RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………2

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………….3

ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………4

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………….5

PRAYER………………………………………………………..9

1
RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

HC – High Court

SC – Supreme Court

Hon’ble – Honourable

UOI – Union Of India

NGO – Non Government Organisation

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Case Referred
1. Union of India vs TR Verma AIR 1957 SC 882

2. State of West Bengal vs North Adjai coal company (1971) I SCC 309,310

3. UP Jal Nigam vs Nareshwar Sahai Mathur (1995) I SCC 21

4. Titaghur Paper Mills compant .Ltd vs State of Odisha AIR 1983 SC 603

5. Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan (2005) 6 SCC 657

Books Referred
J.N Pandey – Constitutional law of India

M.P Jain – Indian Constitutional law

Statutory Instruments Used

Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution

Indian Penal Code

Prevention of Corruption act

2
RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Due to low employment in the state the government introduced make in Indiana
policy
2. The tenders were auctioned off and M/S RPF Industries won a majority of tenders
3. After half a year a NGO people’s liberty made serious allegations on the respondent
that they had arm twisted the government and had procured most of the tenders.
4. The policy mandated that tender could be issued for industries only where there at
least two bidders competing for it but the respondent had procured tenders in which
they were the sole bidder 1
5. The government had issued an official statement in which they explained why they
had awarded the respondent the tenders. it said “It stated that no tender rules were
flouted and the government reserved the right to issue tender to an entity in case there
were no bidder keeping in mind the larger public interest involved”2
6. The NGO also claimed that several environmental laws were flouted while setting up
the industries and hazardous substance were emitted which had serious impact on the
health of people living in the area
7. Several protests ensued due to which the government issued a formal statement which
had no mention of the environment law which were alleged by the NGO were flouted
8. The NGO filed a case in the High Court of Cihar

1
Intra moot proposition
2
Intra moot proposition
3
RESPONDENT

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether a writ lies against a private party ?

2. Whether People’s liberty has the locus standii and whether alternative remedy needs
to be exhausted to exercise writ jurisdiction
3. Whether article 14 and article 21 have been violated

4
RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Whether a writ lies against a private party ?

In clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiana the jurisdiction of the Article is
talked about in an detailed manner it states. “ The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue
directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by
any HC exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
3
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.”
Thus it can be seen that a writ can be brought against a private party. In the afore mentioned
case it can be seen that the NGO has gone to the court for what they claim to be violation of
fundamental rights and they can bring a writ petition against a private party. The writ
however can not solely be brought against a private party the government also has to be a
respondent in the case too as is done by the appellant in this case. It was also held that the
writ petition can only be brought against a private party if its discharging a public duty It was
also held in the case of Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan4 where the SC observed that a writ will lie
against aprivate body only when it performed a public function or discharged a public
duty. This public function or duty was explained by the court in the S.D Siddiqui case –
“A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become
necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such
obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it”. In the case the respondents
are not discharging a public duty and hence no writ jurisdiction can be brought against them
by the NGO and it has no maintenance in the hon’ble HC of CIhar.

3
Constitution of Indiana
4
(2005) 6 SCC 657
5
RESPONDENT

Whether People’s liberty has the locus standii and whether alternative remedy needs to be
exhausted to exercise writ jurisdiction

Locus Standii is the right of a party to appear and be heard before the court. The traditional
rule is that a person whose legal right is infringed can apply for relief. But the apex court has
now considerably liberalised the above rule of locus standii. The Court now permits the
public spirited persons to file a writ petition for the enforcement of constitutional and
statutory rights of any other person or a class, if that person or a class is unable to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Court due to poverty or any social and economic disability. In ABSK
sangh vs UOI5, The Apex Court held that Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh though an
unregistered association could maintain a writ petition for redressal of a common grievance.
Alternate remedies are remedies which the aggrieved party can use instead of approaching
the higher courts for issuing a writ petition under Article 226 and 32 of Constitution of
Indiana. In the case presented before the court the NGO people’s liberty has approached the
Hon’ble HC of Cihar. They are approaching the HC for alleged violation of Article 14 and
Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiana. In UOI vs TR verma 6
in which the SC said “It is
well settled that when an alternate remedy is open to a litigant he should be introduced. He
should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the court
to issue a prerogative writ.” Also the SC in the case of State of West Bengal vs North Adjai
Coal Co.7 held that normally before a writ petition before 226 is entertained the HC involved
insist that the party aggrieved by the order of a quasi – judicial tribunal should have recourse
to the statutory authorities which have power to give reply. In the above case the NGO has
made allegations that Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of Indiana have been
violated. Given the base of the allegations presented the NGO could have approached
different authorities. The NGO neglecting the alternate remedies which they had i.e
approaching the National Green Tribunal for the violation of environmental laws and
approaching the courts in Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act but they have
not done so in the above case hence not do they also have alternate remedies and so they also
don’t have the locus standii to present the case in the Hon’ble HC of Cihar . Also in Titaghur

5
AIR 1981 SC 298
6
AIR 1957 SC 882
7
(1971) SCC 309,310

6
RESPONDENT

paper mills Co. Ltd. Vs State of Orrisa8 said article 226 is not meant to short circuit or
circumvent statutory procedure

8
AIR 1983 SC 603
7
RESPONDENT

Whether article 14 and article 21 have been violated

Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiana talk about right to equality and right
to life respectively. Article 14 of The Constitution of Indiana goes as follows “Equality
before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of
religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”9. Also article 21 goes as follows “Protection of life
and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law”10. But none of these rights have been violated the
allegation themselves are allegations for corruption and environmental degradation which
have their alternate remedies which can be exercised in different courts and tribunals which
have been setup by the government. Moreover the claims made by the NGO are baseless and
are made with the purpose of marring the image of the current government and polishing the
image of the opposition.

9
Constitution of Indiana
10
Constitution of Indiana
8
RESPONDENT

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
appellant humbly prays before the Hon’ble Cihar HC that:

1. The Case which is presented before the high court has no standing and that it should
not be entertained