Moot Memo

IN THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(WRIT PETITION NO…………. /2012)

CHANDRA REDDY & OTHERS……………………………………. PETITIONERS

V

STATE OF KARNATAKA…………. ……………………………..RESPONDENTS

ON SUBMISSION TO

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….

BOOKS

DICTIONARIES

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

STATUTES

WEBSITES

TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………………………..

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………..

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………..

QUESTIONS PRESENTED………………………………………………………………

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….

ARGUMENTS OF ADVANCED…………………………………………………………

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF…………………………………………

_______________________________________________________________________________MEMORIAL OF PETITIONERS

Introduction i

INTRODUCTION

THE PETITIONER CHANDRA REDDY AND OTHERS HAS THE HONOUR TO

SUBMIT TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THIS MEMORANDUM OF THE

PRESENT CASE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SUPREME COURT RULES. IT SETS FORTH

THE GROUNDS OF FACTS AND LAW ON WHICH THE CLAIMS ARE MADE.

_____________________________________________________________________________MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

List of Abbreviations ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR - All Indian Reporter

All - Allahabad

ALR - Academy Law Reviw

A.P - Andhra Pradesh

Apv. - Approve

Art. - Assistant

Bom. - Bombay

Cl. - Clause

Co. - Company

Del. - Delhi

Ed. - Edition

Hon’ble - Honorable

ILR - Indian Law Journal

j. - Journal

JILI - Journal of Indian Law Institute

JT - Judgments Today

Kant - Karnataka

Ker. - Kerala

KLT - Kerala Law Times

Ltd. - Limited

Ori - Orissa

p. - Page

Punj. - Punjab

Pvt. - Private

SC - Supreme Court

SCC - Supreme Court Cases

________________________________________________________________________________


List of Abbreviations iii

Sub Cl. - Sub Clause

T.N - Tamil Nadu

Vol. - Volume

W.B - West Bengal

w.e.f - With effect from

____________________________________________________________


Index of Authorities iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

1. D.D Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 13th Ed.,2001,

Wadhawa and Co., Nagpur ……………………………………………………..

2. Dr.J.N. Pandey, Constitution Law of India, 44th Ed., 2007. Central Law Agency,

Allahabad………………………………………………………………………...

3. H.M Sreedevi, Constitutional Law of India, 4th Ed., 1993, N.M. Thripati Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay……………………………………………………………………………

4. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional law, 5th Ed., 2003 rep.2005, Wadhwa Nagpur….

5. P.M Bakshi , The Constitution of India, 4th Ed., 2000, Universal Law Publishing

Co. Pvt.Ltd., Delhi………………………………………………………………..

6. V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, 10th Ed., 2003 rep.2007, Eastern Book

Company, Lucknow………………………………………………………………

7. P.Leela Krishnan, Environmental Law in India, 1st Ed., 1999 Butterworths Group

of Companies, New Delhi…………………………………………………………

8. Dr. Kailash Rai, Principles of Administrative Law, 5th Ed., 2005, Allahabad Law

Agency, Haryana………………………………………………………………….

9. Gurudip Singh, Environmental Law in India,

1st Ed., 2005, Macmillan India Ltd……………………………………………….

DICTIONARIES

1. Black’s Law Dictionary (Brain A. Garner Ed., West Group 7th Ed. 1999)

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

1. World Charter For Nature, 1982………………………………………………….

________________________________________________________________________________


Index of Authorities v

STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India

2. The Environment Protection Act, 1986

3. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

WEBSITES

1. www.legalpundits.com .........................................................................................

2. www.supremecourtonline.com .............................................................................

3. www.manupatra.com ............................................................................................

4. www.google.com ..................................................................................................

__________________________________________________________________________


http://www.google.com/

http://www.manupatra.com/

http://www.supremecourtonline.com/

http://www.legalpundits.com/

Table of Cases vi

TABEL OF CASES

1. A.P Agarwal v Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2000 SC 205

2. Amarjeeth Singh v. Zonal Manager , Food Corporation of India & Others, AIR 2002

NOC 14 (P&H)

3. Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Collector, AIR 1980 SC 112

4. Bandhu Mukti Morcha v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 811

5. Bd.of Trustee of port of Bombay v. Nata Dilip Kumar AIR 1983 SC 109,

6. Board of Control for Cricket v.Netaji Cricket Club AIR 2008 SC 592

7. Bodhisattan v Subhra Chakrabarthy, AIR 1999 SC 922

8. Burra Bazar v.Comm. of Police Cal AIR 1998 Ca/121

9. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261

10. Charanlal Shahu v Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480

11. DD.Vyas v Ghaziabad Development Authority AIR 1993 All 57;

12. Dr. Hariraj L.Chulani v Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (1996) 3SCC 345

13. E.P Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555

14. E.P Royappa v.State of Tamil nadu AIR 1974 SC 555

15. F.K Hussain v Union of India AIR 1990 Ker 321

16. Fedaration of Bar Association in Karnataka v.Union of India AIR 2000 SC 2544.

17. Food Corporation of India v.Kamadenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601

18. Francie Coralie v Union Territory Delhi Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746

19. Gopal Das Mohta v. Union of India AIR 1955 SC 1

20. Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Janat, AIR 2006 SC 212

21. Intellectual forum Tripathi v. State of Andra Pradesh AIR 2006 SC 1310

22. J N Chadurvedi v.Comm.All, Dist, AIR 2001 All 148

23. KC Malhotra (Dr) v State of MP AIR 1994 MD 48;

__________________________________________________________________________


Table of Cases vii

24. Knnubai Brahm Bhatt v State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159

25. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd v Girija Shankar

26. M C Metha V Union Of India AIR 1997 SC 734.

27. M.C Mehta v Union of India (1998) 2 scc 435

28. M.S Veena Serhi v State of Bihar, AIR1983 SC 339

29. Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Corporation, AIR 1990 SC

30. Mahesh Chandra v.Regional Manager, up Financial Corporation. AIR 1993 SC 935

31. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR SC 597

32. MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1997

33. MC. Mehta v.State of Orissa AIR 1992 Ori 225,

34. Mohammed Ishaq V Kazam Pasha, AIR 2009 SC Sapp 1610

35. Mohan Vanajaya Viniyog Pvt Ltd v. State of West Bengal AIR 2007 NOC 190(Cal)

36. Naraindas v State of MP AIR SC 1232

37. Narayana v.State of Kerala AIR 1974

38. Narmada Bachao Andolan v.State of MP AIR 2008 MP 142;

39. Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 Ker 13125

40. Olga Tellus v.Bombay Municipal Corp.AIR 1986 SC 180;

41. Prem Chang Garg v. Excise Comm.UP , AIR 1963 SC 996

42. Pwarakadas marfahia & Soni v. Board of trustees of Port of Bombay; AIR 1989 SC

1642

43. Ramachand v Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 44.

44. Ramasharan Auty v Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 339

45. Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v State of UP AIR 1987 SC 359;

46. Satyavani v. A.P Pollution Control Board AIR 1993 AP,

47. Sheela Basse v State of Maharashtra, (1983) 25CC 96 AIR 1983 SC 378

48. Sitaram Chhaparia v.State of Bihar AIR 2002 Pat 134;

__________________________________________________________________________


Table of cases viii

49. State of Maharashtra v Chandrabhan AIR 1983 SC 803

50. State of W.B v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights AIR 2010 SC 1476

51. Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420

52. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar , AIR 1991 SC 420

53. T.Ram Krishna Rao v. The Chairman Huda and Ors, ILR (2001) 2 AP 180

54. Vikram Dhillon v State of Haryana

________________________________________________________________________________________________


Statement of Jurisdiction ix

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT THE MEMORIAL OF THE

PRESENT CASE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

TO THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. IT SETS FORTH THE

AROUNDS OF FACTS AND LAW ON WHICH THE CLAIMS ARE MADE.

__________________________________________________________________________


Statement of Facts x

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Sitaram Diversion Scheme (‘SDS’ for short) is an inter-State irrigational project covering lands in the States of Karnataka and Andra Pradesh. The project comprises of canal on the river Tunghabadra (Inter-State River), tributary of river Krishna, near Village Sitapet in Raichur District in the State of Karnataka. The canal is of the length of about 89 miles (143KM) having discharge capacity of 850 cusecs of water. It was constructed by the then Nizam of Hydrabad before more than fifty years.

SDS caters needs of drinking and irrigation water in Mehboobnagar District, which is a drought-prone area of the State of Andra Pradesh. About 40,000 farmers, out of which 30,000 are small and marginal farmers, are entirely dependent on the water from the said canal for drinking, irrigation, sanitation and other domestic purposes.

State of Karnataka sanctioned and granted approval to a Mini Hydro Power Project at Sitaram Diversion Scheme in favour of Sree Mahalekshmi Energy Limited (SMEL). Aggrieved by the state’s action, a group of residents headed by one Chandra Reddy of Mehboobnagar District in the State of Andra Pradesh approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ, direction or order, restraining State of Karnataka and Sree Mahalekshmi Energy Ltd. From constructing a mini hydro power project at Sitaram Diversion Scheme and hence the matter is pending before the Supreme Court of India.

The power channel is so designed that it will take away water from poundage of SDS which would result in substantially curtailing the flow of water diverting water to Power Project. It would adversely affect 40,000 farmers, their family members and residents who depend on RDS canal in the State of Andra Pradesh.

It is stated by the Petitioners that they are citizens of India and are residence of Mehaboobnagar District and that they depend on SDS for the irrigation of their agricultural lands. Petitioners further contented that State of Karnataka has acted illegally and unlawfully in sanctioning and approving the power project in favor of a private party. Due to the said project, sufficient water for drinking purpose and for irrigation facility is not available to the residence and farmers of District Mehaboobnagar of the State of Andhra Pradesh. They stated that the petitioners in the larger interest of the public are, there for, constrained to approach Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Petitioner have further stated that the power channel is so designed that it will take away water from poundage of SDS which would result in substantially curtailing the flow of water to Power Project. It would adversely affect 40000 farmers, their family members and the residence who depend on RDS Canal in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The respondents inter alia, contented that writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution is no maintainable. On merits, it was contented that the grievance raised by the petitioners that the Mini Hydel Power Project would consume water is totally unfounded and ill conceived. The scheme contemplated production of electricity on the “Run-off-the River Technology” which involves no consumptive utilization of water at all. The respondents allege that the writ petition is an abuse of process of Court and the Court is being used as a Political Platform to achieve Political mileage by the opposition parties.

The matter is pending before the Supreme Court of India

_________________________________________________________________________MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

Questions Presented xi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

A. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS

MAINTAINABLE?

B. WHETHER THE ACT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA TO SET UP THE HYDRO

POWER PROJECT ARE ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

AND VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

C. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

___________________________________________________________________________


Summary of Arguments xii

SUMMARY AND ARGUMENTS

A. THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE:

B. THE ACT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA TO SET UP THE HYDRO POWER PROJECT ARE ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND UN CONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :

C. THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:

C.1. Right to Livelihood of the Petitioners is violated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

C.2. Right to water Guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

Arguments Advanced 1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED__________________________________________________________

A. WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER Art 32 IS MAINTAINABLE

Article 321 of the Constitution of Indian states that when there is violation of fundamental right any person can move to the court for an appropriate remedy 2. The significant aspect of Indian Constitution is the jurisdiction it confers on the Supreme Court to issue writs under Article 32 3. The sole object of Article 32 is enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 4

Underlying the significance of Article 32 the Supreme Court has characterized the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 32 as an important and integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution because it is meaningless to confer fundamental rights with out providing an effective remedy for their enforcement, if and when they are violated. 5

In Vikram Dhillon v State of Haryana6

The fundamental Right to move this court can-therefore be appropriately described as the cornerstone of the democratic edifice raised by the constitution. It is natural that this court should regard itself as protector and guarantor of


1 Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move the supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the constitution.2

? Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and others (2008) 9scc 685, Fedaration of Bar Association in Karnataka v.Union of India AIR 2000 SC 2544.

3 Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Collector, AIR 1980 SC 112, See also Prem Chang Garg v. Excise Comm.UP , AIR 1963 SC 996

4 Gopal Das Mohta v. Union of India AIR 1955 SC 1, see also Dr.Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of Indian, (13th Ed 2001)5

?Banti kanta Das & Another v. state of Assam & Ors JT (2009(7) SC 562, Fedaration of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 2544.6 AIR 2007 SC 1067, State of W.B.v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights AIR 2010 SC 1476.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

fundamental rights and refuse to entertain application seeking protection against infringement of such rights. The court has to pray the role of a ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ and it must always regard it us its solemnly duty to protect the Fundamental Right ‘Zealously and Vigilantly’.

In the instant case the petitioner have got the innate right to enjoy the fundamental right conferred to them by the constitution of India. The very fact that the said right has been infringed by the respondent empower them to invoke the jurisdiction of the supreme court under Article 32 for the redressal of their grievances.

The technique of Public Interest Litigation serves to provide an effective remedy to enforce group rights and interest.7

Where a person or class of person to whom legal injury is caused by reason of violation of a fundamental Right is unable to approach the court for judicial redress on account of poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantage position any member of public acting bonafide can move to the court for relief under Article 32.8

Any member of public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. 9

In the instant case the act of State of Karnataka in sanctioning mini hydro power project affect the 40,000 farmers who where entirely dependant on the water from the said canal for drinking, irrigation, sanitation and other domestic purposes. Aggrieved by state action a group of residence headed by Chandra Reddy moved this Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 before this honorable court.

In Common Cause, a Registered society v Union of India 10. The Supreme Court opined that ;

“ Aricle 32 provides a guaranteed , quick and summary remedy for enforcing the fundamental Right because a person can go straight to the Supreme Court without having


7 Sheela Basse v State of Maharashtra, (1983) 25CC 96 AIR 1983 SC 378: M C Metha V Union Of India AIR 1997 SC 734.8 Bandhu Mukti Morcha v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 8119 Villianus Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v Union of India (2009) 7 SCC561 : (2009) 8JT 339.10 AIR 1999 SC 3020, Bodhisattan v Subhra Chakrabarthy, AIR 1999 SC 922

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

to under go dilatory process of proceeding from the lower court to the high court as he has to do in after ordinary litigation”

The Supreme Court cannot refuse on application under Article 32 merely on the following grounds:

That such application has been made to the Supreme Court in the first instance without resort to High Court under Article 226 11

That there is some alternative remedy available 12

The existence of an adequate alternative relief is not a bar to the invocation of the Supreme Courts jurisdiction under Article 32. When a relief a sort in case of a infringement of a Fundamental Right 13

The respondent curtailed the fundamental rights of the petition guaranteed under the constitution of Indian. Being aggrieved by the impugned Act the petitioner has the very right to seek relief under Article 32 of the constitution ass there has been infringement of fundamental rights; alternative remedy is in no way debarring from approaching the Supreme Court.

In Janata Dal v H.S Chowdhary 14 . It was opined that:

“The Supreme Court has to innovate new methods and device new strategies for the purpose of providing access to justice who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning. The only way this can be done is by entertaining writ petitions.”

In the instant case, the very fact that the petitioner is in a grevious situation that the said project curtails the right to water that is their basic fundamental right has been violated. This empowers them to approach the Supreme Court and the court to grant relief through allowing the petition. The Supreme Court is the greatest authority to


11 Kumar P.N v Municipal Coprn Delhi (1987) 45CC 609; Knnubai Brahm Bhatt v State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159 12 State of W.B v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights AIR 2010 SC 1476 : Mohammed Ishaq V Kazam Pasha, AIR 2009 SC Supp 161013 Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261; Ramachand v Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 44.14 AIR 1993 SC 892; see also M.S Veena Serhi v State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 339; Ramasharan Auty v Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 339

________________________________________________________________________________________ MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizen and also to see that justice being given to the needy.

Hence, it is humbly submitted before this honorable Court that the writ petition filed under Article 32 is maintainable.


Article 14 outlaws arbitrary administrative action. When there is arbitrariness in state action Art14 springs in to action and the court strikes down such action. Arbitrary state action infringes Art 14 .15

Every action of the State must be informed by reasons and guided by public interest. Actions uninformed by reason may questioned as arbitrary.16

In case any right conferred on citizens which is sought to be interfered, such action is subject to Art 14 of the Constitution, and must be reasonable and can be taken only upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest.17 Every state action in order to survive must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Art 14 of the Constitution and the basic to the rule of law.18

In Maneka Gandhi V Union of India 19 the Supreme Court held that:

“The new concept of arbitrariness was reinforced thus Art 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action. The principle of reasonableness which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness provides Art 14 as a brooding omnipresence.”

The statutory body is bound to follow the doctrine of fairness and good faith in all its activities having regard to the fact that it has to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of millions, it has the duty to act reasonably. It cannot act arbitrary, whimsically or capriciously as the body controls environmental issues its action are required to be judged and viewed by higher standard.20

Arguments Adavanced 5

15A.P Agarwal v Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2000 SC 205, H.M. Sreedevi , Constitutional law of India. [4th Ed, 1993] 16 E.P Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555 C also17 Amarjeeth Singh v. Zonal Manager , Food Corporation of India & Others, AIR 2002 NOC 14 (P&H) Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Corporation, AIR 1990 SCIDBI, Pwarakadas marfahia & Soni v. Board of trustees of Port of Bombay; AIR 1989 SC 164218 Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Janat, AIR 2006 SC 212, Govt. Of AD V P.Laxmi Devi (2008) 4.19 AIR 1978 SC 59720 Board of Control for Cricket v.Netaji Cricket Club AIR 2008 SC 592


In the instant case the sanction of hydro power project by the State of Karnataka is not made in a just, fair and reasonable manner, but according to the whims & fancies of the Government. The respondent owes a duty towards the public not to act in a capricious manner and to inpede the lawful exercise of fundamental right. The Act not only affects the Petitioner but also to the greater public i.e. 40,000 farmers who will be sufferers of impugned act are entirely dependant on the water from the said Canal for drinking, irrigation, sanitation and other domestic purposes. It does not satisfy the requirement of public interest and hence vitiated by the vice of arbitrariness which is antithetical to Article 14.

Further, to satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness in state action, it is necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable and legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else the unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power .21 Any arbitrary action thus taken by the state would be subject to scrutiny by the courts because arbitrariness is the very antithesis of rule of law.22

In the instant case, the State of Karnataka’s proposal to set up the hydro power project will cause an irreparable impact on the environment. The plan to set up the project has been taken without considering the legitimate expectation of the people. If the project is given a green signal by the Government it would no doubt result in arbitrariness in state action and would lead to negation of equality as enshrined under Art 14 of the Constitution.

Once it is acknowledged that non-arbitrariness is an ingredient of Art 14 pervading the entire realm of state action governed by Art 14 it has come to be established, as a further corollary, that the ‘audi alteram partem’ fact of natural justice is also a requirement of Article 14, for natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. The right of ‘audi alteram partem’ is a valuable right recognized under the Indian Constitution23.

In the instant Case, State of Karnataka Sanctioned Mini Hydro Power Project without following the procedure of natural justice and hence the act of State


violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution . So it can be state that the action made by the State of Karnataka is purely arbitrary.21 Food Corporation of India v.Kamadenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601, Mahesh Chandra v.Regional Manager, up Financial Corporation. AIR 1993 SC 93522 Naraindas v State of MP AIR SC 123223 E.P Royappa v.State of Tamil nadu AIR 1974 SC 555 c also Narayana v.State of Kerala AIR 1974, V.N Shukla, Constitution of India [ 10th Ed, 2007] ;Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd v Girija Shankar AIR 2001 SC 24)


Hence it is humbly submitted before the Honorable Court that the act of state of Karnataka to set up hydro power project is illegal, unlawful & unconstitutional and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

C. THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIION:-

Right to life enshrined in Article 21 means something more than survival or animal existence.24 It would include right to live with human dignity.25 It would include all those aspects of the life which goes to make mans life meaningful, complete and worth living26. That which alone can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of right to life.27

Every person enjoys the right to wholesome environment, which is a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India.28

In the instant case, the proposal of Mini hydro power project would deprive the petitioners right to live with human dignity which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. As the inhabitants of Mehaboobnagar, which is a drought prone area of the Andra Pradesh depend completely on this water from the canal for drinking, irrigation, sanitation and other domestic purpose. The denial of this will lead to the gross violation of the right as adumptrated in Article 21 of the Constitution.

C1. RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE PETITIONERS IS VIOLATED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA


An important facet of Article 21 is the right to life which includes right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of living ie, the means of livelihood.

24 State of Maharashtra v Chandrabhan AIR 1983 SC 803; see also MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (5th Ed; 2005) P.25 Francie Coralie v Union Territory Delhi Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746; see also Olga Tellus v.Bombay Corp.AIR 1986 SC 180; D.T.C v. Mazdoor Congress Union Air 1991 SC 101; KC Malhotra (Dr) v State of MP AIR 1994 MD 48; J N Chadurvedi v.Comm.All, Dist, AIR 2001 All 14826Maneka Gandhi v Unioon of India AIR SC 597 see also Bd.of Trustee of port of Bombay v. Nata Dilip Kumar AIR 1983 SC 109, Burra Bazar v.Comm. of Police Cal AIR 1998 Ca/121 27 Supra on 25 see also D.D Basu , Shorter Constitution of India [13th Ed 2001]28 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar , AIR 1991 SC 420


Olga Tellis v Bombay Muncipal Corporation 29 the Supreme Court held that easiest way of depriving a person’s right to life would be deprive his right to livelihood. Deprivation of livelihood would not only denude the life but it also makes life impossible to live. That which alone makes it possible to live must be an important component of right to life. Any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending to the right to life conferred under Article 21.

In the instant case the State of Karnataka illegally and unlawfully sanctioned the mini hydro power project. Thus this affects the right to livelihood of petitioners who are the marginal farmers who solely depend on this canal for the irrigation

C2. RIGHT TO WATER GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS VIOLATED

Sec 2 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 defines water pollution as “pollution means such contamination of water or such alternation of physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or salt substance in to water (whether directly or indirectly) as may, or is likely to create a nuisance or render such harmful or injurious to public health or safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate use, or the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms”

Right it life under Article 21 includes Right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.30

Right to life includes right to potable water as it is one of the basic elements which sustain life itself.31

In the instant case the construction of hydro power project by the State Government would have an adverse affect on the quality of the river water. Water which


is essential for the very existence of human being is a gift of nature. The run-off-the-river-technology used here will change the quality of water in the river, on which the petitioner

29 [AIR 1986 SC 180] see also Dr. Hariraj L.Chulani v Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (1996) 3SCC 34530 Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420: see also; Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v State of UP AIR 1987 SC 359; DD.Vyas v Ghaziabad Development Authority AIR 1993 All 57; Narmada Bachao Andolan v.State of MP AIR 2008 MP 142; MC. Mehta v.State of Orissa AIR 1992 Ori 225, 31 F.K Hussain v Union of India AIR 1990 Ker 321: see also Charanlal Shahu v Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480 ; M.C Mehta v Union of India (1998) 2 scc 435; P. Leela Krishnan, Environmental Law in India [1st Ed.1999]


depends for drinking, irrigation, sanitation and other domestic purposes. Thus it is clear that the State action would lead to degradation in the quality of water and there by preventing people from enjoying the free flow of water.

The State Government has Constitutional obligation to protect and preserve the environment

Article 48-A and 51A (g) have to be considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 48 A of the constitution of India mandates that State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Article 51A (g) enjoys that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve national environment including forest, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. 32

These two Articles are not only fundamental in governance of the country but also shall be the duty of the State of apply these principles in making policies 33.

In MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath 34 the Supreme Court accepted the doctrine of public trust which rest on the premise that certain natural resources like air, sea water are meant for general use. These resources are gift of nature and the State as a trustee thereof, is duly to bound to protect them.

The World Charter for Nature delineates the special protection to be accorded to unique areas or the habitats of rare or endangered species and enjoins upon the States the duty to take the account of the conservation of nature in the implementation of economic development activities 35.

Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall be required to demonstrate that


32 MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1997; T.Ram Krishna Rao v. The Chairman Huda and Ors, ILR (2001) 2 AP 18033 Intellectual forum Tripathi v. State of Andra Pradesh AIR 2006 SC 1310 see also: Sitaram Chhaparia v.State of Bihar AIR 2002 Pat 134; Satyavani v. A.P Pollution Control Board AIR 1993 AP, Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 Ker 1312534 (1997) 1 SCC 38835 Art 7 of the World Charter of Nature


expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood the activities shall not proceed 36

In the instant case, the respondent failed to conduct an exhaustive examination of the said project and therefore the project should not be preceded.

Environment impact Assessment (EIA) is a technique to ensure that the likely effects of development activities on the environment will be taken in to consideration before the activities authorized to proceed. EIA involves continuing assessment and evaluation of the environment effects on the developmental project as long as the project is in operation and is not confined to pre-project evaluation of possible environmental effects.37

In the instant case, EIA was not undertaken by the State of Karnataka .The act of State of Karnataka to set up the mini hydro power project has been taken without considering the legitimate expectations of the people. So, green signal cannot be given to the hydro power project without taking EIA.

Hence it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the act of State of Karnataka to set up mini hydro power project is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion and Prayer Relief 10

36 Art II (b) id ; see also Mohan Vanajaya Viniyog Pvt Ltd v. State of West Bengal AIR 2007 NOC 190(Cal); Research Foundation for Science and Technology & National Resources v Union of India 2005 (3) 19337 Gurdip Singh, Environmental Law in India [1st Ed. 2005)


CONCLUSION AND PRAYER RELIEF

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities cited the Petitioners humbly that this Hon’ble Court may kindly adjudge and declare that:

A. THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE:


C. THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:

And may kindly pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit.For the act of kindness the Appellant as in duty bound shall forever pray.

Respectfully submitted

Sd/-

(Counsel for the Petitioners)

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORIAL FOR THE PETIOTIONERS

Moot Memo

Documents

Transcript of Moot Memo