This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ACCRERIA ACCRERIA
UNION OF VISILY & OTHERS
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATION .......................................................................................................................... II INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................................... III CASES ................................................................................................................................................. III BOOKS ................................................................................................................................................ III STATUTES ........................................................................................................................................... III STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...............................................................................................................IV FACTS OF THE CASE ................................................................................................................................V ISSUE RAISED ....................................................................................................................................... VII SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS................................................................................................................. VIII ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................................... 10 1.THE SUIT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ............. 10 2.THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT IS VALID ...................................................................................... 12 I.THE PETITIONER IS NOT PRIVITY TO THE CONTRACT ................................................................. 12 II.THE CONTRACT IS NOT AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY ...................................................................... 12 III.This contract falls within the economic policy making power of the government. ................. 13 3.THE MINORITY STATUS OF UNIVERSITARIA VEVORIA CANNOT BE SNATCHED ............................ 15 I.THE TERM MINORITY SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD WIDELY ......................................................... 15 II.THE INSTITUTION FULFILS ALL THE CRITERIONS NECESSARY TO BE A MINORITY INSTITUTION16 III.THE INSTITUTION IS WORKING FOR THE GREATER PUBLIC PURPOSE...................................... 17 4.AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF ACCRERIA AND THE UNIVERSAL BANK IS VALID ............. 20 I.For acts done in bona fide, incidental violations should be overlooked. ................................... 20 5.PENALTY OF ONE BILLION VISILIAN DOLLARS MAY NOT BE IMPOSED ON THE UNION OF VISILY AS THERE IS NO ANTICIPATORY BREACH ......................................................................................... 22 I.There is neither any breach of the contract, much less any anticipatory breach. ..................... 22 PRAYER ................................................................................................................................................. 24
L. PC SC SCC Sec. B.com Number Foot note Page/pages Paragraph/paragraphs Privy Council Supreme Court Supreme Court Cases Section Supplementary versus ii . note p. i.e.R.L.R.LIST OF ABBREVIATION AIR All ER Art.L. Id. Supp./paras. G.R. I. MANU No.g. Const. /pp. v. All India Reporter All England Report Article Bombay Law Reporter Constitution exempli gratia (for example) Gujarat Law Reporter id est (that is) Indian Law Reports ibidem (in the same place as above) Manupatra. e. para.
Kudilal Govindram. SCC 87. The State Of West Bengal And Others. 1872 iii .INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases: 1. St. 10.K.I. Aslum.. State of Bihar v. AIR 1956 SC 294. R. 17. AIR 1962 SC 1821 12. 1981 Supp. Kurnool Medical. Narayan Singh v Bihar.1993 Supp(2) SCC 300.. The Calcutta Gas Company v. State of Kerela v. Sailaja v Principal. AIR 1959 MP 151 6. 499 (8th ed. A. 1955 AIR 2251 3. v State Of Gujarat And Ors. MANU/SC/3115/2006 13.. R. AIR 1992 Guj 179. M.H. 538 14. BASU. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi. HANDBOOK OF ENVIORNMENTAL LAW.O. AIR 1970 SC 2079 19. Shakti Foundation v. Govt. COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION. Premium Granites v. (2004) 1 GLR 244 4.R. Shiv Dayal v UOI.B. AIR 1963 Punj. Atladara Kelavani Mandal and Ors. CT Devaraj. 136 9. Aries Advertising Bureau v. 2008). State of Tamil Nadu. 15.O. Mother Provencial Very Rev. Uduman And Ors v M. AIR 1992 SC 1630 16. (1ST ed. 1991 AIR 1020 8. (2000) 10 SSC 664. Dave. Firdaus Amrut Higher Secondary v M. Dalmia v UOI. ILR (1914) 42 IA 44. 5. State of Bombay v.SAHASRANAMAN. 1994]1SCR579 11. 1962 AIR 1044 Books: 1 D. of NCT of Delhi. (1978) A.H. 1950 The Indian Contract Act. Kamalesh Jain . 18. P.S.S. AIR 1986 AP 209 2. 2009) Statutes: The Constitution of India. 7.M. SP Gupta v UOI. Narmada Bachao Andolan v.D. Gulabchand Gambhirmal v. Nanji. Hambai Framjee Petit v Secretary of State for India. Union of India and Ors.
iv . 226 of the Constitution of India.STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The respondent has approached the high court under Art. 1950.
Thus even though there is an acute problem of slum dwellers. within the state of Accreria they account for over 60% of the total population. The Universitaria Verovia is established on the founding principle of the Vero religion and with permissible instruction of Vero religion as a compulsory ingredient of its syllabi and curricula. There is also the Advansa University (AU) which is run by the Vedanam Foundation which is owned by Mr. Vedanam. the tourism business continues to thrive. The city of Advansa is modern city. the Union had to pay a heavy due for the assistance it had received. the Union of Visily faced bankruptcy. the primary problem that has arisen is in regard to the construction of an airport („Pearl of the Sea‟) in the island of Coralia. Thus. and has state of art infrastructural facilities.425%. There was only a military airport in the state of v . Veedanam are brothers. which irrespective of their geographical location are run and managed by the Union Government. The city is well endowed as. which is a part of the 80 islands that house some highly endangered flora and fauna. apart from the infrastructure. Vedantam. Vedantam and Mr. The city is also the educational capital of Visily. The Universitaria Verovia. wherein the Universal Bank had a right to veto any governmental decision pertaining to finances. and provided assistance in the form of financial and capacity building measures. were known to have interference and influence in all major financial decisions of the Government in Visily. there are a set of 80 islands which attracts tourists round the year. As all these bodies. we will be mainly dealing with the Universitaria Verovia. Both.FACTS OF THE CASE The Union of Visily is a Union of 27 states and several Union Territories. About two decades back. That being said. Also in doing so. Although these people have a national population of 0. at which time several international bodies intervened. at any time. In the state of Accreria reside the followers of Vero (an ancient religion). Two of its universities feature in the top ten of the world. a minority institution is managed by a trust which is sponsored by the Vedantam industries is run by Mr. they would pay negligible attention to the social factors and related governmental policies. Mr. A major part of the contribution was given by the Universal Bank which entered into a twenty year agreement. but for the purposes of the current problem. The present case mainly pertains to the State of Accreria and the Union territory of Advansa which is the biggest city of the state of Advansa.
During the release of the bids the sole consideration for selection of the parties was „technical‟. One of the fundamental tenants of the Vero religion is indulging in non-violence. Also. thus Advokam has urged that the minority status of the university be snatched as it would violate the basic tenets of the Vero religion rendering the „minority‟ status on the university baseless. The state of Accreria. He found the economic model used by the government for the agreement was not viable and would render serious losses to the Union. Soon after this happened. the state would allow the bank to use the airport. Also the experts who were present they voiced their disapproval at the construction of the airport at such a highly ecologically volatile area. which had already been suffering from huge energy deficits readily obliged and extended all support necessary for the project. i. Thus it was decided that a new airport would be constructed with the sole aim of it being for civilian purposes. thus a lot of civilian traffic used to flood to it and it used to cause serious disruptions to the proper functioning of th airport. The bid was eventually won by Vedanam Inc. the petitioner is a student of Finance at Advansa University. Thus. The state of Accreria also in its own capacity had entered into an agreement with Universal bank that in return for their knowledge database.e. Universitaria Verovia announced its desire to start an oceanic biofuel research centre. the construction of the airport would completely destroy the natural beauty for which tourists flock to Advansa all round the year. by providing the centre with an expert faculty. But that was not paid any heed to by the Visilian Govt. However the establishment of the bio-fuel research centre would lead to the destruction of thousands of microbes. Thus this would be a direct violation of right to life of the people who are completely dependent on the tourism industry. The Visilian Government invited bids for entering into a concession agreement for development of the airport.. and the work began immediately.Accreria. he has applied to the High Court of Accreria under a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Advokam. „Pearl of the Sea‟. vi .
4) PENALTY OF ONE BILLION VISILIAN DOLLARS MAY NOT BE IMPOSED ON THE UNION OF VISILY AS THERE IS NO ANTICIPATORY BREACH I. THE TERM MINORITY SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD WIDELY THE INSTITUTION FULFILS ALL THE CRITERIONS NECESSARY TO BE A MINORITY INSTITUTION III. FOR ACTS DONE IN BONA FIDE. II. THE CONTRACT IS NOT AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY 2) THE MINORITY STATUS OF UNIVERSITARIA VEVORIA CANNOT BE SNATCHED I. II.ISSUE RAISED 1) THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT IS VALID I. THE PETITIONER IS NOT PRIVITY TO THE CONTRACT THE CONTRACT IS NOT AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY vii . INCIDENTAL VIOLATIONS SHOULD BE OVERLOOKED. THE PETITIONER IS NOT PRIVITY TO THE CONTRACT. THE INSTITUTION IS WORKING FOR THE GREATER PUBLIC PURPOSE 3) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF ACCRERIA AND THE UNIVERSAL BANK IS VALID I. II.
nor is there any anticipatory breach. it is evident that the state is acting in bona fide. The university has been instrumental in making Advansa the educational hub of the Union.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS I. The University has made Vero religion as a important ingredient of its syllabi and curricula. has kept on continuing the viii . Also. as even the Union hasn‟t challenged the authority of the state even though the state does not have express authority in this regard. Also. As per the principle of anticipatory breach. In this particular case. THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT IS VALID The concession agreement is a result of the power of the state to enter into agreements with other parties. IV. III. II. PENALTY OF ONE BILLION VISILAIN DOLLARS MAY NOT IMPOSED ON THE UNION OF VISILY AS THERE IS NO ANTICIPATORY BREACH Neither is there any breach. the petitioner does not have a right to challenge as there is no Privity of Contract. THE MINORITY STATUS OF THE UNIVERSITARIA VEVORIA CANNOT BE SNATCHED The minority status of Universitaria Vevoria is undeniable as it is not only administered by a minority community but also established by it. since Vedanam Inc. Also. the other party gets the right to either terminate the contract or to claim damages. The basic object behind the agreement is beneficial to the public at large. nothing of the sort has happened. the institution is making a move towards contributing towards the society and thus it should be seen as a bona fide action of the institution. It is humbly submitted that the respondent has not ignored any provision and has entered into the agreement with due caution in bona fide. AGREEMENT VALID BETWEEN THE STATE OF ACCRERIA AND THE UNIVERSAL BANK IS It is humbly submitted that the agreement between the State of Accreria and the Universal Bank is valid as the object and the consideration of the contract is not unlawful. thus the petitioner does not have any right to challenge the contract.
construction work therefore no anticipatory breach from either party. ix . It would be inappropriate to direct the Union of Visily to pay damages as there is no anticipatory breach.
SCC 87. It was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that Public Interest Litigation cannot be used to remove to distress of any particular individual. it may appear that that the petitioner is a selfless person who is acting on behalf of the society. Govt. The petitioner has asked for compensation by means of a contractual remedy in the said prayer. THE SUIT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Prima facie. the Court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to 1 2 1981 Supp. the petitioner fails to realise that. P. 3 MANU/SC/3115/2006 10 . the petitioner being a devout Vero follower is appalled by the killing of millions of microbes. The court while considering on the position on entertaining the plaint. should note the S. Thus the ulterior motive for the filing of the case is clearly for his personal satisfaction. State of Bihar v. is available on claim by those who are privy to the said contract. However. kamalesh Jain 1993 Supp(2) SCC 300.1 where the court has observed that:“The relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or a meddlesome interloper to approach the court under the guise of a PIL litigant. it can easily be understood that the petitioner has acted with ulterior motives. of NCT of Delhi3 should be referred to in this regard.” It should be noted that one of the main reasons for the filing of the PIL is because. where the court observed that “While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action. and the court should not interfere in it. However. this is a which is a Private Law remedy and.2 It should also be noted by the Hon‟ble court that the construction of the airport is a policy decision of the state.ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1. The case of Ekta Shakti Foundation v. It will be proved by subsequent arguments that how the petitioner is neither a party to the contract and thus he fails to be privy to the contract. Gupta v Union of India. it is urged that there should be a deeper reading of the facts.
direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to sermonize any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive. provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. Thus. 11 . it is urged that the court should personally indulge in the fact finding process. as issues such delicate as this should not be wholly treated only on emotional grounds.
The petitioner. where it was laid down that only the persons entitled to the benefits or bound by the obligations of a contract are entitled to sue or be sued upon it.2. thus he does not have any right of suing the parties and calling for the contract to be declared null and void. CT Devaraj. 1894 or of any other law for the corresponding for the time being in force. the term authority be understood as the 4 5 AIR 1963 Punj. It was clearly held in the case of Aries advertising Bureau v. „Any land required by the Authority for discharging its functions under this act shall be deemed to be needed for a public purpose and such and may be acquired by the authority under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. came to the conclusion that the financial model used by the Government for the concession agreement for „Pearl of the Sea‟ was not viable. who are not parties to the contract. and may result into a heavy loss to the Government. 538 Aries Advertising Bureau v. who is a student of finance at the Advansa University. CT Devaraj. In the present case. THE PETITIONER IS NOT PRIVITY TO THE CONTRACT This agreement is between the Union of Visily and Vedanam Inc about the building of an airport at an uninhabited island of Coralia. the „pearl of the sea‟ has been conceptualized. 1955 AIR 2251 12 . The rule of privity to contract was laid down in the case of Shiv Dayal v UOI4. the viability of the petitioner‟s contentions is highly questionable. A contract confers upon the parties to the contract the right to sue or be sued. THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT IS VALID The Advansa airport is a military airport. one of the 80 islands of the city of Advansa. The agreement was based on a private-public model.‟ It is urged that for the purposes of this particular case. But in this particular case. THE CONTRACT IS NOT AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY Section 13 of The Indian Airports Authority Acts. II. 1971. the petitioner is wrong in his fundamentals by challenging the concession agreement. reads as follows. I. thus letting civilians use the airport causes sufficient amount of difficulty to the military.5 the court held that if there is no Privity of Contract then the suit against such of those. is not maintainable. Thus. Advokam is not privy to the contract. In the present case.
In the case of Premium Granites v. Kudilal Govindram7. or opposed to public policy. and should do so only when the contract is incontestable and on any view inimical to Public interest. In the present case it is apparent the benefit the public will receive from the construction of the airport. UOI. it has been held that “the courts should use extreme reservation in holding a contract as void against Public Policy. and this falls within the executive power of the state. Thus the selection of the island of „Coralia‟ for the construction of the airport should be treated as an execution of public function. In the case of Gulabchand Gambhirmal v.K. The said provision states that the union may enter into agreements for the benefit of the public. Entering into contracts for the benefit of the public falls within the executive power of the Union Government. The doctrine should be invoked in clear cases in which harm to the public in substantially incontestable and does not depend upon the idiosyncratic inference of a few judicial minds. if permitted. AIR 1962 SC 1821 AIR 1959 MP 151 8 1SCR579 13 . it was said that „The Court must maintain judicial restraint and not ordinarily encroach in the domain of executive or legislature and it is not the domain of the court to embark upon unchartered ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to whether a particular public policy is wise.‟ 6 7 R.‟ The object of the concession agreement is mainly to make a civilian airport which would effectively reduce the load on the military airport. or is fraudulent.Government. III. thus. The union of visily has entered into the contract by virtue of the power entrusted upon it by the constitution of India in Article 53. it cannot be contended that the agreement goes against public policy. or the court regards it as immoral. Dalmia v UOI. Thus. State of Tamil Nadu 8. This contract falls within the economic policy making power of the government. 1872 reads that if „the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless. as it was held in the case of R. or a better public policy can be evolved.it is forbidden by law or is of such a nature that. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.K. it would defeat the provisions of any law. Dalmia v. or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another.6 that it is to be construed that the legislature makes the laws in bona fide.
Thus this is entirely within the authority of the Government. 9 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. 14 . it is urged.In the present case. Union of India and Ors. in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. This has been clearly laid down in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v.9 the validity of establishment of a large dam was challenged. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The Visilian Government invited bids for entering into a concession agreement for development of the „Pearl Of The Sea‟ airport. that the Hon‟ble court may declare the policy decision of the government to be void only if it seems to go against public policy. while adopting the model of Public Private Partnership.” The courts should not attempt to replace its judgment with that of the policy decisions of the Government as that would amount to a violation of the authority which the courts exercise. There is.. At the same time. The court held that: “While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the court does not cross its jurisdiction. (2000) 10 SSC 664. in exercise of its enormous power the court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions.. The court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the court's jurisdiction. Union of India and Ors. but even then the court should tread with utmost caution.
Thus. in the following lines.3. impart upon all the minority communities to establish and administer an educational institutional institution of their own choice. even though the institution is managed by the trust created by one individual. in this particular case. it was laid down in the case of State of Kerela v. In order to claim the right guaranteed under Art. Afticle 30(1) of the constitution of India. yet it is not clear whether all the people 10 11 AIR 1970 SC 2079 D. Mother Provencial Very Rev 10 that after an institution has been brought under the minority community.basu. 15 . The petitioners overlook the purpose of establishing the „oceanic biofuel research‟ center.11 Although within the state of Accreria. it should be understood. the following conditions must be fulfilled-: i. If it were to be contended that the Vero people.d. As. The community must show that it is a religious or a linguistic minority. it does not matter that whether the funds have been supplied by a single individual or by the community at large. The title of „Minority‟ on the institution is not a question open to debate as the „Vero‟ People account for only . It must show that the institution was established by it. which signifies an identifiable group of people or community who are seen to be deserving protection. which has been suffering from heavy energy deficit this development has come as a boon and thus the state has extended all possible assistance towards the university. are a majority within the state of advansa. its status is beyond contention.425% of the population of the Union of Visily. The main contention of the petitioner is that since the university is a minority institution. It is quite clear from the facts of the case that for the state of Advansa. Vedantam. which is primarily indulging in Nonviolence. commentary on the Indian constitution. 30(1). page 499. ii. that the term „minority‟ is to be understood from the constitutional scheme. even though a minority in the context of the union. THE MINORITY STATUS OF UNIVERSITARIA VEVORIA CANNOT BE SNATCHED I. is should not violate the basic tenents of the Vedo religion. this issue regarding the minority status of the university will be dealt with in a twofold manner. THE TERM MINORITY SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD WIDELY The Universitaria Verovia which is run by the Vedantam Educational trust is sponsored by the Vedantam Industries which in turn is a culmination of the religious beliefs of Mr. or whether the members outside the community are taking advantage. the Vero people form a majority.
Vedantam with his own means. In this case. found the institution and by virtue of the trust set up by his organization contributes the funds. The court should take into consideration the intention of the University while indulging in the research and in doing so. Article 30(1) should be properly understood in this regard. The case should be understood on the basis of the intention on which the institution has been established. the intention is to benefit a religion that is facing extinction. Thus. it should primarily be understood that the title of a „minority‟ institution is granted by the state itself after itself being fully satisfied that the institution has satisfied all the required criterions. but this much is clear from the facts of the case that with more and more Vero‟s following the Indus culture.follow the traditions of the religion. which in that case is Mr. it will be convinced of the benefit the institution will provide to the majority. It should be understood that the sole reason the university has embarked upon the project regarding bio-fuel research is for the benefit of a society which has an acute shortage of energy supplies. the term. the religion is close to facing extinction. The first right that is bestowed by the article is the initial right to establish institutions of the minority's choice. The question before this Hon‟ble High Court arise: What does one mean by "minority institution"? When does an educational institution become a "minority institution"? 12 AIR 1970 SC 2079 16 . „minority‟ should be broadly construed and the court should itself indulge in the process of fact finding and take into consideration the findings of the various scholars regarding the „Vero‟ people. it is irrelevant that in addition to the minority community others from other minority communities or even from the majority community can take advantage of these institutions. 12 It does not at all matter that i a single benevolent individual. II. Establishment here means the bringing into being of an institution and it must be by a minority community. As it has been rightly put in the case of Mother Provincial. THE INSTITUTION FULFILS ALL THE CRITERIONS NECESSARY TO BE A MINORITY INSTITUTION Coming to the second issue regarding the viability of the minority status of the institution. Such other communities bring in income and they do not have to be turned away to enjoy the protection.
III. Therefore. 2) Secondly. qualification of teachers and of the students seeking admission. Dave.M. The University has made Vero religion as a compulsory ingredient of its syllabi and curricula. the Commission has stated that the benefit of Art. The standard of education can be anticipated from the very fact itself that the University ranks amongst the top ten universities of the world.14 It is clearly mentioned that Vero‟s account for over 60 percent of Accreria‟s population.THE INSTITUTION IS WORKING FOR THE GREATER PUBLIC PURPOSE The draft article and the Constituent Assembly Debates in unambiguous terms show that minority status of a group of persons has to be determined on the basis of population of a State or Union Territory. Art. It must have financial resources and capability to run on sustained basis The Universitaria Verovia can be characterized as a minority institution as it is not only administered by a minority community but is also established by it. 30(l) only emphasizes that the body establishing and administering an educational institution belongs to a minority based on religion or language. 3) Thirdly.M. the Commission has stated that it is not always necessary that the objects for which a minority has established an educational institution must include the conservation of its language. it would be appropriate to say that the University fulfills the conditions required by the Minority Commission to qualify as Minority Institution. AIR 1992 Guj 179.13 the court considered the guidelines issued by the Minorities Commission for determination of minority status of educational institutions: 1) Firstly.In case of Firdaus Amrut Higher Secondary v M. As the census of the Union Territory is different from the census of the State (Census of the Chandigarh 13 14 Firdaus Amrut Higher Secondary v M. 30(l) can be claimed by the community only on proving that it is a religious or linguistic minority and that the educational institution was established by it. the commission has provided that an institution seeking recognition as a minority institution must fulfil the statutory requirements concerning the academic standards. script or culture. Dave. TMA Pai 17 .
AIR 1992 SC 1630 18 Hambai Framjee Petit v Secretary of State for India. Nanji. Nanji. It is legally impermissible to construe Article 30(1) as conferring the right on the minorities to establish educational Institution only for their own benefit. R. therefore census of the Union Territory should be considered to determine the minority status.16 Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India. 18 . In case of Atladara Kelavani Mandal and Ors. they cannot. population of Union territory is not mentioned in the present case and Vero religion is at the verge of extinction.17 held that the choice of institution provided in Article 30(1) does not mean that the minorities could establish educational institution for the benefit of their own community people.. 19 State of Bombay v. with a large part of its followers now following the Indus culture. v State Of Gujarat And Ors.15 the court held that there cannot be any straight jacket formula for testing or examining the status of an institution as minority.S. University of Delhi. University of Delhi. Stephen's College v. Indeed. v State Of Gujarat And Ors. I think. J. the beneficiaries of the institutions by and large and whether any intention is made express or implied for advancement. The minorities are not entitled to establish and administer educational institution for their exclusive benefit. (2004) 1 GLR 244 Atladara Kelavani Mandal and Ors. State of Gujarat And Ors. It would vary from facts to facts and various considerations may be required to be examined and some of them are .18 The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the ratio of Hambai's case in State of Bombay v. (2004) 1 GLR 244 17 St. upliftment or preservation of minority. to the effect "General definitions are. in the case of St. it would cause prejudice to the respondent and shall ultimately result into the miscarriage of justice. Suffice it to say that if population of the Accreria is considered to determine the minority. AIR 1956 SC 294. v. However.can be referred as example). R. it is enough to say that. rather to be avoided where the avoidance is possible. etc. The root decision of public purpose can be found in the Privy Council decision of Hambai Framjee Petit v Secretary of State for India.the persons forming the institutions. and I make not attempt to define precisely the extent of the phrase 'public purpose' in the lease. whatever else it may 15 16 Atladara Kelavani Mandal and Ors.19 and observed as under: In Hamabai's case the observation of Batchelor. in my opinion. Stephen's College v. the phrase.S. ILR (1914) 42 IA 44. the intention with which the institutions is formed.
20 S. To conclude. “the history of india. the minority status of the university can‟t be snatched as it fulfills its social obligations mentioned by the court. (1978) A. 19 . the respondent is fulfilling its social obligation by establishing a centre for oceanic biofuel research. and many of the countries of Europe has demonstrate that there can be no stable equilibrium in any country so long as an attempt is made to crush a minority or to force it to conform it to the ways of the majority”21 20 21 Narayan Singh v Bihar. that is. Ansari. Jawaharlal Nehru‟s Note on minorities. which has since been judicially recognised. in the words of Jawaharlal Nehru. Jha J: „…. is that whatever furthers the general interests of the community as opposed to the particular interests of the individuals must be regarded as a public purpose. If the minority status of the university is robbed because of such frivolous issues. page-132. Vol-2. Public purpose may be achieved through private enterprise as well as through any public agency…. Institute of objective studies. is directly and vitally concerned" received the approval of Privy Council. it would surely amount to grave injustice. 136 Readings on minorities. as opposed to the particular interest of individuals. as no minority educational institution can be established for the benefit of a particular community alone. Therefore. In Narayan Singh v Bihar.” In the present case. an object or aim. Iqbal A.K.. in which the general interest of the community.mean must include a purpose.I.R.the objective test applied from case to case. especially when an internationally acclaimed institution is trying to contribute to the society.
the respondent would be heavily relying on the facts of the case. Thus. The State Of West Bengal And Others23 the court invoked the doctrine to settle the dispute between Entry – 25 and 25 of 22 23 AIR 1986 AP 209 1962 AIR 1044 20 .S. It should also be taken note of that when the time came for the respondents of the case to make a move. Thus. The interpretation should be to subserve the purpose.4. When it comes to the application of constitution provisions. I. where it was stated that “Therefore. Thus. The sole purpose of this exercise is to elaborately describe that the State Govt. the Union and the State Gov. in the case of The Calcutta Gas Company v. it is humbly urged to the court that they may engage in harmonious construction of the laws and treat the violation of procedures as purely incidental and try to reconcile the differences in the laws between the union and the state. It can be quite easily assumed that these shortage of supply of energy has adverse effect on the economy of the state. in interpreting the provisions. it provided Universitaria Verovia all the assistance it needed to meet the energy crisis. The facts of the case affirm that the state of Accreria have been suffering from huge energy deficits. when finally the state saw a ray of hope. it is contended that the court may widen the ambit the ambit of the said doctrine so that it may seem appropriate to the present situation. was only acting in bona fide. Kurnool Medical22 . for the purposes of convincing the Hon‟ble court of the reasons why the state of Accreria. In doing so. the state was not acting beyond its authority per se. the terms have been given very wide interpretations. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF ACCRERIA AND THE UNIVERSAL BANK IS VALID In the present case. we have to see what is the effect thereof. but many international agencies.” It should not however be construed that the Doctrine is only to reconcile the differences between the Union and State laws.s both con-jointly applied and the Union Government did not raise any question challenging the authority of the State government. incidental violations should be overlooked. it has always been the trend that for the benefit of the community at large. For acts done in bona fide. The state of Accreria houses not only the most prominent educational institutions. Sailaja v Principal. The Hon‟ble court is requested to refer to the case of A.
24 1991 AIR 1020 21 . the authority of the state be not questioned. It is urged that the court may look at the pith and substance of the actions which the State of Accreria has engaged into.O.H. Again in the case of M. Uduman And Ors vs M. Aslum24 where there was an issue regarding a contract of partnership and there arose and the court had utilized the doctrine of harmonious construction to gather the intention of the parties to the contract. which was provided by the state with the help of the Universal Bank. Though it may be contended that granting the Bank a right to free use of the airport will be a violation of the right of the general public to use it.H. it should not be forgotten that it is mainly because of the contribution of universal bank that the Union of Visily is now financially stable and has had a influx of International Establishments.O.List –II of the seventh schedule of the Constitution. it is humbly requested before the Hon‟ble court that to meet the interests of justice. The university was only lacking in expert opinion. The Universal bank has stuck along through thick and thin with the Union govt. Thus. If it be considered that universal bank does not provide assistance. It seems evident that the state has acted in a desperate manner to secure to its citizen their energy needs. then the State of Accreria will face perennial shortage of energy supplies.
In the present scenario. Indian Constitutional Law. he fails to recognize that the airport which will be constructed will also be a major source of employment for the people of Accreria. There is neither any breach of the contract. mineral rights. functioned to make the contract impossible to be performed. AIR 1963 Punj.25 in the selfless tryst of the petitioner. none of the requirements have been fulfilled. licenses. The act of Anticipatory breach can be done in two ways: · Before the time of performance comes a party to the contract refuses to perform the act entirely · When it becomes impossible for the performance to be done In the present case. there must first be an indication or intimidation from the side of one of the parties that they refuse to carry of the terms of the contract. the Supreme Court upheld the Doctrine of Privity. I. the welfare state is the source of enormous amount of wealth and more and more persons enjoy government largess in the form of jobs. much less any anticipatory breach.P. lexis nexis publishers. Mr. it has been contended by the petitioner to call off the contract on the grounds of anticipatory breach and has requested for the payment of One billion Visilian dollars towards Vedanam Inc.5. etc. Also. Again in the case of Again in the case of Jama Das vs Ram Autar. In modern times. As in no way have the govt. The rule of privity as in the case of Shiv Dayal vs UOI26 is that only the persons who are entitled to the benefits of the contract or those who are bound by the contractual terms cane sue or be sued in a contract. 25 26 M. quotas. 538 22 . and said that other than parties to the contract any third person cannot sue or be sued. contracts. page 1678. Penalty of One Billion Visilian Dollars may not be Imposed on the Union of Visily as There is no Anticipatory Breach In the present case. 6th ed. Advokam is not privy to the contract between the Union and the Universal bank. nothing of the sort has happened. for the conditions of anticipatory breach to be successful. concessions.Jain.
23 . it is fairly evident that the Advokam does not have the capacity of suing the parties and claiming relief. it is requested that the petition be dismissed.Thus. The government has engaged in a fair process of bidding and has selected the most eligible bidder. as he is not at all related to the case. Thus.
All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT UNION OF VISLIY AND OTHERS 24 . may it please the Court in the light of the questions presented. That the agreement between Accreria and Universal Bank is valid.PRAYER Wherefore. That Penalty of one Billion Visilian dollars not to be paid by the Union of Visily to Vedanam Industries on account of no anticipatory breach. and authorities cited. to adjudge and declare that: The Petitioner respectfully requests this Honourable Court to determine: That the concession agreement is valid. arguments advanced. That the minority status of Universitaria Verovia cannot be snatched.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.