The Bombay High Court on Wednesday warned the Maharashtra Chief Secretary (CS) of contempt and directed him to file an affidavit with respect to the implementation of the disaster management act (DMA).
A Division Bench of Justices Abhay Oka and M.S. Sonak was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Dr. Sanjay Lakha Patil from the NGO Marathwada Anushesh Nirmulan Aani Vikas Manch highlighting the non-implementation of the DMA.
In the 21-page order, the court said, “The Act was enacted to provide requisite institutional mechanism for setting up of a disaster management plan and undertaking a holistic, coordinated and prompt response to any disaster situation.”
The court said, “the State government quite reluctantly constituted the State Disaster Management Authority and the District Disaster Management Authorities for Mumbai city and suburban Mumbai. Even after it was constituted, these authorities are not functional or are not functioning with the seriousness they are expected to function.”
On April 6, the court had restrained from issuing a contempt notice to the Additional Chief Secretary. On September 14, a detailed order was passed in which the court had directed the government pleader to invite the attention of the CS about the lethargy on the part of the State in implementation of the provisions of the DMA.
The court said, “This is quite distressing. There are serious issues like flooding of urban areas and drought in rural areas that the State is facing.”
The court has pointed out that as per the affidavits, all that has been stated is that the State has initiated the process for separate disaster response fund for each district so that it is at the disposal of the district authority as per the mandate of DMA. It is finally stated that the department would allocate it district-wise after getting approval. “This is hardly any compliance with the statutory provisions of DMA or the writs issued by us,” it said.
The court held, “We direct the CS to file affidavit of compliance, after he is himself satisfied, on or before January 31, 2019. The reason why we have given a longer date is because we expect that in the meanwhile the CS will take the necessary measures.”
It also said that it saw this as a fit case to issue a notice of contempt but did not. “However, if by January 31,2019, there is no compliance made, action will have to be initiated for aggravated contempt.”
