Komodo Dragon Respondent PDF

“KOMODO DRAGON”
15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
15THPROBONO ENVIRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
BEFORE THE HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF

MARIO
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ****/2021
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‟BLE SC OF MARIO

UNDER ART. 136 OF THE CONST. OF MARIO
IN THE MATTER OF:
PACMAN …………………PETITIONER
V.
STATE OF MATRIX……………………RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH
PACMAN …………………PETITIONER
V.
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL……………………RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF MARIO

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MARIO
MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
1
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 5
LEGISLATIONS .................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE OF CASES ................................................................................................................ 5
BOOKS .................................................................................................................................... 8
WEB RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 8
LEGAL DICTIONARIES ..................................................................................................... 8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................... 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 10
ISSUES RAISED .................................................................................................................. 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 12
ARGUMENT ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 13
ISSUE 1 WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON‟BLE COURT? .............................................. 13
ISSUE 2 WHETHER OR NOT THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

AMENDMENT ACT IS ULTRA VIRUS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
PROVISIONS UNDER PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 ARE ARBITRARY? ........................................................... 19
ISSUE 3 WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF NGT ON MERITS ARE PERVERSE

AND BAN IMPOSED ON PACMAN IS ARBITRARY OR NOT? .............................. 24
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ 28
2
ABBREVIATIONS
¶ PARAGRAPH
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
Amend. AMENDMENT
AP ANDHRA PRADESH
Art. ARTICLE
Bom BOMBAY
Cal CALCUTTA
Co. COMPANY
Cons. CONSTITUTION
DPSP DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF

STATE POLICY
FRs FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Govt. GOVERNMENT
HC HIGH COURT
Hon‟ble HONOURABLE
Kar. KARNATAKA
NGT NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PCAA PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
AMENDMENT
Sec. SECTION
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
u/s UNDER SECTION

UN UNITES NATIONS
Unconst.al UNCONSTITUTIONAL
3
V VERSUS
4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LEGISLATIONS
S.NO. PARTICULARS
1. Constitution of India 1950
2. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
3. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
TABLE OF CASES
1. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546
2. Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15
3. Amarchand Sobhachand v. CIT, AIR 1971 SC 720
4. Arunalchalam v. Sethuratnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284
5. Associated Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA),

682-683
6. Asst. Controller, Central Excise v. N T Co., AIR 1972 SC 2563
7. Bajaj Auto Limited V. TVS Motor Company Limited, (2008) ILLJ 726 Mad.
8. Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan, AIR 1959
SC 149
9. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh Additional Commissioner of
Customs, AIR 1964 SC 1451.
10. Case of Bellandur lake, Original Application No. 222 of 2014
11. Chief Administrator cum Jt. Secretary, Government of India v. D. C. Dass, AIR 1999
SC 186
5
12. CIT v. Orissa Corp Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 1849
13. City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143
14. Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78.
15. Common Cause Vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 Delhi 93
16. Council of Civil Service Unions. v. Minister for the Civil Services,, (1984) 3 All ER
935, 951
17. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt,(1989) 4 SCC 635
18. DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414.
19. De Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Land and

Housing, (1999) 1 A.C. 69, 80.
20. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, AIR 1955 SC 65
21. Forward Foundation Vs State of Karnataka, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14966 OF 2017
22. Gurbakhsh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 320.
23. Jalan Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1967 SC 691
24. Kanhaiya Lal SethiaVs. UOI, (1997) 6 SCC 573.
25. KasturiLal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992,
26. Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359
27. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC).
28. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618.
29. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
30. Mathai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358
31. Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492.
32. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
33. Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253
34. N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196.
35. Naga People‟s Movement v. Union of India,(1998) 2 SCC 109
36. Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622

6
37. Naraindas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1232.
38. Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 2 SCC 666.
39. Om kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689, 3702.
40. Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan, , (1985) 4 SCC 404
41. P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 16 April, 2002
42. PanchananMisra v. Digambar Mishra, AIR 2005 SC 1299
43. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72
44. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
45. R K Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
46. Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.
47. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740.
48. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma devi, AIR 2006 SC 1806

49. Shailesh Singh Vs State of UP and Ors, Original Application No. 341 of 2017
50. Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322
51. Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323
52. Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785.
53. State of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277
54. State of Kerala and Ors.v. MarAppraemKuri Company Ltd. and Anr., AIR 2012 SC
2375, ¶1
55. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170.
56. State of Madras v. ChampakamDorarirajan, AIR 1951 SC 228.
57. Taherkhatoon v. Sala,binMohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104
58. Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573
59. Union of India v. Rajeshwari & Co. ,AIR 1986 SC 1748
60. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467.
61. Zimmerman v. Wels Market Inc, PICS Case No. 11-0932
7
BOOKS
1. Constitution of India by JN.Pandey (52ndEdition, Central LawAgency).
2. D. D. Basu Commentary on The Constitution of India, (8 thed., Lexis

Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur,2008.
3. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (4thed., Universal Law Publishing,

NewDelhi).
WEB RESOURCES
Serial No Title Web Address
1 All India library www.allindialibrary.co.in/
2 Calcutta High Court www.calcuttahighcourt.nic.in/
3 Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.co.in/
4 Live Law www.livelaw.in/
5 Manupatra www.manupatra.co.in/
6 SCC Online www.scconline.in/
7 The Wire www.thewire.in/
LEGAL DICTIONARIES
Serial No Title
1 Black's Law Dictionary
2 Dictionary of Law - Oxford Reference
3 Merriam-Webster's Law Dictionary: Legal Terms in Plain English
8
15thPRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent humbly submits before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Mario, the
memorandum for the respondent in an appeal filed by petitioner under Art. 136 of the
Constitution of Mario, 1950. However, the Respondent seeks permission of this Hon‟ble
Court to contend the maintainability of this Special Leave Petition.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On 1st April 2021 the Union Govt. of Mario notified Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Amendment Act, 2021 and consequent amendments were made to the slaughter house rules.
2. On 2nd April 2021 a press release was issued by the govt. where it was made
mandatory that all the equipments for stunning of animals were to be purchased from Donkey
Kong Inc. at a price of 25 Lakhs each. On the very same day a PIL was filed by Mr. Yoshi
against Pacman Industries Ltd before the National Green Tribunal for the violation of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act and in support to his PIL he produced
various E-clippings and materials dated from April 1st 2020 to march 31st 2021.
3. On 12th April, 2021 The Hon‟ble NGT admitted the PIL filed by Yoshi and directed
to lock and seal of Pacman‟s farm and also suspend all the license of Pacman until further
notice.
4. Further on 25th May, 2021 a reply Statement was filed by Mr. Yoshi reiterating the
contents of the petition and that the acts of violations continue.
5. On 1st June, 2021 The Hon‟ble NGT directed complete shutdown of Pacman and
imposed a complete ban for a period of 10 years and a fine of 40 lakhs per month from
January 1st 2020 to June 1st 2021. With this being said, a complaint was filed against him and
he is currently under custody and the bail is pending before the Hon‟ble High Court.
6. Further on 2nd August, 2021 The Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court,
dismissed the petition filed by Pacman. Challenging the Order Pacman and its Managing
Director has preferred two SLPs against dismissal of their respective petitions before the
Hon‟ble SC of Mario.
7. And then finally on 5th September, 2021 the SC has admitted both the SLPs and has
posted the matters for final hearing on 10th October, 2021.
10
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THIS HON‟BLE COURT?
ISSUE 2
WHETHER OR NOT THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT IS

ULTRA VIRUS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PROVISIONS UNDER
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 ARE
ARBITRARY?
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ON MERITS

PERVERSE AND WITHDRAWAL OF LICENSE IS ARBITRARY OR NOT?
11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1 - WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON‟BLE COURT?
It is humbly submitted to this Hon‟ble Court that there is no necessity or compulsion for the
intervention of this Hon‟ble Court and invoking its powers under Article 136. The Appellants
have constituted as continuous cause of action and conduct even before the amendment that
constituted violation of the Acts. The Hon‟ble Matrix High Court expressed the same while
dismissing the matter.
ISSUE 2 - WHETHER OR NOT THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

PROVISIONS UNDER PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT
ACT, 2021 ARE ARBITRARY?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the Amendments passes the test of
principle of proportionality and also Wednesbury unreasonableness as it is a result of
objective administrative discretion. The executive function includes the determination as well
as carrying out of policy and therefore, has within its ambit initiation of legislation,
maintenance of order and promotion of social and economic welfare. The respondents
contend that the National Green Tribunal Amendment Act is not ultra vires to the
Constitution and the provisions under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act,
2021 is not arbitrary.
ISSUE 3 - WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ON

MERITS PERVERSE AND WITHDRAWAL OF LICENSE IS ARBITRARY OR
NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the hon‟ble court that the findings of National Green Tribunal
(herein referred as NGT) on merits are not perverse and also the ban imposed by the tribunal
is not arbitrary but in accordance to the public interest. The documents like newspaper
clippings, TV news report and the videos on the social media platform are acceptable as
evidence. The appellant has indulged itself in some act which is not in compliance with the
laws of Mario.
12
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
ISSUE 1 - WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON‟BLE COURT?
1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble SC of Mario that the Special Leave
Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when
substantial justice has been done by the HC of Matrix and no exceptional or special
circumstances exist for the case to be maintainable. Also, the present case involves no
substantial question of law and inference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to
be dismissed.
[1.1] NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AND

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE.
2. It is humbly contended by the respondent that the petitioner must show that
exceptional circumstances exist and that if there is no interference, it will result in substantial
and grave injustice and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the
decision appealed against, on merits. Only then the Court would exercise its overriding
powers under Art. 136.1 Special leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice
or when substantial justice is done, though the decision might suffer from some legal errors.2
3. In the case at hand, no exceptional and special circumstances have been shown by the
petitioner. The HC of Matrix in the present case has very judiciously decided and rejected the
WP.3
4. Further, it is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of the discretionary
jurisdiction vested with the SC under Art. 136. But, being an exceptional and overriding
power,4naturally it has to be exercised sparingly with caution only in special and
1
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 576 (16th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur 2011); See also,
The Constitution of India, 1950.
2
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635; See also, State of H. P. v.
Kailash Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277.
3
Moot Proposition, ¶ 12.
4
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 2 SCC 666.
13
extraordinary situations.5 The provision does not give right to the party to appeal to the SC
rather it confers a wide discretionary power on the SC to interfere in suitable cases.6
[1.2] IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LOCUS STANDI OF THE APPELLANTS, THE

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
5. Article 136 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but merely, a discretionary power to
the Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional
circumstances7 . In Pritam Singh v. The State8 , the Supreme Court held that the power under
Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. In concluding the
discussion on Article 136 in the same case, it was held the by the Supreme Court that
„Generally speaking, this court will not grant Special Leave, unless it is shown that
exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been
done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review
of the decision appealed against.‟
6. Although the power has been held to be plenary, limitless9, adjunctive, and
unassailable10, in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India11 and Aero Traders Private Limited v.
Ravider Kumar Suri12, it was held that the powers under Article 136 should be exercised
with caution and in accordance with law and set legal principles.
7. In the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma devi13 and Shivanand Gauri
shankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills14, the Supreme Court has criticized the
approach of settling private disputes under Article 136, stating that it would lead to confusing
results and lack of precedents. The Court observed that the Court is not bound to interfere
even if there is error of law in the impugned order15.
5
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, AIR 1955 SC 65; See also, Arunalchalam v. Sethuratnam,
AIR 1979 SC 1284; See also, H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, VOL. 1, 252 (4th ed., Universal Law
Publishing, Allahabad 2010).
6
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, AIR 1955 SC 65.
7
N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196.
8
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
9
A.V. PapayyaSastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546.
10
ZahiraHabibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467.
11
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618.
12
Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15.
13
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806.
14
ShivanandGaurishankarBaswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323.
15
Mathai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358.
14
8. It is humbly submitted to this Hon‟ble Court that there was no error in the judgment
of the Hon‟ble Matrix High Court. The counsel for the Respondents would also like to
humbly submit to this Hon‟ble Court that there is no pressing matter or question of law, for
which, the intervention of this Court would be necessary, i.e. there is no necessity to invoke
the jurisdiction conferred upon this Hon‟ble Court under Article 136.
[1.3] NON-INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF NGT.
9. If it appears prima facie that the order in question cannot be justified by any judicial
standard, the ends of justice and the need to maintain judicial discipline require the Supreme
Court to intervene16; the Supreme Court in this case pointed out the errors of the High Court,
but, did not interfere in the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court does not interfere
with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal if it has taken all the relevant factors into
consideration and there has been no misapplication of the principles of law17.
10. Normally, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not
interfere with the findings of the fact concurrently arrived at by the tribunal and the High
Court unless there is a clear error of law or unless some important piece of evidence has been
omitted from consideration.18
11. A question is not allowed to be raised for the first time in an appeal before the
Supreme Court19. It would refuse a question to be developed before it when it had neither
been urged before the High Court nor before the Appellate Tribunal20.
12. Though Article 136 is conceived in widest terms, the practice of the Supreme Court is
not to interfere on questions of fact except in exceptional cases when the finding is such that
it shocks the conscience of the court21.
13. The Supreme Court in the instant case need not interfere in the decision of the High
Court of Matrix. The High Court of Matrix, while dismissing the matter, observed.
14. That continuous cause of action and conduct even before date and amendment would
constitute violation of the Acts.22
16
Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573.
17
DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414.
18
Mehar Singh v. Shri MoniGurudwaraPrabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492.
19
Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622.
20
Asst. Controller, Central Excise v. N T Co., AIR 1972 SC 2563.
21
PanchananMisra v. Digambar Mishra, AIR 2005 SC 1299.
15
15. Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon‟ble Court to dismiss the Petition for Special
Leave and allow the matter to be first heard by NGT, subsequent to which, an appeal might
be preferred in this Hon‟ble Court.
[1.4] SCOPE OF POWERS UNDER ARTICLE 136
16. It is humbly submitted that if Special Leave is granted, the matter is registered as an
appeal and the Court does not take into cognizance all the points that may arise on appeal and
decide them on Merits23. The Supreme Court has also held that “it is not bound to go into
merits and even if we do so and declare the law or point out the error – still we may not
interfere if the justice of the case on facts does not require interference or if we feel that the
relief could be molded in a different fashion.”24
17. The Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala25 held that Article 136
consists of two distinct stages, the first stage where the matter is merely being decided if it is
to be accepted as an appeal or not; if the Supreme Court decides to adjudicate the matter, it
becomes an appeal, if otherwise, the matter was never an appeal.
18. Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon‟ble Court that by reason of lack of any
specific matter that requires the intervention of this Hon‟ble Court, the Court need not
entertain the matter; however, if this Hon‟ble Court does decide to accept the Petition for
Special Leave, it is humbly submitted that this Hon‟ble Court only adjudicate upon the order
of the Matrix High Court, i.e., not to hear this Appeal on merits, but merely, on the right
place of suing.
[1.5]GROUNDS ON WHICH APPEAL ARE GRANTED NOT SATISFIED
19. The Supreme Court has exercised its Jurisdiction under Article 136 under the
following circumstances-
(i) When the Tribunal ostensibly fails to exercise its patent jurisdiction.26
(ii) When there is an apparent error on the face of the decision.27
(iii)The tribunal has erroneously applied well-accepted principles of jurisprudence.28
22
Moot Proposition, Para 13.
23
Taherkhatoon v. Sala,binMohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104.
24
Id.
25
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC).
26
Chief Administrator cum Jt. Secretary, Government of India v. D. C. Dass, AIR 1999 SC 186.
27
Siemens Eng&Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785.
16
(iv) The tribunal acts against the principles of Natural Justice29, or has approached the
question in a manner likely to cause injustice30
20. In the instant case, the Matrix High Court has not committed any error in law. The
High Court has respected the subsisting contract between the parties and has observed that it
was not the right forum for adjudicating the matter. There is no breach in law or natural
justice; to say the decision of the Matrix High Court was wrong would be wrong because the
matter has not been adjudicated on merits whatsoever. Hence, it is humbly submitted to this
Hon‟ble Court that no grounds can be made out for accepting this petition for Special Leave.
[1.6]INFERENCE FROM A PURE QUESTION OF FACT IS IN ITSELF A FACT
21. It is contended by the Respondent that the appeal doesn‟t involve any substantial
question of law rather it involves pure question of fact and hence, is not maintainable.
Questions of fact cannot be permitted to be raised unless there is material evidence which
has been ignored by the HC or the finding reached by the court is perverse.31
22. In Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another32, it was held that a
petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons The
question raised by the petitioner for consideration by this Court being not fit for
consideration or deserving being dealt with by the Apex Court; it is humbly submitted that
there is no ground for invoking this Hon‟ble Court‟s jurisdiction under Article 136.
23. Generally, on finding of fact, no interference should be made. Even in cases where
conclusions are reached without proper discussion, yet if it involves finding on fact, no
interference of SC is called for.33 Further, if the conclusion is based on some evidence on
which subsequently a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law is raised.34
[1.7] THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

AVAILABLE TO HIM
24. The doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies guides the practice and procedure
of the SC in the exercise of its power conferred under Art. 136. As per the principle, all the
28
Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78.
29
City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143.
30
Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253.
31
Union of India v. Rajeshwari& Co., AIR 1986 SC 1748; See also, Gurbakhsh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR
1955 SC 320.
32
Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359.
33
AmarchandSobhachand v. CIT, AIR 1971 SC 720.
34
CIT v. Orissa Corp Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 1849.
17
statutory remedies would have to be exhausted before approaching the SC under its
special jurisdiction, unless special circumstances can be shown to convince the court that it
must allow the appeal.35 In the instant matter, the petitioner‟s WP filed in the HC of Matrix
was rejected, so he approached this Hon‟ble Court through a SLP 36 without resorting to the
appeal to the court under Art. 32 which were available to him as an alternative forum and as
his Fundamental Right and no special circumstances existed to forego the statutory process
of appeal.
25. The petitioner also had an option to resort to the jurisdiction of HC by appeal to
the Court‟s higher bench or application for revision. The respondents humbly submit that
keeping in view the precedents laid down by the Apex Court,37 the petitioner‟s sheer failure
to exhaust the available alternative remedies renders the current SLP non-maintainable.
35
British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh Additional Commissioner of Customs, AIR 1964 SC
1451.
36
Supra note 3.
37
OnkarlalNandlal v. State of Rajasthan, (1985) 4 SCC 404.
18
ISSUE 2 - WHETHER OR NOT THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

PROVISIONS UNDER PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT
ACT, 2021 ARE ARBITRARY?
26. It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the Amendments passes the test
of principle of proportionality and also Wednesbury unreasonableness as it is a result of
objective administrative discretion.
[2.1] THE AMENDMENTS PASSES THE TEST OF PRINCIPLE OF

PROPORTIONALITY
27. Administrative action in India allegedly affecting fundamental freedoms has always
been tested on the anvil of proportionality. 38 Proportionality broadly requires that
government action must be no more intrusive than is necessary to meet an important
public purpose.39 A decision is proportionate if (a) the executive objective is sufficiently
important to justify limiting a fundamental right, (b) the measures designed to meet the
executive objective are rationally connected to it and (c) the means used to impair the rights
are no more than necessary to accomplish the objective.40
28. According to a Report published by FAO in 2016, animal agriculture is responsible

for 18% of the global anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. The Union Government of Mario,
as a first step to mitigate anthropogenic climate impact arising out of animal agriculture and
to reduce the carbon footprints in line with the Paris Convention and by exercising powers
under Section 34 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 read with Section 3 of the Mario
Environment Protection Act, 1986.41These Amendments are passed to control the
greenhouses gases. The Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court, vide Order dated
02.08.2021 dismissed the petition filed by Pacman.42Therefore, the conditions of
legitimacy, suitability, necessity and fair balance43 have been met in the instant case, as the
38
Om kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689, 3702.
39
John Adler, General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law, 385 (4th ed., Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke, United Kingdom, 2002).
40
De Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Land and Housing, (1999) 1 A.C. 69,
80.
41
Moot Preposion, ¶ 6.
42
Moot Preposion, ¶ 14.
43
R v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Federation Europeenne de la SanteAnimale
(FEDESA), (1991) 1 C.M.L.R. 507; See also,Julian Rivers, Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review,
65(1) Cambridge Law Journal 174, 181 (2006).
19
Amendments did only what was required to make absolutely certain that the measures taken
to provide benefits to citizens were rationally connected to the policy.
[2.2]. THE AMENDMENTS PASSES THE TEST OF WEDNESBURY

UNREASONABLENESS
29. When an administrative action is questioned as arbitrary, the principle of Wednesbury

Unreasonableness comes into operation.44 It is a principle that applies to a decision which is
so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person
who applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.45 It, therefore,
means that administrative discretion should be exercised reasonably and matters irrelevant
to the subject must be excluded from consideration.46
30. In the instant case, the State had brought in the Amendments only to ensure that
citizens enjoy manifold benefits. There was no overt or covert administrative overreach and
the government was objective in its approach. As a component of the Federal Structure of
the Constitution of Mario, legislative powers have been divided between the Parliament and
State Legislatures.i The competing legislatures may not infringe upon each other‟s
legislative domain;47 though Parliament is legislatively supreme to the State Legislatures. 48
The constitutional virus of National Green Tribunal Amendment Act, 2021 was challenged
on the grounds of legislative competence.49 It is submitted that the amendment is not ultra
virus of the Constitution and the National Green Tribunal Amendment Act, 2021 lies
outside the legislative domain of the State Legislatures and Residuary Powers with respect
to legislative competence is vested with the Parliament.
[2.2.1] THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT,

2021 WAS NOT ARBITRARY
31. „Arbitrarily‟ means in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or

at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in nature of things, no
rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on will
44
Supra note 41.
45
Council of Civil Service Unions. v. Minister for the Civil Services, (1984) 3 All ER 935, 951.
46
Associated Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA), 682-683.
47
State of Kerala and Ors.v. MarAppraemKuri Company Ltd. and Anr., AIR 2012 SC 2375, ¶12.
48
GRANVILLE AUSTIN, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION – CORNERSTONE OF A NATION, 2nd ed. 1999, p. 195.
49
Moot Preposition, ¶ 10.
20
alone.50Since Maneka Gandhi’s case 51, the Courts have adopted the Wednesbury principle
that if the classification was an arbitrary act of the State under Art. 12 of the Constitution,
Art. 14 would strike it down.52 Art. 14 protects us from both legislative and executive
tyranny by way of discrimination. 53
32. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2021was a well thought-
out administrative action, detailed and planned in its implementation. There was no element
of whim or ambiguity which would make it fall within the purview of definition of
„arbitrarily‟, as propounded by this Hon‟ble Court. Therefore, in the instant case of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2021, Art. 14 would not spring into
action as its application has been limited by the legitimate and rational administrative
discretion exercised.
33. "The purpose of Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of

forests and wild life. The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and
to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country54. Therefore, not arbitrary and
unreasonable.
34. Assuming arguendo that administrative discretion was applied in a wrong manner, the
Courts do not go into the merits of the exercise of discretion by the State as the Court
cannot go into the question whether the opinion formed by the State is right or wrong. 55 The
Court does not substitute its own views for that of the concerned administrative authority. 56
[2.3] LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE
35. The executive function includes the determination as well as carrying out of policy
and therefore, has within its ambit initiation of legislation, maintenance of order and
promotion of social and economic welfare.57
36. The executive can take administrative action without a specific statutory sanction over
the entire area falling within legislative competence of the concerned legislature, if it does
50
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322.
51
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
52
KasturiLal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992, ¶ 14.
53
BashesharNath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan, AIR 1959 SC 149, ¶25.
54
(Article 48A).
55
Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72.
56
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740.
57
Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.
21
not infringe the legal right of any person. 58
37. National Green Tribunal Amendment Act, 2021 (hereinafter ‘NGTAA’) with effect
from 01.01.202159. So that the executive action affecting legal rights must have the
authority of law.60
38. Article 253 states that „Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any
part of the country for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other
country. In simple words this Article suggests that in the wake of Stockholm Conference of
1972, Parliament has the power to legislate on all matters linked to the preservation of
natural environment. Parliament‟s use of Article 253 to enact Air Act and Environment Act
confirms this view.
39. The doctrine of colorable legislation is relevant only in connection with the question
of legislative competence61. Colorable legislation seeks to convey that by enacting the
legislation in question the legislature is seeking to do indirectly what it cannot do directly 62.
Therefore, Pacman Industries were indulged in injection of oxytocin, reduction of lifespan
and slaughter of animals. Hence the legislation is fully competent to enact the legislation.
[2.3.1]JUDICIARY CANNOT ENCROACH INTO THE FUNCTION OF

EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATURE
40. That In the present case, the court need not issue any directions to the Union of Mario
as policy making and legislation is the sole function of the executive 63 and the legislature of
Mario. Therefore the Union of Mario shall legislate appropriate polices in the state of
Matrix to protect the rights of citizens of Matrix, and the apex court should refrain from
issuing any directions for notifying of any law 64. Hence, in the present situation the Apex
Court should not encroach into the prerogative of the legislature and executive mainly
issuing directives for identifying and deporting the illegal immigrants. Constitutional Bench
in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka it was stated, that Courts can
declare the law, they can interpret the law, they can remove obvious lacunae and fill the
58
Naraindas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1232.
59
Supra note 41.
60
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170.
61
Jalan Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1967 SC 691.
62
Naga People‟s Movement v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 109.
63
Kanhaiya LalSethiaVs. UOI (1997) 6 SCC 573.
64
Common Cause Vs. Union of India AIR 2001 Delhi 93.
22
gaps but they cannot entrench upon the field of legislation properly meant for the
legislature65.
[2.4]CONFLICT BETWEEN FRS AND DPSP
41. Though, DPSP are important in realizing the goals of the Cons., the same should not
override the FRs guaranteed to the people66.Art. 37 of the Cons. of India provides that
though directive principles are fundamental in governance of the country, they are
expressly made non justifiable. On the other hand, FRs are enforceable by the Courts, 67and
the courts are bound to declare as void any law that is inconsistent with the FRs. The
Directive Principles as to conform and run as a subsidiary to the chapter on FRs and in case
of any conflict between FRs and directive principles, FRs would prevail 68.
42. The Cons. is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Part III and Part IV 69, but
one should not be given absolute primacy over the other. The goals set out in the Part IV
have to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided for by Part III. To
destroy the guarantees given by Part III in order to achieve the goals of Part IV is plainly to
subvert the Cons.70Therefore, it is the responsibility of the govt. to come up with a scheme
which adequately preserves the FRs of the people.
43. In the light of above submissions it is contented that NGT amendment act and PCAA,
2021 does not violate any fundamental rights enshrined in part III of the Const. of Mario.
65
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka 16 April, 2002.
66
R K Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 .
67
Art. 32, The Cons. of India, 1950.. 114 Jean Dreze, Aadhar Coup, The Hindu March 15, 2016 available at
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/jean-dreze-on-aadhaar-mass-surveillance-
datacollection/Art.8352912.ece (Last Visited on September 12, 2017).
68
State of Madras v. ChampakamDorarirajan, AIR 1951 SC 228.
69
Granville Austin, Cornerstone of a Nation (Indian Cons.) 75 Oxford India (1999).
70
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
23
ISSUE 3 - WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF NGT ON MERITS ARE PERVERSE AND

BAN IMPOSED ON PACMAN IS ARBITRARY OR NOT?
44. It is humbly submitted before the hon‟ble court that the findings of National Green
Tribunal (herein referred as NGT) on merits are not perverse and also the ban imposed by
the tribunal is not arbitrary but in accordance to the public interest.
[3.1] THE FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ON MERITS ARE

NOT PERVERSE.
45. It is humbly submitted before the hon‟ble court that the documents like newspaper
clippings, TV news report and the videos on the social media platform is acceptable as
evidence.
46. Notable case with respect to admissibility of social media posts in the court of law is
Zimmerman v. Wels Market Inc71, where it was recognized that there was content that was
privately protected content, which stands relevant to the case based on the public
information shown on the plaintiff‟s Facebook page. The Facebook page of the plaintiff
showed that his interests included „riding‟ and „bike stunts‟ and also displayed recent
pictures of the plaintiff with a black eye and his motorcycle after an accident. The Court
then ruled in favor of the defendants and gave them the permit to discovery and they gained
access to the non-public segments of the Facebook page of the plaintiff along with his
MySpace account. This was done in order to refute the charges of permanent injury to the
health and wellness of the Plaintiff.
47. In the case of Bajaj Auto Limited V. TVS Motor Company Limited72, in the light of
the factual aspect coupled with the legal position the objections were raised by the
applicant/defendant with regard to the marking of photocopies of certain documents and
clippings of newspapers and press reports. The court held that the receipt of photocopies of
certain documents as well as clippings of newspapers and press reports can be taken up as
consideration by this Court before directing the learned Commissioner to proceed further
with the recording of evidence.
71
Zimmerman v. Wels Market Inc PICS Case No. 11-0932.
72
Bajaj Auto Limited V. TVS Motor Company Limited (2008) ILLJ 726 Mad.
24
48. In the case of Forward Foundation Vs State of Karnataka73, the Hindu newspaper
report on 3rd of June, 2013 which has widely raised the issue of environmental degradation
in the catchment area of Bellandur Lake was taken into the consideration in the
proceedings.
49. The council on behalf of respondent contends that Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence
explains the evidentiary value that social media posts carry. Certainly, there are advantages
and good policy reasons for accessing social media evidence used in criminal proceedings.
For example, photos can be uploaded quickly and shared within seconds; this alerts
authorities regarding crimes in progress or even those already commissioned. More often, a
lawyer investigating a case needs to access the public portions of an individual‟s social
media account and try to recognize if any of their social media profiles may have evidence
relevant to a case. The evidence which is freely accessible by public without the restriction
can be used as evidence as it doesn‟t breach the right to privacy. Accessing the information
in a permissible manner is the key when it comes to the admissibility of social media
evidence.
[3.2]THE BAN IMPOSED ON PACMAN INDUSTRIES IS NOT ARBITRARY.
50. The respondent contends that the appellant has indulged itself in some act which is
not in compliance with the laws of Mario.
51. The respondent humbly contends that the ban imposed by NGT is rightfully imposed
as the animals, be it dairy farm animals or slaughter house animals plays an important role
in an environment. The animal agriculture is directly responsible for 18% of global
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. So, to combat the situation the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 2021 (herein referred as PCAA) was notified by the Union Government of
Mario.
52. But the appellant herein has violated the provisions of the Act. The animals were
injected with Oxytocin which is used for milk letdown and causes adverse health and
behavioral consequences. This act is inconsistent with S. 11D (1) which says that „No
animal shall be administered with any kind of drugs or medicines for commercial gains.
„The anthropogenic activities like indiscriminate disposal of industrial effluents and sewage
73
Forward Foundation Vs State of Karnataka CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14966 OF 2017.
25
wastes, dumping have altered the physical chemical as well as biological integrity of the
ecosystem.
53. The council on behalf of respondent humbly submits that the appellant has made
disposal of solid and non-biodegradable waste, in violation of PCAA. Such act may lead to
various types of disease which may transmit from animals to human beings and costing
them their lives. Diseases that can be transmitted between animals and humans, such as bird
flu and tuberculosis, can wreak havoc on the health of both organisms.
54. The study, detailed in the report "Mapping of Poverty and Likely Zoonoses Hotspots,"
shows the vast majority of these illnesses and deaths occur in low- and middle-income
countries. For instance, Africa's Ethiopia, Nigeria and Tanzania, along with India, had the
highest rates of associated illness and death. Now researchers have found 13 so-called
zoonoses are responsible for 2.2 million human deaths every year 74.
55. It is pertinent to note that the ban imposed on the Pacman Industries Ltd. is temporary
in nature for 10 years of time period so as to provide an opportunity to make amendments
in the conduct of their dairy and slaughtering houses with accordance to the law. According
to the S. 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 2021 [Annexure A] it is open to
the court to impose a complete ban for any reasonable time period.
56. In the case of Bellandur Lake75, on April 19, 2017, the National Green Tribunal
(NGT) ordered a complete shutdown of all industrial units in close proximity to
Bengaluru's Bellandur Lake immediately as the lake caught fire for the second time due to
the nearby industries disposing the waste into the lake. This is in alignment with the
intention of putting a ban on the dumping of any type of solid municipal waste into the
lake. Contending that economic development cannot take place at the cost of public health,
the NGT has directed the Central Pollution Control Board to shut down polluting industries
in "critically polluted" and "severely polluted" areas. Also, pointing out the provisions
under Section 33 A of the Water Act and Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act,
NGT told State Pollution Control Board of Karnataka that it has the power to inspect, shut
down and seal the polluting units in the interest of general public and environmental
74
Grace, D.; Mutua, F.; Ochungo, P.; Kruska, R.; Jones, K.; Brierley, L.; Lapar, L.; Said, M.; Herrero, M.; Pham
DucPhuc; Nguyen BichThao; Akuku, I.; Ogutu, F. Mapping of poverty and likely zoonoses hotspots. ILRI,
Kenya (2012) 119 pp.
75
The case of Bellandur Lake Original Application No. 222 of 2014.
26
preservation. Thus, we can say that the decision of imposing ban and shutting down of the
appellant‟s industry is not arbitrary.
57. "Many dairy farms and gaushala‟s discharge the cattle dung along with wastewater
into the drains, leading to clogging, which ultimately reach to rivers and create water
pollution. Also, these clogged drains become breeding ground for mosquitoes creating
health hazards and odor nuisance," the tribunal noted.
58. In the case of Shailesh Singh Vs State of UP and Ors.76, the order was over a case
filed against the alleged illegal operation of slaughter houses in Khurja. The slaughter
houses reportedly discharged effluents into the groundwater, drains, and rivers. A huge
quantity of municipal solid waste was found dumped on the bank of the Mundakhera drain
at different locations. The National Green Tribunal imposed a ban on all illegal slaughter
houses in Uttar Pradesh and directed state authorities to ensure there is proper regulation of
meat shops. It also directed the concerned public authorities to ensure that there is a proper
regulation of meat shops and appropriate measures are taken for hygiene and healthcare.
Here in this case as well the Pacman Industries has been carrying out different activities
which are inconsistent with the law. The appellant is indulged in the slaughtering of the
milch animals which is strictly prohibited according to S. 11C (1)(a) of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act,2021.
59. Thus, in the light of the above submissions it can be stated that the decision of
imposing ban and shutting down of the appellant‟s industry is not arbitrary & the findings
of the NGT on merits are not perverse.
76
Shailesh Singh Vs State of UP and Ors, Original Application No. 341 of 2017
27
PRAYER
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE RESPONDENT MOST HUMBLY AND
RESPECTFULLY PRAY AND REQUEST THE HON‟BLE COURT:
1. TO DECLARE THAT THE PRESENT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN

THIS HON‟BLE COURT
2. TO DECLARE THAT THE NGT AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 IS NOT

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
3. TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE PROVISONS OF PCAA IS NOT

ARBITRARY IN NATURE.
4. TO DECLARE THAT THE FINDINGS OF NATIONAL GREEN

TRIBUNAL ON MERITS PERVERSE ARE ALSO NOT ARBITRARY IN
NATURE.
5. TO DISMISS THE PRESENT PETITION.
AND/OR
GRANTANYOTHERRELIEFWHICHTHEHON‟BLECOURTMAYDEEM FIT
IN THE EYES OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOODCONSCIENCE.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND FOR SUCH ACT

OF KINDNESS THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE DUTY BOUND AS EVER
PRAY.
(COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT)
28

Komodo Dragon Respondent PDF

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

Komodo Dragon Respondent PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“KOMODO DRAGON”

15th PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

15THPROBONO ENVIRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

BEFORE THE HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ****/2021

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‟BLE SC OF MARIO

IN THE MATTER OF:

ON SUBMISSION TO HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF MARIO

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 5

TABLE OF CASES ................................................................................................................ 5

WEB RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 8

LEGAL DICTIONARIES ..................................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................... 9

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 10

ISSUES RAISED .................................................................................................................. 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 12

ARGUMENT ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 13

ISSUE 1 WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS

ISSUE 2 WHETHER OR NOT THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

ISSUE 3 WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF NGT ON MERITS ARE PERVERSE

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

DPSP DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF

FRs FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

u/s UNDER SECTION

1. Constitution of India 1950

2. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

3. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

1. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546

2. Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15

3. Amarchand Sobhachand v. CIT, AIR 1971 SC 720

4. Arunalchalam v. Sethuratnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284

5. Associated Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA),

6. Asst. Controller, Central Excise v. N T Co., AIR 1972 SC 2563

10. Case of Bellandur lake, Original Application No. 222 of 2014

12. CIT v. Orissa Corp Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 1849

13. City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143

15. Common Cause Vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 Delhi 93

17. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt,(1989) 4 SCC 635

18. DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414.

19. De Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Land and

22. Gurbakhsh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 320.

24. Kanhaiya Lal SethiaVs. UOI, (1997) 6 SCC 573.

25. KasturiLal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992,

27. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC).

28. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618.

29. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

30. Mathai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358

34. N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196.

35. Naga People‟s Movement v. Union of India,(1998) 2 SCC 109

36. Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622

37. Naraindas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1232.

38. Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 2 SCC 666.

39. Om kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689, 3702.

40. Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan, , (1985) 4 SCC 404

41. P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 16 April, 2002

42. PanchananMisra v. Digambar Mishra, AIR 2005 SC 1299

43. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72

44. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169

45. R K Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538

46. Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.

47. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740.