is not a phenomenon available in Kollam District alone. The water resources and other factors mentioned in the impugned order are available all over the State. 18. In such circumstances, it is the State Disaster Management who has to pass a general order, if necessary, in consultation with other statutory authorities and also in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2005. 19. Therefore, in the light of the above discussions, it is clear that the Chairman, District Authority, has no jurisdiction to pass an order like the impugned order invoking the powers under Sections 26(2), 30, 33 and 34 of the Act, 2005. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is a transgression of the powers of the Geologist as per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the KMMC Rules, 1967 since the Chairman, District Authority has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. I am leaving open that question. Moreover, is it for the District Disaster Management Authority or the State Disaster Management Authority to pass orders like the impugned order is also left open. The District Disaster Management Authority and the State Disaster Management Authority are free to pass orders in accordance with the Act, 2005, if they are competent to pass such orders. Since, it is found that the Chairman, District Authority has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, the same is to be set aside. Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed in the following manner : (1) The impugned order (DCKLM/1827/2020-DM2(5) dated 02.07.2021) of the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority, Kollam is quashed. (2) I make it clear that the District Disaster Management and the State Disaster Management are free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Disaster Management Act, 2005.