2nd Internal Assessment – Public Law Skills

Public Interest Litigation

Protect Kindia Vs. State of Sapota and Anr.

NAME: Dhruv Bhartia

DIVISION: D

PRN: 20010125306

COURSE: BA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2020-2025
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF SAPOTA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. ______ OF 2022

District: Fardapur

In the matter of Articles 226 & 227 of the

constitution of SAPOTA.

M/s Protect Kindia,

Versus

State of SAPOTA

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

OTHER HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF SAPOTA

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVENAMED
THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING:-
1.1) That the following questions of public importance are being raised in the present
Public Interest Litigation Petition:-
a. Whether the Respondent No. 1 by deciding to construct a dam resulting in the
displacement of agriculturists from villages near to the district of Fardapur
violates the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of Kindia (hereinafter
referred to as “the Constitution”)?
b. Whether the Environmental Clearance Certificate granted for construction of
the subject dam is ultra vires of the constitutional principles and is against the
national interest?
1.2) That the present petition is being filed against the State of Sapota, i.e. Respondent
No. 1,
1.3) That the Petitioner is filing the present petition in public interest and has no
personal interest in the litigation, nor is the litigation guided by self-gain and that
there is no motive other than that of public interest in filing the current petition;
1.4) That the petitioner undertakes to pay the costs, if any, imposed by this Hon’ble
Court on this petition;
2. THAT THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: -
2.1) Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 1 is the State of SAPOTA that decided to
build the subject dam in the district of Fardapur and granted the necessary
environment clearances for the same;
2.2) Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 1 vide its policy decision started the
process to construct a number of dams within SAPOTA for the purposes of
accumulating rainwater, owing to the near drought conditions being faced in a
major part of the state due to scarcity of water. The Respondent floated global
tenders inviting offers for the construction of the dams and awarded the final
contract to Respondent No. 2;
2.3) Petitioner submits that one of the dams to be constructed is that which forms the
subject matter of this petition, that is the dam to be constructed in the district of
Fardapur ;
2.4) The Petitioner submits that the construction of the dam in Fardapur would
severely affect the inhabitants of an entirety of 10 villages situated adjoining to
the dam’s location
2.5) The petitioner further submits that the aggrieved were evidently against such
construction as would it deprive them of their livelihood forever as
aforementioned, violating their constitutional rights under Article 21 which reads:
Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
2.6) The petitioner submits that recognizing the plight faced by the aggrieved, the
petitioner approached the Government of Kindia highlighting such concerns with
the request to not proceed with the construction of the subject dam, despite of
which Respondent No. 1 seemed to be determined to proceed with such
construction due to which the Petitioner has filed the current petition;

3. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21: -

The Right to livelihood has been held as an intrinsic part of Right to Life under Article 21 as
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Olga Tellis and Ors. v. BMC
and Ors.1

The action of the Respondent No. 1 to construct the subject dam deprives Right to livelihood
as the fields would become submerged under water or become waterlogged, therefore
becoming unfit for agricultural purposes. This would completely devoid the aggrieved from
earning any livelihood for the entirety of their lives.

4. VIOLATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS: -

Environment Laws have been made keeping in mind the long-term interests of the nation
as the preservation of environment in itself is of prime importance to the safety, security
and stability of the Republic of Kindia;

The preservation of environment has also been set forth as a fundamental duty of every
citizen of Kindia under Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution which reads as under:

“It shall be duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to
have compassion for living creatures”.

The Right to Environment has also been recognized as an integral part of Article 21;

The petitioner humbly submits that the construction of the subject dam would be in
contravention of environmental law as set forth by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India2

Construction of dams are inherently recognized to have adverse impacts on the

environment.

The Petitioner submits that the act of granting clearance to the construction project by
Respondent No. 1 is illegal as it contravenes well established principles of Environmental
Law.

The petitioner further submits that in addition to the Clearance being violative of
Environmental Law Principles;

1
Olga Tellis and Ors. v. BMC and Ors., 1985 SCC (3) 545.
2
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
Therefore, the petitioner humbly submits that the granting of the ECC by Respondent No.
1 is ultra vires of the Constitution and violative of the Environmental Laws of Kindia;

5. THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS WELL POSSESSED WITH THE

POWER TO INTERFERE IN WRONGFUL POLICY DECISIONS TAKEN BY
THE STATE OF SAPOTA:-
The petitioner submits that the wrongful decision of Respondent No. 1 to move forward
with the construction of the subject dam along with the granting of the ECC, both being
policy decisions of the State of SAPOTA, are liable to be put under Judicial Scrutiny and
Review under Article 13 of the Constitution;

“The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the

government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the
citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to
any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere
with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that
a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy,
and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial
review.”

Therefore, the Petitioner humbly submits that the policy decisions of Respondent No. 1 as
aforementioned would fall under the purview of judicial scrutiny and review and that the
Hon’ble High Court is well possessed with the power, authority and jurisdiction to
interfere in the same;

6. GROUNDS: -
The Petitioner says and submits that Respondent No. 1’s decision is ultra vires of Article
21 of the Constitution;

The petitioner submits that Respondent No.1’s decision to grant the ECC for the project
in question along with the construction of the dam itself is violative of numerous
environmental laws and principles;

7. INTERIM RELIEFS PRAYED FOR:-

Petition says and submits that taking into account the nature of the grievances and the
extent of the injury likely to be caused, it is Just, necessary and proper that by
 issuance of the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or of like nature, the
Hon’ble Court orders the Respondents to stay any construction activities including the
acquisition and clearance of the lands, which are associated with the subject dam, for
the duration of this litigation;

8. RELIEFS PRAYED FOR: -

A. That the Environment Clearance Certificate granted by Respondent No.1 for the dam
project in question be declared as ultra vires of the constitution and of the
environmental laws of Kindia;
B. That the displacement of the aggrieved from the affected villages be declared as
unconstitutional and violative of Article 21;
AND/OR
C. Any other suitable relief by way of order, writ or direction as the Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper based on the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in
favour of the petitioner in the interests of Justice;

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE PETITIONER AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Sd.

Petitioner. /Adv. For Petitioner

Place:

Date: