Petioner Draft

Team code : CN-22-O
MOOT COURT SOCIETY

SCHOOL OF LAW
CHRIST ( DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), DELHI-NCR
2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF NEW BAILEY
Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. ___/__
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. __/__
UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MCKERNISTAN
RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY PVT . LTD …Petitioner

v.
GOVERNMENT OF N.B.C.T & ORS. …Respondent
Most Respectfully Submitted to the Hon’ble Judges of the Division Bench

of the High Court
COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ‘PETITIONER’

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONER
Table of Contents
1
CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY),DELHI-NCR, 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
Index of Authorities
Supreme Court Cases
Statutes
High Court cases
Rules
Other country case law
Constitutional Provisions
Books and commentaries
Academic Papers
2
Statement of Jurisdiction
The Counsel for the Petitioners, Rumpole of the Bailey Pvt. Ltd., hereby humbly submit to
this Hon’ble Court’s Jurisdiction under Article 2261 and Article 2272 of the Constitution of
Mckernistan.
Statement of Facts
1
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any
Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the
cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other
manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim
order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of
such order and
furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of
such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which
it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where
the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the
High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that
period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.
2
Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may —
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts;
and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such
courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be
inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of
the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court
or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
3
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarised as follows:
Rumpole of the Bailey (RotB)
1. Rumpole of the Bailey Pvt. Ltd. [RotB] is a private company incorporated under the laws
of Mckernistan which has been in business for more than 50 years. Mr. Horace Rumpole
is the Managing Director of RotB Pvt. Ltd. and owns 79% of its shareholding. It is a bulk
trader as well as manufacturer of an array of agro-chemical goods. It has been widely
recognized and has been awarded the Agro-Trade Enterprise of the Year 2020. In the F.Y.
2018-2019, it had a turnover of INR 400 Crores with a profit of INR 25 Crores. RotB is
able to fulfil the needs of high intensity products because of its relations with major
manufacturers and suppliers globally. RotB has been a reliable participant in the
government’s tender process with a major chunk of its supplies being made to the
Government of N.B.C.T. for use as raw materials in the making of confectionaries,
pharmaceuticals, or consumables, including in the Kush-Agro Food Security Programme
(which assisted the economy of Mckernistan as in addition to promoting large scale
industrial set-ups, it also promoted ancillary facilities such as growth of a modern banking
and financial industry) for 20 years now. These tenders were handled through the DPP
which was the nodal agency for procuring all products required by varying organs of the
government.
The Banning Order
2. In March 2021, samples from certain products tested from the statutorily accredited
laboratory was found to be unsuitable for the use in production. Batches of consumables
had already been made through some of these products and had been distributed and there
were complaints of serious health ailments in the population. Upon examination of the
issue, the DPP notified a banning order on 28 th April, 2021 to M/s Rumpole of the Bailey
Pvt. Ltd., and its Managing Director, Mr. Horace Rumpole for a period of 2 years from
participating in tenders issued by the Government of N.B.C.T for supply of any products
w.e.f 1/04/2021.
The Application to the Procurement Tribunal
3. On 1st May,2021, an application was made to the Procurement Tribunal challenging this
order by RotB and Horace Rumpole on the grounds that it violates the principles of
Natural Justice and Proportionality. In the F.Y.2020- F.Y.2021 RotB participated in a
total of 267 tenders and found faults in only 3 tenders.
4
4. No show-cause notice was provided and there was no opportunity for fair hearing to
challenge the samples taken for conduct of the tests by the Government Testing Lab. DPP
did not take into consideration the fact that the applicant was a manufacturer of 2 of the
impugned products and the manufacturers of the rest of the impugned products should be
held liable and not the applicant.
The Procurement Tribunal
5. The Procurement Tribunal was constituted in 1985 by the State Legislature of N.B.C.T.
to deal with cases relating to procurement of goods and services by. In July 2019, due to a
corruption allegation, the members of the Procurement Tribunal resigned en masse. The
Search-cum-Selection Committee under the Tribunals Appointment) Act 2020 so created
had in May 2020 nominated names and sent the same to the Government of N.B.C.T.
However, till date no appointments have been made with the effect that all seats in the
Tribunal remain vacant and no matter is therefore heard by the tribunal. The Government
of N.B.C.T. has faced immense criticism in the media for not filling the vacant seats
government agencies, which were earlier dealt with by the High Courts.
The Writ Petition
6. In face of intractable losses due to failure to participate in tenders during the pendency of
its application before the Procurement Tribunal, the Counsels on behalf of the Petitioners,
on 1st October, 2021, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of New Bailey, seeking
the court to issue a writ of Mandamus and Certiorari. On 12 th December 2021, the order
of the Single Judge Bench was passed, dismissing the petition. The Counsel on behalf of
the respondents challenged the maintainability of the writ on the grounds that the
petitioner cannot assert any rights under Article 19 of the Constitution which was
eventually not agreed by the Hon’ble Judge of the Single Bench. They contend that they
took a restrictive approach which is an effective and constitutionally permissible measure
with no lesser degree of restriction possible and even in the presence of contrary
evidence, there are no grounds to challenge the proportionality of the decision taken.
7. The Hon’ble Judge dismissed the case due the following grounds:
i. That he does not see how this Court can encroach upon the executive’s domain
and direct it to undertake what is effectively an executive decision and feels that it
is unconstitutional and illegal.
ii. That he cannot hear the matter on merits and thinks the banning order is necessary
and proportional.
5
iii. That there is an efficacious remedy lying before the Procurement Tribunal and
there were no exceptional circumstances pointed out.
iv. That this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ
v. That the petitioners can submit their application to the Procurement Tribunal
when it is constituted.
The Present Case
8. Aggrieved by the Single Judge bench order, the Counsels on behalf of RotB, filed a
Letters Patent Appeal and Cross appeals were also filed by the Counsels on behalf of the
Respondents.
Statement of Issues
The following questions are presented for adjudication in the instant matter
6
ISSUE 1
Is the present writ maintainable?
ISSUE 2
Does the High Court have the power to direct the State of N.B.C.T. to appoint members to
the Procurement Tribunal and in the alternative, can the High Court hear the matter?
ISSUE 3
Have constitutional rights of the Petitioner been violated through the Banning Order dated
28/04/2021?
7
Summary of Arguments
1. Is the present writ maintainable?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present writ is maintainable since
there has been a gross violation of fundamental rights as well as the violation of principles of
natural justice and proportionality.
2. Does the High Court have the power to direct the State of N.B.C.T. to appoint
members to the Procurement Tribunal and in the alternative, can the High Court hear
the matter?
It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has the discretionary power to grant relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution of Mckernistan despite the existence of an alternate
remedy.
It is also submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has the power to direct the State of N.B.C.T
to appoint members to the Procurement Tribunal as it has been reiterated in multiple cases.
3. Have constitutional rights of the Petitioner been violated through the Banning Order
dated 28/04/2021?
It is most humbly submitted that the constitutional rights of the petitioner have been violated
through the banning order dated 28/04/2021 as it is an arbitrary and disproportionate order
which violates the principles of natural justice.
8
Arguments Advanced
1. IS THE PRESENT WRIT MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present writ is maintainable since
there has been a gross violation of fundamental rights as well as the violation of principles of
natural justice and proportionality.
1.1 That the LPA can be filed

LPA would be maintainable if the writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227.3
In Whirlpool Corporation4 case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that
“Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of
the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High
Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective
and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its
jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to
operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has
been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has
been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings
are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.”
While exercising the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the constitution of India the High Court is
not bound by any strict rule of limitation. If substantial issues of public importance touching
upon the fairness of governmental action do arise the delayed approach to reach the court will
not stand in the way of the exercise of the jurisdiction by the court5
In Advani Oerlikon Ltd.6 case, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay stated that
“An appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is available against a judgment of a
Single Judge in a Petition which properly invokes the provisions of Article 226 of the
Constitution. Contrariwise, an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent does not
lie in a situation where the petition properly invokes jurisdiction only under Article
227 of the Constitution. Where a petition is truly relatable only to the provisions of
3
AIR 2006 SCW 6126
4
Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1
5
K.B. Ramachandra Raja Urs v. State of Karnataka, 2015 (13) SCALE 665
6
Advani Oerlikon Ltd. v Machindra Govind Makasare and Ors., AIR 2011 Bom 84
9
Article 227 of the Constitution and powers are exercised only under Article 227, an
appeal by the Petitioner would not be maintainable.”
Therefore, the Hon’ble Court has the discretionary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Mckernistan and the LPA can be filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
1.2 That the Principles of Natural Justice are violated
In the case of Mariamma Roy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“When violation of Natural Justice is alleged the writ petition cannot be dismissed
without the hearing of the issue even where an alternate remedy is available”
In the case Asit Kumar v. State of W.B.
”It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders should be passed against a
party without hearing him. This is the fundamental principle of natural justice and it
is a basic canon of jurisprudence.”7
In the case of Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari 8, the Apex Court held that
“When there is a violation of Principles of Natural Justice and considering the special
circumstances, the court can decide the matter instead of remanding back”
The Apex Court has, therefore, held that even if the order is passed by the administrative
authority and particularly when it entails adverse civil consequences the person against whom
such an order is passed should be given an opportunity to explain and should be heard. This
principle has been enunciated in subsequent judgments by the Apex Court. It is well settled
that even before passing the administrative order which may lead to adverse civil
consequences, party who is going to be affected should be heard before passing such order.9
1.3 That there is gross violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner.
In the case of Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India ,the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that :
“Two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution on playing reading give clear
indication that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction , order, or writes
7
Asit Kumar v State of W.B. (2009)2 SCC 703 (para 4); relies on A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602
8
AIR 2017 SC 330
9
Nestle India Limited vs. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India and Ors. (13.08.2015 - BOMHC) :
MANU/MH/1937/2015
10
for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action wholly or in part had
arisen withing the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction not
withstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the
person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said
territories.”
In the case on hand the petitioner’s rights under Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21
has been violated which is vested in the Part III of the Constitution of Mckernistan.
2. DOES THE HIGH COURT HAVE THE POWER TO DIRECT THE STATE OF
N.B.C.T TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE PROCUREMENT TRIBUNAL AND IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, CAN THE HIGH COURT HEAR THE MATTER?
It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has the discretionary power to grant relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution of Mckernistan despite the existence of an alternate
remedy.
2.1 That a writ of mandamus can be issued.
In the case of Comptroller and Auditor-General of India10, the Apex Court held that
“There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction
under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature
of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government
or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion
conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has
exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the
relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of
conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has
been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court
can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or
a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the
performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the
10
Comptroller and Auditor-general of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Ors. vs. K.S. Jagannathan and
Ors. (01.04.1986 - SC) : MANU/SC/0066/1986
11
Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice

resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give
directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given
had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.”
In Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (27.11.2020)11, which is similar
to the present case, it was held that
“The learned Amicus Curiae brought to our notice that there are several instances
where appointments are delayed even after the selections are completed by the
Search-cum-Selection Committee. The learned Attorney General also agreed that
there is an imminent need for appointments to be made in an expeditious manner, but
implored that no time be fixed for making appointments. The very reason for
constituting Tribunals is to supplement the functions of the High Courts and the other
Courts and to ensure that the consumer of justice gets speedy redressal to his
grievances. This would be defeated if the Tribunals do not function effectively. It has
been brought to our notice that there are a large number of unfilled vacancies
hampering the progress of the functioning of the Tribunals. The pendency of cases in
the Tribunals is increasing mainly due to the lack of personnel in the Tribunals which
is due to the delay in filling up the vacancies as and when they arise due to the
retirement of the members. There is imminent need for expediting the process of
selections and appointments to ensure speedy justice. We, therefore, direct that the
Government of India shall make the appointments to the Tribunals within three
months after the Search-cum-Selection Committee completes the selection and makes
its recommendations.”
2.2 That the principle of Natural Justice is violated
The principles of natural justice have been adopted by the judiciary to protect public
rights against the arbitrary decision by the administrative authorities. At all the stages of
the proceedings the main motive of the principles of natural justice is to prevent
miscarriage of justice. One must keep in mind that in order to held the decision of the
adjudicating authorities as valid principles of natural justice is equally important in
procedure.12
11
Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (27.11.2020 - SC) : MANU/SC/0903/2020
12
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1549-concept-of-natural-justice.html
12
Audi Alteram Partem is the rule of fair hearing. It is fundamental to fair procedure that
both sides should be heard. The right to a hearing is held to embrace the right to present
evidence.13 It is settled that adjudicating authorities should permit the parties to produce
necessary and relevant evidence. Refusal by the authority to do so may amount to a denial
of natural justice.14
The court ruled adjudicating authority must have given full opportunity to the affected
party to produce all the evidence in support of this case.15
a) No show cause notice :

No show cause notice was provided and in the absence of an opportunity for fair
hearing, the DPP’s banning order is violative of fundamental principles of natural
justice. The importance of a show cause notice has been reiterated by Supreme Court
in the case of Umanath Pandey v. State of UP [2009] 12 SCC 40-43 as under:
“Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It
should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the
purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the
absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed
becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice
of the case before any adverse order is passed against him.”
b) Non- appointment of tribunal members

Petitioners right to fair hearing is violated on the fact that Procurement Tribunal is not
functioning as no tribunal members have been appointed. The seats of the tribunal
have been vacant since July 2019. The Search-cum-Selection committee had
nominated names and sent the same to the Government of N.B.C.T. in May 2020. The
Government of N.B.C.T has faced immense criticism from the media for this.
This view is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in A.K. Kraipak and
Others v. Union of India and Others, MANU/SC/0427/1969 : [1970] 1 SCR 457,
wherein it has been held:
"The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in
recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules
namely (i) no one shall be a Judge in his own cause (nemo debet esse
13
Morgan v United States 304 US., 18 (1938)
14
Murarai Mohan v Secretary, Government of India, AIR 1985 SC 931
15
Malik Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1575
13
judex propria causa) and (ii) no decision shall be given against a party
without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very
soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial
enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or
unreasonably. But in the course of years many more
subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice."
2.3 The remedy not being efficacious
In Abdul Sammad v. Executive Committee of the Marigaon Mahkuma Parishad 16, the
Gauhati High Court held that it is well-known that the meaning of the term "efficacious" is
"able to produce the intended result".
Whether the alternative remedy is equally efficacious or adequate is a question of fact to be

decided in each case , the onus being on the applicant to show that it is not adequate17
In the present case, the tribunal having no members, renders it without jurisdiction. It has
been held in the case of The State of Rajasthan v The Mewar Textile Mills that
“When the tribunal is not properly constituted, it has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.”
And in the case of The Janata Motor Cooperative Society, it was held that
“where the defect is not as to qualification, but is due to all the members of the tribunals not
being present, the question will not be entertained unless objection was raised before the
Tribunal itself on this ground”
Where the alternate remedy is not adequate and where the remedy is illusory;
Where it is beyond the competence of the statutory authority to grant relief18 on the ground
urged in the petition under Art.226, or to decide the questions raised therein19
The existence of an alternative remedy is no grounds for refusing certiorari where

fundamental rights are affected. This was observed in the case of Shivaram v I.T.O. AIR 1964
SC 1095; Himachal v State of M.P (1954) SCR 1122 (1126)
16
MANU/GH/0005/1981 : AIR 1981 Gau. 15
17
Rashid v. I.T.I Commission AIR 1954 SC 207 (210)
18
Isha v T.R.O. AIR 1975 SC 2135
19
D.M.C. bank v Dulichand AIR 1969 SC 1320
14
The alternate remedy of appeal would not be a bar in exercising the writ jurisdiction of High
Court where the order passed by the statutory authority was arbitrary and in clear violation of
statute20
In appropriate cases, the writ court may relax this general rule. When a writ petition may be
entertained for adjudication on merit, even if the petitioner should have approached the
specific authority/Tribunal first21
2.4 The Exceptional Circumstances
There are seats vacant for a long period of time which is causing a delay in the
process of getting justice. The tribunal has been vacant long since the banning order
was issued against the Petitioner, and is still vacant. It has been 1 year and 9 months
since the recommendations were made and there are no solid reasons for the tardiness
of the Government. This is almost covering up the time of the banning period and a
right to fair trial was not available to the Petitioner which is a complete violation of
Fundamental Rights.
The continuing effect of banning order has resulted in RotB being unable to
participate in close to 90 tenders estimated at a total value of 260 crores. It should also
be noted that the Kush-Agro Food Security Programme initiated by the Government
of N.B.C.T provides food and nourishment to a significant chunk of the population for
which the RotB supplies raw materials in the making of confectionaries,
pharmaceuticals and consumables.
RotB was manufacturer of only 2 of the impugned products. RotB has participated in
267 tenders in the F.Y.2020 – F.Y. 2021.
In the case of Union of India v E G Nambudri, the Apex Court held that
“In India, Certiorari would be available even against administrative bodies, not
having any quasi-judicial obligation, if they affect rights of individuals without
confirming to the principles of ‘fair play’.” 22
In the view of the legal position, as discussed above, the banning order dated
28/04/2021 is liable to be set aside and the writ of certiorari can be issued.
20
State of Madya Pradesh v Sanjay Nagayach (2013) 7 SCC 25
21
Shri Andi Mukla Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Jayanti Mahotsava Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani
(1989) 2 SCC 691
22
AIR 1991 SC 1216
15
3. HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER BEEN VIOLATED

THROUGH THE BANNING ORDER DATED 28/04/2021?
It is most humbly submitted that the constitutional rights of the petitioner have been violated
through the banning order dated 28/04/2021 as it is an arbitrary and disproportionate order
which violates the principles of natural justice.
3.1 That the action of Respondent 2 is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
In S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors.,23 the Supreme Court observed that
“In this context it is important to emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the first
essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system
governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be
23
S.G. Jaisinghani vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (22.02.1967 - SC) : MANU/SC/0361/1967
16
confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that
decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general,
such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is
taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the
antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law.”
In the Shrilekha Vidyarthi case24,
“every State action must be informed of reason and it follows that an act uninformed by
reason is arbitrary.”
“where no plausible reason or principle is indicated (or is discernible), and where the
impugned action ex facie appears to be arbitrary, the onus shifts on the State to justify its
action as fair and reasonable”
In the case of LDA v M.K. Gupta 25
“But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it loses its individual
character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man by public
authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but
the injury to society is far more grievous.”
In the case of UOI v E.G Nambudri , it was observed that
“Emphasis is now being placed on the need to avoid arbitrariness by administrative authority
even in spheres where the relevant statute does not lay down any quasi-judicial obligation”26
If the State action impugned is found to be arbitrary it is liable to be struck down.27
The banning order rendered by DPP is arbitrary as it violates the principles of natural justice and
proportionality and has banned RotB from supplying any and all goods applying the ban on supplying all
products under the assumption that they are all sub-standard while only 2 of the products were found to be so is
excessive and arbitrary action taken by DPP. This is legally impermissible and assumes a social significance.
3.2 That the Article 14 is violated
Article 14 reads as follows :
24
(1991) 1 SCC 212
25
(1994) 1 SCC 243
26
(1991) 2 UJ SC 303
27
Pg 261,commentary on the administrative tribunals act,1983 along with procedural rules, M. Rama Jois, KLJ
publications,2018
17
“ Equality before law- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
“The underlying object of Article 14 is to secure to all persons, citizens or non-citizens, the
equality of status and opportunity referred to in the preamble to our Constitution. The
language of Article 14 is couched in negative terms and is in form, an admonition addressed
to the State. It does not directly purport to confer any right on any person as some of the
other Articles, e.g., Article 19, do. The right to equality before law is secured from all
legislative and executive tyranny by way of discrimination since the language of Article 14
uses the word "State" which as per Article 12, includes the executive organ.”28
In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu,29 the “arbitrariness” doctrine was introduced which
dropped the pedantic approach towards equality and held the mere existence of arbitrariness
as violative of Article 14, however equal in its treatment.
Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed,
cabined and confined with traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view,
equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies;
one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an
absolute monarch where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according
to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14”
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,30 it was held that

“The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential
element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence
and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in
order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be "right and just and fair" and not
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.”
In the present case,
Besides the arbitrary actions of the state violating the Article 14 of the COM, the banning
order also is provided to RotB alone and not the other manufacturers who should be held
responsible for their part.
28
Nestle India Limited vs. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India and Ors. (13.08.2015 -
BOMHC) : MANU/MH/1937/2015
29
(1974) 4 SCC 3
30
AIR 1978 SC 597
18
3.3 That Article 19(1) (g) is violated
3.3 That Article 21 is violated

Article 21 reads as follows
Protection of life and personal liberty- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.
According to Prof. Haney “ a company is an artificial person created by law, having separate
entity, with a perpetual succession and common seal.”
Here, a separate legal entity is a person recognised by law- a “ legal person”. The entity has
its own legal rights and obligations, separate to those running and/ or owning the entity. It is
regarded as a single juristic person distinct from its members who constitute the company.31
It is clear that article – 14,19 and 21 are those articles which are meant to be read together
because they all deal with the life of a person and interpreted together. Thus, it was the
court’s ruling that any executive action, or legislation, needs to stand the test of these three
articles. They form a triangle as they are read together. Further, it is the golden triangle
because they are important to the protection of freedom of individuals and prevent
arbitrariness.32
31
https://www.umeschandracollege.ac.in/pdf/study-material/busness-law/COMPANY-LAW-MODULE-1.pdf
32
Maneka Gandhi case
19
Prayer
20

Petioner Draft

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

Petioner Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team code : CN-22-O

MOOT COURT SOCIETY

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF NEW BAILEY

Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY PVT . LTD …Petitioner

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Hon’ble Judges of the Division Bench

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ‘PETITIONER’

High Court cases

Other country case law

Books and commentaries

1. Is the present writ maintainable?

1. IS THE PRESENT WRIT MAINTAINABLE?

1.1 That the LPA can be filed

1.2 That the Principles of Natural Justice are violated

In the case Asit Kumar v. State of W.B.

1.3 That there is gross violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner.

2.1 That a writ of mandamus can be issued.

Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice

2.2 That the principle of Natural Justice is violated

a) No show cause notice :

b) Non- appointment of tribunal members

2.3 The remedy not being efficacious

Whether the alternative remedy is equally efficacious or adequate is a question of fact to be

The existence of an alternative remedy is no grounds for refusing certiorari where

2.4 The Exceptional Circumstances

3. HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER BEEN VIOLATED

3.1 That the action of Respondent 2 is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

In the Shrilekha Vidyarthi case24,

In the case of LDA v M.K. Gupta 25

In the case of UOI v E.G Nambudri , it was observed that

If the State action impugned is found to be arbitrary it is liable to be struck down.27

3.2 That the Article 14 is violated

Article 14 reads as follows :

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,30 it was held that

In the present case,

3.3 That Article 19(1) (g) is violated

3.3 That Article 21 is violated

You might also like