Applicant

Team Code- TC105

IN THE HON’BLE
N A T I O N A L G R E E N T R IB U N A L
Southern Bench
__________________________________________________________

NORTHCAP UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

__________________________________________________________________________

APP NO. ****/2017

MERUMATTY GRAM PANCHAYAT  Appellant

Vs.

KEWCOLA COMPANY..  Respondent

__________________________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE

APPLICANT
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
APPLICANT
 Applicant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITY .................................................................................................................. ii

BOOKS ................................................................................................................................................. ii
International Treaties and Conventions and Statistical Records...................................................... ii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................................. v

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................... vii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................................... viii

I. THE COMPANY HAD BREACHED ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , 1950 OF PEOPLE
LIVING IN BARELA ............................................................................................................................ viii
II. THE COMPANY CANNNOT CONVERT PUBICL RESOURCES FOR PRIVATE USE .......................... viii
DETAILED PLEADINGS................................................................................................................... 1

I. THE COMPANY HAD BREACHED ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , 1950 OF PEOPLE
LIVING IN BARELA ............................................................................................................................... 1
1. Article 21of citizen of Berela is infringed. .................................................................... 1
II. COMPANY CANNOT CONVERT PUBICL RESOURCES FOR PRIVATE USE ....................................... 4
a) Public trust doctrine ......................................................................................................... 4
NO TRANSFER TO PRIVATE PARTIES ...................................................................................... 6
PRAYER ..................................................................................................................................... 10
 Applicant

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CASES

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 178 SC 597.
 Subhash Kumar v. State of Biha, (1991) 1SCC 598;AIR 199 1SC 420.
 MC Mehta v. Kama Nath , (2000) 6 SCC 213;AIR 2000 SC 1997.
 Vellore citizen’s welfare forum v. Union of India , 1996(5) SCC 647.
 Indian council for Enviro -legal action v. Union of India , (1996) 3 SCC 2012;AIR
1996 SC 1446.
 A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu, JT2000(Suppl3)SC322.
 Amaranth shrine, re, supreme court (2013) 3 SCC 247
 Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India , (2012) 3 SCC I; AIR 2012 SC 3725
 Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda
 Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India ,(2012) 3 SCC I; AIR 2012 SC 3725
 Sachianand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 59.
 T Damodar Rao v. Municipial corporation of Hyderabad , AIR 1987 AP 171
 T.N Godaverman ThirumulPad vs union of India , (2012) 4 SCC 362, 373-74.
 Karnataka Industrial Areas vs Sri C. Kenchappa & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 371
 Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India , [1996] 5 SCC 281.
 In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and Ors. [2004] 2 SCC 392.
 California in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, (33 Cal.
3d 419)
 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India[2000] 10 SCC 664

BOOKS

1. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (6th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa,

2010)
2. P. Sands ,International Law in the field of Sustainable Development,

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS AND STATISTICAL RECORDS

1. United Nations Charter, 1945

2. Stockholm Declaration, 1972
3. Rio Declaration, 1992
 Applicant

4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III)

5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 2200 A
(XXI)

STATUTES AND LEGISLATIONS

 Constitution of India, 1950
 The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
 The Environment Protection Act, 1986
 Applicant

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Applicants have the honour to submit before the Honourable National Green Tribunal,
Southern Bench of Hindia , the memorandum for the applicants in the Application
no..../2017 under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The present
memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
 Applicant

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Hindia is the seventh largest country of the world with highest number of agrarian
population. It is also developing nation having around 50 percent of its population under
poverty. It is a coastal zone with abundance of rainfall throughout the year present in the
southern region of the country.

The KewlCola Beverages Private Limited is a subsidiary of the Atlanta based KewlCola
company, which established a plant in Merumatty district of Berala , southern part of Hindia
in 2004 .

The company got annual operational license by the village council in 2005 to commence
production; subject to the approval on yearly basis. Thereafter Company drew 510,000 litres
of water each day from boreholes and open wells resulting in lowering down of ground water
table which lead to protests by local residents regarding complaints on water pollution and
extreme water shortage endangering their lives.

In January 2007, women protested that they had to cover a great distance in order to fetch
water for their daily activates twice a day, since wells had dried up . It was also contended
that the little which was left was undrinkable and when used for bathing the water burned
their eyes and lead to skin complaints and it even effected ability of local residents to raise
their crops.

In December 2007, the Merumatty Grama Panchayat, refused renewal of KewlCola’s license
on the grounds of overexploitation of natural resources in the public interest. The decision of
Village Council of refusing to renew KewlCola’s license was challenged in the High Court
of Berala by Kewlcola Beverages Private Limited in March 2008.

The High Court considered the Village Council’s decision and their by, ordered the Kewl
Cola Company not only to limit the ground water extraction within a month ,but also
directed the village council to renew the licence. It was also instructed by the Court that the
Village Council should not interfere with the functioning of the Company as long as it was
not extracting the prohibited ground water.

The Village Council deviated from the order of the High Court and cancelled the license of
 Applicant

KewlCola. The Company refusing the accusation of excessive exploitation lodged an appeal.

In January 2009, KewlCola filed a fresh petition before the Divisional Bench of High Court
of Berala, stating the cancellation of license by the Village Council for the use of
administrative discretionary powers.

The divisional bench of high court in its judgement permitted the company to extract
500,000 litres of ground water water per day. Further, a special committee named as the
“Merumatty Committee” was constituted to supervise the regulation of licensing and to
ensure that the ground water usage of the company is in consensus with the Hindia’s
environmental law and public policies. Furthermore, the KewlCola had to submit the annual
scientific and legal due diligence report to the committee.

A specialized tribunal was constituted in 2010 under National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to
abdicate environmental related matters.

Severe drought experienced in Merumatty district, resulted in suicide by several farmers, as

they were unable to pay off the agricultural loan and were running in to losses since past one-
decade.

A fresh petition in southern bench of the National Green Tribunal was filed by Gram
Panchayat for the over-exploitation of ground water .
 Applicant

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE COMPANY BREACHES ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950 OF THE
CITIZENS LIVING IN BARELA?;

II. WHETHER COMPANY CAN CONVERT PUBLIC RESOURCES FOR PRIVATE USE?.
 Applicant

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE COMPANY HAD BREACHED ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA , 1950 OF PEOPLE LIVING IN BARELA

Article 21 as stated under The Constitution of India, 1950 talks about right to life and
personal liberty .In other words, no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty
except procedure established by law. In the following case the complaint filed by the local
residents was that of undrinkable water, skin complaints, burning of eyes while bathing and
damaging of the soil effecting the crops which means Article 21 of the citizens of Berala was
infringed. In view of the scope of this right, environmental, ecological, air and water
pollution gets violated in Article 21 of the constitution of India. Further, ‘the entitlement of
citizens to receive safe drinking water (potable water) is part of the right to life under Article
21.
There are basically two main enactments passed by the legislation which deals with clean and
unpolluted water. They are being listed as follows:

1. Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974;

2. Provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; and
3. Indian Easements Act, 1882

Article 48A and 51A (g) of the Indian Constitution also deals with the protection and
improvement of the environment. The Gram Panchayat after considering the allegations
regarding overexploitation of natural resources by company refused to renew the licence of
the company on the ground that it was against the public interest and was causing adequate
drinking water scarcity.

II. THE COMPANY CANNNOT CONVERT PUBICL RESOURCES FOR PRIVATE

USE

Ground water is a national wealth which belongs to entire society. It is an ‘Elixir of life’ for
every individual present on this earth. As per article 14 of the constitution which guarantees
right to equality to all persons indicates that every person has a equal right to protect the
environment. The Stockholm’s Conference of 1972 also declared that ‘’ Man has the
fundamental right to freedom of equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment
of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well being....”
 Applicant

Thus, company is free to extract any amount of ground water which is available underground
in the land owned by it only in the public interest and not for the commercial benefit and
only to an extent till it doesn’t infringes right of the people of Barela. As per section 218 of
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act which states that “all public water courses (other than river passing
through more areas, than the Panchayat area which the Government may, by notification in
the gazette, specify), the beds and Banks of river streams, irrigation and drainage channels,
canals, lakes, back waters and water courses and all standing and flowing water, springs,
reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells, kappus, chals, stand pipes and other water works
including those used by the public to such an extent as to give a prescriptive right to their use
whether existing at the commencement of this Act or afterwards made, laid or erected and
whether made, laid or erected at the cost of the Panchayat or otherwise, and also any adjacent
land, not being private property shall stand transferred to and vest absolutely in the village
panchayat” This means that Gram Panchayat acts as a trustee and also have a legal duty for
the protection of natural resources and thus can order the company to limit the ground water
extraction. Thus, it was considered that since these resources, meant for public use cannot be
converted into private ownership or commercial ownership.
 Applicant

DETAILED PLEADINGS

THE COMPANY HAD BREACHED ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA , 1950 OF PEOPLE LIVING IN BARELA

1. Article 21of citizen of Berela is infringed.

A. The Apex court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1 held that citizens are provided
with right to live with human dignity. This decision now protects the right to life and
personal liberty of citizen not only from Executive action but from the legislative
action also. A person can be deprived of his Life and personal liberty if two
conditions are complied with

1. There must be a law

2. There must be a procedure prescribed by that law,

Provide that procedure is just fair and reasonable

In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar2 it was held that “Right to life is a fundamental
right under article 21 of the constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of
pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life if anything endangers or impairs
the quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has a right to recourse to article 32
of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water and air which may be
detrimental to quality of life “

The court in MC Mehta v. Kama Nath3 referred the Stockholme Declaration , 1972
and Brundtland commission report and observed that sustainable development ,
polluter pays principle and precautionary principle are part of our environmental
jurisprudence .

Principle 2 of the Stockholm’s states that the natural resources of the earth including
air water flora fauna must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future
generation through careful planning and management.

1
AIR 178 SC 597.
2
(1991) 1SCC 598;AIR 199 1SC 420.
3
(2000) 6 SCC 213;AIR 2000 SC 1997.
 Applicant

These principles have also been dealt by Supreme Court in Vellore citizen’s welfare
forum case.4 The court observed that the principle of inter-generational equity also
presupposes that exploitation of natural resources must be equitably distributed
between present and future generation thus humans have become the focal point in the
protection of natural resources the Rio declaration on environment and sustainable
development in the year 2012 mentioned ;

We recognise that people at the centre of sustainable development and in this regard
we strive for a world that is just equitable and inclusive and we commit to work
together to promote sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development
and environmental protection and thereby to benefit all.

The Brundtland Report talks about polluter pays principle which states that
the polluter pays principle is enacted to make the party responsible for
producing pollution responsible for paying for the damage done to the natural
environment. The same principle has also been dealt in Indian council for Enviro -
legal action v. Union of India5, the polluter pays principle was explained as “once
the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on
such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his
activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on
his activity”

A) The polluting industry is absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused to
the environment.
B) He is also liable to pay the cost of restoring the environmental degradation-
reversing the damaged ecology.
The precautionary principle has been dealt in Andhra Pradesh pollution control
board v. Professor M.Y. Nayudu6, Indian council for Enviro- legal action v.
Union of India and Vellore citizen’s welfare forum v. Union of India.

The court in Andhra Pradesh pollution control board v. Professor M.Y. Nayudu 7has
applied the ‘precautionary principle’ to prevent the potential pollution of drinking
water sources consequent upon the setting up industries in their vicinity. Various
4
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India 1996(5) SCC 647.
5
(1996) 3 SCC 2012;AIR 1996 SC 1446.
6
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu, JT2000(Suppl3)SC322.
 Applicant

judicial pronouncements have recognized that water is a community source which is

to be held by the state in public trust in recognition of its duty to respect the principle
of inter-generational equity.

In Amaranth shrine, re, supreme court8 has explained that the doctrine of
sustainable development and precautionary principle have been applied were
development was necessary but not at the cost of environment ,

Principle 6 of Stolkholm Decleration of 1972 states that the discharge of

toxic substances or of other substances and the release of heat, in such quantities and
concentration as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless,
must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not inflicted
upon eco system

Principle 11 of UN Conference 19829 states that Environment policy must not

hamper development. In Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, it
states that this Water Act provides for the constitution of the central and state
pollution control boards empowered to carry out a variety of functions which include
establishing quality standards, research, planning and investigations to promote
cleanliness of streams and wells and to prevent and control pollution of water. No
person without obtaining the consent of the state board can establish any industry, etc.
which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluents. This act empowers state boards
to issue directions to any person, officer or authority, including orders to close,
prohibit or regulate any industry, operation or process and to stop or regulate the
supply of water, electricity or any other service.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, made industry self-regulatory. Greater

industry compliance with environmental laws, disclosure of data on waste generation,
adoption of clean technology for pollution prevention, waste minimisation, recycling

8
(2013) 3 SCC 247.
9
See ‘Principle 11: States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental
standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the

environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied

by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social

cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.

 Applicant

and utilisation, arrangement for off-site disposal and revealing of data on consumption
of water and raw materials are some of the remarkable improvements resulting from
this audit regime.

II COMPANY CANNOT CONVERT PUBICL RESOURCES FOR PRIVATE USE

Under our constitutional scheme, the states acts as a mere trustee of the public
largesse and in function, it only belongs to the people of the country , natural
resources including groundwater are scarce in its existence in as much as it is
required for sustained human existence

a) Public trust doctrine

The supreme court in M.C. Mehta v. Kama Nath10 declared in unequivocal terms:

Our legal system – based on English common law- include the public trust doctrine
as a part of jurisprudence. The state is the trustee of l natural resources which are
by nature meant for public use and enjoyment public at large is the beneficiary of
the seashore, running waters , air , forest and ecological fragile lands the state as at
trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources these resources meant
for public use cannot be converted into private ownership

Saghir ahmed J also reiterated that public trust doctrine is a part of law of land as
stated in Mc Mehta v. Kamal Nath. Though it is a common law doctrine and adopted
and explained by the US Federal Supreme court.

Honorable justice G.S. Singhvi in centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of
India11:

Natural resources belong to the people but the state legally owns them n behalf of
its people and from that point of view natural resources are considered as national
assets, more so because the state benefits immensely from their value …… while
distributing natural resources, the state is bound to act in consonance with the
principles of equality and public trust ……

10
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000)6 SCC 213:AIR2000 SC 1997.
11
(2012) 3 SCC I; AIR 2012 SC 3725.
 Applicant

This case is popularly known as radio spectrum or 2g spectrum case. This case also
gets support from the judgment of international court of justice in Democratic
Republic of Congo v. Uganda, international court of justice report 2005 and
resolution of 17th session of the UN general assembly

Again, Arijit Pasayat J, While describing that by destroying natural environment ,

man is commiting matricide, having in a way killed mother earth, declared in T.N
Godaverman Thirumalpad v. Union of India12 :

Our legal system ,based on English common law include the public trust doctrine as a
part of jurisprudence. The state is the trustee of l natural resources which are by
nature meant for public use and enjoyment public at large is the beneficiary of the
seashore, running waters , air , forest and ecological fragile lands the state as at trustee
is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources these resources meant for public
use cannot be converted into private ownership. The esthetic use and the prestine
glory cannot be permitted o be eroded for private commercial or any other use unless
the courts find it necessary in good faith, for public good and in public interest and to
encroach upon the said resource.

Chinnapa reddy J in Sachianand Pandey v. State of West Bengal13 explained

whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the court, the court is bound to bear
in mind articles 48a and 51a(g) of the constitution which proclaims it to be the
fundamenta duty of every citien of india ‘ to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests lakes rivers’. When the court is called upon to give
effect to the directive principles and fundamental duties, the court is not to shrug its
shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the
policy making authority

In T Damodar Rao v. Municipial corporation of Hyderabad 14the court made it cear

that “protection of the environment is not only the duty of the citizen it is the
obligation of the state and other state organs including courts”. Therefore the courts

12
(2002) 10 SCC 606; AIR 2003 SC 724. The Public Trust Doctrine has been highlighted and amply focused and
explained by the US Supreme Court in various cases, viz. Illinois central railroad company v. illinios,36 L Ed
1018: 146 US 387(1892); National Audubon society v. superior court of Alpine country, (1983) 658 P 2d 709: 33
Cal 3d 419(Cal SC).
13
See, Rral Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 198 Supp SCC 517: AIR 1987 SC 59.
14
AIR 1987 AP 171.
 Applicant

must also be alive to these considerations and take conscious decision in

enviornmental pollution cases.

In a recently decide case, the supreme court has quoted with approval “the pubic trust
doctrine” and that the state is the custodian of natural resources and has a duty to
maintain them not merely for the benefit of the public but for the “ best interest of
faura and fauna, and wildlife and so on”. It was also made clear that it is totally
unjustified to make natural resources a subject of private ownership. The court has
also made it clear that “ the state holds the natural resources as a trustee for people”

In a recenty decided case T.N Godaverman ThirumulPad vs union of India15, the

supreme court has also made it clear that this doctrine” is meant to insure that all
humans have equitable access to natural resources treating all natural resources as
property and not life.

NO TRANSFER TO PRIVATE PARTIES

It has been decided , time and again, that the doctrine of public trust is an affirmative
duty of the state which require higher degree of judicial scrutiny. Moreover the state
cannot transfer the public trust property to a private person the court can take
affirmative actions for protecting the right of the people over natural resources.
Therefore this doctrine enjoins upon the government to protect the resources for the
enjoyment of general public rather than to permit their use for private owners or
commercial purposes.

The Court in Karnataka Industrial Areas vs Sri C. Kenchappa & Ors16 also
observed that "this, therefore, is the aim, namely, to balance economic and social
needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense
all development is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity
and the rapid increase in the population together with consequential demands to
sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of
forests, the filling up of lakes and pollution of water resources and the very air which
we breathe. However, there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development
on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on
15
(2012) 4 SCC 362, 373-74.
16
(2006) 6 SCC 371
 Applicant

environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be
sacrificed at the altar of the other."

In Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India17, The supreme court held that "While
economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or
by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time the
necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other
developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other
words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but
there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of
environment." The Declaration of the 1972 Stockholm Conference referred; obliquely
to man's environment, adding that `both aspects of man's environment; the natural and
the man-made, are essential for his well-being and enjoyment of basic human rights'.

In In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and Ors.18,the Court aptly observed
Stockholm Declaration as "Magna Carta of our environment". First time at the
international level importance of environment has been articulated.

The priority of developing nations is urgent industrialization and development. We

have reached at a point where it is necessary to strike a golden balance between the
development and ecology.

The development should be such as it can be sustained by ecology. All this has given
rise to the concept of sustainable development.

The World Conservation Union' and `the World Wide. Fund for Nature' prepared
jointly by UNEP described that "sustainable development, therefore, depends upon
accepting a duty to seek harmony with other people and with nature" according to
`Caring for the Earth', A strategy for Sustainable Living. The guiding rules are:

i) People must share with each other and care for the earth;

ii) Humanity must take no more from nature than man can replenish; and,

17
[1996] 5 SCC 281.
18
[2004] 2 SCC 392.
 Applicant

iii) People must adopt life styles and development paths that respect and work within
nature's limits.

P. Sands in his celebrated book `International Law in the field of Sustainable

Development" mentioned that the sustainable development requires the States to
ensure that they develop and use their natural resources in ` a manner which is
sustainable. According to him, sustainable development has four objectives:

First, it refers to a commitment to preserve natural resources for the benefit of present
and future generations.

Second, sustainable development refers to appropriate standards for the exploitation

of natural resources based upon harvests or use (examples include use which is
"sustainable," "prudent," or "rational," or "wise" or "appropriate").

Third, yet other agreements require an "equitable" use of natural resources, suggesting
that the use by any State must take account of the needs of other States and people.

And a fourth category of agreements require that environmental considerations be

integrated into economic and other development plans, programmes, and projects, and
that the development needs are taken into account in applying environmental
objectives. Similarly, this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India19,
observed as under:

"Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to
life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India....."

The Supreme Court of California in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court

of Alpine County, (33 Cal. 3d 419) observed that:

"Thus, the public trust is more than an affirmation of State power to use public
property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the
people's common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering
that right of protection only in rare cases when the abandonment of that right is
consistent with the purposes of the trust....."

19
[2000] 10 SCC 664
 Applicant

Under Section 218 of The Panchayati Raj Act states that panchayat(state) is
authorised to preserve water resources the preservation of water resoures is one of the
mandatory duty of the Panchayat in the light of the third schedule to the act read with
Section 166.
 Applicant

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

I. The order of the Hon’ble High Court granting permission to the company to
extract 500,000 litres from the common ground water is bad in law and hence void.

I. KewlCola is liable to pay damages to the residents of Merumatty District.

And pass any other order that this Honourable Court may deem fit in the interests of justice,
equity and good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT.