WP(C) 176/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Konwar , learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms HM Phukan, learne d State Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. D.P. Bora, lear ned Standing Counsel (for short ’SC’), PWD appearing for respondent No. 5 as we ll as Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6. Considering the grievance raised in the petition and also as agreed to b y the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. By making this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have put to challenge the order, issued vide communicati on dated 4.1.2010, passed by respondent No.3 herein, namely, the Chairman, Distr ict Disaster Management Authority and District Magistrate, Nagaon, directing the President/Secretary of Managing Committee and Pradhan Acharyya of petitioner No .1 school to vacate the premises and shift to some other place immediately and n ot later than 7 days from the date of receipt of the direction and has according ly prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, settling aside and quashing the impugned order as aforesaid. The petitioners’ case in brief is that the petitioner No. 1 is a private school run by private management and managed through a managing committee. It h as at present classes from nursery to class IX. The school was established in th e year 1982 and at present there are about 730 students in its rolls in total. T he school has been running in a private land with an Assam Type house which was taken on lease from the land owner/respondent No.6, besides a plot of land of it s own. The rent has been regularly paid till January, 2010. The school is housed in an Assam type house and a few sheds. The Assam type house is made of wooden and iron posts with CI sheets roof in a wooden frame. The Assam Type house is ha lf walled with bricks and the upper portion of the walls are made of ’ikora’ wit h cement plastering. The structures are being repaired from time to time and ar e well maintained. The landlady, however, was trying to evict the petitioners fr om her land and having failed to do so, she submitted representation before the District Magistrate and Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority, Nagaon and upon her representation so made, vide the impugned order dated 4.1.2010, th e respondent No.3 directed the school authority to vacate the premises and shift to some other place immediately on the ground that on an enquiry made by the E xecutive Engineer, PWD Building Division/respondent No.5, the school building w as found structurally unfit for occupation of the children and for running an academic Institution. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has st renuously urged that while issuing the direction issued vide impugned order date d 4.1.2010, the authority was influenced by respondent No.6, which is evident fr om the conduct of the authority, inasmuch as, a copy of the letter has been sent to respondent No.6 directing her to demolish the premises after seven days. Mr Mahanta would further urge that the impugned order has been passed without following the provisions laid down in the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for sho rt ’the Act’), whereby under Sub-Section (iii) of Section 30, the authority is t o ensure that the areas in the district vulnerable to disasters are identified a nd measures for the prevention of disasters and the mitigation of its effects are undertaken by the departments of the Government at the district level as well as by the local authorities. As per sub Section (v) of Section 30 the autho rity is to give directions to different authorities at the district level and lo cal authorities to take such other measures for the prevention or mitigation of disasters as may be necessary. As per sub-Section (xxiii) of Section 30, the dis trict authority is to examine the construction in any area in the district and i f it is of the opinion that the standards for the prevention of disaster or miti gation laid down for such construction is not being or has not been followed may direct the concerned authority to take such action as may be necessary to secur e compliance of such standards. Drawing the attention of the Court to the aforesaid provisions of the Ac t, Mr. Mahanta would urge that while issuing the directions, the authority has o ver looked the provisions of law and the impugned directions have been issued wi thout following the provisions of law as laid down in the Act. The same is thus not sustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed, submitted Mr. Mahanta. Ms. Phukan, learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 wherein it has been specifically contended that the respondent No.6, owner of the buildi ng in her representation submitted to the respondent No. 4 has contended that th e school building in question is 100 years old and there is apprehension of its falling down during any natural calamity, such as earthquake, storm etc. The mat ter was, therefore, referred to the Executive Engineer, PWD (Building), Nagaon f or submission of a status report on the structural fitness of the building in qu estion. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, PWD (Building) after making an enqu iry has submitted a report to the effect that the building alongwith tempora ry sheds constructed thereon, was structurally not fit to run an academic insti tution and it may collapse during natural calamities i.e. earthquake, storm etc. Considering the report so submitted by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Building), Nagaon, the respondent No. 4, in his capacity as the Chairman of the District D isaster Management Authority, declared the structures of the aforementioned buil ding unfit and directed the concerned school authorities to vacate the premises within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. The aforementioned directio ns were issued on the basis of the report submitted by the appropriate authority and considering the serious threat to the lives of the school children only. An affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed on behalf of respondent n o.5. Mr. Bora, learned SC, PWD relying upon the statement made in the counter ha s submitted that an authorized officer of PWD went to the site as directed and m ade a thorough enquiry and found the Assam Type house occupied by Petitioner N o.1 structurally unfit to run academic institution. The report would further r eveal that the temporary sheds may collapse at any moment due to natural calamit y like earthquake, storm etc. Mr. Bora and Ms.Phukan have submitted that in view of the sworn statemen ts made in the affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5, no interference is called for with the impugned order issued vide communicati on dated 4.1.2010, inasmuch as, the authority has to take steps considering the threat to life of the children. Mr. Mahanta submits that an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioners against the affidavits-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos. 4 & 5, wherein, it has been contended that no such enquiry was ever made by res pondent no.5 or by his authorized officer as alleged and the report was submit ted by Section Officer of the Nagaon Building Division, PWD department without making any enquiry/investigation inside the house in question and without ascer taining the actual condition of the house, he has submitted the report. From the pleadings set forth by the parties as well as respective submis sions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court does not find any material to cloak the petitioner No.1 with the identity of the juristi c person. The writ petitioner No.2 has approached this Court being the Secretary of an organisation, i.e. writ petitioner No.1, statutory foundation whereof is not disclosed. Under this background the writ petition itself appears to be file d by entities not recognised under the law to approach a writ court. Secondly, evidently the school in question, said to be run by the petitioner is a private school, a part of which is housed in the land and building owned by r espondent No.6. The relation of landlord and tenant admittedly, exists between t he petitioners and respondent No.6. The pleadings made in paragraph- 4 of the w rit petition further disclose existence of dispute between the landlord and te nant, i.e. the petitioners (tenant) and landlord (respondent No.6), nature where of being essential in the realm of private law cannot be adjudicated upon direct ly or indirectly in the writ court. Lastly, the question of structure of the building and the consequential question of safety or danger posed by it to the occupier/user is basically a disputed qu estion of fact. Now, whether under these circumstances, the direction issued vid e impugned order dated 4.1.2010 by the respondent No.4 is warranted or not dep ends entirely on the subjective satisfaction of the said authority. The material s disclosed by the respondent authority on oath before this Court lends credence to the validity of the aforesaid direction. More so, the situation and the stat us of the building depicted by the authority on oath justify the issuance of the impugned direction in the larger public interest. Further the provision of the Act, specially Section 30 thereof entrusts/empowers the District Magistrate to pass necessary order on the basis of his subjective satisfaction. This Court under the writ jurisdiction is not to see the adequacy or inadequacy of such subjective satisfaction of the authority once it is derive d from the record that the authority passing the order had materially justify th e conclusion reached by him prompting him to exercise the powers vested by law. In this case, no infraction of the provision of the Act is discernible. Considering the facts as stated above, this Court is not inclined to int erfere with the impugned order issued vide communication dated 4.1.2010 under it s writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No cost s.