TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. BOOKS, COMMENTARIES, DICTIONARIES & REPORTS
2. LINKS REFERRED
3. STATUTES AND RULES
4. CASES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENT IN ADVANCE
PRAYER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION FULL FORM
¶ Paragraph
& And
Add. Additional
Anr. Another
Art. Article
CBFC Central Board of Film Certification
CrLJ/CriLJ/Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal
Edn. Edition
Hon’ble Honourable
JCFL M/s. johri Cine Films Limited
L.J Law Journal
No. Number
Ors. Others
Sec. Section
Sd/ - Signed
SCC/ SC Supreme Court Cases/ Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Reports
V. Versus
H. C High Court
i.e That is
u/s Under Section

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. BOOKS, COMMENTARIES, DICTIONARIES & REPORTS

1. 2, B.B.MITRA, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (Kamal Law House
1998).2.
2. 2, DURGA DAS BASU, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (Prentice Hall of
IndiaPrivate Limited 1997).
3. BHANSALI S.R., COMMENTARY ON THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACT(LexisNexis 2015)
4. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (6TH ed., 1998)
5. DR. JYOTHI RATTAN, CYBER LAWS & IT (Bharat Law House 2020).
6. J. N. PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (Central Law Agency
2008).
7. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Lexis Nexis 2018).
8. R.V. KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
9. SHIKHER DEEP AGGARWAL, COMMENTARY ON THE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT,2022.
10. SOMESWAR BHOWIK, CINEA AND CENSORSHIP: THE POLITICS OF
CONTROL IN INDIA, 2009.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

3
 2. LINKS REFERRED

www.westlawindia.com
www.heinonline.org
www.manupatra.com
www.scconline.com
www.livelaw.com
www.bar&bench.com
www.google.com
www.vakilno1.com
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.indiankakoon.com
www.law.cornell.com
www.casemine.com
www.scconline.com

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

4
 3. STATUTES AND RULES
1. Anti Cyber Crime Law, 2007 (Saudi Arabia).
2. Code for Best Practices for Online Curated Content Providers, 2020.
3. Press Council Act, 1978, No.37, Acts of Parliament, 1978 (India).
4. The Allocation of Business Rules, 1961.
5. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, No.7, Acts of
Parliament, 1995 (India).
6. The Cinematograph Act, 1952, No.37, Acts of Parliament, 1952 (India).
7. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No.5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
8. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
9. The Constitution of Indica, 1950.
10. The Copyrights Act, 1957, No.14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
11. The Delhi Cinematograph (Exhibition of Films by Video Cassettes Recorder/Player)
Rules,1986.
12. The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, No.60, Acts of
Parliament,1986 (India).
13. The Indican Penal Code, 1860, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
14. The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules,2022.
15. The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011.
16. The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of
Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
17. The Information Technology Act, 2000, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
18. The Right to Information Act, 2005, No.22, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).

5
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

4. CASES

1) Divya Ganeshprasad Gontia v. Union of Indica and ors, PILno. 127/2018

2) K. A. Abbas v. The Union of India & Anr, 1971 Air 48, SCR (2) 446
3) Gurdeepinder singh Dhillon v. UOI, CWP-8089-2020
4) Justice for Rights Foundation V. UOI, WP© 11164/2018
5) Padmanabh Shankar vs Union of Indica, W.P. No. 6050/2019
6) ML Kamra v New India Assurance, AIR 1992 SC 1072.
7) K Anjaiah vs K.Chandraiah & Ors. [(1998) 3 SCC 218.
8) Bhavesh D. parish v. Union of India, 2000, 5 SCC 471.
9) State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75 SC
10) Maneka Gandhi v UOI, (1978) 1 SCC 248
11) Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. Province of Maharashtra (1970),

6
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Article 32 in The Constitution of India 1949

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKDROP

Indica is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic and a republic country. Upon

independence, the people of Indica adopted a common law system and a Constitution,
namely, the Constitution of Indica, 1950. Part III of the Constitution confers basic freedoms
and fundamental rights to its citizens which also includes the right to freedom of speech and
expression and the fundamental right to protect and promote cultural and linguistic
minorities.

EVENTS LEADING TO VARIOUS PETITIONS IN THE COURT

The Parliament enacted the Cinematograph Act in 1952 for the regulation of cinematograph
films. Around 2014, the 4G services were rolled out in the country resulting in faster interest
services and an increase in digital outreach in Indica. The rollout of the 4G services resulted
in the development of a new media, called Digital Media. Owing to the huge upside potential
and large viewership, the film producers in the Indican Film Industry started developing
and producing content with the intent to exhibit and telecast it on OTT Platforms, which had 
50 million viewers. Notably, the content released on OTT platforms did not obtain any
certification from the Central Board of Film Certification constituted under the
Cinematograph Act.

THE PROCEEDINGS
1. M/s. Johri Cine Films Limited (JCFL), a renowned film production company
produced a web series titled “Indica Games” scheduled to be released on Inflix.
However, the Central Board of Film Certification issued a notice to JCFL and Inflix
to cease and desist from releasing Indica Games until it has obtained a certificate from
the Central Board of Film Certification. Regardless of the cease-and-desist notice,
JCFL and Inflix released Indica Games without obtaining certification and so the
Central Board of Film Certification issued a notice under Section 7 of the
Cinematograph Act imposing a penalty for exhibiting a cinematograph film without
certification. Hence, aggrieved by such notice, JCFL and Inflix approached the High
Court of Bambil under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indica, 1950 seeking the
quashing of notice issued by the Central Board of Film Certification under Section 7
of the Cinematograph Act,1952.
2. Meanwhile, Blockbuster Films, another prominent film production company released
a feature film titled “Political Heist” which is a satirical political drama based on the
rise of MHP, the
political dispensation currently ruling the country. The release of the feature film resul
ted in a huge uproar, extensive protests, damage to property, and, injuries to
protestors. Hence, an FIR was filed by Mr.Supriyo Gaikwad, a Member of the
Parliament belonging to MHP against Blockbuster Films, and Mr.Amit Dewan for
causing public unrest and hurting the sentiments of the people at large.
Hence, Blockbuster Films and Mr.Amit Dewan approached the Awadh High Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking the quashing of
FIR filed by Mr.Supriyo Gaikwad.

8
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

3. Owing to the public outrage caused by the Political Heist, the Government of Indica
formulated the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules,2022 under the Information Technology Act, 2000 which was met
with staunch opposition. Hence, the Association of Film Producers filed a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indica challenging the constitutional
validity of the IT Rules, 2022 which
has been intervened by an intervention application by an NGO, Hind Swaraj supportin
g the constitutional validity of the Rules.
4. Eventually, Inflix and Inzon jointly filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India before the Supreme Court of Indica alleging that OTT Platforms
cannot be regulated by the Ministry of Information Technology and so the IT Rules,
2022 have been promulgated without any jurisdiction.
5. The Supreme Court of Indica took cognizance of proceedings pending in the High
Courts involving the questions of law similar to the one raised in the writ petition by
Inflix and Inzonand transferred all the proceedings from the High Courts to itself by
virtue of the power vested under Article 139A of the Constitution of Indica.

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines & Digital Media

Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 violating the Constitutional Validity or not?

9
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines & Digital Media

Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 violating the Constitutional Validity or not?
No, The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2022 is not violating constitutional validity. These are rules are providing laws and
guidelines for the release of movies on the OTT platform.
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules
of 2022 are framed to regulate the intermediaries and the publishers of online curated content
over the Top (OTT) platforms from publishing “unlawful” content is constitutionally valid as
the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is
not absolute and it is subject to the reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the
constitution.

10
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

  ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines & Digital Media

Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 violating the Constitutional Validity or not?
1.1 Writ petition filed by an association of fil producers challenging the constitutional
validity of the IT Rules, 2022 Not maintainable?

It is humbly submitted that the IT Rules, 2022 have been framed under the
unambiguous provision of the IT Act, 2000, namely, Section 87(2) (zg). It is well settled that
the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1) is not an
absolute right and the State may impose reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(2).Therefore
the IT Rules, 2022 do not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity and so the writ
petition filed under Art. 226 of the constitution before the High Court of Deli, challenging the
constitutional validity of the impugned rules shall not be maintainable for the same.

I.2 The Right to Expression under art. 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions
under Art. 19(2):

The term “freedom of speech and expression” in Art 19(1)(a) of the constitution has been
constructed to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by words or mouth or in writing
or through audio-visual instrumentalities. However, such freedom is subject to permissible
restrictions under Art. 19(2) in the interest of, amongst others, public order, decency, or
morality or in relation to defamation or incitement to an offense 1. The impugned acts of the
petitioners resulted in a huge uproar, damage to public property, and injuries to a large
number of people thereby disturbing public order. Hence, it is humbly submitted that the
petitioners’ freedom under Art.19(1)(a) has been reasonably restricted by the filing of the
FIR. Therefore, the FIR should not be quashed since it is within the scope of permissible
legislative restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a).

I.3 RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS NOT

ABSOLUTE:

Freedom of speech and expression has been described as the mother of all liberties. The basic
right is one of the constitution’s primary cornerstones, supporting the democratic framework.
However, the right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; the government may
still prohibit certain damaging types of expression. Restrictions have been imposed by the
constitution on reasonable grounds as specified in Article 19(2) of the constitution.

I.4 MISUSE OF ARTICLE 19(1)(a) BY OTT PLATFORMS:

The case Divya  Ganeshprasad Gontia v. Union of Indica sought to regulate the content of

online series. It mentioned shows such as ALT Balaji’s Gandi Baat and Netflix’s Sacred
Games. These shows are said to involve obscene, nudist, and vulgar scenes that are similar
to pornography and are punishable under the Cinematograph Act, the Indican Penal Code, the

11
Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, and the Information Technology Act.
In view of this plea demanding regulation of such online series, the Bombay High Court
issued a notice to the MIB.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

I. Whether the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines & Digital

Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 violating the Constitutional Validity or not?

In another case K. A. Abbas v. The Union of India & Anr, 1971, In this case, the supreme
court held that “censorship of films including prior restraint is justified under our
constitution. The classification of contents according to age groups and their suitability for
unrestricted exhibition with or without excisions is a valid exercise of power in the interests
of public morality, decency, etc. This is not to be constructed as necessarily offending the
freedom of speech and expression. This is because the social interest of the people overrides
individual freedom. These restraints on liberty may be justified by their absolute necessity
and clear purpose since motion pictures need different treatment from other forms of art and
expression on account of their instant appeal, versatility, realism (often surrealism), and
coordination of the visual and aural senses.
The apex court stated that motion pictures have the ability to stir up more emotions deeply
than any other product of art. A film can therefore be censored on the grounds mentioned in
Article 19(2) of the constitution.

According to a survey conducted by You-Gov, an online market research film:

“9 in 10 people in the country feel some form of censorship is required on platforms such as
Voot, Netflix, and Hotstar. Over half of them, vouch for censorship to curb what they see as
unsuitable content for public viewing.”
Statistics show that out of 91% of indicans affirming content regulation, 40% feel that the
government must regulate content all the time and 51% feel that content regulation is
required sometimes.
In a very recent case, Gurdeepinder Singh Dhillon v. UOI, 2020- In this case, a notice was
issued in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to censor the web series “Paatal Lok. This
petition was not a mere plea for censor cuts but it had requested the judiciary to bring in
regulation for the content available on OTT platforms. Also in another case, Justice for
Rights Foundation V. UOI, 2018, the petitioners stated that unregulated content was being
aired on OTT platforms which were censored when released in television media but the same
is not followed in OTT platforms.

I.5 REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 19(2):

There should be censorship or restrictions on OTT platforms. It is said that digital media
materials are easily available to everybody due to their vast reach. When children are exposed
to information that contains violence, harsh language, or sex, they are at a significant
disadvantage. Restrictions have been imposed by the constitution on reasonable grounds as
specified in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This is exactly what the IT Rules, 2022 aims to
do. It encourages consumers to make informed choices about age-appropriate content and
protects consumers’ interests in selecting and viewing the content they want to watch.

12
In the case of Padmanabh Shankar vs Union of Indica the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court
held that the petitioner’s contention regarding lack of regulations for online content merits
serious consideration as whenever any question is raised upon the authenticity of any content
uploaded on online platforms, they avail the safe harbor protection under section 79 of the IT
Act, 2000, which should not be allowed as OTT platforms have control over the content
uploaded and streamed in their site.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

The rights available to the OTT broadcasters are the same and they also have the freedom of
speech and expression, but the Indican Constitution in providing this right also lays down
some restrictions to protect the public interest at large. In response to calls for independent
censorship laws on over-the-top (OTT) services that filter material, the government
announced new guidelines under section 87 of the Information Technology Act that will
protect the fundamental right to freedom of expression and impose appropriate limits and it is
also humbly submitted that there is no chilling effect on speech and expression as it does not
impose any penalties on intermediaries who post content in contravention of the IT Rules.

I.6 PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY PREVAILS:

The doctrine of ‘presumption of constitutionality of laws’ requires that any doubt as to the
constitutionality of a law has to be resolved in favor of its constitutionality.
In the 1992 Supreme Court case ‘ML Kamra v New India Assurance’, Justice K Ramaswamy
said:
“The court ought not to interpret the statutory provisions unless compelled by their
language, in such a manner as would involve its unconstitutionality, since the legislature
as the rulemaking authority is presumed to enact a law which does not contravene or
violate the constitutional provisions. Therefore, there is a presumption in favor of the
constitutionality of legislation or statutory rule unless ex facie it violates the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. If the provisions of a law or the rule
are construed in such a way would make it consistent with the Constitution and another
interpretation would render the provision or the rule unconstitutional, the Court would
lean in favor of the former construction”
 
A Bench of Justices G B Pattanaik and M Srinivasan in the 1998 case
‘K  Anjaiah vs K.Chandraiah’, observed:
“It is a cardinal principle of construction that the Statute or the Rule or the Regulation
must be held to be constitutionally valid unless and until it is established that they violate
any
specific provision of the Constitution. Further, it is the duty of the Court to harmoniously 
construe different provisions of any Act or Rule or Regulation, if possible, and to sustain
the same rather than striking down the provisions out right.”
 
In another case, Bhavesh D. parish v. Union of India, 2000, the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that,

13
 “While considering an application for stay of operation of a piece of legislation, the
Courts must bear in mind that unless the provision is manifestly unjust or glaringly
unconstitutional, the Courts must show judicial restraint in staying the applicability of
the same, and the principle of presumption of the constitutional validity of any legislation
must be maintained.”

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Hence, it shall be presumed that the Intermediary Rules 2022 is constitutionally valid since
the first and foremost consideration of the Court would always be to preserve the validity of a
statute when its constitutionality is challenged.

I.7 NO VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW NORMS:

In its response to the UN Special Rapporteur’s report alleging potential implications for
freedom of expression that the new IT Rules will entail, the government of Indica has held
that the concerns of the UN are misplaced, exaggerated, and disingenuous and shows a lack
of willingness to address grievances of the users of these media platforms. The primary
purpose of the impugned rules, as held by the ministry of Information and Technology is to
place reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of expression of online content provides as per
Art. 19(2) and to protect the interests of the consumers of these services, since the notion
‘welfare of the people is the supreme law’ has been taken into prior consideration while
framing the IR rules 2022.

I.8 VIOLATION OF ART. 14, 19(1)(g), 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:

State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75 SC
The West Bengal Special Courts Act, of 1950 was instituted to provide for the speedier trial
of certain offenses. Section 3 of the Act empowered the State Government to constitute
special Courts and Section 5, whose constitutionality was impugned allowed these Special
Courts to try such offenses according to the directions of the State Government. Section 5
was challenged on the ground that there was no object for making the classification between
different offenses under the Act.

The Supreme Court invalidated the Act because it conferred arbitrary powers in the
government to classify offenses or classes of offenses at its pleasure. The Act did not lay
down any policy/guideline for the classification of such offenses. As a result of the provision,
different treatment was granted to the appellant. The necessity of a speedy trial was too vague
and uncertain a criterion to form the basis of a valid and reasonable classification. This case
was one of the initial cases to lay down the foundational principles of Article 14.

Maneka Gandhi v UOI, (1978) 1 SCC 248

The seven-Judge Bench held that a triumvirate exists between Article 14, Article 19 and
Article 21. All these articles have to be read together. Any law interfering with personal
liberty of a person must satisfy a triple test: (i) it must prescribe a procedure; (ii) the

14
procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under
Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; and (iii) it must also be liable to be
tested with reference to Article 14. As the test propounded by Article 14 pervades Article 21
as well, the law and procedure authorizing interference with personal liberty must also be
right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. If the procedure prescribed
does not satisfy the requirement of Article 14 it would be no procedure at all within the
meaning of Article 21.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

I.9 VIOLATION OF OBSCENITY:

community standards test

This test applied in India. The Community Standards Test says that the art or any gesture or
content is obscene only if the dominant theme taken as a whole is opposed to contemporary
community standards.

In Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. Province of Maharashtra (1970), the Court held

that although the term obscenity is used several times, there is no exact meaning of the word
given in the statutes. Obscenity restricts or punishes the individual mailing, granting,
distributing, and sharing obscene content and must understand the grave nature of the offense
and give a verdict accordingly. 

There are many case laws related to obscenity in India. Like many other concepts and
conventions, the meaning of obscenity changes from case to case. Some famous example and
recent examples of Obscenity mentioned below:

 Milind Soman, a youth icon, actor and model, recently posted a picture of himself
on his Twitter handle in which he is running nude on the Goa beach in the state to
mark his birthday with a Caption – Happy Birthday to me, 55 and running. He was
arrested by the Goa Police under section 294 of IPC for promoting the obscene act
in a public place and also section 67 of Information and Technology act for
publication of obscene content on the social media but according to him, he was
promoting his fitness.
 Recently, the Goa Police had arrested actor and model Poonam Pandey and her
Husband for allegedly trespassing on government property and shooting an
objectionable video at a dam in South Goa.
 In 2018, there was a case relating to obscenity AIB Roast Obscenity case, in which,
many Bollywood celebrities like Ranveer Singh, Arjun Kapoor, Deepika
Padukone and famous director Karan Johar and many others were accused in an
obscenity case.

15
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCEDAND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT
THE HON'BLESUPREME COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
 
 Dismiss the Writ Petition filed by Inflix and Inzon under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Indica alleging that OTT platforms cannot be regulated by the
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and so the Information
Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022
has been issued without jurisdiction.
 Dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the Association of Film Producers under Article
226 of the Constitution of Indica challenging the constitutional validity of the
impugned IT Rules, 2022.
 Permit the applicant Hind Swaraj to intervene in the Writ Petition in the public
interest, to make submissions at the time of arguments, and assist the Hon’ble Court
in the Writ Petition filed by the Association of Film Producers.
 Dismiss the Writ Petition filed by M/s. Johri Cine Films Limited and Inflix under Art.
226 of the Constitution of Indica seeking quashing of the notice issued by the Central
Board of Film Certification.
 Dismiss the petition filed by Blockbuster Films and Mr. Amit Dewan for the quashing
of FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

AND PASS ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY, AND GOOD CONSCIENCE, ALL OF
WHICH ARE RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
 

Sd /-
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

16
 

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

17