TEAM CODE: TC - 22

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023, MUMBAI

BEFORE,
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA
ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
(Under Article 32 Of The Constitution Of Indiva)

W. P. (CIVIL) No.________ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Malakpur Society For Human Rights Protection &

Care Of Animals And Jeewan Suraksha (…………PETITIONER)

Vs.

Agritech Pvt. Ltd (………..RESPONDENT)

Memorandum On Behalf Of Petitioner

[Type text]
4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

TABLE OF CONTENT

CONTENTS
Table of Content …………………………………………………………………………. 1
List Of Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………..2
Index Of Authorities ………………………………………………………………………3
Statement Of Jurisdiction ………………………………………………………………….4
Statement Of Facts …………………………………………………………………………5
Issues Raised ……………………………………………………………………………….7
Summary Of Arguments ……………………………………………………………………8
Arguments Advanced ……………………………………………………………………....10
Prayer ……………………………………………………………………………………….21

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 1

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
CV

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

Agritech Pvt.Ltd Agritech Private Limited

CPC Chemical and Petrochemical

SEZ Specials Economic Zone

ECs Environmental Clearance

MoEFCC Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate

Change

EWS Economically Weaker Sections

JSHRPCA Malakpur Society for Human Rights

Protections and Care of Animals

NGT National Green Tribunal

EPA Environment Protection Act

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 2

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

INDEX OF AUTHORITES

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
3. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. (2002)
4. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
5. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990)
6. Kinkri Devi v. State of H. P
7. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
8. F. K. Hussain v. Union of India
9. Union of India v. S.B. Vohraxi

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 3

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

STATUTES:

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Environment Protection Act, 1986
3. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
4. Indian Forest Act, 1927
5. Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
6. The Animals Act, 1971
7. Water Act, 1974

BOOKS REFERRED:

1. Dhirajlal &Ratanlal , The Law of Torts, 26th Edition 2012,LexisNexis Butterworths

Wadhwa.
2. P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Case Law Book, 2nd Edition 2006, LexisNexis
Butterworths.
3. Basu D.D., Constitution of India, 14th Edition 2009, LexisNexis Butterworths
Wadhwa Nagpur.
4. Jain M.P, Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition 2011, LexisNexis Butterworth
Wadhwa Nagpur.
5. S Shanthakumar’s, Introduction to Environmental Law, 2nd Edition, LexisNexis

WEBSITE REFERRED:

1. Manupatra
2. SCC online

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 4

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAVE APPROACHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT UNDER

ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIVA.
IT SETS FORTH THE FACTS AND THE LAWS ON WHICH THE CLAIMS ARE
BASED.

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 5

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Factual Background

1. The Republic of Indiva, the world's largest democracy, is a fast-developing country

situated in the Asian continent. Its diverse landscape ranges from the Himalayas in the North
to rich beaches in the South, evergreen forests in the East, and scorching deserts in the West.

2. Indiva, the 4th biggest economy globally, primarily depends on its agricultural and
industrial sectors for growth and employment generation. The Chemical and Petrochemical
(CPC) industry plays a pivotal role in the country's industrial and agricultural development.

3. Agritech Group of Industries Ltd. is a multinational corporation (Agritech Pvt Ltd.)

headquartered in the state of Pandu Ranga, Indiva. It operates over 700 production units and
employs more than 1 lakh employees.

4. To achieve self-sufficiency in chemicals, pesticides, insecticides, and fertilizers and

generate employment, the government of Silsa invited proposals for setting up a CPC plant.
In 2006, the southern part of the city of Malakpur and its outskirts were declared a Special
Economic Zone (SEZ) to promote industrial growth.

5. Environmentalists in Indiva raised objections and held protests against the CPC plant's
construction due to the presence of the Khabo tribe in the district, who rely on natural
resources for their livelihood. Some neighboring villagers supported the project, citing
employment opportunities.

6. After the state government's acceptance of the proposal, Agritech Group of Industries filed
applications for licenses, Environmental Clearances (ECs), and other formalities. They
received NOCs from the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC),
the Central Pollution Control Board, and the Silsa State Pollution Control Board.

7. In 2007, the company set up the plant in the designated SEZ area. Process piping was
installed to transport fluids within the industrial unit. Production of chemicals began in 2010,
with the company required to submit annual audit and safety reports.

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 6

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

8. The CPC plant was allocated 70 acres for hazardous waste disposal. Locals complained
about improper waste management, leading to a chemical smell. In April 2021, Silsa
Pollution Control Board issued directions for proper waste treatment.

9. A buffer area of 470 acres surrounded the CPC plant, covered with local vegetation.
Agricultural land of 3000 bighas was allotted to economically weaker section (EWS) farmers
beyond the buffer zone. The government provided subsidies for farming equipment,
irrigation, and more.

10. During the rainy season, the CPC plant's periphery and buffer zone were overgrown with
seasonal tuberous plants. These were consumed by tribals for sustenance and intoxication.

11. In Malakpur and nearby villages, domestic animals were kept, and several bird and
animal species inhabited the buffer zone, including crows, sparrows, parrots, peacocks,
monkeys, and langurs.

12. Malakpur's bylaws prohibited domestic animals' roaming in specific areas, but farmers
occasionally let their animals graze in the buffer zone at night.

13. Reports of chemical toxicity in animals' post-mortems and employee deaths raised
concerns. An incident in August 2021 resulted in approximately 90,000 casualties, suspected
to be linked to the plant.

14. An NGO, Malakpur Society for Human Rights Protection and Care of Animals
(JSHRPCA), filed a case before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) against Agritech Pvt Ltd.
for environmental damage and loss of life due to negligence.

15. The NGT issued an order holding Agritech Pvt Ltd. liable and directed them to pay Rs. 30
crores as compensation. Agritech Pvt Ltd. appealed this order before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of Indiva, which issued a notice of motion and stayed the NGT's award.

These facts form the basis of the case presented on behalf of Malakpur Society for Human
Rights Protection and Care of Animals and Jeewan Suraksha.

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 7

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

ISSUES RAISED

1 Whether the establishment of Agritech Pvt Ltd.'s plant in Malakpur was carried out
lawfully?

2 Whether Agritech Pvt Ltd. can be held solely at fault for improper management of
petrochemicals and the environmental contamination?

3 Whether Agritech Pvt Ltd. bears liability for the awarded compensation for human
losses, damages, medical reimbursements, loss of domestic/wild animals, and
ecological harm?

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 8

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the establishment of Agritech Pvt Ltd.'s plant in Malakpur was carried out
lawfully?

Lawful Establishment of Plant The Petitioners argue that the establishment of Agritech Pvt
Ltd. plant in Malakpur was not carried out lawfully, and they present the following points
to support their contention: The Environment Protection Act, 1986 serves as the
cornerstone of environmental protection in Indiva. It mandates that industrial projects
obtain necessary Environmental Clearances (ECs) and adhere to environmental regulations.
The Water Act, 1974, and The Air Act, 1981 These acts are instrumental in controlling
water and air pollution, respectively. The Petitioners argue that while Agritech Pvt Ltd. may
have acquired licenses under these acts, it failed to consistently abide by pollution control
measures, thereby violating the Water Act and the Air Act. Precedent cases can establish
legal standards for the lawful establishment of industrial plants.

2. Whether Agritech Pvt Ltd. can be held solely at fault for improper management of
petrochemicals and the environmental contamination?

The Petitioners allege that the company is solely responsible for the petrochemical
mismanagement and environmental pollution. They cite the Disaster Management
Department Report, which revealed the presence of petroleum chemicals in the soil and
water surrounding the site, as proof of negligence. They further allege that the company
failed to comply with the Environment Protection Rules, as evidenced by chemical odors
and Silsa pollution control board orders. The Petitioners should strengthen their case by
establishing a direct causal relationship between the company’s actions and
environmental harm. They should also focus on instances of non-compliance with
regulations. Finally, they should seek expert testimony in support of their claims and refer
to precedents where similar companies have been held accountable for environmental
pollution due to inadequate hazardous material management. All of this will strengthen
their case that the company is fully responsible for the environmental issues.

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 9

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

3.Whether Agritech Pvt Ltd. bears liability for the awarded compensation for human
losses, damages, medical reimbursements, loss of domestic/wild animals, and ecological
harm?

The Petitioners contend that Agritech is responsible for the awarded compensation for
a number of reasons. First, they cite the order of the National Green Tribunal in which
Agritech was held liable and ordered to pay compensation. Second, they allege that
Agritech acted recklessly and should be held liable for the damages. Third, they allege
that proportional liability should be applied, meaning that compensation should be
commensurate with Agritech’s level of liability. Fourth, they claim that Agritech
should be held accountable regardless of any mitigation efforts undertaken by the
company. Fifth, they allege that a thorough Environmental Assessment should have
been conducted. Sixth, they allege that there should be a possibility of concurrent
liability on the part of other parties involved in the cause of the injury.

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 10

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCES

I. Whether the establishment of Agritech Pvt Ltd.'s plant in Malakpur was carried out
lawfully?

Certainly, in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India1 (1987), the Supreme Court of India
delivered a landmark judgment that holds significant relevance to the situation involving
Agritech Pvt Ltd. This pivotal case underscored the critical importance of preserving
ecologically sensitive areas.

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the government has a solemn duty to take
environmental concerns seriously. It recognized that when industries or development projects
are planned in regions with ecological significance, especially where local communities like
the Khabo tribe rely on natural resources for their livelihood, objections raised by
environmentalists and local communities should not be disregarded.

The parallels between this case and the scenario with Agritech Pvt Ltd. are evident. Both
situations involve the establishment of an industrial plant in an environmentally delicate area
and the subsequent objections from environmentalists and local communities. Therefore, the
principles established in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) case serve as a clear
reminder that the government must prioritize environmental preservation and consider the
potential harm to nature and livelihoods when making such decisions.

Certainly, the situation involving complaints from locals about poor waste management and
the emission of a chemical smell from Agritech Pvt Ltd.'s waste disposal area is highly
reminiscent of the legal principles established in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare
Forum v. Union of India2 (1996) . This landmark case set a significant precedent in holding
industries accountable for their inadequate waste management practices.

In the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case, the Supreme Court of India recognized the
importance of addressing environmental harm caused by industries. It introduced the
"Polluter Pays" principle, which essentially means that those responsible for environmental
damage should bear the cost of remedying it. This principle places the responsibility squarely

1
1987 AIR 1068 1987 SCR (1) 819
2
AIR 1996 (5) SCC 647

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 11

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

on the shoulders of the entities causing pollution, emphasizing the need for them to take
preventive measures and mitigate environmental harm.

Applying this precedent to the situation with Agritech Pvt Ltd., the complaints about poor
waste management and chemical emissions from their waste disposal area raise genuine
concerns about the company's responsibility for potential environmental harm. The directions
from the Silsa Pollution Control Board further highlight the acknowledgment of these issues
and the need for accountability. Consequently, the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case
underscores the legal and moral obligation of Agritech Pvt Ltd. to address and rectify these
environmental concerns.

The issue of unauthorized encroachments in the buffer zone surrounding Agritech Pvt Ltd.'s
plant brings to mind the legal principles established in the case of T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors3 (2002) .This significant case emphasizes the crucial
role of protecting buffer zones around industrial areas and forests while stressing the need for
strict regulation and prevention of encroachments.

In the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case, the Supreme Court of India recognized the
importance of safeguarding buffer zones to maintain ecological balance and protect sensitive
ecosystems. It underscored the need for stringent regulations to prevent encroachments that
could have adverse environmental impacts.

Applying this legal precedent to the situation with Agritech Pvt Ltd., it becomes evident that
examining whether the company took adequate measures to prevent buffer zone
encroachments is crucial. The T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case reinforces the idea that
such encroachments can have detrimental effects on the environment and need to be
effectively addressed and prevented. Therefore, it highlights the significance of ensuring that
buffer zones are protected to maintain ecological harmony and prevent unauthorized
intrusions.

The post-mortem reports indicating chemical toxicity as a cause of death for animals and the
negligence in the management of Agritech Pvt Ltd.'s plant leading to employee deaths raise
concerns about the potential environmental and health hazards associated with the company's
operations.

3
1997 2 SCC 267

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 12

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

While there may not be a direct case that perfectly aligns with this situation, the legal
principle of "Strict Liability," established in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher4,holds entities
responsible for activities that are inherently dangerous, even if they exercise reasonable care.
This principle may have relevance in cases involving negligence in chemical handling and
the resulting environmental harm.

In the Rylands v. Fletcher case, the court held that a person who brings onto their land and
keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly liable for any damage caused
if it does escape. Although the circumstances of that case were different, the underlying
principle of holding entities accountable for hazardous activities aligns with the concerns
raised in the situation involving Agritech Pvt Ltd.

Therefore, while not a direct match, the concept of "Strict Liability" from the Rylands v.
Fletcher case underscores the importance of ensuring responsible handling of hazardous
materials and operations to prevent environmental and health hazards. It serves as a reminder
that entities engaged in potentially dangerous activities should take all necessary precautions
to avoid harm to the environment and public health.

The presence of petroleum chemicals in the soil and water bodies up to 7 acres from Agritech
Pvt Ltd.'s CPC plant due to leakage from effluent pipes raises significant concerns about the
company's compliance with environmental regulations.

In the context of this issue, the Oleum Gas Leak case5 serves as a relevant precedent. This
case emerged from a chemical leak in Delhi, which resulted in severe environmental and
health consequences. It underscored the critical importance of strict adherence to
environmental regulations by industries to prevent the leakage of hazardous chemicals into
the environment.

The Oleum Gas Leak case highlighted the need for industries to exercise the highest degree
of care and responsibility in handling and storing dangerous substances. The court's decision
in this case reinforced the principle that industries must prioritize the safety of their
operations to prevent harm to the environment and public health.

Applying the lessons from the Oleum Gas Leak case to the situation involving Agritech Pvt
Ltd., it becomes evident that strict compliance with environmental regulations is imperative

4
(1868) LR 3 HL 330
5
AIR 1987 SC 965

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 13

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

to prevent the leakage of petrochemicals and protect the environment. This case serves as a
reminder that industries must take all necessary precautions to avoid the release of hazardous
substances that can have detrimental effects on the environment and the well-being of
communities.

The failure of Agritech Pvt Ltd. to submit annual audit and safety reports in 2021, as
required, adds weight to the argument that the company did not fulfill its obligations in
ensuring a safe and environmentally responsible operation.

In this context, the Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India6 case serves as a pertinent reference.
This case underscored the necessity of industries regularly submitting safety reports to ensure
compliance with environmental laws and safety standards. It emphasized the importance of
transparency and accountability in industrial operations, particularly in matters related to
safety and environmental protection.

The Charan Lal Sahu case set a precedent by highlighting that industries have a legal duty to
provide timely and accurate safety reports to relevant authorities. This obligation is crucial in
assessing the safety measures in place and ensuring that industrial activities do not pose a
threat to the environment or public safety.

Applying the principles established in the Charan Lal Sahu case to the situation involving
Agritech Pvt Ltd., the failure to submit required safety reports raises concerns about the
company's commitment to environmental responsibility and safety. It reinforces the argument
that the company did not meet its legal obligations in ensuring a secure and environmentally
compliant operation. This case reinforces the importance of regulatory oversight and the role
of industries in adhering to reporting requirements to uphold environmental and safety
standards.

The tragic incident that occurred in August 2021, where a significant number of people lost
their lives, though inconclusive in determining the exact cause, raises substantial concerns
about the safety and environmental impact of Agritech Pvt Ltd.'s plant.

While there may not be a specific case directly related to this particular incident, the Bhopal
Gas Tragedy (1984) serves as a stark historical reminder of the catastrophic consequences
that can result from industrial negligence. In the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, a chemical leak from a
pesticide plant owned by Union Carbide Corporation led to the loss of thousands of lives and

6
(1989) INSC 395

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 14

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

widespread environmental damage. This tragedy was one of the world's deadliest industrial
disasters.

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy case is highly relevant as it exemplifies the devastating outcomes of
inadequate safety measures, chemical mishandling, and environmental negligence within
industrial operations. It underscores the paramount importance of ensuring the safety of both
employees and the surrounding community in industrial settings.

Although the August 2021 incident may not be identical to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, it
highlights the critical need for stringent safety protocols, responsible environmental practices,
and regulatory oversight to prevent such catastrophic events. The Bhopal case serves as a
historical lesson that reinforces the significance of prioritizing safety and environmental
protection in industrial operations, especially in contexts where lives and ecosystems are at
stake.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has a well-established track record of taking action
against entities involved in environmental violations. While there isn't a specific case directly
related to the mentioned NGT order against Agritech Pvt Ltd., the NGT's actions in various
matters exemplify its commitment to enforcing environmental laws and holding those
responsible accountable.

One illustrative example of the NGT's proactive stance can be seen in cases like Vardhman
Kaushik v. Union of India (2019), where it imposed heavy fines and penalties on industries
for illegal sand mining, a practice known to cause severe environmental degradation. This
case reflects the NGT's dedication to addressing environmental concerns, even in the absence
of a specific landmark case.

The NGT's consistent efforts in hearing and adjudicating environmental matters underscore
its role as a vital institution in ensuring environmental justice and adherence to environmental
regulations. While each NGT case may not be directly relatable to the Agritech Pvt Ltd.
situation, its history of holding entities accountable for environmental violations reinforces
the significance of its actions in cases of environmental wrongdoing.

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 15

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

II.Whether Agritech Pvt Ltd. can be held solely at fault for improper management of
petrochemicals and the environmental contamination?

In the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiva, on behalf of Malakpur Society for
Human Rights Protection and Care of Animals and Jeewan Suraksha, the following advanced
arguments can be presented:

a. Environmental Negligence
 Agritech Pvt Ltd. cannot evade responsibility for environmental negligence.
The presence of petroleum chemicals in the soil and water bodies up to 7
acres from the CPC plant clearly indicates that there was a leakage of
effluents from the company's operations.
 Such leakage poses a severe risk to the environment and the health of the
local population. It is the duty of any industrial entity to prevent such
contamination, and Agritech Pvt Ltd. failed in this regard.
b. Non-compliance with Reporting Obligations :
 Agritech Pvt Ltd. was found to have not filed the annual audit and safety
reports in the year 2021 to the concerned authorities. Compliance with
reporting obligations is essential to ensure transparency and accountability
in industrial operations. The failure to submit these reports raises questions
about the company's commitment to safety and environmental regulations.
c. Tragic Incident:
 While the exact cause of the tragic incident in August 2021 remains
inconclusive, the widespread suspicion that it was linked to the CPC
plant's effluents and illegal construction should not be dismissed. The
company's operations should be thoroughly investigated to determine any
potential role in this catastrophe.
d. NGT Order:
 The National Green Tribunal (NGT) passed an order against Agritech Pvt
Ltd., holding them liable for negligence in the management leading to the
death of employees and loss of life of domestic and wild animals. This
order suggests that there was substantial evidence to support the claim of

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 16

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

environmental harm and negligence. The NGT's decision should be given

due weight in the Supreme Court's deliberations.

In conclusion, Agritech Pvt Ltd. must be held accountable for its potential role in causing
environmental damage, endangering human lives, and contributing to the loss of domestic
and wild animals. The evidence, including the NGT order, points to significant lapses in the
company's operations, and it is imperative that justice is served to protect the environment
and the rights of the affected communities and animals.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

 In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India held that industries have
an absolute liability to compensate for any harm caused by their operations
to the environment and to people's health. The court emphasized the
"Polluter Pays Principle," stating that those who are responsible for
environmental pollution must bear the cost of preventing or remediating it.
This case set a precedent for holding industrial entities accountable for
environmental damage and reinforced the importance of strict adherence to
environmental regulations.
 In the context of the arguments presented on behalf of Malakpur Society
for Human Rights Protection and Care of Animals and Jeewan Suraksha,
the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case serves as a strong precedent for
establishing the responsibility of Agritech Pvt Ltd. for any environmental
harm caused by its operations, especially in relation to the presence of
petroleum chemicals in the soil and water bodies and the alleged leakage
of effluents.

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 17

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

III. Whether Agritech Pvt Ltd. bears liability for the awarded compensation for human
losses, damages, medical reimbursements, loss of domestic/wild animals, and ecological
harm?

It is humbly presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiva that the Respondent Is
liable to pay the award money for the loss of human life and , wild animals and to
compensate them for the damages caused.

We know that the Chemical and Petrochemical industry plays a vital role in a country’s
industrial and agricultural development. But it is also the duty of the Respondent if he plants
CPC plant in the area of Khabo Tribe, so it is the duty to maintain the balance between
development and environment.

a. Fundamental Duties
 Article 51A (g), states, “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India
to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for the living creatures”.
b. Directive principle of state policy
 According to Article 48A which introduced new directive principle for the
protection of the environment specifically committed to the cause of
ecology.
 The said Article states that, “The State shall endeavor to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the
country.” This Article was added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976 and
places an obligation on the State to protect the environment and wildlife.
c. Sustainable development
 According to the Brundland Report, “Sustainable development is the
development that’s meets the need of the present without compromising
the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.
 This concept of the Sustainable Development was also explained in the
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India7, wherein the Supreme
Court observed that the Sustainable Development means what type or

7
(2000) 10 SCC 664

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 18

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

extend of development can take place which can be sustained by nature or

ecology with or without mitigation.

 In the case, Kinkri Devi v. State of H. P. 8the above principle was laid
down where the court observed as under:

“If industrial growth is sought to be achieved by reckless mining resulting in loss of

life, loss of property, loss of amenities like water supply and creation of an ecological
imbalance, then there may ultibe no real economic growth and no real prosperity.”

But in the present case Respondent failed to maintain that balance. Because CPC plant
disposed Hazardous waste which is produced from its daily processing of petrochemicals and
according to the tribal people, they said that the waste so disposed was not properly managed
by the corporation, they also complained about a chemical smell emanating from the waste
disposal areas. The waste which is disposed from the CPC plant is hazardous substances
which harmful for the life of the people living in the khabo Tribe and animals.

 According to Section 2 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986

Hazardous substances means any substance or preparation which, by reason of its

chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human
beings, other living creatures; plants, micro-organisms, property or the environment.

 Section 6 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986

Rules regulate environmental pollution. —

(1) The Central Government may, by notification in

the Official Gazette, make rules in respect of all or any of the matters referred to in
section

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may

provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: —

(c) the procedures and safeguards for the handling of hazardous substances.

8
AIR 1988 HP 4

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 19

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

(d) the prohibition and restrictions on the handling of hazardous substances in

different areas.

(e) the prohibition and restrictions on the location of industries and the carrying on of
processes and operations in different areas.

(f) the procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents which may cause
environmental pollution and for providing for remedial measures for such accidents.

d. Fundamental Right to Life

 Article 21 of the Indiva Constitution covers the arena of protection of human life and
liberty. It prescribes that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to the procedure established by law.”
 In case F. K. Hussain v. Union of India9 , when the question before the Kerala High
Court was whether the rights to clean water ad unpolluted air are attributes of the right
to life guaranteed by article 21, it it was answered this question in the following
words:
 “The right to life is much more than the right to animal existence and its attributes are
manifold, as life itself. The right to sweet water and the right to free air are the
attributes of the right to life for these are the basic elements which sustain life itself.”

e. Writ of Mandamus
 And in the present case at the time of night shift the Municipal Corporation was not
present. So if any Authority fails or neglect to perform there duty for whatever reason
to take action against a polluting industry then the Writ of Mandamus will be effective
in nature.

 In the case of Union of India v. S.B. Vohraxi, the Supreme Court of India held as
follows:

“A writ of mandamus may be issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal

right in himself. It may be issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but
has failed or has neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates by operation of law.
The writ of mandamus is most extensive in regards to its remedial nature. The object
9
AIR 1990 Ker 321

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 20

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

of mandamus is to prevent disorder emanating from failure of justice and is required

to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy.” And also a
report submitted by the Disaster Management Department to MoEFCC highlighted
the presence of petroleum chemicals in the soil and water bodies up to 7 acres from
the CPC plant in the buffer zone caused due to leakage from effluent pipes of the
plant.

The Company was also found to have not filed the annual audit and safety reports in
the year 2021 to the concerned authorities.

In the case, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India10, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court for the first time applied the concept of Polluter Pays Principle.

f. Polluter Pays Principle

 This principle says the the polluter shall not only to compensate the victims of the
pollution, but also to pay the costs and expenses of restoring the environmental
degradation.
 where remedial and clean-up costs to restore the environment was ordered to be
recovered from the polluter under the writ jurisdiction of the court. The court referred
to this rule as a universal rule to be applied to all the polluters. The polluter was,
therefore, directed to lay compensation for the harm caused to the affected villagers,
to the soil and to the underground water supply.
 And also observed by the Supreme Court, that once the activity carried on is
hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity must make
good the loss which caused to any other person, irrespective of whether or not
reasonable care was taken when carrying on such activity.
 Therefore this principle imposes absolute liability in such cases.
 Chief Justice Bhagwati in the Shriram Gas leak case, discussed the principle of
absolutely liability and held that when an enterprise is engaged in hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry, it owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to
compensate anyone whose health and safety is adversely affected by an accident in
operating such industry. In other words, the liability in such cases is not strict liability,

10
1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 21

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

but absolute liability. None of the defences or exception too the rule of Rylands v.
Fletcher can be invoked by such an enterprise.
 And this rule was also incorporated in the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, under
which certain sums are to be given to the victims or their heirs on a “no-fault” basis
and without proof of negligence.
 And if any person violates the fundamental rights of any person or failure to
performed its fundamental duties to protect the environment and causes any harm to
any living creatures mentioned in Article 51A(g) shall be held liable to pay the award
money for the loss of human life and caused death of any wild animals .
 In the case M. C. Mehta v. Union of India11, this case also known as Ganga Pollution
Case, tanneries in Kanpur which were discharging untreated effluents into Ganga
river were ordered to be closed down until they had taken proper steps to establish
primary treatment plants, irrespective of their financial capacities.
 Section 269 of the IPC states that, Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act
which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the
infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with
both.
 According to section 286 of Indian penal code, Whoever does, with any explosive
substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to
cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take
such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard
against any probable danger to human life from that substance, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

11
AIR 1988 SC 1037; (1987) 4 SCC 463

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 22

4TH INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is prayed in the light of the issues raised herein above, arguments
advanced and authorities cited that the counsel here on behalf of the petitioner humbly
prays before this Hon’ble Supreme Court be pleased to:

2. TO DECLARE, that the Agritech Pvt. Ltd liable for the violation of fundamental
right of the trible people.
3. TO DECLARE, that the respondent is liable to pay the award money for the loss of
human life, compensation, and medical reimbursement for the damages caused, death
of domestic/wild animals.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, discretion or relief that may deem fit in the interest of justice,
fairness, equity and good conscience for which petitioner may be duty bound forever
pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

PLACE: Sd/-______________

DATE: COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

Memorandum On behalf of Petitioner Page 23