Moot Court 3rd - Sampat v. Phad Behalf of Petitioner

lOMoAR cPSD| 7979678
S.E. SOCIETY'S
S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE, MORWADI, PIMPRI.
(AFFILIATED TO SAVITRIBAI PHULE UNIVERSITY, PUNE)
MEMORIAL FROM SIDE OF PETITIONER
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF BRAHMA
IN THE MATTER OF
ALERT INDIVA & ORS -------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONER
Vs
STATE OF BRAHMA & ORS ---------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE COURT MEMORIAL FILED ON

BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
By
SAMPAT VITTHALRAO PHAD
LLB-3rd Year 5th Sem.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

By Sampat Vitthalrao Phad
S.E. SOCIETY'S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………...…………………… 02
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………..………………. 03

LIST OF CASES
LEGISLATION'S
BOOKS CITED
WEBSITE CITED
3. INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS …………….............………………………...……….……………. 04
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ………………………………………………..……..……….. 05
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………….....................................…….…. 06 - 07
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………………………………………………………….....………..….. 08
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………..……………..……. 09
8. ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 – 11
9. THE PRAYER ……………………………………………………...………………..………………. 12

S.E. SOCIETY'S
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF CASES
• R. Prakash Vs The Govt. of Tamil Nadu Ors 2016 SCC On Line Mad 15634
• Patel Kanjibhai Natthubhai Vs.Collector of Mehsana 2011 SCC OnLine Guj 6361
• Col. A.S. Sangwan v. Union of Indiva
LEGISLATION'S
• THE LAW COMMISSION OF INDIVA
BOOKS CITED
• Constitution on Indiva By P.M. Bakshi

• Bare Act of Constitution
WEBSITE CITED
• https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx
• https://www.casemine.com/search/in

S.E. SOCIETY'S
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
& &
AIR All Indiva Reporter
Art. Art.
i.e., that is
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Govt. Government
Vs. Vs.
Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Ors Others
Sec. Sec.
Hon’ble Honorable
HC High Court
UOI Union Of Indiva
MOFE Ministry of Forests and Environment

S.E. SOCIETY'S
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE PIL & HUMBLY APPROACHES
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT UNDER THE ART.21, 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION
OF INDIVA, 1950.
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS,CONTENTIONS,
AND ARGUMENTS.
In which the followings are:
Art. 21 :
Protection of Life & Personal Liberty. It states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.” Thus, Art.21 secures two
rights: Right to life, &. 2) Right to personal liberty.
Art. 226:
Empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the Govt.(in appropriate
cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari.
Art. 227:
Power of superintendence over all courts by the HC
Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts& tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoingprovision, the High Court may- Call for
returns from such courts; Make & issue general rules & prescribe forms for regulatingthe
practice & proceedings of such courts; & Prescribe forms in which books, entries & accounts
shall bekept by the officers of any such courts.
The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff & all clerks & officers
of such courts & to attorneys,advocates & pleaders practicing therein:
(1)Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3)
shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, & shall require
theprevious approval of the Governor.
Nothing in this Art.shall be deemed to confer on a High Courtpowers of superintendence over

any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

S.E. SOCIETY'S
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The State of BRAHMA is one of the States in Indiva. Due to wrath of nature the state is facing an
acute scarcity of water and the condition in major part of the state is near to drought.
To meet this situation, the state of BRAMHA has taken a policy decision to construct the number of dams
in the State so that the rainy water could be accumulated in the dams which would help in meeting the
growing needs of water for the purpose of drinking, agriculture and also for the Industries. The
Government is also of the opinion that the accumulation water in the dams would help in recouping the
underground water level in the state.
One of such dams is to be constructed in a district which is more severely affected. The construction of the
dam would affect ten villages which are adjoining to the location of the dam. 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 water logged which would deprive them of their right to livelihood.
The state of BAMHA for the purpose of the construction of dam had floated global tenders and one of the
companies, Reliable Industries limited has been given a contract to construct a dam.
The reliable industries limited for the purpose of construction of the dam had applied for environment
clearance to the Ministry of Environment and Forest for the purpose.
Environment clearance has been given to the company on the ground that the Government has an authority
to do so in larger public interest.
The agriculturist in the village 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.
“Alert Indiva” is NGO which for the protection of environment in Indiva. “Älert Indiva” which is fighting
for the cause of environment has appealed to the Government not to proceed with the construction of the
dam since it would lead to an environmental imbalance in the State.
However the state of BRAMHA is determined to proceed with the construction of dam in public interest.
“Alert Indiva” has therefore filed a petition under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of Indiva on the
ground that the Environment Clearance Certificate granted is bad in letter and spirit of the constitution and
against the national interest.
“Alert Indiva” has also taken the cause of the agriculture who are likely to be displaced and has submitted
that the construction of the said dam is in violation of Art.21 of the constitution of Indiva as regards right to
life and Personal liberty of the agriculturists in the area.

S.E. SOCIETY'S
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The High Court of Judicature of Brahma has admitted the petition for hearing and has framed
the following issues for the purpose of adjudication.
Issue No.01
Whether the present petition has been field in public interest and therefore maintainable as a
Public Interest Litigation?
Issue No. 02
Whether the Writ Petition filed under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of Indiva is
Maintainable?
Issue No. 03
Whether the High Court of BRAMHA can interfere in any policy decision taken by the State
of BRAMHA?
Issue No. 04
Whether the displacement of the agriculturists from the area where the proposed dam is to be
constructed amounts to violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of Indiva?
Issue No. 05
Whether the Environment Clearance Certificate granted by the State is contrary to the
provisions of Constitution of Indiva?
Issue No. 06
Whether the displacement of the agriculturists from the areawhere the proposed dam
is to be constructed amounts to violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of Indiva?

S.E. SOCIETY'S
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the present petition has been filed in publicinterest and therefore is it
maintainable as Public Interest Litigation?
The petition claimed by the petitioner is maintainable in the court of law. TheHon’ble Judge of
the High Court at BRAMHA has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain the present case
by virtue of its writ jurisdiction; the petitionerhas filled the Public Interest Litigation before the
Hon’ble High Court of BRAMHA, in the matter under Art. 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF
INDIVA.
2. Whether the writ petition filed under art.226 and art.227 of the constitution of
Indiva is maintainable?
Yes, the Writ Petition filed under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of Indiva is
maintainable under the eyes of law. Art. 226 of Indiva Constitution mentions power of High
Courts to issue certain writs. Any member of the public or social action group can plea for
the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts, under Art. 226, seeking redressal against violation
of legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any other
disability cannot approach the Court.
3. Whether the high court of Brahma can interfere in any policydecision taken by
the state of brahma?
The courts in exercise of their power of Judicial Review, do not ordinarily interfere with the
policy decisions of the executive, unless the policy can befaulted on grounds of mala fide,
unreasonableness.
4. Whether the displacement of the agriculturists from the area wherethe proposed
dam is to be constructed amounts to violation of art. 21 of the constitution of
Indiva?
Yes, displacement of the agriculturists from the area where the proposeddam is to be
constructed amounts to violation of Art. 21, of the Constitutionof Indiva. Because Art. 21
protects the life and personal liberty of anindividual. It states that “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personalliberty except according to the procedure established by law.”
Theconstruction of the dam would affect ten villages which are adjoining to thelocation of
the dam. The villagers have agriculture as their main occupation and as a consequence of the
water stored in the dam, their agricultural fieldswould either be submerged or get water
logged which would deprive themof their right to livelihood. This is also in violation
of right to life andpersonal liberty of the agriculturists in the area land.

S.E. SOCIETY'S
5. Whether the Environment Clearance Certificate granted by the State is contrary to

the provisions of Constitution of Indiva?
Yes absolutely contrary, the public hearing is a mandatory step in the process of environmental
clearance for certain developmental projects. This provides a legal space for people of an area to come
face-to-face with the project proponent and the government and express their concerns.
The process of public hearing is conducted prior to the issue of NOC from SPCB. The District Collector
is the chairperson of the public hearing committee. Other members of the committee includes the official
from the district development body, SPCB, Department of Environment and Forest, Taluka and Gram
Panchayat representative, and senior citizen of the district, etc. The hearing committee hears the
objections/suggestions from the public and after inserting certain clauses it is passed on to the next stage
of approval (Ministry of Forest and Environment).
• The Government of Indiva Act, 1935 provided for the establishment of Article 21 of the Indivan
Constitution. It declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law.
• Right to social and economic justice and empowerment
6. Whether the displacement of the agriculturists from the area where the
proposed dam is to be constructed amounts to violation of Art. 21 of the
Constitution of Indiva?
Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to a procedure established by law.” Thus, article 21 secures two rights:
• Right to life, and
• Right to personal liberty.
So, in this scenario the displacement of the agricultural from the area where the proposed dam is to be
constructed accounts to violation of Atticle21 of the Constitution of Indiva.
Article 21 comes under the Part III of the Indivan constitution and is one of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to all citizens of Indiva.

S.E. SOCIETY'S
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue1
Whether the present petition has been filed in publicinterest and therefore
is it maintainable as PIL?
The Counsel Humbly Submits before this Hon’ble Court that the present petition has been filed
in public interest for the people of Brahma as due to the environment imbalance has also taken
p l a c e and livelihood of the people of these villages is in danger. It is affectingmajority of the
agricultural based families. Building of a dam is a verydifficult process and it is going to be
done in a very sensitive area where the agricultural fields would either be submerged or get
water logged which would deprive them of their right to livelihood. Rather Govt. is not thinking
of the poor famers and people of villages that what will happen to them even after govt. allot
them the land in a newplace but what’s the benefit of that if they can’t make their livelihood.
Council like to mention about a case1 in which it is clearly mentionedby Justice S.
MANIKUMAR “No doubt, Public Interest Litigations have come to occupy an important
field in the administration of Law. Public Interest Litigations are very useful handle for
redressing the grievances of the people. But, unfortunately, lately, it has been abused by
interested persons. Administration of justice should not be for any publicity interest litigation or
private interest litigation or political litigation. There mustbe real and genuine public interest.
Courts of Justice should not be allowed to be used by unscrupulous litigants under this
extraordinary jurisdiction.” By this council like to mention that the issue of farmers is under the
interest of public and the livelihood of them.
Issue2
Whether the writ petition filed under art.226 and art.227 of the
constitution of Indiva is maintainable?
Council humbly like to mention that it completely maintainable under Art.226 and 227 i.e. “The
power of the HC to issue writes under article226 is wider than that of the SC. It is not confined
to fundamental rights, but extends to all cases where a breach of right is alleged’.
And here the right of personal liberty is breached. Art.226 also states about its maintainability
i.e. ‘If the respondents are not employees of Govt. the writ would not be maintainable’. And
according to a case which says ‘that HC have the power to issue writ of Mandamus or anyother
appropriate writ to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner during pendency,
During the pendency and final disposal ofthis petition the respondents may be direct not to
take the possessiontill the suit is decided finally’. This also makes the Petition maintainable.

S.E. SOCIETY'S
Issue3
Whether the high court of Brahma can interfere in any policy decision
taken by the state of brahma?
Directions given by the HC under 226 cannot be altered by the state Govt. Policy Decisions of
the State are not to be disturbed/interfered with unless they are found to be grossly arbitrary
or irrational this is a statement by SC, and it is also mentioned in the judgement of case5 that
while infringement of fundamental right HC can pass a order to state for a stay or shutting down
or just adjust it and readjust it according to the compulsions of circumstances and the
imperatives of national considerations.
Issue No 4.
Whether the displacement of the agriculturists from the area wherethe
proposed dam is to be constructed amounts to violation of art. 21 of the
constitution of Indiva?
Council like to mention the above arguments are typically based on the infringement of article21which is
being violated, So Govt. can shift those villagers to another place and can construct the dam easily but
what about the consequences that villagers will face? It is mentioned under Art. 21 "Protection of Life and
Personal Liberty: no person shall be deprivedof his life and personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law". The state cannot snatch their land and give them any other land to start their lives all
over again. They have the right to live wherever they want, they have the liberty of choosing how they
want to leave. Shifting to another place, they have to search new resources for agricultural activities,
building new homes & being from farming background they use to have cattle with them it will take
around 2 to 3 years to cope up from new situations oflife. Their main occupation is agriculture, which
affects a lot due to movement in the land what is the soil of new land in not much fertile They don't know
anything about the fertility soil, new environment, they even don't know about the new atmosphere of that
place is good for their crops or not. As in it will be good for the society like it to justwith them a substitute
of land or compensation because their peace of living and liberty will be violated.

S.E. SOCIETY'S
Issue No 5.
Whether the Environment Clearance Certificate granted by the State is contrary to
the provisions of Constitution of Indiva?
Yes absolutely, the public hearing is a mandatory step in the process of environmental clearance for
certain developmental projects. This provides a legal space for people of an area to come face-to-face
with the project proponent and the government and express their concerns.
The Government of Indiva Act, 1935 provided for the establishment of Article 21 of the Indivan Constitution.
It declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law.
Article 21 comes under the Part III of the Indivan constitution and is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed
to all citizens of Indiva.
• Environmental appraisal: In case of certain very special/controversial projects, which have aroused
considerable public interest, the committee may also decide to arrange for public hearings on those
projects to ensure public participation in developmental decisions. Announcements for such public
hearing shall be made at least 30 days before through newspapers. On the basis of the exercise described
in the foregoing paragraphs, the Appraisal Committees make their recommendations for approval or
rejection of particular projects.
So, the Environment Clearance Certificate granted by the State is contrary to the provisions of
Constitution of Indiva.
Issue No 6.
Whether the displacement of the agriculturists from the areawhere the
proposed dam is to be constructed amounts to violation of Art. 21 of the
Constitution of Indiva?
In this scenario the displacement of the agricultural from the area where the proposed dam is to be
constructed accounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiva. Due to following reasons:
First of all we need to understand the basic meaning of the Article 21 i.e. “No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”
Thus, in this case article 21 secures some fundamental rights of affected people:
• Right to life.
• Right to personal liberty.
• Right to social and economic justice and empowerment.
Because, all people are dependent on Agricultural land which is the basic requirement for their life
survival, personal liberty.
And if those are affected due to the Dam construction then these people will lose their right to social and
economic justice and empowerment which has been given by the Constitution.
So, in this scenario the displacement of the agricultural from the area where the proposed dam is to be
constructed accounts to violation of Atticle21 of the Constitution of Indiva.
Article 21 of the Indiva Constitution being one of the most important fundamental rights.

S.E. SOCIETY'S
PRAYER
In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited thecounsel for the
Petitioner most humbly and respectfully pray before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be pleased to
adjudge and declare that:
That the Present Petition is maintainable as Public Interest Litigation and the Writ Petition filed
under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of Indiva is Maintainable.
The High Court can interfere in any policy decision taken by the state of Brahma.
The Displacement of the agriculturists amounts to violation of Art.21 of theConstitution of Indiva.
The Petitioner additionally prays that the Court may make any such order as it maydeem
fit in terms of equity, justice and due conscience. And for this act of kindness the Petitioner
shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
(Respectfully Submitted)
Sampat Vitthalrao Phad

- Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner


Moot Court 3rd - Sampat v. Phad Behalf of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Moot Court 3rd - Sampat v. Phad Behalf of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoAR cPSD| 7979678

MEMORIAL FROM SIDE OF PETITIONER

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF BRAHMA

STATE OF BRAHMA & ORS ---------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE COURT MEMORIAL FILED ON

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

SAMPAT VITTHALRAO PHAD

LLB-3rd Year 5th Sem.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………..………………. 03

3. INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS …………….............………………………...……….……………. 04

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ………………………………………………..……..……….. 05

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………….....................................…….…. 06 - 07

6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………………………………………………………….....………..….. 08

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………..……………..……. 09

9. THE PRAYER ……………………………………………………...………………..………………. 12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

• THE LAW COMMISSION OF INDIVA

• Constitution on Indiva By P.M. Bakshi

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

AIR All Indiva Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union Of Indiva

MOFE Ministry of Forests and Environment

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Nothing in this Art.shall be deemed to confer on a High Courtpowers of superintendence over

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5. Whether the Environment Clearance Certificate granted by the State is contrary to

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Sampat Vitthalrao Phad

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

You might also like