15 R

TEAM CODE : ULC 15
XXIInd All India Moot Court Competition

R
XXIInd ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA
AZS MINING PVT. LTD. CO & ANR. (PETITIONER)
V.
UNION OF ARYAVARTA & ANR. (RESPONDENT)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2018
[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA]
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS 10
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 13
WRITTEN SUBMISSION I
A. The Petition Before This Hon’ble Court Is Not Maintainable I
1. The party must seek remedies under the law of contract and not writ jurisdiction of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court I
2. There has been no violation of fundamental rights I
3. The petitioner did not exhaust all his remedies II
B. There was no violation of Fundamental Rights III
1. The mining company not being a citizen cannot claim Fundamental Right. III
2. The Restrictions Imposed by the Government are within the scope of Art. 19 (6) III
i. The Restrictions Imposed by the Central Government are Reasonable III
ii. The Restrictions imposed by the Central Government are in the Interest of the
General Public IV
C. The Order Passed By The Government Of Aryavarta Vide Notification Dated

09/11/2017 Is Valid VI
1. The central government is having the power to mitigate environmental pollution VI
2. The Central Government is Justified in Imposing a Complete Ban on Mining

Activities of AZS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Co. VII
i. The central government is justified in not providing an opportunity to hear VIII
3. The contract with the mining company has been frustrated and investments needn’t
be recuperated VIII
Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 1

i. The contract is frustrated VIII
ii. Government bears no compensation IX
D. The State of Hodu isn’t liable for the contravention of contractual obligation as the
mining company caused environmental pollution XI
PRAYER 15

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
§ Section
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad High Court
All ER All England Reporter
Annex. Annexure
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Assn. Association
Asst. Assistant
Co – Op. Co – Operative
Co. Company
Commr. Commissioner
Const. Constitution
Corp. Corporation
Distt. District
DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy
Dy. Deputy
EPA The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
EPR The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986
ESZ Eco – Sensitive Zone
Govt. Government
Id. Ibid.
ILR Indian Law Reporter
LR Law Reporter
Ltd. Limited
Mad LJ Madras Law Journal
Mad. Madras High Court
Md. Mohammed
MNC Multi – National Corporation

MoEF & CC Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate

Change
NGO Non – Government Organisation
Ors. Others
P&H Punjab and Haryana
PC Privy Council
Pvt. Private
QB Queen’s Bench
Raj Rajasthan High Court.
RTA Road Transport Authority
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
U/A Under Article

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1 Pollock & Mulla, Indian Contract and Specific Relief 1121 (13th 9
ed. 2010)
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Naidu AIR 1999 SC 812 10
Ahmad Khan v. Shahanshah Jehan Begum, A.I.R. 1973 A.l.l. 529 9
Asst. Excise Commr. and Other v Issac Peter and Others, (1994) 4 9
S.C.C. 104
Bailey v De Crespigney [1869] L.R. 4 Q.B. 180 9
BannarAmman Sugar Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, (2005) 1 4
S.C.C. 625, 636
Bansilal Fomra v. Thadava Co-op Agricultural and Industrial 9
Society Ltd., (1976) 1 M.a.d. L.J
Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 3
295
Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 647 7
Dharam Dutt v. U.O.I, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1295 3
DL SooryaprakasalingamGaru v. Shaw Trikamlal A.I.R. 1917 M.a.d. 9
509
Ganga Saran v. Firm Ram Charan, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 9 9
Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise Commr., Taxation, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1
1121
Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo Distt. Council, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 4
Indian Council for Environ-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 10, 11
1996 SC 1446
Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 4
3863.
K Guruprasad Rao v State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 S.C.C. 418 10
Keshavlal Brothers and Co. v. Diwan Chand and Co., A.I.R 1923 9
P.C. 105
Khazan Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 669 1

Krishna Kumar v. Municipal Committee of Bhatapara, (2005) 8 4

S.C.C. 612
Krishnan Kakkanath v. government of Kerala, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 128 4
M.B. Cotton Assn. Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 634 4
M.J Swami v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 5 S.C.C. 289 4
Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council, A.I.R 1991 S.C 1153 1
Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Travellers Ltd [1935] A.l.l. 9
E.R. R.e.p. 86
Municipal Corpn. V. Jan Md. Usmanbhai, A.I.R. 1986 SC 1205 4
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 430 4
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd v Ministry of Environment and 7
Forest and Ors. (2013) 6 S.C.C. 476
Orissa Textile & Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 708 4
Parbhani Transport Co–op. Society Ltd. v. RTA, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 4
801
Pratap Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I., (1997) 5 S.C.C. 87 4
Premji Bhai Parmar and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and 1
Ors., A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 738
Sandeep Sagwan v Union of India, (2012) I.L.R. 1 P & H 448 6
Satyabarata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co., A.I.R 1954 S.C 10
44
Shushila Saw Mill v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 2484 4
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 4, 8
S.C.C. 534
State of Haryana v. Jage Ram A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 2018. 1
State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, A.I.R. 1970 4, 5
S.C. 1157
State of Orissa v. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd., A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1
297
State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2003) 10 JT 485 1
Sterlite Industries (India) v. Union of India (2013) 4 S.C.C. 575 7
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar A.I.R. 3
1965 S.C. 40

U.O.I v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 S.C.C. 437 4

Union Carbide Corpn. Ltd. v. U.O.I., (2006) 13 S.C.C. 641 6
Vijay Singh Puniya v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2004 Raj 1. 10
STATUTES
§ 3 (1), The Environment Protection Act, 1986 7

§ 3 (2) (v), Environmental (Pollution) Act, 1986 6
§ 3 (2) (x), the Environment Protection Act, 1986 6
§ 3 (2) (xiv), the Environment Protection Act, 1986 6
§ 3 (2), Environmental (Pollution) Act, 1986 6
§ 3(1), Environmental (Pollution) Act, 1986 6
§ 3, The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3
§ 56, Indian Contract Act 1872 9
§ 7, Companies Act, 1935 3
INDIA CONST. art. 19 2, 3, 5
INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. 1 (g) 2
INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. 6 3, 4
INDIA CONST. art. 21 10
S Rathi v. Union of India, AIR 1998 All 331 10
RULES
§ 5 (1) (ii), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 4

§ 5 (1) (v), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 3
§ 5 (1) (VI), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 4
§ 5 (1) (viii), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 4
§ 5 (1), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 3
Rule 4 (5), The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 8
Rule 4 (5), The Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 7
Rule 5 (1) (v), The Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 7

Rule 5 (3) (b), The Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 2

Rule 5(1) (v), The Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 7
BOOKS
2 Justice T S Doabia, Environmental and Pollution Laws in India 7

2226 (2nd ed., LexisNexis 2010)
3 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India 3119 10
(8th ed. 2008)
P Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India 215 (3rd ed. 2012) 7
PROF. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 981 (5th ed. 2009) 2
REPORTS
CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, REPORT REGARDING MINING 8

LEASES FOR IRON AND MANGANESE IN THE STATE OF ODISHA, W.P.
(CIVIL) NO, 114/2014 (2005)
DR N C SAXENA, REPORT OF THE FOUR MEMBER COMMITTEE FOR 7
INVESTIGATION INTO THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE ORISSA
MINING COMPANY FOR BAUXITE MINING IN NIYAMGIRI (2010)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavarta for the violation of Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of Aryavarta.
The petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits before the jurisdiction of the present court
and accepts that it has the power and authority to preside over the present case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Factual Background
• Aryavarta is a historically rich country with twenty-nine states and abundant natural
resources. Hodu, a state in the country of Aryavarta, is a state of enriched historical importance,
sheer heritage and ancient monuments. In the State of Hodu lies Pumpa Nagar, with a large
reservoir of rare granite – Magma Black.
• A private mining company, AZS Mining Pvt. Ltd Co. secured the tender by the State
of Hodu for granite mining, for a period of 15 years under an exclusive lease for 50 acres of
land.
• In the efforts to extract granite with the company enters into a joint venture with an
MNC for procuring advanced techniques of extraction and procuring the granite.
• There existed an ancient monument of supreme reverence in proximity of the mining

activities within a, which stands as an epitome of beauty, faith and elegance for thousands of
people who visit the temple. This monument is of paramount importance to the people of
Pumpa Nagar.
• The mining activities carried on by the company provided economic amelioration to

about 200 people in the area by providing employment in the mining activities, but at the high
cost of the safety of the environment and the settlements nearby.
• Shortly, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of the Union
Government declared a part of the region under mining activities to be an Eco sensitive zone
owing to the endangered flora and fauna in the pertaining area.
• The State Government defaults in granting 30 out of the 50 acres of granted area under
the exclusive lease. This put both, the MNC’s venture in aiding the mining process and the
employment of the 200 workers in absolute jeopardy.
• A foreign NGO, International Environment and Ancient Monument Preservation

Organisation conducted valuable research on the monument after visiting the monument,
followed by a consonant confirmation obtained by a National NGO, MCM Heritage Protection
Organisation, from a renowned geologist, Mr. X, which illuminated and established the grave
threat the mining activities posed to the heritage of the place, health of the people and the

pollution of noise, air and water due to exhaustive use of explosives and the chemicals,
respectively.
Procedural Background
• The workers of the mining company formed a union and filed a writ petition before the
High Court of Hodu with their employment concerns associated to the concerns of ending of
the joint venture by virtue of the State not granting the remaining 30 acres of the land.
• The Union Government of Aryavarta after considering the valuable enquiry and reports
of the NGO’s, and post their own rigorous enquiry passed an order vide notification dated
09/11/2017 banning all mining/ quarrying in and around Pumpa Nagar, effective immediately.
• Aggrieved by the aforementioned actions of the Union Government of Aryavarta, the

Mining Company filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of Aryavarta challenging the
validity of notification, the violation of their fundamental rights and for the recuperation of the
investment by the company.
• With the permission of the Supreme Court, both the writ petitions, pending before the
High Court and filed before the Supreme Court have been clubbed and final arguments on both
the matters are currently posted to 25/02/2018.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. The petition filed by the Mining Company is not maintainable in the Supreme Court of
Aryavarta.
2. The order passed by the Government of Aryavarta vide Notification dated 09/11/2017
is valid.
3. The State of Hodu was right in not honouring the terms of the contract.
4. Government of Aryavarta has not violated the Fundamental Rights of AZS Mining Pvt.
Ltd. Co. guaranteed under the Constitution of Aryavarta.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. The Petition Before This Hon’ble Court Is Not Maintainable
The government derives it power to contract with private parties under the Article 298 read
with 299 of the Aryavartan Constitution. It is contended that parties are expected to seek civil
remedies under the Law of Contracts for any allegation of violation of a contract, and not
directly approach the Supreme Court of India under its jurisdiction. The Company also fails to
find any classification as a citizen which prevents it from exercising the Fundamental Right
under Article 19. It is thus submitted that the Mining Company failed to exhaust all of the
available remedies thus rendering the current petition invalidated, with the primary being Rule
5(3)(b) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
2. There was no violation of Fundamental Rights
The Central Government has express authority to take appropriate actions including restriction
on processes and operations of industries, to mitigate environmental pollution under Section 3
of the Environment Protection Act 1986. The Union of Aryavarta hence can ban mining
activities in Pumpa Nagar for the protection of the environment from pollution. The Central
Government also has the power to ban mining, in the interest of safeguarding the biodiversity
and taking requisite actions in matters of emergency. The notification furnished is hence valid
and applicable. The consequences of the notification have rendered frustration of contract with
the Government in no need or obligation to recuperate for any loss or investment, due to a
valid, subsequent legal change.
3. The State of Hodu isn’t liable for the contravention of contractual obligation as the mining
company caused environmental pollution
The Mining Company and the State of Hodu had entered into a contract under Article 298 of
the Constitution of Aryavarta, hence any disputes arising in and out of the contract are to be
settled in accordance with the terms of contract and that seeking remedy under Article 32 of
the Const of Aryavarta is not the appropriate modus operandi. The actions of the Government
are directed towards upholding the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Art. 21 of Const.
wherein the use and exercise of the polluter pays principle is of paramount consideration.
4. The State of Hodu isn’t liable for the contravention of contractual obligation as the mining
company caused environmental pollution

The Government derives the power to enter into contractual obligation with private companies
vide Article 298 of the Constitution of Aryavarta and the parties can seek remedies under the
law of contract only and not under writ jurisdiction vide article 32.

Written Submissions
WRITTEN SUBMISSION
A. THE PETITION BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
¶1. It is humbly submitted that, first, the party must seek remedies under the law of contract
and not writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court [1], secondly, there has been no
violation of Fundamental Rights [2] and finally, the petitioner did not exhaust all his remedies
[3].
1. THE PARTY MUST SEEK REMEDIES UNDER THE LAW OF CONTRACT AND NOT WRIT
JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
¶2. Article 298 of the Constitution1 gives the power to the government2 to enter into
contract3 with private parties.4 However, the legislative intent behind the article is not the
avoidance of contractual obligation voluntarily incurred but only to empower the government
to enter into contracts5 in the exercise of its executive powers6.
¶3. It is submitted that, in case of any breach of terms of the contract by the government,
the aggrieved party must seek his remedies under the law of contract 7, and not under the writ
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or a high court8.
¶4. In the case of Premji Bhai Parmar and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors 9
the apex court held that, “A petition to the Court under Article 3210 is not a proper remedy, nor
is the Court the proper forum for re-opening the concluded contracts with a view to getting
back a part of the purchase price paid and the benefit taken.”
It is hereby submitted that, appeal cannot be allowed under the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavarta. Remedies if any can be sought under
the Law of Contracts which is governed by Aryavarta Contract Act, 1872.
2. THERE HAS BEEN NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
1
INDIA CONST. art. 298.
2
Khazan Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 669.
3
Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council, A.I.R 1991 S.C 1153.
4
5
State of Orissa v. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd., A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 297.
6
State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2003) 10 JT 485.
7
Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise Commr., Taxation, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1121.
8
Id.; State of Haryana v. Jage Ram A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 2018.
9
Premji Bhai Parmar and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 738 at ¶ 8.
10
I
Written Submissions
¶5. Art. 1911 guarantees freedom to the citizens and protect them from state action.12
However, the freedoms guaranteed by art. 19 (1) are not absolute as no right can be. Each of
these rights is liable to be controlled to the extent by laws made by Parliament or State
Legislature.13
¶6. In the instant case, the decision taken by the government of Aryavarta to ban the mining
activities of AZS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Co. was taken in the interest of general public after
conducting sufficient enquiry.14 The ban is a reasonable restriction on the right to practise
profession trade or business15 as it leads to a lot of environmental pollution16 and deterioration
of the ancient monument.17
¶7. To conclude, the government was compelled to impose reasonable restrictions on
mining activities and therefore, there was no violation of fundamental right.
3. THE PETITIONER DID NOT EXHAUST ALL HIS REMEDIES.
¶8. Any person interested in filing an objection against the imposition of prohibition or
restriction on carrying on of operations can do so, in writing to the central government, within
a period of 60 days from the date of publication in the official gazette.18 The Central
Government would then within a period of 120 days from the date of publication in the official
gazette consider all such objections received against such notification.19
¶9. In the instant case, the mining company had an option to file an objection to the Central
Government. However, the mining company failed to file any objection after the central
government declared the prohibition of the mining activities.20
¶10. To conclude, AZS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Co. did not exhaust all its remedies before
approaching the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
11
12
PROF. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 981 (5th ed. 2009).
13
Id.
14
¶ 16, Moot Problem.
15
INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. 1 (g).
16
17
18
Rule 5 (3) (b), The Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986.
19
Id.
20
II
Written Submissions
B. THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
¶11. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that, first, the mining company not being
a citizen cannot claim any rights included in article 19 [1], secondly, The Restrictions
Imposed by the Government are within the scope of Art. 19 (6).21[2].
1. THE MINING COMPANY NOT BEING A CITIZEN CANNOT CLAIM FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
¶12. The rights conferred by Art. 1922 are confined to natural persons who are citizens.23
Thus the primary prerequisite for application of art. 19 is that the aggrieved party should be a
citizen of Aryavarta. Section 2 (f) of The Citizenship Act, 1955 says that “natural person” does
not include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. A
corporation cannot avail protection24 under art. 1925 even though their shareholders are
citizens.26
¶13. In the instant case, AZS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Co. is an incorporated company. 27 Hence, is
not a citizen under the constitution of Aryavarta.
¶14. To conclude, it can be conclusively established that AZS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Co. fails to
comply the prerequisite for application of art. 19 of the constitution. Therefore, the mining
company not being a citizen cannot claim fundamental rights under art. 19.
2. THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ART.
19 (6).
i. The Restrictions Imposed by the Central Government are Reasonable.
¶15. The central government has the power to take all necessary measures for protection,
improvement of the quality of the environment and control environmental pollution.28It can
restrict areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations
or processes shall be curbed or shall be subject to certain safeguards29on the basis of
considerations like biological diversity of an area,30 maximum allowable limits of
21
INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. 6.
22
23
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 40.
24
Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 295 at ¶ 17 & ¶ 40.
25
INDIA CONST. ART. 19.
26
Dharam Dutt v. U.O.I, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1295 at ¶30.
27
§ 7, Companies Act, 1935.
28
§ 3, The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
29
§ 5 (1), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
30
§ 5 (1) (v), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
III
Written Submissions
concentration of pollutants for an area,31 environmentally compatible land use,32 and proximity
to protected areas.33
¶16. In the instant case, since the notification dated 09/11/2017 was published after
conducting sufficient enquiry34 and in the larger interest of the people of Pumpa Nagar, the
notification is a reasonable restriction and is valid.35 Keeping in mind the susceptibility of the
place to explosions of such magnitude, the restriction36 is reasonable37 and cannot be negated
merely on grounds of unreasonable38 harsh operation.39 The notification banning the mining
activities in and around Pumpa Nagar,40 cannot be termed as total prohibition41 as the
prohibition is only with respect to the exercise of the right42 referable only in a particular area
of activity.43
¶17. Thus, Central government of Aryavarta acted in a reasonable manner and followed the
procedure established by law while banning the mining activities.44
ii. The Restrictions imposed by the Central Government are in the Interest of the General
Public.
¶18. Imposing restrictions in the interest of general public45 has a very wide ambit46 which
includes implementation of the Directive Principles in Part - IV47, along with protection of
environment and safeguarding the public health.48. Among the several principles enshrined in
the DPSPs, two of the liberal principles are – the Protection of monuments of historical and
31
§ 5 (1) (ii), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
32
§ 5 (1) (VI), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
33
§ 5 (1) (viii), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
34
35
Parbhani Transport Co–op. Society Ltd. v. RTA, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 801.
36
Shushila Saw Mill v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 2484.
37
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 430.
38
Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo Distt. Council, A.I.R. 1967 S.C.
39
BannarAmman Sugar Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, (2005) 1 S.C.C. 625, 636 at ¶17. See also U.O.I v.
International Trading Co., (2003) 5 S.C.C. 437.
40
41
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 S.C.C. 534. [hereinafter Mirzapur]; Krishna
Kumar v. Municipal Committee of Bhatapara, (2005) 8 S.C.C. 612.
42
Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3863.
43
M.B. Cotton Assn. Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 634.
44
Krishnan Kakkanath v. government of Kerala, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 128.
45
INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. 6.
46
Pratap Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I., (1997) 5 S.C.C. 87.
47
Municipal Corpn. V. Jan Md. Usmanbhai, A.I.R. 1986 SC 1205 at ¶ 19–20. See also, Orissa Textile & Steel
Ltd. v. State of Orissa A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 708 at ¶6.
48
State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1157. See also M.J Swami v. State of
Karnataka, (1995) 5 S.C.C. 289 at ¶ 18
IV
Written Submissions
national interest, and the Promotion and improvement of environment and safeguarding of
forests and wild life.49
¶19. In the instant case, the decision to ban the mining activities was taken in the interest of
general public after conducting sufficient enquiry adhering to all constitutional and legal
aspects. The mining activities posed a great danger to the heritage of the place, the health of
the people and deteriorating income from tourism due to excess pollution i.e., noise and air due
to use of explosives, land and water due to chemicals used in processing. 50 The ban imposed
on AZS mining Pvt. Ltd. Co. is thus, within the purview of Art. 19 (6) of the Constitution of
Aryavarta.
¶20. To conclude, the notification dated 09/11/2017 is in concurrence with Art. 19 (1) (g) &
19 (6)51 with no infringement of fundamental right.
49
State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1157.
50
51
V
Written Submissions
C. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ARYAVARTA VIDE NOTIFICATION

DATED 09/11/2017 IS VALID
¶21. It is humbly submitted that, first, The central government is having the power to
mitigate environmental pollution [1], secondly, The Central Government is Justified in
Imposing a Complete Ban on Mining Activities of AZS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Co. [2], thirdly, The
contract with the mining company has been frustrated and investments needn’t be recuperated
[3], fourthly, the State of Hodu isn’t liable for the contravention of contractual obligation as
the mining company caused environmental pollution. [4].
1. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS HAVING THE POWER TO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL

POLLUTION
¶22. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was enacted under article 25352 in the wake of
the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.53 Section 3 (1),54 read with Section 3(2)55 illustrating the types of
measures, 56 confers very wide range of powers on the Central Government57 ‘to take all such
measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the
quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution’.58
¶23. The Central Government can inspect any premises, plant, or equipment by order of
such directions to such authorities, as it may consider necessary to take steps for the prevention,
control and abatement of environmental pollution.59
¶24. In the instant case, the heritage of the place, the health of the people and deteriorating
income from tourism due to excess pollution i.e., noise and air due to use of explosives, land
and water due to chemicals used in processing60 were having a colossal impact on the
environment.61 Although mining activities are significant for the economic growth of the state,
62
the operations of the mining company have severely compromised the ecology of Pumpa
Nagar.63
52
53
Union Carbide Corpn. Ltd. v. U.O.I., (2006) 13 S.C.C. 641.
54
§ 3(1), Environmental (Pollution) Act, 1986.
55
§ 3 (2), Environmental (Pollution) Act, 1986.
56
Sandeep Sagwan v Union of India, (2012) I.L.R. 1 P & H 448.
57
§ 3 (2) (v), Environmental (Pollution) Act, 1986.
58
§ 3 (2) (xiv), the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
59
§ 3 (2) (x), the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
60
¶16, Moot Problem.
61
Id.
62
¶ 8, Moot Problem.
63
VI
Written Submissions
¶25. It is therefore humbly submitted that the trials and tribulations of a balance between
protection of environment and economic development,64 which in the line of grave expediency
as to the threats to the environment, equips the Central Government to take the requisite
measures65 for uplifting the quality of environment and battling environmental pollution.66
¶26. To conclude, the central government is vested with enormous powers and obligation to
set new standards for quality of the environment, to regulate industrial location, to prescribe
procedures for managing hazardous substance.
2. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING A COMPLETE BAN ON MINING

ACTIVITIES OF AZS MINING PVT. LTD. CO.
¶27. If the central government feels that the environment is endangered it has the right
appropriate steps to take step in safeguarding the biodiversity of the locality.67 The government
can – with reasons in writing – issue directions68 to prohibit or restrict the carrying on
operations69 to preserve the biological diversity of an ecologically sensitive area.70 Mining
could have reparative impact on the ecology and biodiversity of the area. 71 Application of
precautionary principle for conservation and protection of flora and fauna should be upheld to
obviate irreparable damage to the affected people and environment.72 Utilisation of natural
resource should not be at the cost of serious ecological damage.73
¶28. The Central Government has the authority to consider numerous factors while making
a decision on prohibition or restriction of location of industries and carrying on of processes
and operations in different areas.74 In case the emissions by the industry are having an
enormous impact on the environment, the government can propose a prohibition75 or restriction
on the activities.76 Environment clearance granted by MoEF&CC can be revoked and all the
64
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 647.
65
§ 3 (1), The Environment Protection Act, 1986.
66
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd v Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors. (2013) 6 S.C.C. 476. [hereinafter
Orissa Mining Corporation]
67
Rule 5 (1) (v), The Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986.
68
Rule 4 (5), The Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986.
69
Rule 5(1) (v), The Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986.
70
Sterlite Industries (India) v. Union of India (2013) 4 S.C.C. 575.
71
Orissa Mining Corporation, supra note 66.
72
Id.
73
DR N C SAXENA, REPORT OF THE FOUR MEMBER COMMITTEE FOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE PROPOSAL
SUBMITTED BY THE ORISSA MINING COMPANY FOR BAUXITE MINING IN NIYAMGIRI (2010).
74
2 Justice T S Doabia, Environmental and Pollution Laws in India 2226 (2nd ed., LexisNexis 2010).
75
Mirzapur, supra note 41.
76
P Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India 215 (3 rd ed. 2012).
VII
Written Submissions
work can be stopped in case the mining activities are having an adverse impact on the
environment.77
¶29. In the instant case, the government of Aryavarta, based on the report by the
International Environment and Ancient Monument Preservation Organisation and MCM
Heritage Protection Organisation78 has conducted an enquiry in to the environmental impact of
the mining activities. The operations of the industry were causing irreparable loss to the already
fragile environment of Pumpa Nagar.79
¶30. Thus the government is justified in banning the mining activities of AZS Mining Pvt.
Ltd. Co. 80
i. The central government is justified in not providing an opportunity to hear
¶31. In case where the Central Government is of the opinion that in view of the likelihood
of a grave injury to the environment it is not expedient to provide an opportunity to file
objections against the proposed direction, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, issue
directions without providing such an opportunity.81
¶32. In the instant case, as the notification by the Central Government declaring a part of the
region with the mining activity as an Eco-Sensitive Zone has made its intentions clear as to its
commitment towards placing the preservation of biological diversity on a high pedestal. The
circumstances in this case were such that the mining activity was causing severe damage to the
ecology 82 and it was expedient to take a corrective action to prevent from further damage.
¶33. The government is therefore justified in not providing an opportunity to the mining
company to make themselves heard under Rule 4(5) of the Environment (Protection) Rules
1986. 83
3. THE CONTRACT WITH THE MINING COMPANY HAS BEEN FRUSTRATED AND INVESTMENTS
NEEDN’T BE RECUPERATED
i. The contract is frustrated.
77
CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, REPORT REGARDING MINING LEASES FOR IRON AND MANGANESE IN THE
STATE OF ODISHA, W.P. (CIVIL) NO, 114/2014 (2005).
78
79
80
¶ 9, Moot Problem.
81
Rule 4 (5), The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
82
83
Rule 4 (5), The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
VIII
Written Submissions
¶34. Frustration84 of a contract85 is a contract to do an act which becomes impossible86, or,

by reason of some event87 hence void88 when the act becomes impossible89 or unlawful’.90
¶35. Annex – 1 of the guidelines of MoEF identifies several activities and groups those under
three categories – Prohibited, Restricted with Safeguards and Permissible. Commercial mining
as an activity has entry under the Prohibited category.- law/modify
¶36. Eco sensitive areas are such areas where the level of environmental impact and the flora
and fauna in the vanity are good. In such eco sensitive zones, the government has to make sure
that the commercial operations shall not harm the ecology.
¶37. In the instant case, the MoEF&CC has vide notification dated 09/11/2017 declared a
part of the region where mining activities are going on as eco sensitive area. Thus, post the
notification by the MoEF&CC commercial mining became a prohibited activity as commercial
mining in an Eco Sensitive Zone is a prohibited activity. 91
¶38. To conclude the contract between AZS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Co. and the State of Hodu
became frustrated92due to subsequent legal changes leading to impossibility93.
ii. Government bears no compensation
¶39. Commercial activities must contemplate the risk as the state doesn’t guarantee profit to
licensees in such contracts as there exists no warrantee against incurring losses. Whether the
parties yield profit or incur loss it is of no concern to the state.94
¶40. No harmful mining activities can be carried on in the vicinity of an ancient monument95
for damage to an ancient monument annuls any scope for compensation for the mining
company96.
¶41. In the instant case, the heritage of the place, the health of the people and deteriorating
income from tourism due to excess pollution i.e., noise and air due to use of explosives, land
84
Keshavlal Brothers and Co. v. Diwan Chand and Co., A.I.R 1923 P.C. 105.
85
§ 56, Indian Contract Act 1872.
86
DL SooryaprakasalingamGaru v. Shaw Trikamlal A.I.R. 1917 M.a.d. 509.
87
Ganga Saran v. Firm Ram Charan, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 9.
88
Bailey v De Crespigney [1869] L.R. 4 Q.B. 180. See also Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Travellers Ltd
[1935] A.l.l. E.R. R.e.p. 86.
89
Ahmad Khan v. Shahanshah Jehan Begum, A.I.R. 1973 A.l.l. 529.
90
1 Pollock & Mulla, Indian Contract and Specific Relief 1121 (13 th ed. 2010).
91
¶ 9, Moot Problem.
92
§ 56, Indian Contract Act 1872.
93
Bansilal Fomra v. Thadava Co-op Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd., (1976) 1 M.a.d. L.J.
94
Asst. Excise Commr. and Other v Issac Peter and Others, (1994) 4 S.C.C. 104.
95
K Guruprasad Rao v State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 S.C.C. 418. [hereinafter K Guruprasad Rao]
96
Id.
IX
Written Submissions
and water due to chemicals used in processing97 were being adversely affected by the mining
activity of AZS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Co.. Thus the government bears no compensation as the
activities annulled the scope for compensation.98
¶42. To conclude, the declaration of eco sensitive zone 99has frustrated100 the contract and it
is not the responsibility of the government to compensate for the damages incurred due to
subsequent legal changes.
97
98
K Guruprasad Rao, supra note 95.
99
¶ 9,Moot Proposition.
100
Satyabarata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co., A.I.R 1954 S.C 44.
X
Written Submissions
D. THE STATE OF HODU ISN’T LIABLE FOR THE CONTRAVENTION OF CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATION AS THE MINING COMPANY CAUSED ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION.
¶43. Article 21101 encompasses within its ambit protection and preservation of environment.
Promoting environmental protection implies safeguarding of both, manmade and the natural
environment. 102
¶44. Precautionary Principle means that the authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack
causes of environmental degradation. 103 The principle of ‘polluter pays’ means that the one
dealing in hazardous activity is liable to make good the loss caused to another person by such
activity.104The Supreme Court has upheld the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays
Principle”105 as essential features of sustainable development and declares that the above
concepts are part of Environmental Law of the country.
¶45. As a measure of precaution, the government has undertaken affirmative steps to save
the endangered flora and fauna in the vicinity of Pumpa Nagar106, by declaring the area as an
eco sensitive zone. Further measures were taken to preserve the heritage of the place and the
health of the people by prohibiting the mining activities107. This positive step intends to
significantly lessen the noise and air pollution caused by the explosives.
¶46. Therefore, the intention of the government behind issuing the notification was not to
deny the contracting party its right but to preserve the environment.108 Applying the ‘Polluter
Pays principle’109 the mining company ought to be held responsible for carrying on hazardous
activity.110
¶47. To conclude, all the actions taken by the Central Government towards uplifting the
environment condition of Pumpa Naga and protecting the ancient monument are under the
polluter pays principle and strive to secure the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under
Article 21 by the Constitution of Aryavarta.
101
102
S Rathi v. Union of India, AIR 1998 All 331. [hereinafter S Rathi]
103
Indian Council for Environ-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446. [hereinafter Indian Council
for Environ-Legal Action]; See M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 761. See also A.P. Pollution Control
Board v. M.V. Naidu AIR 1999 SC 812. See also Vijay Singh Puniya v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2004 Raj 1.
104
3 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India 3119 (8 th ed. 2008).
105
S Rathi, supra note 102.
106
¶ 9, Moot Proposition.
107
¶16, Moot Proposition.
108
Id.
109
Indian Council for Environ-Legal Action, supra note 103.
110
Id.
XI
XXIInd All India National Moot Court Competition
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court, that it may graciously be pleased
to-
1. The Petition Before This Hon’ble Court Is Not Maintainable

2. Government of Aryavarta wasn’t violating the Fundamental Rights
3. The Order Passed By The Government Of Aryavarta Vide Notification Dated
09/11/2017 Is Valid
4. the State of Hodu isn’t liable for the contravention of contractual obligation as the
mining company caused environmental pollution.
And pass any other order in favour of the Petitioner which this Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
Sd/-
Counsels for the Respondent
15

15 R

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

15 R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE : ULC 15

XXIInd All India Moot Court Competition

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

AZS MINING PVT. LTD. CO & ANR. (PETITIONER)

UNION OF ARYAVARTA & ANR. (RESPONDENT)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2018

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA]

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 12

A. The Petition Before This Hon’ble Court Is Not Maintainable I

2. There has been no violation of fundamental rights I

3. The petitioner did not exhaust all his remedies II

B. There was no violation of Fundamental Rights III

i. The Restrictions Imposed by the Central Government are Reasonable III

C. The Order Passed By The Government Of Aryavarta Vide Notification Dated

1. The central government is having the power to mitigate environmental pollution VI

2. The Central Government is Justified in Imposing a Complete Ban on Mining

i. The central government is justified in not providing an opportunity to hear VIII

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 1

i. The contract is frustrated VIII

ii. Government bears no compensation IX

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 2

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 3

MoEF & CC Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 4

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 5

Krishna Kumar v. Municipal Committee of Bhatapara, (2005) 8 4

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 6

U.O.I v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 S.C.C. 437 4

§ 3 (1), The Environment Protection Act, 1986 7

§ 5 (1) (ii), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 4

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 7

Rule 5 (3) (b), The Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 2

2 Justice T S Doabia, Environmental and Pollution Laws in India 7

CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, REPORT REGARDING MINING 8

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 8

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 9

• There existed an ancient monument of supreme reverence in proximity of the mining

• The mining activities carried on by the company provided economic amelioration to

• A foreign NGO, International Environment and Ancient Monument Preservation

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 10

• Aggrieved by the aforementioned actions of the Union Government of Aryavarta, the

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 11

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 12

1. The Petition Before This Hon’ble Court Is Not Maintainable

2. There was no violation of Fundamental Rights

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 13

Memorial on behalf of the Respondents 14

A. THE PETITION BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

2. THERE HAS BEEN NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

3. THE PETITIONER DID NOT EXHAUST ALL HIS REMEDIES.

B. THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

i. The Restrictions Imposed by the Central Government are Reasonable.

C. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ARYAVARTA VIDE NOTIFICATION

1. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS HAVING THE POWER TO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL

2. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING A COMPLETE BAN ON MINING

i. The central government is justified in not providing an opportunity to hear

i. The contract is frustrated.

¶34. Frustration84 of a contract85 is a contract to do an act which becomes impossible86, or,

ii. Government bears no compensation

D. THE STATE OF HODU ISN’T LIABLE FOR THE CONTRAVENTION OF CONTRACTUAL

OBLIGATION AS THE MINING COMPANY CAUSED ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION.

1. The Petition Before This Hon’ble Court Is Not Maintainable