Delhi HC Issues Notice on Contempt Plea filed by ANI Media Private Limited  ||  Rights of Mutation: Del. HC Initiates Suo Motu PIL Over Lack of Policies for Mutation of Property  ||  All. HC: Can’t Implicate Co-Accused u/s 149 when there is No Meeting of Mind Regarding Common Object  ||  SC: Factum of Causing Injury Not Relevant When Accused Roped in as Member of Unlawful Assembly  ||  Meghalaya Govt. to SC: Circular Issued Regarding Prohibition of 'Two Finger test' on Rape Survivors  ||  SC: No Minimum Sentence Prescribed for Conviction Under Section 304(A) and 338 of IPC  ||  Kar. HC: Offence Under Widlife Protection Act Shouldn’t be Kept Pending for Very Long  ||  Mad. HC: Courts Have Power to Grant Maintenance to Muslim Woman Who Has Filed for Divorce  ||  Bom. HC: Bail Granted to Man on Ground of Having No Intention to Disrupt Public Peace  ||  MP HC: Transferring Accused Merely Because ICC Proceedings are Pending is Unjustified    

Gaurav Kumar Bansal and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (08 May 2017)

It is for State Disaster Management Authority to constitute one or more Advisory Committee as and when it becomes necessary to do so on different aspects of disaster management

MANU/SC/0583/2017

Civil

Present writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of Constitution consequent upon un-precedented flood and landslide disaster that occurred in Uttarakhand in 2013. Undoubtedly, disaster led to widespread damage to life, limb and property and according to Petitioners, adverse impact of disaster could have been mitigated had there been effective implementation of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and adequate preparedness by State Government of Uttarakhand. It was alleged in writ petitions that, many of other States were also not fully prepared to deal with a disaster and therefore, necessary directions ought to be given by this Court for proper implementation of Act.

There is no mandate making obligatory establishment of an Advisory Committee. It is really for State Disaster Management Authority to constitute one or more Advisory Committee as and when it becomes necessary to do so on different aspects of disaster management. Consequently, on plain language of Section 17 of Disaster Management Act, 2005, it is not possible for Supreme Court to give any direction as prayed for by Petitioner.

As far as preparation of State Plan under Section 23 of Act is concerned, it has been informed by learned Counsel for National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) that, all States except Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have prepared a State Disaster Management Plan which is very much in place. As far as districts are concerned, it is stated that, District Disaster Management Authority has been constituted in every district under Section 25 of Act and out of 684 districts in country, a District Disaster Management Plan is in place in 615 districts while it is under process in remaining districts.

On a review of steps that have been taken by NDMA, Apex Court is of opinion that, there has been sufficient compliance with provisions of Act and it is not necessary for Supreme Court to issue any particular directions. It is necessary for NDMA constituted at national level and State Disaster Management Authority at State level to be ever vigilant and ensure that, if any unfortunate disaster strikes, there should be total preparedness and that minimum standards of relief are provided to all concerned. However, it would be advisable for NDMA to regularly publish its Annual Report to review and update all plans on the basis of experiences and to make its website ndma.gov.in multilingual so that all concerned may benefit. Supreme Court disposed of writ petitions while acknowledging efforts put in by Petitioners in bringing into focus necessity of implementing statute that might affect any one at any time.

Tags : ENACTMENT   IMPLEMENTATION   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved