Disaster management plan should have been drafted into Act: HC

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Aug 31 2016 | 1:22 AM IST
The Madras High Court today observed that a disaster management plan should have been drafted into the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 a long time ago and had that been done, possibly the situation which arose in December last in Chennai could have been avoided.
The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan, was hearing a batch of petitions finding fault with the state government with regard to the release of excess water from Chemberubakkam reservoir during the rains in December first week last year.
When the pleas came up, an affidavit was filed by the Revenue Department.
The bench said the affidavit only states that "as per the mandate of Section 23(1) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the draft State Disaster Management Plan was prepared during 2010 which was shared with the National Disaster Management Authority and thereafter, updated by the National Disaster Management of Anna Institute of Management as per the National Disaster Management Authority guidelines".
"The fact remains that after six years, the plan is still at the draft stage. The Disaster Management Plan should have been drafted into the provisions of the said Act a long time ago and had that been done, possibly the situation which arose last year in December could have been avoided," it said.
On an affidavit filed by PWD, the bench said there were contradictory statements and observed that there was reluctance to take action against encroachments on Adyar and Cooum rivers and Buckingham canal.
It said the affidavits filed by the authorities concerned were unacceptable to it.
"We are thus of the view that keeping in mind all the aforesaid aspects, a better affidavit needs to be filed on behalf of the authorities concerned. The affidavit should be filed within a week," it said.
The bench directed the high court registry to post all the matters relating to "water areas" before it and posted the matter for further hearing to September 7.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Aug 31 2016 | 1:22 AM IST

Next Story