1st S.S.

JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018, JAIPUR

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT OF MAJASTHAN

___________________________________________________________________

CIVIL JURISDICTION

__________________________ss jain subodh law collegess jain subodh law

college_____________________________________

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indostan)

___________________________________________________________________

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. of 2018

(With Prayer for Interim Relief)

Majasthani Union for Civil Liberties through its authorized signatory

………..Petitioner
Versus

The State of Majasthan through its principal Secretary

………Respondent

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

To
The Hon’ble Justice of Indostan
and his Companion Justices of the
Hon’ble High Court of Majasthan.

Page 1
 The Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of Indostan of the above named
Petitioner

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

Counsel for the Petitioner

1st S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018, JAIPUR

Table of Contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS______________________________________3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES_______________________________________4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION _______________________________5

STATEMENT OF ACTS________________________________________6-7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES________________________________________8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS_________________________________9-10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED_________________________________ 11-15

PRAYER__________________________________________________ 16-17

Page 2
1st S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018, JAIPUR

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. & - And

2. AIR - All India Reporter

3. Art. - Article

4. No. - Number

5. P.G. - Page No.

6. SC - Supreme Court

7. SCC - Supreme Court Cases

8. Vs. - Versus

9. Hon'ble - Honorable

10. Ors. - Others

11. Sec. - Section

12. Ltd. - Limited

13. PIL - Public Interest Litigation

14. i.e. - That is

Page 3
1st S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018, JAIPUR

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. BALCO Employees Union Vs. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333

2. Nation Council of Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC

506

3. Rai Sahib Ram Vs. State of Punjab (1955) 2 SCR 225

4. State of H.P. Vs. Ganesh Wood (1995) 6 SCC 363

5. Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti Vs. State of UP 1992 Supp. 1

SCC 44

Page 4
1st S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018, JAIPUR

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Alert Bravos have submitted their points regarding

constitutional validity of the Bravos uder Article 32 & 21 of the
constitution of Bravos , the hon'ble Supreme Court of Bravos we
have accepted the court jurisdiction in the matter of Article 32 & 21

Page 5
1st S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018, JAIPUR

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The State of Winterfell is one of the States in the Country

Bravos.

2. The State is facing an acute scarcity of water and the

conditions in major part of the state is near to drought.

3. To overcome this situation the state of Winterfell has

taken a policy decision to construct a number of dams in
the state so that the rainy water could be accumulated
in the dams which would help in meeting water for the
purpose of drinking, agricultural practices and also for
the industries.

4. The government of Bravos is also of the opinion that the

accumulation of water in the dams would help in
recouping the underground water level in the state.

5. One of such dams is to be constructed in a district in

Winterfell which is severely affected, The construction of
dams will affect 10 adjoining villages.

6. The Villagers have agriculture as their main occupation

and as a consequence of the water stored in the dam,
their Agricultural fields would either be submerged or get

Page 6
 water logged which would deprive them of their right to
livelihood.

7. The state of Winterfell for the purpose of construction of

dam floated global tenders, the Reliable Industries Ltd.
had been given contract to construct a dam.

8. The Reliable Industries Ltd.for the purpose of

construction of the dam had applied for environment
clearance to the Ministry of Environment and Forest for
the purpose.

9. Environment clearance had been given to the company

on the ground that the government had an authority to
do so in larger public interest.

10. The farmers and villagers in the villages are also not in
favour of the construction of the dam since they would be
displaced from the land where the dam is to be
constructed and would be deprived of their livelihood.

11. Alert Bravos is an NGO which works for the protection of

environment in "Bravos". Alert Bravos appealed to the
Government of Bravos not to proceed with the
construction of dam it would lead to environmental
imbalance.

12. The state of Winterfell is determined to proceed with the

construction of dam in public interest.

13. Altert Bravos has filed a PIL under Art. 32 of the

Constitution of Bravos.

14. It has also taken stands of villagers will be deprived from

their livelihood whichis in violation of Art. 21 of the
Constitution of Bravos.

Page 7
 15. The Supreme Court of Bravos admitted the petition of
hearing and has framed further issues for adjudication.

1st S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018, JAIPUR

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

 WHETHER THE PIL FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF BRAVOS IS MAINTAINABLE?

 WHETHER THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE VILLAGERS

FROM THE AREA WHERE THE PROPOSED DAM IS TO BE
CONSTRUCTED AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF ART. 21 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF BRAVOS?

 WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED DAM

SERVES LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST, I.E. MEETING THE
GROWING NEEDS OF WATER FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DRINKING, AGRICULTURE AND ALSO FOR THE
INDUSTRIES.

Page 8
1st S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018, JAIPUR

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

i. Whether the PIL filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of

Bravos is maintainable?

The Court has reminded in BALCO Employees Union (Regd.)

Vs. Union of India1 , The Hon'ble Court said only ground on
which a person can maintain a PIL is where there has been a
element of violation of Art. 21 on human rights or where
litigation has been initiated for the benefit of poor and
underprivileged who are unable to come to the court due to
some disadvantage.

ii. Whether the displacement of the villagers from the area

where the proposed dam is to be constructed amounts to
violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of Bravos?

Yes, the construction of the proposed dam is amounts to the

violation of article 21 of the constitution of Bravos as it
assures right to livelihood to every citizen of the country
Bravos.

Page 9
 1. (2002) 2 SCC 333: AIR 2009 SC 350

2. The Constitutional Law M.P. JAIN

iii. Whether the construction of the proposed dam serves

larger public interest, i.e. meeting the growing needs of
water for the purpose of drinking, agriculture and also for
the Industries.

No the construction of the proposed dam in the name of public

interest does not serves larger public interest, the villagers are
also not in the favour of the construction of the proposed dam
as the whole state will have to face the major consequences if
the proposed dam would be constructed.
The need of water is urgent the dam will complete the water
needs in the Future, but the conditions are near to drought in
the present days.

Page
10
1st S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018, JAIPUR

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

i. Whether the PIL filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of

Bravos is maintainable?

The Court has reminded in BALCO Employees Union (Regd.)

Vs. Union of India1 , The Hon'ble Court said only ground on
which a person can maintain a PIL is where there has been a
element of violation of Art. 21 on human rights or where
litigation has been initiated for the benefit of poor and
underprivileged who are unable to come to the court due to
some disadvantage.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India the supreme

court entertain the matter of concerning release of bonded
labour raised by the organization dedicated to cause of
released bonded labour. The rebuked the state government
raising preliminary objections stall and enquiry by the court
into the matter in following words "

" We should have thought that if any citizen bring before the
court a compliant that the large number of pleasant or
workers are bonded serfs or are being subjected to exploitation
of few mind lesses or contractor employer are being benefits of
social welfare. "

The villagers of village are against the construction of dam

there is no personal interest of the tribunals in this conferred
part as they will be deprived and they don’t have any
knowledge about where they will be displaced.

Page
11
The Public interest litigation is the product of realization of
constitutional obligation of court.

This court while exercising its jurisdictions of judicial review

that a very large section of the society because of extreme
poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy had been
denied justice for time immemorial and in fact they have no
access to justice to the poor, deprived, vulnerable,
discriminated, and marginalized sections of the society, this
court has initiated, encouraged and propelled the public
interest litigation. the litigation is upshot and product of this
court's deep and intense urge to fulfill its bounded duty and
constitutional obligations.

In People's Union for Democratic Rights & Others 3

this Court observed as under :

"that public interest litigation which is a strategic arm of the

legal aid movement and which is intended to bring justice
within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low
visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind of
litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is
essentially of an adversary character where there is a dispute
between two litigating parties, one making claim or seeking
relief against the other and that other opposing such claim or
resisting such relief. Public interest litigation is brought before
the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one
person against another as happens in case of ordinary
litigation, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public
interest which demands the violations of constitutional or legal
rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant, or in
a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not
go unnoticed and un-redressed. That would be destructive of

Page
12
 the Rule of Law which forms one of the essential elements of
public interest in any democratic form of government.

1. AIR 1982 SC 1473

ii. Whether the displacement of the villagers from the area

where the proposed dam is to be constructed amounts to
violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of Bravos?

Art. 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be

deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.

N.D. Jayal v. Union of India: 4

In a catena of cases we have reiterated that right to clean
environment is a guaranteed fundamental right. Maybe, in a
different context, the right to development is also declared as a
component of Article 21 in cases like Samantha v. State of A.P.
and in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar.

N.D. Jayal v. Union of India,

To ensure sustainable development is one of the goals of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”)
and this is quite necessary to guarantee the “right to life”
under Article 21. If the Act is not armed with the powers to
ensure sustainable development, it will become a barren

Page
13
shell. In other words, sustainable development is one of the
means to achieve the object and purpose of the Act as well as
the protection of “life” under Article 21. Acknowledgment of this
principle will breathe new life into our environmental
jurisprudence and constitutional resolve. Sustainable
development could be achieved only by strict compliance with

the directions under the Act. The object and purpose of the
Act: “to provide for the protection and improvement of
environment” could only be achieved by ensuring strict
compliance with its directions. The authorities concerned by
exercising their powers under the Act will have to ensure the
acquiescence of sustainable development. Therefore, the
directions or conditions put forward by the Act need to be
strictly complied with. Thus the power under the Act cannot
be treated as a power simpliciter, but it is a power coupled
with duty. It is the duty of the State to make sure the
fulfilment of conditions or direction under the Act. Without
strict compliance, right to environment under Article 21 could
not be guaranteed and the purpose of the Act will also be
defeated. The commitment to the conditions thereof is an
obligation both under Article 21 and under the Act. The
conditions glued to the environmental clearance for the Tehri
Dam Project given by the Ministry of Environment vide its
order dated 19-7-1990 has to be viewed from this perspective.

According to Art. 21 of the Constitution of Bravos no person

shall be deprived of his livelihood without the procedure
established be law.
the government has not taken any kind of permissions from
the law , the government can take decisions in the welfare of
public but the demand of the water is urgent as the conditions
are getting worst. The construction of the proposed dams will
take some time which could be more than a year but the water
needs are urgent this is the major reason why the farmers are
against the construction of the dam.

The government is assuring that the farmers will be displaced

but they have no idea where they will be displaced to.

Page
14
 2. 2004 9 SCC 362

iii. Whether the construction of the proposed dam serves

larger public interest, i.e. meeting the growing needs of
water for the purpose of drinking, agriculture and also for
the Industries.

The construction of the dam does not serve larger public

interest because the need of the water is urgent the conditions
are near to drought. The government has the idea of the
development of the state not of the people. The construction of
dam is a policy which will serve the population of the state in
maybe in future.

Foreseeing to the present need government has no policy

which can be said it is in the public interest. Even if we think
or we consider that the construction of the dam will serve
larger public interest than also it would lead to Environmental
imbalance in the state of Winterfell.

The whole ecology will suffer at its highest point. The

displacement of the people will be done by the government but
what will be done to the ecology. How the government will be
able to maintain the environmental balance, there are no

Page
15
 provision by the government to save the environment. Humans
also depend on the Environment.

1st S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018, JAIPUR

PRAYER

(i) By issuance of suitable writ, direction or order Hon'ble Court

may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record and

examine the same.

(ii) By issuance of a suitable Public Interest Litigation, direction

or order under Article 32 of The Constitution of Bravos and

the impugned action of the Respondent for construction of

Dams may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside.

(iii) By issuance of a suitable Public Interest Litigation, direction or

order the Hon'ble Court my kindly be pleased to quash and set

aside the Land Acquisition Notification and all other

Page
16
 consequential proceedings as mentioned in the Special Leave

petition, further the respondent may be restrain from

proceeding with the construction of dam as it will lead to

environmental imbalance in the State of Winterfell.

(iv) Cost of the Public Interest Litigation may kindly be awarded in

favour of the petitioner.

(v) Any other order or direction which may be deemed proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of

petitioner.

Counsel for the Petitioner

Page
17