BY-ARSHI KHAN

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CIHAR

Writ Petition

No.___ of 2020

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Peoples’ Liberty……………………………………..........................................Petitioner

Versus

M/S RPF PVT. LTD. And pthers........................................................................Respondent

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION .........................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...........................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...........................................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...........................................................................................................8

SUMMARY PLEADINGS............................................................................................................9

ADVANCE PLEADINGS ...........................................................................................................10

Whether public intrest litigation is maintainable against a private party? ...........................10

People’s liberty has the locus standi to exercise writ jurisdiction? ........................................12

Whether the policy is voilative of article 14 and 21? ...............................................................15

PRAYER.......................................................................................................................................23
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

Abbreviations Expansion
& And
AIR All India Report
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
Art. Article
CPRs Community Property Resources
DP Displaced People
DPSP Directive Principle of State Policy
GEEPS Green Earth Environment Protection Society
H.P. Himachal Pradesh
Hon’ble Honourable
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
ICJ International Court of Justice
ILR Inter Linking of Rivers
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
Ors. Others
PAP Project Affected Persons
PESA, Act 1996 Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas, Act
1996
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UOI Union of India
UN United Nations
UT Union Territory
v. Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. Cases

A.L. Kalra v. P & E Corpn of India, Ltd.,AIR 1984 SC 1361, 1367 ............................................18
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib , AIR 1981 SC ..................................................................................10
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamachari Singh v. Union of India, (1981) 1 S.C.C. 246 ....................12
Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 321....................................................................16
BALCO Employees’ Union v Union of India, (2002) 2 S.C.C. 333 .............................................12
Binny Ltd. And Anr. v. Sadasivan and Ors. AIR 2005 SC ..........................................................10
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988.................................................22
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 ...............................................................11
ChiranjeethLal v. Union of India AIR 1950 SC 41 : 1950 SCR 869 ............................................15
DevDutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 ..............................................................................11
Francis Coraile v UT of Delhi .......................................................................................................19
Gauri Shankar v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 55 at 58 : (1994)6 SCC 349 ...............................15
HarbansalSahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2120 ..........................................14
Indian Council For Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161 ..........................11
K.K. Kouchunni V. State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725 ................................................................13
K.Yadav v J. M. A. Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 258 ........................................................................20
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 .......................................................................13
R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, (1979) 3 S.C .......................................................10
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 703. ...................................................15
Som Raj v. State of Harayana, AIR 1990 SC 1176 .......................................................................15
State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252 ..........................................................13
Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331 ....................................................10
Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagatram and Ors AIR 1975 SC .................................................................10
II. Books

1. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition, Lexis Nexus, 2014
2. Pandey, J.N., Constitutional Law of India, 53rd Edition, Central Law Agency, 2016

III. Statutes

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Environment Protection Act, 1960
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose
of the present case by the virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND:

1. Union of Indiana is a federal republic country divided into 29 states and 7 Union
Territories. It is ruled by Popular Democratic Front (PDF) which generally viewed as
having inclination and association with business conglomerates and there had been
media reports that certain tenders for public projects in PDF ruled states had been
awarded to business houses with close relations to the ruling PDF. One of the promises
made during the elections by PDF was to take steps to counter the problem of rising
unemployment, a problem which has especially been high in states like Cihar, Lyndia &
Vimachal.

2. Subsequently, PDF came out with ‘Make In Indiana’ Policy 2018, the purpose and aim
of which was to encourage industrialization, development of self-sufficient industries
and thereby alleviate unemployment and accelerate growth. The Policy contained
guidelines regarding the tender procedure to be adopted for setting up the industries, the
rehabilitation package for the displaced people, etc.

3. Tenders were issued for various projects and large scale domestic industries were set up.
M/s RPF Industries Pvt. Ltd., had won most of the tenders following which they set up
industries mainly in the State of Cihar. However, after about six months, reports started
emerging that M/s RPF Industries Pvt Ltd had flouted several tender rules and arm
twisted the Government in issuing them the tenders.

4. People’s Liberty, a NGO, and the Petitioner carried out the report and made these serious
allegations. It was pointed out in the report that certain ministers in the PDF Government,
high level bureaucrats in the State of Cihar and top officials of the M/s RPF Industries
Pvt Ltd acted in connivance wherein maximum tenders were issued to them. The Report
stated that the Policy mandated that tender could be issued for industries only where
there are at least two bidders competing for it. However, M/s RPF Industries Pvt Ltd had
been awarded tenders for industrial projects in which they were the sole bidder.

5. Additionally, while setting up the industries, several environmental rules were flouted in
as much as no Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted. Also, acquisition of
land
 and subsequent payment of compensation to the displaced people were not done properly by
the Government under the Acts. Furthermore, the industries so set up emitted hazardous
substances which had serious impact on the health of the people living in the areas.

6. Angered by these wrongs and the fact that their fundamental rights were being violated,
several demonstrations were carried out and affected people took to streets opposing the
industries so set up.

7. RESULTANT LITIGATION Peoples’ Liberty is, therefore, moving the High Court of
Cihar under the writ jurisdiction. The main grievance is that M/s RPF Industries Pvt Ltd
& Government of PDF have violated Environmental norms and Constitutional
provisions and the projects should be put to an immediate closure.

7
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether writ lies against a private party?

2. Whether people’s liberty has locus standai and alternate remedy is required to
be exhausted?

3. Whether article 14 and article 21 of the constitution have been violated?

8
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 SUMMARY PLEADINGS

1. Whether writ lies against a private party?

The Petitioner has filed the case under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, due to the
violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. A writ can be maintained against a private
party if the party is carrying out a public duty. Such is the case here since M/S RPF
Industries Pvt. Ltd., is setting up industries for the employment and development of the
public and can be considered as a case of “public benefit”.

2. Whether people’s liberty has locus standai and alternate remedy is required to be
exhausted?

Peoples’ Liberty, the Petitioner has locus standi to exercise writ jurisdiction in the matter
under Public Interest Litigation (PIL). An Alternative Remedy need not be exhausted to
maintain the writ petition as the question here involves the infringement of fundamental
rights.

3. The whether article 14 and article 21 of the constitution have been violated?

The tender rules were flouted and there has been use of unfair practices in allocation of the
tender bids to the effect that only M/S RPF Industry Pvt. Ltd. has been winning the tenders in
Cihar. Reports of them doing so by arm twisting the government are emerging, and this is in
violation of Article 14 as it denies a fair chance to others.Article 21, which involves the Right
to Life and Personal Liberty, has been violated in this case as it has been reported by the
Petitioner after a lot of diligent reporting, that hazardous substances are emitted from the
Industry.

9
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 ADVANCE PLEADINGS

Issue 1

Whether public intrest litigation is maintainable against a private party?

1.1. The PIL filed by the petitioner NGO is maintainable in law Public Interest litigation
can be filed against the Union and MIL

A PIL can be filed against the State for the violation of Fundamental rights1 under Article 226
and 32 of the Constitution; therefore, the PIL is maintainable against Article 226 of the Indian
Constitution is worded in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a
private authority. The only precondition is that such private authority must be discharging a
public function and that the decision sought to be corrected or enforced must be in discharge
of a public function.

Further, to constitute a private party as being state, the same must fall within the ambit of other
authorities u/a 12 and thus must satisfy the court that it is either an instrumentality or an agency
of the State2. In order to adjudge the same, the functions of the corporation must be of public
importance, and closely related to governmental functions.

In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority3, the question before the Apex Court was
whether the International Airport Authority can be said to be ‘State' within the meaning of
Article 12. Holding the Airport Authority to be ‘State'

Public Function is one which “seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a
section of the public”4.Institutions engaged in performing public functions are, by virtue of the

1
Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331
2
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib , AIR 1981 SC 487
3
R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, (1979) 3 S.C.C. 489
4
Binny Ltd. And Anr. v. Sadasivan and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 320
10
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 functions performed, government agencies.5Further under the well-established doctrine of
Parens Patriae, it is the obligation of the State to protect and take into custody the rights and
the privileges of its citizens for discharging its obligations.6

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that, M/S RPF Industries Pvt. Ltd being an instrumentality
of the state for the purposes of The Respondent also claims that the economy of Cihar has
shown gradual improvement after the industries were set up. This evidences the fact that that
the work is, inter alia, of public importance and that a writ can definitely be issued against
them if there is a breach of fundamental right. In the present case, there has been a breach of
both Articles 14 and 21. within the ambit of “Other Authroity” as enshrined u/a 12 of the
Constitution. Therefore, a PIL is maintainable against M/S RPF Industries Pvt. Ltd and others.

Arguendo, if, M/S RPF Industries Pvt. Ltd is a private party, a PIL can be instituted against
private party u/a 32 and 226 of the Constitution7, if the State is made a co-party in the petition.

It is humbly submitted that while interpreting legal provisions a court of law cannot be
unmindful of the hard realities of life.8 The approach of the court in dealing with such cases should
be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal
and practical rather than precedential.9 As in the instant case Gov. is made co party to private party
thus the petition is maintainable

5
Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagatram and Ors AIR 1975 SC 1331
6
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480
7
Indian Council For Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161
8
DevDutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725
9
Id.
11
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 Issue 2

Whether peoples liberty has locus standai and is alterative remedy required to be exhausted

2.1 People’s liberty has the locus standi to exercise writ jurisdiction:
The principle of locus standi is an age old one that forms the basis of any action in a court of
law. Locus Standiis a Latin phrase meaning “place to stand”. According to Black’s law
Dictionary locus standi means the right to bring an action or to be heard in given forum.10 In
simple words locus standi may use it as “standing” or “legal standing.”11

In the Additional Judges’ case12, a case which can be considered as a precursor of PIL in
India, BHAGWATI J., observed that:

“Whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the
State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of
the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for
redressal of such wrong or public injury.” He observed further: “We would , therefore,
hold that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for
judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some
provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and
observance of such constitutional or legal provision”.

Moreover, Article 226 does not refer to “person aggrieved”, “standing or interest” before
giving access to the court to seek redress. As Krishna Iyer, J. says, the narrow concept of
“person aggrieved” and individual litigation is becoming obsolete. It is broad- based, and
people oriented, and envisions justice through “class actions”, “PIL”, “representative

10
Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan Garner, ed., 7th edn. (Minn., USA: St. Paul, 1999), p. 952
11
What is Locus Standi; in, http: //www.wisegeek.com., Accessed, on march 27/03/2020
12
BALCO Employees’ Union v Union of India, (2002) 2 S.C.C. 333
12
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 proceedings”13. Peoples’ Liberty is an NGO that has approached the Hon’ble High Court
of Cihar under Art.226 of the Indian Constitution by filing a PIL, as it is deeply concerned
by the public injury which is caused by the industries set up by the M/S RPF Industries Pvt.
Ltd. The industries have flouted several environmental rules including not even conducting
an Environmental Impact Assessment. After careful and diligent reports conducted,
Peoples’ Liberty has further observed that the industries so set up emit hazardous
substances impacting the health of the people in the region. This clearly shows that
Peoples’ Liberty as it possess bona fide interest in the public wellbeing has every right to
approach the court under PIL due to the infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution as
there has been avoidance on the part of the Respondent to prove that their actions are
environmentally being

Alternative Remedy Not A Bar

Where there is well-founded allegation that fundamental right has been infringed alternative
remedy is no bar for entertaining writ petition and granting relief.14

In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.15 also, the Supreme Court took a similar view. Speaking
for the Constitution Bench, Ayyangar J. observed:

"It is wholly erroneous to assume that before the jurisdiction of this court under Art. 32
could be invoked the applicant must either establish that he has no other remedy adequate
or otherwise or that he has exhausted such remedies as the law affords and has not yet
obtained proper redress for once the court is satisfied that there has been an infringement
of fundamental right, it is not only the right but the duty to afford relief to him”.
The mere existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot be per se be a good and
sufficient ground for throwing out a petition under Art. 32 and 226 if the existence of a
fundamental right and a breach, actual or threatened, of such right and is alleged is prima

13
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamachari Singh v. Union of India, (1981) 1 S.C.C. 246
14
State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252
15
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295
13
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 facie established on the petition16. In spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the court
may exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least petitions where the petitioner seeks enforcement
of any of the fundamental rights17. Thus, the petitioner humbly submits that writ petition is
maintainable as existence of alternative remedy is not a bar.

Given that in the present case, there has been an infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution, the alternative remedy will not operate as a bar to Art. 226 of the High Court and thus
need not be exhausted for the maintenance of the case.

16
K.K. Kouchunni V. State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725
17
HarbansalSahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2120
14
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 Issue 3

3. Whether the policy is voilative of article 14 and 21?

3. State’ is defined in Article 12 of the Indian Constitution:

• “The State” includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and
the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory
of India or under the control of the Government of India.
• The guarantee against the denial of equal protection of the law does not mean that
identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to all persons in spite of
differences in circumstances or conditions.18 It means that equals should not be treated
unlike and unlikes should not be treated alike. Likes should be treated alike.19 Art. 14
would be violated if unequals are treated as equal. So, a reasonable classification is not
only permitted but is necessary if society is to progress. any penalty disproportionate to
the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Art. 14.

3.1 The policy decision of the government is highly irrational and arbitrary.

• Rule of Law: According to Dicey’s theory, “wherever there is discretion, there is room
for arbitrariness and is no less than under a monarchy. The discretionary authority on
the part of the government must mean insecurity for legal freedom on the part of its
subjects”. The absence of arbitrary power is the primary postulate of Rule of Law upon
which the whole constitutional edifice is dependant20.
• It is most humbly submitted that it is important to emphasize that the absence of
arbitrary power is the first essential of Rule of Law upon which whole constitutional
system is based21. The petitioner submits that the jurisdiction of Article 14 extends to

18
ChiranjeethLal v. Union of India AIR 1950 SC 41 : 1950 SCR 869
19
Gauri Shankar v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 55 at 58 : (1994)6 SCC 349
20
Som Raj v. State of Harayana, AIR 1990 SC 1176.
21
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 703.
15
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 the prevention of arbitrary and unreasonable actions of the State, which are
“antithetical”22 to the rule of equality. The principles of Indian Law have thrown open
the gates of Executive action to Judicial Scrutiny.

3.3 The policy decision of the government is Violation of Article 14.

• The petitioner submits that it is not unknown for a Governmental Agency to exaggerate
the benefits and underplay the deficiencies while making policy decision. In Avinder Singh
v. State of Punjab23 it was held that arbitrariness must be excluded from the law, for if
power is arbitrary, it is potential inequality, and Art 14 is fatally allergic to inequality of
the law.24The petitioner submits that matters of national importance cannot be
implemented negligently as has been done by the Government in the present matter.
Hence, violative of Article 14.

• After careful reporting, the Petitioners have figured that in this case too there have been
reports of arm twisting and certain ministers in the PDF Government, high level
bureaucrats in the State of Cihar and top officials of the M/s RPF Industries Pvt Ltd
acted in connivance wherein maximum tenders were issued to them. There has thus been
lack of equality of opportunity in these cases.

2.3.1. The Doctrine of Public Use is applicable.

• To constitute a public use, the property must be under the control of the public, or the
public agencies or the public must have a right to use25 sovereignty embedded in eminent
domain and its vicariousness is often overproduced over vulnerable citizens.
• The petitioner argues that the power for irregular land acquisition without rehabilitation
must be curtailed and it is clearly specified under constitutional principles that rather than

22
Id.
23
Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 321.
24
Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Wadhwa Nagpur, (2 nd edition, 2007).
25
Alfred Roland Haig, ‘The American Law Register (1852-1891)’ Vol. 39, No. 7, (First Series) Volume 30 (Second
Series, Vol. 4) (Jul., 1891) [ 452-503] www.istor.org.
16
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 an expansive “public purpose”, backed by an inversion of sovereignty from citizens to the
state. Substantive re-strains on the power of eminent domain exist in the constitutional
provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act
199226, 74th Constitutional Amendment Act 199327, the Panchayat Extension to
Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act 1996 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (FRA) 2006 and must be
safeguarded.
• The legal instruments through which the doctrine has found an expression, redistributive
land reforms on the one hand, and dispossessing development projects on the other, offer
an insight into its dual nature with its potential for redistribution and expropriation.
2.4. Exercise of the Eminent Domain
• Doctrine of ‘Eminent domain’, in its general connotation means the supreme power of the
king or the government under which property of any person can be taken over in the interest
of general public

2.4.1. Limitations on the exercise of the eminent domain

That the government in the name of eminent domain can’t occupy land although the power to
determine what constitutes public purpose is primarily with government, courts have powers
to review such decisions. In practice, however, the Courts have generally placed limitation on
themselves28

(i) Compensation for the property acquired. (ii) The interest of the community is always
superior to the interest of the individual.

• Keeping in consideration the above referred points petitioners humbly as stated in facts
that enough allocation of funds has not been made in the budget and Five year plans also
no resettlement and rehabilitation policies are being seriously implemented which is thus

26
11th Schedule, Entry 2&13 and Art. 243-G, Indian Constitution.
27
12th Schedule , Entry 8 and Art. 243-W, Part IX-A, Indian Constitution.
28
Indian Infrastructure Report 2009
17
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 likely to cause discrepancies in the compensations noted defeats the plea of eminent
domain.

It is humbly submitted that the Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in executive/administrative action

because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve the negation of equality. One need
not confine the denial of equality to comparative evaluation between two persons to arrive at a
conclusion of discriminatory treatment. An action of arbitrary per se denies equality of protection
by law29. The project is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and it is unconstitutional and
should be struck down.

3.4 The project will be Posing a risk to Ecology-Precautionary preceptand is voilative of

article 21

• As far as the relationship between ecology and Art. 21 is concerned, the thinking of the
Court is that since the right to life is a Fundamental Right under Art.21, and since the
right to life connotes “quality of life”, a person has a right to enjoyment of pollution
free water and air to enjoy life fully30. Any disturbance of the basic environmental
elements, namely, air, water and soil, which are necessary for ‘life’, would be hazardous
to ‘life’ within the meaning of Art.21 of the Constitution.

• Precautionary precept is primarily based on the concept that it is miles better to err at the
aspect of caution, and face up to irreversible environmental damage. The Precautionary
precept predicted movement to be taken to prevent damage.
(i)The precautionary principle makes it compulsory for the nation authorities to
anticipate, save you and assault the causes of environmental safety degradation (ii)

29
A.L. Kalra v. P & E Corpn of India, Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361, 1367.
30
N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 S.C.C. 362
18
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 The onus of evidence is on the actor to reveal that his action is environmentally benign
(iii) Accordingly it is miles high time that the government takes proper initiative inside
the present context and prohibits project maintain the rich and various atmosphere.
• Hence in the present case also, the govt. should have taken proper precautionary measures
as the report of the expert committee raises a strong doubt about the ecological feasibility
of the project involving disastrous consequences like (i) hazardous diseases (ii) disruption
of entire hydrological cycle.

3.5 The project violates “The Public Trust Doctrine”

• The state is the trustee of all country wide resources which are by means of nature meant
for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the going for walks water,
airs, woodland and ecologically fragile lands. The state as a trustee is under a legal duty to
protect to natural resources.
• Article 48-A deals with the protection and the improvement of the environment and
safeguarding of forests and wild life. It provides that the state shall endeavour to protect
and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
• That the court has reinforced Article 21 in two methods: (i) legal guidelines affecting
personal liberty have to skip the tests of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution and,
(ii) the court identified numerous unarticulated liberties which might be implied through
Article 21.

3.3 That the interlinking project has insufficient scheme for Rehabilitation
• That Development is bound to affect agricultural and forest land which is the primary
source of their livelihood which they are deprived of.31 It is submitted that in any organized
society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of
man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed
from restrictions which inhibit his growth32Communities from whom this land is alienated

31
Francis Coraile v UT of Delhi
32
Ibid.
19
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 are thus deprived of their entire livelihood because most of them live in a natural and
thereby is restricting their growth.
• That due to said project people are displaced (DP) away from their homes. Some others
lose most of their land and other sustenance but are not physically displaced and are called
project-affected persons (PAP). Most of those who are deprived of their community
property resources (CPRs) or other livelihood such as service. The word ‘life’ as employed
by Article 21 takes in its sweep not only the concept of mere physical existence but also
all finer values of life including the right to work and right to livelihood33.

3.4. Violation of Right to live with human dignity

• “The right to live with human dignity and the same does not connote continued drudgery.
It takes within its fold some of the fine graces of civilization which makes life worth having
and that the expanded concept of life would mean the tradition, culture and heritage of the
person concerned.”
• A similar view has been taken in Narendra v State of Haryana34. It, therefore, must be
taken as a settled legal position that Article 21 guarantees to all persons residing in India,
the right to lead dignified life which would include right get adequate livelihood and work
and no procedural law can deprive them of this right unless such a law is enacted by
competent legislature and is not violation of any the other fundamental rights especially
Article 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

3.4 That the project violates Article 21 i.e. Right to livelihood

• That right to life includes right to livelihood and therefore right to work and work settings35.
The article states that, the state is under negative obligation, not to deprive a person of this
right without just and fair procedure. Any person, who is deprive of his right to livelihood

33
K.Yadav v J. M. A. Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 258
34
AIR 1995 SC 519
35
The agriculture employees union v. Delhi Administration
20
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenged the
deprivation as offending the right of life conferred by Article 21 .
• The Supreme Court observed that “an important facet of that right is the right to livelihood
because; no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood.
As held by SC, “deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him
of his life36”.
• That out of the elements stated “Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be
three – food, clothing, and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized
society.”37Under right to life can only be procured by the means of livelihood thus violation
of article 21.
• That forcibly ousting from one's land and habitat carries with it many risk .Some of the
identified interlinked potential risks intrinsic to displacement4 such as: (i) Landlessness (ii)
Joblessness (iii) Homelessness (iv) Marginalization (v) Food Insecurity (vi) Increased
Morbidity and Mortality (vii) Loss of Access to Common Property (viii) Social
Disintegration thus leads to violation of right to livelihood as held in D.T.C v. Mazdoor
Congress and Others38 as “The right to life includes right to livelihood, the right to
livelihood therefore cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority. Similarly in
the present case also there will be loss of livelihood of the indigenous tribes living there
(area where there will be stream of interlinked river) from a long period of time and also
difficulties in relocation and resettlement of the displaced families.

The Respondents have not made any effort to comply with the Rehabilitation Policy thus
denying the right to personal life and freedom to the ousted citizens.

36
AIR 1986 SC AT 194
37
Rathinam v. U.O.I , AIR 1994 SC 1844
38
1991 AIR 101, 1990 SCR
21
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
The Respondents have thus caused the public an infringement of Art. 21 on two grounds i.e.
violation on environmental grounds and failure to adhere to Rehabilitation Policy. Project is highly
violation to Art. 21 which is a Fundamental Right guaranteed to all persons alike ultra-virus to the
Constitution.39

39
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988
22
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited &arguments advanced, it is
most humbly and respectfully requested to this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare on behalf of:

1. That The Petition filed by people’s liberty is maintainable and inhere locus standi.
2. That the policy decision of the Respondent Union of India is highly irrational and
arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. That the threat to the ecosystem is so real and overwhelming that it is likely to cause
sweeping and irreparable damage to the same thereby offending the rights of the public
at large under Article 21 of the Constitution
4. That the implementation of the project is likely to result in large-scale internal
displacement of people in particular the tribal resulting in deprivation of their livelihood
violating Article 21 of the Constitution

AND

Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity & good conscience. All
of which is most humbly prayed.

All of which is humbly prayed,

(arshi khan )
Counsels for the Petitioner.

23
Memorial on the behalf of Petitioner