Ashokdada Sable Law College,

Mangaon

MOOT COURT 2023

SUBMITTED BY: - Shweta Ashok Petkar

ROLL NO: - ____________________
CLASS: - T.Y. L.L.B. (3yrs)
SUBJECT: - Practical Training - III

pg. 1
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. …… OF 2023

HAMEED KHAN AND OTHERS…………………....Petitioner

V/s

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS…………….. Respondent

MEMORANDUM BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Hamid Khan ……………………………….Petitioner no.1

Gopal Sharma……………………………..Petitioner no.2

Anil Yadav …………………………………..Petitioner no.3

And

Union of India ………...Respondent no.1

Pollution Control Board ………….Respondent no.2

Department of Licensing …………Respondent no.3

pg. 2
 INDEX

SR.N PARTICULAR PAGE NO.

O

1. Abbreviations and Definition 4

2. Index of Authorities 5

2. Summary fact of case 6-7

3. Constitutional Provision and Jurisdiction 8

5. Legal provision relating to issue 9

6. ARTICLE 19 (1) (g) Of The Constitution 10-11

7. Written Argument 12-14

8. Green Cracker and Fire Cracker is part of Celebration 15-16

9. Issues 17-18

10. Prayer 19

pg. 3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 i.e. = In Essence or that is

 SC= Supreme Court

 Peti.= Petitioner

 Respo.= Respondent

 Etc. = Etcetera

 Govt. =Government

 Consti. = Constitution

 Hon.= Honourable

 NCR= National Capital Region (Mumbai)

 NGO= Non Government Organisation

 CPCB= Central Pollution Control Board

 PM= Fine Particulate Matters (Air Pollutants)

 WHO= World Health Organisation

 ORS = OTHERS

 PESO= Petroleum Explosive Safety Organisation

pg. 4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. VELLOR CITIZEN WELFARE FORUM V/s UNION OF INDIA

& ORS, 28th August, 1996.

2. CONSUMER EDUCATION & RESEARCH V/s UNION OF

INIDA & ORS, 27th January, 1995.

3. ARJUN GOPAL V/s UNION OF INDIA, 7th July, 2017.

4. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY V/s UNION OF INDIA

& ORS, 31st January, 1947.

5. BEENA V/s SULBHA SINSINWAR & ORS, 17th July, 2017.

6. MANEKA GANDHI V/s UNION OF INDIA, 25th January, 1978.

7. BENNETT COLEMON & Co. & ORS V/s UNION OF INDIA &
ORS, 30th October, 1972.

8. UJJAM BAI V/s STATE OF U.P, 10th April, 1962

9. P.A INAMDAR & ORS V/s STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &

ORS, 12th August, 2005.

10.M/s. KONE ELEVATORS INDIA PVT. LTD V/s STATE OF

T.N. & ORS, 6th May, 2014.

11.UNION OF INDIA V/s STUMPP. SCHEDULE AND SOMAPPA

LTD. 21st February, 1989.

pg. 5
 SUMMARY FACT OF CASE

 In this case there is writ petition filed under article 32 of the constitution
of India.

 There are three petitioners namely, Petitioner no. 1, Petitioner no.2 and
Petitioner no. 3 is Hameed khan, Gopal Sharma, Anil Yadav
respectively.

 At the time of filing the petition the age of petitioner no.1 and Petitioner
no.2 were six (6) months and Fourteen (14) Months respectively.

 They filed the writ petition through their Next Friend i.e. Father of
petitioner no. 1 And 2.

 Petitioners are worried about alarming degradation of the air quality,

leading to severe air pollution in the city of Mumbai in country of India.

 Petitioner encounters many health hazards.

 The petition accepts that there are number of reasons which have
contributed to poor air quality in Mumbai a city in India.

 At the same time, it is emphasized that air pollution hits its nadir during
Diwali time because of indiscriminate use of firecrackers, the chemical
composition whereof increases harmful particulate matters such as
PM2.5 or PM10 at alarming level thereby brining situation of
‘Emergency’.

 Petitioners prayed for direction to the official respondents to take

possible measures for checking the pollution by striking at the cause of
pollution.

 Air pollutions had gone up to 29 times above the World Health

Organization (WHO) standards.

pg. 6
  Petitioner wants immediate commercial constraints on the
manufacturers and suppliers of fireworks.

pg. 7
 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND JURISDICTION

 Writ petition filed under article 32 of the Constitution to the

court of India.

 Mandamus Writ -: a Judicial Writ issue as a command to an

inferior court or ordering a person to perform a public or
statutory duty.

 Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is to practice any

profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

 Article 21 of the Constitution states about Right of life and

personal liberty.

JURISDICTION

 Hon. Court have jurisdiction to decide this case.

 Jurisdiction where as it is writ petition so apex court will decide

this case under article 32 of the Constitution.

 Mandamus Writ issued against my client.

pg. 8
 LEGAL PROVISION RELATING TO ISSUE

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

a. Article 19 (1)(g) -: Free to practice any profession or,

and carry any Occupation, Trade and Business.
This article falls under fundamental rights and it refer
as constitutional rights.

b. Article 21 -: Constitute about Right of Life and

Personal Liberty.

c. Article 32 -: Rights to Constitutional Remedies

(Supreme Court)

d. Article 38 -: To secure a social order for the promotion

of welfare of the people.

2. OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS

a. THE EXPLOSIVE ACT, 1884

i. Section 4 in The Explosive Act, 1884

ii. Section 4(c) in The Explosive Act, 1884

iii. Section 4(d) in The Explosive Act, 1884

iv. Section 5 in The Explosive Act, 1884

b. SECTION 146 OF THE CITY MUMBAI POLICE

ACT.

pg. 9
 c. THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF
POLLUTION) ACT, 1981

ARTICLE 19 (1) (g)

 Under Article 19 (6)(ii) nothing contained is sub-clause (g) of clause

(1) of Article 19 shall affect carrying on by the state any trade,
business, industry, service, whether to the exclusion, complete or
partial of citizens or otherwise.

 This is constitutional right to all citizen of the Nation. Vast right

available to all persons to do any particular type of business of their
choice.

 But this does not confer the right to do anything contain illegal in the
eyes of law or hold a particular job or occupy a particular post of
choice of any particular person.

 Keeping in view of controlled and planned economy the Supreme

Court in a series of cases upheld the socially controlled legislation in
the light of directive principles and the activities of the private
enterprises have been restricted to a great extent.

 In a case Sundara v/s State it was observed: Explosives should not be

manufactured and explosive substances should not be stocked except
under conditions which would not be detrimental to the public safety,
health and convenience.

 Therefore, the restrictions imposed on the acquisition, holding and

disposal of explosive substance the right to practice one’s profession,

pg. 10
 trade etc., in manufacturing explosive under explosive Act, 1884, was
held not ultra vires and restriction are permissible under clause under
(6) of Article 19 of the Constitution.

 The decision as to what is reasonable restriction in Public interest,

under Article 19(1)(g) will depend upon

 The nature of the business

 The place and time where it is intended to be

carried on,

 Its effect on others and stage of development.

pg. 11
 WRITTEN ARGUMENT

Under Section 314 of Cr.p.c Written argument can grant by the court.

I. Burning of crackers during Diwali does not have any significant

adverse affect on the environment. There is no study prove this
same and have not proper conclusion for this. The Diwali
Monitoring Report, 2017 of CPBS is relied upon for this purpose
and on that purpose and on that basis it is contended that the factors
which contributed to the problem were not because of crackers
burning in Diwali. Ambient air quality before and after diwali
reflect that there is no spike immediately after Diwali. It was
accepted that situation of air pollution in Mumbai and NCR is
‘generally’ worrying. However, there are multiple causes which
lead to polluting air and such position existed even before Diwali,
which showed other factors played dominant role.

II. Insofar as presence of PM2.5 in the air concerned, studies of CPCB

are relied upon, on the basis of which attempt is made to show that:
(a) spike was not so much during Diwali days; (b) increase in
PM2.5 in the air does not remain for long, i.e. it does not linger for
many days; and (c) it is manageable as well.

III. It is submitted that pursuant to orders dated September 12, 2017

where by the court had directed that research study needs to be
conducted on the impact of bursting fireworks during Dussehra and
Diwali on the health of people; no such empirical data has emerged
so far for want of detailed studies. In nutshell, the argument was

pg. 12
 that in the absence of any definite study attributing the worsening
of air quality to the fireworks during Diwali, the right of the
manufacturers and traders under article 19(1)(g), which is
fundamental right to carry on trade, should not be made to suffer
till the time there is a complete study in this behalf.

IV. The revenue generated from the manufacturing and sale of

fireworks is to the tune of Rs. 6,000 crores per annum. Further, this
industry has given employment to the five lakh families. Such a
revenue to the state as well as employment to the large number of
workers on which five lakh families sustain cannot be put in
jeopardy by imposing a total ban. It was emphasised that there is a
necessity to adopt a balanced approach. For this purpose, status
report and affidavit of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change has been relied upon which suggested eco-friendly
firecrackers. Advisory dated march 07, 2008 issued by the
Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation (PESO), which
comes under the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, was
also relied upon, as per which fireworks manufacturers in India
were advised to ensure that the firecrackers manufactured by them
are within

V. The state of Tamil Nadu also supported the cause of the

manufacturers and traders of the firecrackers. Study undertaken by
CPCB pursuant to the direction issued

It was emphasised that any proper study in this behalf should

address following aspects:

pg. 13
 a) Socio-Economic effect of the ban needs to be examined as it
may cause extreme economic hardship,

b) There should be a proper study about the other aspect which

was leading to air pollution, like Construction activity etc.
which are not banned.

c) Banning of an activity is an extreme measure. The study

should focus on the alternatives available in the present day
technology which may be deployed to ensure that pollution
free firecrackers can be manufactured.

VI. India Collective (Applicant in IA No. 105355 of 2017) opposed

the prayer of banning of fireworks during Diwali on the ground that it
was religious practice scrupulously followed by the Hindus from time
immemorial and it had become a core and essential religious practice
which was protected under Article 25 of the Constitution as their
fundamental right.

pg. 14
 GREEN CRACKER

WHAT IS GREEN CRACKER?

 Green Cracker is “reduced emission crackers”. According to the

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, firecrackers that
cause to 30 -35% lower emission of particulate Matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) and 35-40% lower emission of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxide are categorized as “green crackers”.

 The products have less content of aluminium.

 Use of barium salt and ash as a drying agent is banned for such
crackers.

 The clinical composition of fireworks will be reviewed by the

PESO, which Would Submit its report within Two Weeks

FIRE CRACKER IS THE PART OF CELEBRATION

 In ancient time there is evidence find where they use different

means to celebration which very similar to today’s fire-cracker.

 When king return to his kingdom by defeating an enemy for his

welcome they crack the fires or TOPHGOLE for his pride and
honour.

 I agree with my fellow petitioner it could be not a part of our

culture or customs but there is lot of thing which is not our part of
culture or customs initially, but we adopt those things with big
heart.

pg. 15
  Though there is HINDU cremation system also indicates a air
pollution, though it is a very sensitive issue but after 10 or 20 years
down someone will come who reside near cremation Ghaat and
filed a petition for banned a this customs. Though it is not possible
to ban because it is straight away rituals and customs, but customs
or rituals not earned bread for home but workers earn.

pg. 16
 ISSUES OF THE PETITION

ISSUE NO. 1

Whether it is fall Under PIL or Public Wrong.

NO.

 Because it is a private wrong and it could fall under tort

 Only the petitioner suffered and there is no other petition or

other similar incident happen to public at large.

ISSUE NO. 2

Whether Banning on Firecracker manufacturer is Unconstitutional

YES.

 Article 19(1)(g) give freedom to practice any Profession, or

to carry any Trade, Business or Occupation. This is simply
constitutional right which granted by the Constitution of
Nation.

ISSUE NO. 3

There is other alternative for fire cracker and reduced air pollution

YES.

 There is alternative for fire cracker which help to reduced

air pollution that is “GREEN CRACKER”

pg. 17
  Fixed the time bar for use the fire crackers and direct the
place and rules to use firecrackers.

pg. 18
 PRAYER

IT IS THEREFOR PRAYED THAT

1. Prayed to the Hon. Court pleased don’t banned on manufacturing

of Fire Crackers.

2. Give Permission to use of Green Cracker and dealership to

authorised licensed holder of Fireworks and Explosive.

3. Put time limit for cracking the firecrackers which think fit to the
court. (Arjun Gopal V/s Union Of India, AIR 1990 SC 851)

4. Give Direction to people of the country to use and explosion of

fire cracker.

5. Make committee to examine and study of the real cause of all

kind Pollution.

6. Any other relief in the interest of justice, equality & good

conscience.

pg. 19