Kerala High Court refuses to lift ban on use of Munnar glass bridge, asks Collector to decide

The Kerala High Court recently refused to grant interim relief against an order prohibiting the use of a glass bridge in Munnar, a popular attraction in the hill town [Neonova Munnar LLP v State of Kerala & ors].

A bench of Justice Gopinath P and Justice Johnson John said that concerns relating to public safety outweigh the need for immediate interference with the order of a single-judge who had refused to stay the ban.

The Court observed that the single-judge was justified in declining to stay the collector's order prohibiting the use of the glass bridge.

Permitting its operation despite safety concerns would be inappropriate at this stage, the Court added.

However, it directed the collector to reconsider the matter afresh in light of subsequent developments.

The Court was considering an appeal filed by Neonova Munnar LLP and its partner who had constructed a glass bridge at Anachal in Munnar as part of a tourism venture.

In the appeal they challenged an interim order passed by Justice C Jayachandran who had declined to stay a direction issued by the District Collector of Idukki prohibiting the operation of the bridge.

The Collector, acting as a Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, issued the order, after noting that it had been constructed without obtaining necessary permissions from the Kerala Adventure Tourism Promotion Society (KATPS).

The single-judge found that no statutory permission or sanction had been granted to regularise either the construction or operation of the bridge. Hence, he refused to stay the collector's order.

This led to the appeal before the division bench.

Senior counsel George Poonthottam, appearing for the appellants, submitted that a safety study conducted by the National Institute of Technology at Calicut had found the structure fit for use and even KATPS, by a communication dated April 16, had cleared the bridge for opening to the public.

The standing counsel for the Pallivasal Grama Panchayat submitted that no permission had been obtained by the appellants from the local body prior to the construction of the glass bridge. The panchayat maintained that the matter requires a decision by the Collector who had issued the original prohibition order in his statutory capacity.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court declined to interfere with the single-judge's order and reiterated that allowing the bridge to operate without a full consideration of safety concern would be inappropriate.

At the same time, it acknowledged the subsequent safety report and the communication issued by KATPS and directed the collector to reconsider the issue, while taking into account the latest developments and after hearing the appellants, the Panchayat authorities and KATPS.

The Court also directed the collector to pass fresh orders within one month.

Senior Counsel George Poonthottam appeared for the appellants, instructed by advocate Nisha George.

Government Pleader KM Faisal appeared for the State.

Standing counsel Sreelakshmi Sabu appeared for the Pallivasal Grama Panchayat.

[Read Order]