opportunity of hearing was provided, and none of the documents relied on by the 2nd respondent was provided to the petitioner. That apart, it is submitted that in fact, hearing was conducted by the Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna and inspection was conducted under his leadership. However, the District Collector without understanding the exact factual situation has passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed by this Court. Moreover, it is contended that the 2nd respondent has no manner of power or authority to interfere with the water theme park conducted by the petitioner, either under the Act, 1957 or Act, 2003, as referred to above, and there are no reasons for the Disaster Management Authority to interfere, since there is no proven document or record available with the District Collector, to arrive at a finding and conclusion that the water theme park and the accumulation of water in the property of the petitioner is, in any way, causing danger to the environment, ecology and the public at large. It is also the case of the petitioner that the District Collector has acted to the tune of certain interested persons, who had an axe to grind the son-in-law of the petitioner, who is a member of the Legislative Assembly. Petitioner, therefore, seeks interference with Exhibit-P7 order dated 08.12.2017.
