BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

Civil Writ No.-_____/2016

Clubbed with

Writ No.-_____/2016

MODERN SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTALSTUDIES Petitioner

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI Respondent

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Index of Abbreviations

2. Index of Authorities

3. Statement of Jurisdiction

4. Statement of Facts

5. Statement of Issues

6. Summary of Arguments

7. Arguments Advanced

8. Prayer
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATION

AIR - All India Reporter

COI- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
& - And
Anr. - Another
Art.- Article Del. Delhi
DGT - Delhi Green Tribunal
ed.- Edition
ER - English Reporter
HC - High Court
Hon’ble – Honourable
Kar. - Karnataka
L.J - Law Journal
N.C.T, - National Capital Territory
No.- Number
Ors. - Others
p. - Page Number
PIL- Public Interest Litigation
r/w. - Read With
SC - Supreme Court
SCC - Supreme Court Cases
SCR - Supreme Court Reporter
U. P. – Uttar Pradesh
V. - Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
• Trilokchand Motichand v H. B. Munshi AIR 1968 SC 2956
• U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and ors. v Rajya Seta Nigam S. Karam Chari Sangh
AIR 2004 SC 1098
• Obayya Pujary v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board AIR 1999 Kar. 157
• Chintaman Roa v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1951 AIR 118
• Francis Corallie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi 1981 AIR 746
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel for the respondent, Union Territory of India, hereby humbly submit to this hon’ble
court’s jurisdiction under article 32 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent would like to humbly submit that this Public Interest Litigation is not
maintainable and seeks permission of this Hon’ble Court for the dismissal of the same.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That Delhi, the sixth-most populated metropolis in the world, is one of the most heavily
polluted cities in India, having for instance one of the country's highest volumes of particulate
matter pollution.

2. That on April 8, 2015, the ‘Death by Breath’ series, an ongoing investigation on the quality
of air in Delhi, the Delhi Green Tribunal (DGT) issued a ban on all diesel buses and trucks
more than 5 years old from plying in the National Capital Region.

3. That Delhi government came up with a unique order on the next day whereby the vehicles
with odd and even registration numbers will be allowed on alternate days from January 01,
2016.

4. That it also passed an order to requisition school buses to ply as commercial, public buses
after school had ended in order to encourage the commuters of Delhi to take public transport
rather than their private vehicles.

5. That the Modern School of Environmental Studies, Delhi was plying school buses running
on diesel purchased in 2005 for school purposes, and coincidently, all the buses were of the
odd number series.

6. That the petitioner filled a petition on the as follows:

• That taking the schools' own buses is in violation of Education Act which stipulates
that school's assets cannot be put to commercial use. The school buses are the assets of
the schools and allowing them for use as commercial vehicles shall amount to violation
of basic principles and provisions of DSEAR (Delhi School Education Act and Rules)
1973.
• That the insurance of school buses stipulates use of buses for students only. The school
buses are not permitted to be used for general public nor should the school buses be
used for hire.
• That the road tax exemption also stipulates the buses shall not be used for any
commercial purposes.
• That Motor Vehicles Act prescribed a fitness test, and not the vehicle ‘age, to ascertain
whether it should be allowed on road or not.
7. That a group of people filed a PIL in the supreme court of India stating that the Odd- Even
scheme is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens including article 14, 19 and 21 of
the Indian constitution.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue-I

Whether the petition filed by petitioner is maintainable in the hon’ble Supreme Court
of India?

Issues -II

Is the odd even scheme implemented by the Government of NCT Delhi violative of
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Issue-I
Whether the petition filed by petitioner is maintainable in the hon’ble Supreme Court
of India?

It is most humbly submitted that the present public interest litigation (PIL) is not maintainable
under Art.32 of the Constitution on the grounds that the petitioner did not exhaust other
remedies available to them before approaching the supreme court of India while the
Government Instrumentalities are just implementing measures to implement the Directive
Principles of State Policy.

Issues -II

Whether the odd even scheme implemented by the Government of NCT Delhi violative
of Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India?

It is most humbly submitted to the court that the odd-even scheme implemented by Govt. of
NCT Delhi is not violative of the fundamental rights as the government can impose reasonable
restrictions on the fundamental rights provided under the constitution for better imposition of
justice and equity in the state.
 ARGUMENT ADVANVCED
Argument –I

Whether this appeal petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

The respondent most humbly submits that then the public interest litigation filed by the Modern
School of Environmental Studies (hereinafter called as ‘respondent’) is not maintainable. A
public interest litigation is ordinarily entertained by the supreme court when other rights
available are exhausted and there is no remedy left for the person to seek. The petition is
therefore not maintainable.

In the case of Trilokchand Motichand v H. B. Munshi and U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.
and ors. v Rajya Seta Nigam S. Karam Chari Sangh, the court held that such petition can only
be filed if other remedies available regarding the issues are approached and completely
exhausted. Such alternative remedies such as normal forums following the hierarchy or courts
or a suitable forum provided in a statutory provision or a suitable forum existing otherwise like
the National Green Tribunal.

The respondent also submits that the public interest litigation is not maintainable because
according to the 42nd amendment of the constitution of India if 1976 has introduced article 48A
which talks about protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and
wildlife and article 51A (g) which makes it a fundamental duty of the citizens to protect and
safeguard the environment, which together forms the part of Directive Principles of state policy
and fundamental duties respectively.

The government is authorised to take effective measures to protect and safeguard the
environment and the schemes therefore introduced are only for the benefit of the people of
Delhi.

The ban imposed by the Delhi Green Tribunal and the implementation of the odd-even scheme
is for the betterment of the environment of National Capital Territoryand to cause less pollution
as held in the case of Obayya Pujary v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board the
government and its instrumentalities are to protect and safeguard the environment and take
proper and effective measures, therefore such schemes were introduced.
 Argument – II

Whether the odd even scheme implemented by the Government of NCT

Delhi violative of Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India?

It is humbly submitted to the court that the odd even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT
Delhi is not violative of the Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India.

The PIL filed in the court states that the odd even scheme is violative of the fundamental rights
given under article 14,19 and 21, however, in a social welfare state, the government embarks
upon programmes which provides benefits to the society and can impose reasonable restrictions
to establish justice and equity as held in Chintaman Roa v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The odd even scheme is no violation to equality or freedom or personal liberty as the scheme’s
true intentions is to protect and safeguard the environment as provided under article 48A of the
constitution.

In the case of Francis Corallie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and ors.,
the court held that personal liberty can be restricted on grounds of the reasonable restrictions
by the procedure established under law for betterment of all, the scheme has been introduced
under the Directive Principles of State Policy for the protection of the environment.

The respondent humble submits that hence, the implementation of the odd even scheme in the
state of N.C.T. of Delhi by the Delhi government if not violative of the fundamental rights
provided under the constitution.