In a decisive move prioritizing public safety and environmental sustainability, the Kerala High Court on December 20, 2024, passed an interim order restraining the conduct of the Sunburn New Year Party at ‘Boche 1000 Acres,’ a sprawling private estate in Meppadi, Wayanad. The event, organized by Boche Bhumiputra Private Limited and Oscar Event Management, was halted amidst concerns over the ecological fragility of the area, potential safety risks, and the absence of mandatory statutory permissions. The interim order came while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by local residents, flagging multiple irregularities and risks associated with the event.

The Sunburn New Year Party was slated to be a massive event, with over 20,000 attendees anticipated, including domestic and international visitors. The proposed venue, Chulika Estate in Meppadi, Wayanad, is situated in a landslide-prone region, amplifying the safety concerns. Two residents of Wayanad, MC Mani and Sajeevan, filed the PIL under WP(C) No. 45043/2024, raising alarm over unauthorized constructions, environmental degradation, and potential wildlife disturbances. The petitioners also flagged the organizers’ lack of requisite approvals under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The petition detailed how heavy rains in the region, combined with its landslide-prone topography, posed a significant risk to attendees. It further highlighted the inadequate infrastructure for crowd management, evacuation, and medical emergencies. “The conduct of such a large-scale program in an ecologically sensitive zone without proper safeguards would be a grave violation of public safety and environmental norms,” the petitioners argued.

Justice Ziyad Rahman AA, while deliberating on the matter, noted the grave risks associated with hosting the event in such a vulnerable location. He remarked, “Considering the fact that the program is proposed to be conducted in a landslide-prone area, and also taking note of the magnitude of the program, I am of the view that the Annexure 1 order issued by the 3rd respondent has to be implemented and the 6th respondent cannot be permitted to organize any program in violation of the law.”

The Court observed that the region’s history of natural disasters, including the devastating landslides in July 2024 that claimed over 250 lives, necessitated strict adherence to disaster management protocols. It also pointed to ongoing rehabilitation efforts in the area, stressing that such events could disrupt these efforts and place an additional burden on the district administration.

The petitioners presented a comprehensive argument citing:

1. Ecological Sensitivity: The event was planned in a region marked by fragile ecosystems, raising concerns over deforestation, soil erosion, and wildlife disturbances.
2. Unauthorized Constructions: Allegations were made against the organizers for erecting unauthorized structures on the estate without proper permissions.
3. Safety Risks: The petition flagged the lack of fire safety measures, inadequate disaster management plans, and absence of medical facilities, which could jeopardize the lives of attendees in case of an emergency.
4. Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements: The organizers failed to secure permissions from the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) and other relevant bodies, violating provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The Kerala High Court issued comprehensive directions to address the immediate concerns raised by the petitioners:

1. Prohibition of the Event: The organizers, Boche Bhumiputra Private Limited and Oscar Event Management, were restrained from proceeding with the event until all statutory permissions were obtained.
2. Role of Authorities: The District Collector, DDMA, and police were directed to ensure strict compliance with the Court’s orders, preventing any unauthorized activities related to the event.
3. Future Compliance: The Court allowed for the possibility of reconsidering permissions only if the organizers demonstrated comprehensive compliance with disaster management laws, environmental norms, and safety regulations.
4. Risk Assessment and Contingency Plans: The Court stressed the need for detailed risk assessments and emergency response plans before considering any future approvals.

The organizers contended that the event was meticulously planned to boost local tourism and economic activity. They argued that all safety measures had been accounted for and sought additional time to furnish compliance documents.

Special Government Pleader Manoj Ramaswamy, representing Meppadi Grama Panchayat, supported the petitioners’ concerns, citing the absence of clearances from local authorities.

Advocate MR Dhanil, representing Boche Bhumiputra Private Limited, argued that the organizers had taken steps to mitigate risks but were willing to adhere to any conditions imposed by the Court.

Case Title: MC Mani & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 45043/2024
Bench: Justice Ziyad Rahman AA