9th SEMESTER PRACTICAL COURSE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF MAYERLAND

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER Art. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

MAYERLAND

IN THE MATTER OF

W.P. No. ***** /2019

IRINA ..…….PETITIONER

VERSUS

Musk Apparel Inc. ……..RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER- IRINA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF (PETITIONER) IRINA

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No. PAGE No.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………….. 03

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………… 04

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………….. 06

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………… 07

5. ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………… 08

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………... 09

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………….
1. Whether there is violation of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner or not?......... 12-13

[1.1] Art.16 of the Constitution on Mayerland offers Equality of opportunity in

matters of public employment as a Fundamental Right……………………………..12

[1.2] Right to Equality is a Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Art. 14 of the

Constitution of Mayerland. ………………………………………………………….12

[1.3] Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of Mayerland allows the practise of any
profession, or carrying on any occupation as a Fundamental Right…………………13

[1.4] Article 21 of the Constitution, 1950 provides that, “No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” as a
Fundamental Right…………………… …………………………………………13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 2 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

2. Whether Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is maintainable or not?..13-14

[2.1] The Writ Petition filed is ‘Mandamus’ which is a Judicial order ……………13

[2.2] Art. 32 of the Constitution provides the right to Constitutional remedies…......14

[2.3] Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction due to being the
defender and guarantor of the Fundamental Rights…………………………………14

3. Whether the petitioner has been subjected to unjust discrimination or not?.........15-16

[3.1] THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016 (NO. 49 OF

2016)………………………………………………………………………………15

[3.2] ‘Discrimination in relation to disability’ defined in THE RIGHTS OF

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016……………………………………15

[3.3] Right to Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 20 (1) ‘No Government
establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter
relating to employment.’…………………………………………………………..16

[3.4] Reasonable Accommodation’……………………………………………….16

4. Whether there exists a binding Contract between the petitioner and the respondent or
not?.........................................................................................................................17-18

[4.1] Clause 2- Interpretation Clause, Mayerland’s Contract Act, 1872…………..17

[4.2] Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposal when complete…...17

[4.3] All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties
competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not
hereby expressly declared to be void………………………………………………18

[4.4] Obligation of parties to perform the action contracted……………………….18

5. Whether the multi story building with no elevator is a violation to the set of rules laid
down by the NBC 2016?............................................................................................19

PRAYER……………………………………………………………..20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 3 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. N. ABBREVIATIONS REFERRED WORD OR PHRASE

1. & And

2. Art. Article
Hon’ble Honourable
3.

4. HR Human Resource
Inc. Incorporation
5.
No. Number
6.
NBC National Building Code
7.
PWD Persons with Disabilities
8.
S. No. Serial Number
9. St. Saint
10. RPWD Rights of Persons With Disabilities

11. V. Versus

12. AIR All India Reporter

SCR Supreme Court Report
13.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 4 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. Cases Referred
1. Ramana Dayanan Shetty vs. the International Airport Authority Air, 1979 SC
1628
2. Rajasthan State Eeletricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan & Ors. (1967) 3 S.C.A. 377)
3. Ajay Hasia Etc vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
AIR 487, 1981 SCR (2) 79
4. Air India Vs. Nargesh Mirza
5. Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 789, 1976 SCR (2)1060
6. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 549
B. Books Referred
1. Constitution of India- P. M. Bakshi
2. Introduction to the Constitution of India- Durga Das Basu
3. A People’s Constitution- The everyday life of law in Indian Republic- Rohit De
4. Bare Act of Indian Contract Act, 1872
5. Bare Act of the Constitution of India
6. The Constitution of India, the Constitution Act, 2015, Universal Law Publishing
7. Bharat ka Samvidhan- Subhash C. Kashyap
C. Articles Referred
1. Central Government Act, Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949, Equality,
A Fundamental Right http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1688/Right-To-
Equality--A-Fundamental-Right.html

2. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/equality-opportunity-public-employment/
Articles on legal issues [ISSN: 2349-9796]
3. https://indiankanoon.org

4. https://blog.ipleaders.in › rights-business-curtailed

5. Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Right to Life and personal liberty

6. https://www.lawctopus.com › academike › article-21-of-the-constitution

7. Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service

8. The RPWD Act, 2016, Indian Kanoon

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 5 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

9. Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73, Indian Kanoon

10. Alankrita Singh of NUSRL, Ranchi discusses article 32 under the Indian
Constitution.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 6 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached Hon’ble Supreme Court
to file a writ petition of Mandamus against the respondent for the violation of
fundamental rights under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Mayerland.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Place: Mayerland By: Counsels for the Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 7 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Irina is a fashion designer and has graduated from one of the top Institutes for Fashion
Designing and Technology in Mayerland, with distinction. Irina suffered a prenatal injury and
this resulted in a permanent medical condition of her called foot drop. She could walk however
with slight difficulty, which gave an impression that she is dragging her right foot. She was a
bright student in the school and her academic performance was always excellent. She was also
awarded best ‘Student Apparel Designer Award’ in her final year of the graduate school by a
well-known fashion house in the Mayerland.

When she graduated, her academic profile was one of the most impressive and widely shared
on the site ‘Job Connect’. She received a lot of job offers from major fashion houses including
that from Musk Apparels Irina’s hometown was located in Quegmire, and Musk Apparel had
a vacancy in their office in St. Juniper which was just 6 miles away from Quegmire. Irina was
highly interested in the position offered by Musk Apparel in their St. Juniper office and was
excited because the exposure of Musk Apparel would be immense since they were regularly
involved in the Projects funded by the Government of Mayerland.

She applied for the job interview and the interviewers seemed highly impressed as they gave
her a lot of positive feedback. She was selected for the next round of the interview wherein she
was supposed to create a 3D design. She was sent an offer letter that stated that her application
for the job had been accepted and she was offered the position. She was also intimidated that
the job would be in the office of her choice. She was asked to respond to the same through
email. Irina immediately sent an email of acceptance after which she was asked to submit the
attested hard copies of the acceptance letter along with her certificates of qualification, in
person at the St. Juniper’s office of Musk Apparel.

Irina went to Musk Apparel, St. Juniper, in person to meet the head of HR and submit her
certificates of qualification. She met the manager of the Musk Apparel at St. Juniper, Mr. Dean,
who after meeting Irina was quite taken aback that she suffers from visible disability. His
displeasure was quite obvious from his expressions when he met her. After meeting with Mr.
Dean, Irina was asked to wait in the reception. Meanwhile a staff came and informed her that
the HR official is not available at the office due to some official purpose and is not expected
that day. She protested but was told that she will receive an email for the scheduled day for the
submission of the documents.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 8 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

Irina went home and that evening she received an email stating that Musk Apparel has already
hired a short listed candidate for the offered position and her candidature stands withdrawn.
Irina was disturbed by this and felt that she had been discriminated because of her disability
and that the company has breached the contract. She was certain that her fundamental right has
been violated.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether there is violation of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner or not?

2. Whether Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution maintainable or not?

3. Whether the petitioner has been subjected to unjust discrimination or not?

4. Whether there exists a Contract which has been breached or not?

5. Whether the multi story building with no elevator is a violation to the set of rules laid
down by the NBC 2016?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 9 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether there is violation of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner or not?
The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mayerland
that there has been violation of her Fundamental Rights as per Art. 16 (2) which
states that every person has an equal opportunity in the matters related to public
employment. Thus, the State cannot discriminate against any person. All Indian
citizens can equally apply to the public sector or government jobs.

2. Whether Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Mayerland is

maintainable or not?
The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mayerland a
writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution which is maintainable because the
Fundamental Rights of the petitioner have been violated whereby she has been
discriminated and also not been treated equally; and this Art. of the Constitution
guarantees the right to move to Supreme Court for the protection of Fundamental
Rights.
3. Whether the petitioner has been subjected to unjust discrimination or not?
The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court a writ petition
against being discriminated on the ground of her disability, violating the RPWD
Act, 2016 which provides that “the appropriate Government shall ensure that the
PWD enjoy the right to equality.” It is also stipulated in the Section 3 of the RPWD
Act, 2016 that “no PWD shall be discriminated on the ground of disability.”
4. Whether there existes a Contract which has been breached or not?
The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that due to the
presence of an offer letter and acceptance to that offer letter via e-mail by the
petitioner, there existed a contract between the petitioner and the respondent under
Section 3, 4 and 5 of Mayerland’s Contract Act, 1872 which is enforceable by law
and binding on both the parties. Since the Respondent did not perform the promise,
there has been a breach of contract for which the Respondent is bound to
compensate under Clause 73 of the Mayerland’s Contract Act, 1872.

5. Whether the multi story building with no elevator is a violation of the rules
provided by the NBC 2016?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 10 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that as per the
set of rules laid down in the NBC, 2016, buildings with 3 or more than 3 stories are
advised to have escalators or moving walks installed within them; and since the
building in which the office of Musk Apparel has been made is a four story building
with no elevator or moving walk, it is a violation of the rules laid down by NBC,
2016.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 11 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR NOT ?
The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that there had been violation
of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner by the respondent because, [1.1] Art.16(2) of
the Constitution on Mayerland offers Equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment as a Fundamental Right; [1.2] Right to Equality is a Fundamental Rights
granted under Art. 14 of the Constitution of Mayerland; [1.3] Article 19(1) (g) of the
Constitution of Mayerland allows the practise of any profession, or carrying on any
occupation as a Fundamental Right; [1.4] Article 21 of the Constitution, 1950 provides
that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law” as a Fundamental Right.

1.1. Art.16 of the Constitution on Mayerland offers Equality of opportunity in

matters of public employment as a Fundamental Right. As per this Article, every
person has an equal opportunity in the matters of public employment. Thus, the State
cannot discriminate against any person on any grounds. There shall be equality of
opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the State. No citizen shall, on any ground be ineligible for, or
discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. The
discrimination based on any unjust ground in any respect to a person shall account to
the violation of his or her Fundamental Rights, meant to be protected by the State. 1
1.2. Right to Equality is a Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Art. 14 of the
Constitution of Mayerland which states that “the state shall not deny to any
person, equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of Mayerland.” 2 The laws in the territory of Mayerland prohibits
discrimination on any grounds before the law and the State.3And hence, any
infringement to equal treatment in the eyes of law and equal protection to any person
by the state shall be accountable to violation of Fundamental Right.4

1
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India/Part_III
2
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/
3
https://indiankanoon.org/
4
Indian Kanoon, Equality, Fundamental Right

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 12 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

1.3.Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of Mayerland allows the practise of any
profession, or carrying on any occupation as a Fundamental Right. As per this
Article, the Constitution taking into consideration the need and the importance of
work , enshrines and has guaranteed a fundamental right under article 19 (1) (g) to
practise any profession , or to carry on any occupation , trade or business , to all the
citizens residing with the jurisdiction of the country. The State shall not interfere in
the matter of choice of the people and any unjust limitation to this Art. shall be
considered a violation to one’s Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of
Mayerland.5

1.4.Article 21 of the Constitution, 1950 provides that, “No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”
as a Fundamental Right.6 ‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the
physical act of breathing or does not connote mere animal existence. It includes
right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, etc. It is the fundamental right
of everyone in this country to live with human dignity, free from exploitation.
Broad formulation of the theme of life to dignity is found in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of Mayerland & Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 549. Characterising Art.
21 as the heart of Fundamental Rights. The Court gave it an expanded interpretation,
Bhagwati J. observed:
This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath
from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of
Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include
protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender
age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop
in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities,
just and humane conditions of work and work place and maternity relief.7

2. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

5
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/ (Article by Nirali)
6
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india-right-to-life-and-personal-
liberty/
7
Bandhu Mukti Morcha Vs. Union Of India & Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 549

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 13 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mayeland that
Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Mayerland is maintainable because
[2.1] The Writ Petition filed is ‘Mandamus’ which is a Judicial order issued in the
form of a command to any Constitutional, Statutory or Non-Statutory authority asking
to carry out a public duty imposed by law or to refrain from doing a particular act. [2.2]
Art. 32 of the Constitution provides the right to Constitutional remedies. [2.3] Supreme
Court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction due to being the defender and
guarantor of the Fundamental Rights.

2.1.The Writ Petition filed is ‘Mandamus’ which is a judicial order issued in the form
of a command to any Constitutional, Statutory or Non-Statutory authority asking to
carry out a public duty imposed by law or to refrain from doing a particular act,
which the authority is not entitled to do under the law. It is also called ‘Writ of
Justice’ and any person whose rights have been violated on any ground can seek
Justice under this Writ of Mandamus. 8Mandamus demands some kind of activity
on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Where the Government
denies to itself a jurisdiction which it has under the law or where an authority vested
with the power improperly refuses to exercise it, mandamus can be issued. Thus,
mandamus will not be issued unless the applicant has a legal right to the
performance of legal duty of a public nature and the party against whom the writ is
sought is bound to perform that duty. 9 Since there has been violation of the
Fundamental rights of the Petitioner by being subjected to unequal treatment and
discrimination by the Respondent, Petitioner has the legal right to file the Writ
exercising which, the Writ of Mandamus under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been
filed.

2.2. Art. 32 of the Constitution provides the right to Constitutional remedies which
means that any person has right to move to Supreme Court for getting the
Fundamental Rights protected. Article 32(2) of the Constitution provides, “The
Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of rights
conferred by this Part.”This Art. can be invoked to get a remedy related to
Fundamental Rights, and since there has been an active violation of Fundamental
Rights of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has the legal right to seek for the protection
of the same in the Supreme Court under the Writ of Mandamus filed.

2.3.Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction because,

2.3.1. Article 32 is a Fundamental Right under Part -III of the Constitution.

Under this Article, the Supreme Court is empowered to relax the
traditional rule of Locus Standi. Art. 32 itself is a Fundamental Right

8
Suganmal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 4 November, 1964
9
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1561861/?formInput=case%20on%20mandamus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 14 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

guaranteed to every citizen, which shall be protected by the State and

Supreme Court. Exercising this Fundamental Right granted under Art. 32,
the Petitioner seeks protection from the Supreme Court.
2.3.2. Supreme Court is the defender and guarantor of Fundamental Rights and
Art. 32 (which provide the aggrieved person to seek protection against any
Fundamental Rights violation) falling within the ambit of Fundamental
Rights, shall be protected.

2.4.WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO UNJUST

DISCRIMINATION OR NOT?

The Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under [3.1]
THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016 (NO. 49 OF
2016) [3.2] ‘Discrimination in relation to disability’ defined in THE RIGHTS OF
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016. [3.3] Right to Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 20 (1) ‘No Government establishment shall
discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to
employment.’ [3.4] Reasonable Accommodation’ Based upon, the Petitioner has
been subjected to discrimination on unjust grounds
Discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy
the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally
with others.
(2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons
with disabilities by providing appropriate environment at work and work place.
(3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability,
unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of
achieving a legitimate aim.
(4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the ground of
disability.
(5) The appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with
disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the
same.10

2.5. ‘Discrimination in relation to disability’ by the Persons with Disabilities Act,

2016 is defined as a means of any distinction, exclusion, restriction on the basis of
disability which is the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition,
enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any

10
http://www.disabilityaffairs.gov.in/

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 15 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

other field and includes all forms of discrimination and denial of reasonable
accommodation and since the Petitioner, even on being of an excellent academic
record and having applaudable performance in designing has been denied just and
equal treatment because of her disability, falls under the ambit of Discrimination in
relation to Disability which is a violation of human rights and fundamental freedom
under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

2.6. The Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, 20 (1), ‘No Government establishment
shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to

employment, including appointment, job work, promotions, etc while the Petitioner
has been discriminated in the matter related to employment, i.e. appointment by the
Petitioner, Musk Apparel.11

2.7. ‘Reasonable Accommodation’ in the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 means
necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, appropriate barrier free
and conducive environment to employees with disability, without imposing a
disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with
disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others. Reasonable
accommodation includes making provisions including moving walk or ramps for
the people with disability to have easy access to all public buildings; here, public
buildings means buildings that welcome and entertain public. 12

3. WHETHER THERE EXISTS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND

THE RESPONDENT OR NOT?

The Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is an
existence of a valid contract, binding both the parties under the Mayerland’s Contract
Act, 1872 as given under [4.1] Clause 2- Interpretation Clause, Mayerland’s Contract
Act, 1872. [4.2] Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposal when
complete. [4.3] All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of
parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and
are not hereby expressly declared to be void. [4.4] Obligation of parties to perform the
action contracted

11
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY
12
CHAPTER IV SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT, The Gezette of India Extraordinary.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 16 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

3.1. Interpretation Clause 2 of the Mayerland’s Contract Act, 1872 provides with
these set of directions guiding a contract.
(a) When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from
doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or
abstinence, he is said to make a proposal
(b) When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the
proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise
(c) The person making the proposal is called the “promisor”, and the person
accepting the proposal is called the “promisee”
(d) When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done
or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to
abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a
consideration for the promise
(e) Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each
other, is an agreement
(f) An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.13
Since, there has been the fulfilment of the set of rules laid down, there existed a
contract between the Petitioner and the Respondent which is enforceable by the law
and the non fulfilment of the actions bounded by the contract is accountable to
breach of contract under Clause 73 of the Mayerland’s Contract Act, 1872.
3.2. Clause 3 of the Mayerland’s Contract Act, 1872, Communication, Acceptance
and Revocation of proposals. The communication of proposals, the acceptance of
proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are
deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or
revoking, by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or
revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it. —The communication of
proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and
acceptances are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing,
accepting or revoking, by which he intends to communicate such proposal,
acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it." In Clause 4
on the Mayerland’s Contract Act, 1872, Communication when complete. The
communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the

13
Indian Contract Act, 1872, Clause 2. Interpretation

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 17 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

person to whom it is made and the communication of an acceptance is complete, as

against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission so as to be out of the
power of the acceptor.14
As the communication and acceptance to the contract have been performed
successfully, there exists a valid contract between the Petitioner and Respondent.
3.3. All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties
competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are
not hereby expressly declared to be void.’Since both the parties in this case have
entered into a contract by free consent, are competent to contract, for a lawful
consideration, with a lawful object and has not been declared void, the contract is
valid under which the rights of the Petitioner shall be protected by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
3.4. Obligation of parties to perform the action contracted —the parties to a contract
must either perform, or offer to perform, their respective promises, unless such
performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions of this Act.15 Based
upon this, the respondent is bound to perform the respective promise of providing
job opportunity to the respondent.

4. WHETHER THE MULTI STORY BUILDING WITH NO ELEVATORS IN A

VIOLATION OF THE RULES PROVIDED BY THE NBC 2016?
The Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that as per the set
of rules laid down in the NBC, 2016, any building, either Public or Private shall be
made easy to access by everyone. Buildings with more than 3 floors or more than 12
meters of height need to install elevators as a basic structure. Since the office, Musk
Apparel is placed on the 4th floor of a building which has no provision of Elevator, it
is violation to the rules provided by the NBC, 2016.

14
Clause-5, The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Bare Act
15
Clause-6, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Bare Act

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 18 of 20

 PRACTICAL MOOT COURT 9TH SEMESTER -2019

PRAYER

Therefore in the light of arguments advanced, authorities cited and facts mentioned,
the counsel of the Petitioner humbly prays and implores before the Hon’ble Court to
adjudicate by issuing an appropriate Writ and direction of order. It is further prayed
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that

1. There has been violation of Fundamental rights

2. The Writ Petition is acceptable
3. There is breach of contract on the side of the respondent
4. The Petitioner must be appointed by the respondent as compensation of breach of
contract.
5. Direct to make the building easily accessible for persons with disabilities by the
installation of elevators.
The Court may make any other order as it may deem fit it terms of justice, equality
and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Place: Mayerland S/d
Date: Counsel(s) for the Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 19 of 20