Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 29

TEAM CODE- B12

UILS Intra Department Moot Court Competition, 2017

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARAT

IN THE MATTERS OF:

CWP …… Of 2017
State of Purvanchal Pradesh.……….…..…………………………………… (Petitioner)
Versus
Gaurav Mulekhi ………………….…………………………………………. (Respondent)

AND
SLP …… of 2017
State of Purvanchal Pradesh ..…………………………………………………. (Petitioner)
Versus
Koolhaas……….………………………………………………………………. (Respondent)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No. PARTICULARS Page No.


1. List of Abbreviations i
2. Index of Authorities ii-iii
3. Table of Cases iv-vi
4. Statement of Jurisdiction vii
5. Statement of Facts viii
6. Statement of Issues xi
7. Summary of Argume nts x-xi
8. Arguments Advanced 1
WHETHER THE G.O. 1183 AND G.O. 1184 ISSUED BY THE 1-10
GOVERNMENT OF PURVACHAL PRADESH ARE VALID
OR NOT?
______________________________________________________
WHETHER KOOLHAAS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 10-15
BREACH IN TUNNEL HAPPENED ON 17 th OCTOBER, 2017
OR NOT?
9. Prayer 16

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


i
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.N O. ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM


1. A.I.R. ALL INDIA R EPORTER
2. ANR. ANOTHER
3. ART. ARTICLE
4. CO. COMPANY
5. CRI.L.J. CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
6. E.I.A ENVIRONMENT I MPACT ASSESSMENT
7. ED. EDITION
8. I.C.J. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF J USTICE
9. I.P.C. INDIAN PENAL CODE
10. ID. IBID
11. LTD. LIMITED
12. ORS . OTHERS
13. S.C. SUPREME COURT
14. S.C.C. SUPREME COURT CAS ES
15. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT R EPORTER
16. S.S.P. SAMADI SAROVAR PROJ ECT
17. U.O.I. UNION O F I NDIA
18. U.P. UTTAR PRADES H
19. V./VS . V ERSUS
20. VOL. VOLUME

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


ii
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. BOOKS

1. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW , (6th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa,


2010)
2. 1-4 P RAMANATHA AIYAR, ADVANCED LAW LEXICON, (YV Chandrachud, 3rd Ed,
LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa, 2009)
3. 13 MANOHAR & CHITALEY, AIR MANUAL – CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, (6th Ed, All India
Reporter Pvt. Ltd. Nagapur, 2004)
4. SHYAM DIVAN & ARMIN ROSENCRANZ, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY, (2nd Ed,
Oxford University Press, 2012)
5. DR. H.N. TIWARI, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW , (3rd Ed, Allahabad Law Agency, 2010)
6. DR. S.C. TRIPATHI & MRS. VIBHA ARORA , ENVIRONMENTAL LAW , (5th Ed, Central
Law Publications, 2013)
7. P.W.BIRNIE & A.E.BOYLE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ENVIRONMENT, (2nd Ed,
Oxford University Press, 2004)
8. P LEELAKRISHNAN, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN INDIA , (3rd Ed, Lexis Nexis Butterworth
Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2010)
9. JUSTINE THORNTON, M.A . (CANTAB.) & SILAS BECKWITH, LL.B (LOND.), SWEET
&MAXWELL’S TEXTBOOK SERIES ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ,(2nd Ed, Sweet &Maxwell,
2004)
10. P LEELAKRISHNAN, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CASE BOOK, (2nd Ed, Lexis Nexis
Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2010)
11. 1-2 ALPANA PODDER, LAL’S ENCYCLOPEDIA ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND
POLLUTION LAWS, (5th Ed, Delhi Law House, 2013)
12. DR. G. INDIRA PRIYA DARSINI & PROF. K. UMA DEVI, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, (Regal Publications, 2010)
13. A. VAIDYANATHAN, O XFORD INDIA SHORT INTRODUCTIONS, (1st Ed, Oxford
University Press, 2013)
14. DR. RATHIN BANDOPADHYA Y & DR. RAJENDRA DHAR DUBEY, AN I NTRODUCTION TO
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS , (1st Ed, Central Law Publications, 2010)
15. INDRAJIT DUBE, ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE POLLUTER’S LIABILITY, (Lexis
Nexis Butterworths, 2007)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


iii
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

16. O.V.N ANDIMATHM , HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING IN INDIA AN


EIA MODEL, (1 st Ed, Oxford University Press, 2009)
17. PHILIPPE SANDS,& JACQUELINE P EEL WITH ADRIANA FABRA & RUTH MACKENZIE,
PRINCIPLES OF I NTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW , (3rd Ed. Cambridge University
Press, 2012)
18. 1-4 M.V. P YLEE, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN INDIA , (3rd Ed. Universal Law
Publishing House Co. Pvt. Ltd.,2010 )
19. 1-3 JUSTICE SUJATA V. MANOHAR, T.K. TOPE’S CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA , (3rd
Ed. Eastern Book Company, 2010)
20. 1-4 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA A CRITICAL COMMENTARY, (4th
Ed. Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2010)
21. DHARMENDRA S. SENGAR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PHI Learning Private
Limited,2012)
22. ZAFAR MAHFOOZ MOMANI, ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT LAWS, (Satyam Law
International, 2010)
23. 1-3 JAGDISH SWARUP & D R. L.M. SINGHVI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (3rd Ed.Thomson
Reuters South Asia Private Limited, 2013)
24. 1-10 ACHARYA DR. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA , (11th Ed. , Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2009)
25. 1-3 ARVIND P.DATAR, DATAR COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , (2nd
Ed. , Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2010)
26. P.J. FITZGERALD, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE, (12th Ed. Universal Law Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2010)
B. STATUTES
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
 Environment(Protection) Act, 1986
 Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Forest Act, 1980
 Constitution of India
 Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
C. R EGULATIONS
 Cable Television Network (Regulations) Act, 1995

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


iv
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

TABLE OF CASES

S. NO. CASE NAME CITATION PAGE NO.

1. A. P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. AIR 1999 SC 812 7


M. V. Nayadu

2. Association of Victims of Uphaar (2003) 2 ACC 114 14


Tragedy v. Union of India

3. Bangalore Medical Trust v. B. S. AIR 1991 SC 1902 7


Muddappa

4. Blyth v. Birminghan Water Worka Co. 11Ex. 784 12

5. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480 13

6. Dongh Lian Kham v. Union of India 226(2016) DLT 208 4

7. Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap 5 Bom. L.R. 679 10

8. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal 1996 (5) SCC 281 7,13


Action v. Union of India

9. Istlingappa v. Emperor 17 I.C. (Bom) 542 11

10. K. Veeraraghavan v. The Secretary to (2014) 5 MLJ 479 11


Government

11. Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union 1999 CriLJ 919 11


of India

12. M.C. Mehata v. Kamal nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 18

13. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 15

14. N. D. Jayal v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 86 17

15. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of (2000) 10 SCC 664 14

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


v
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

India and Anr

16. P. Rajappan v. State of Kerala 1986 Cri. L.J. 511 11

17. re Nidamarti Nagabhushnam (1872) 7 M.H.C.R. 119 11

18. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 12

19. S. Jagannath v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 811 7

20. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West AIR 1987 SC 1109 16


Bengal

21. Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 212 6

22. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh AIR 1996 SC 149 18


Wood Products

23. State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490 6

24. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420 5

25. Sushila Saw Mills v. State of Orissa (1995) SCC 615 8

26. T. N. Godavarman Thirumulakpad v. (1997) 2 SCC 267 18


Union of India

27. Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union 1992 Supp (2) SCC 448 5
of India

28. Thammanna vs K. Veera Reddy 1981 AIR 116 9

29. The State Trading Corporation v. The AIR 1963 SC 1811 1


Commercial Tax Officer

30. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra (1993) 1 SCC 645 6


Pradesh

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


vi
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

31. Vedanta Alumina Ltd. vs Prafulla LPA 277/2009 DHC 9


Samantra & Ors

32. Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. AIR 1996 SC 2715 7


Union of India

33. Virendar Gaur v. State of Haryana 1995 (2) SCC 577 5

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


vii
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. The Respondents respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of Honourable Supreme Court


under Article 136(1) of the Constitution of Bharat 1 in the case of State of Purvanchal
Pradesh v. Koolhaas.

2. The Respondents respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of Honourable Supreme Court


under Article 133(2) 2 of the Constitution of Bharat in the case of State of Purvanchal
Pradesh v. Gaurav Mulekhi.

1
Article 136(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal fro m any judg ment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or
made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
2
Article 133(2) Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under clause
(1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of
this Constitution has been wrongly decided.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


viii
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

1. About Bharat, Bangla and Barma: Bharat is a democratic country having 70 percent of its
population engaged in agriculture relying on traditional methods of irrigation. Bharat shares
borders with Bangla and Barma and all three are active members of United Nations.
2. Drohingyas take refuge in Bharat: Atrocities against the official ethnic group, Drohingyas
continue who have been denied citizenship by the state of Barma since 1982. In 2011, Barma
started persecuting the Drohingyas living in the Drakhine state of Barma. Fearing their lives,
Drohingyas take refuge in the state of Purvanchal Pradesh of the country of Bharat.

3. Samadi Sarovar Project: Tenders were invited for Samadi Sarovar Project (SSP). Koolhaas, a
swiss-based Architectural Company submitted its designs and budget. State approved it seeing
a less budget proposition in comparison to the other tenders. Eyeing the victory in 2017
elections, the state does an over-hasty act and asks its govt. engineers to pace up the work of
the construction of the dam. A tunnel to divert river is built by the government engineers.
4. Hue & cry over construction of dam: NGO ‘LiveWire’ claimed that the Environmental
Impact Assessment has been faulty. However, Bharat Express claimed that public
participation in EIA was affected by the violence spread by the Drohingya militants.
Government passed an order directing construction of dam (G.O. 1183) & another order
directing to send Drohingyas back to the state of Barma (G.O. 1184). Gaurav Mulekhi, an
activist, challenges both orders filing a PIL.
5. Breach in tunnel: On 17th October’17, there is a breach in tunnel costing the lives of 160,000.
High-powered committee stated that material used was of mediocre quality because the
desired material would have taken time to be transported and the construction would have
been delayed. The samples of concrete showed the water to cement ratio was higher than what
it should have been. State filed a civil suit for damages in District Court where it lost. In the
appeal filed for it in the High Court, it again lost & the state was asked to pay damages.
6. Proceedings before Supreme Court of Bharat: The State filed a criminal case u/s 304A, 336,
337 & 338, IPC, 1860 against Koolhaas. The state again lost both in trial court and High
Court. Finally, state files an SLP against the high court order for the state to pay damages &
contends the negligence on the part of Koolhaas. Further, government orders were quashed in
favour of the earlier PIL filed by Gaurav Mulekhi. Appeal is filed by the State challenging the
verdict of high court. Now all the matters have been clubbed and listed before the Supreme
Court of Bharat.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


ix
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

THE RESPONDENTS RESPECTFULLY ASK THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF


BHARAT, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

_______________________________________________

ISSUE-I

I. WHETHER THE G.O. 1183 AND G.O. 1184 ISSUED BY THE


GOVERNMENT OF PURVACHAL PRADESH ARE VALID OR NOT?

_______________________________________________

ISSUE-II

II. WHETHER KOOLHAAS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BREACH IN


TUNNEL HAPPENED ON 17th OCTOBER, 2017 OR NOT?

__________________________________________________

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


x
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE G.O. 1183 AND G.O. 1184 ISSUED BY THE


GOVERNMENT OF PURVACHAL PRADESH ARE VALID OR NOT?

A. G.O. 1184 is violating Article 14, Article 21 and Article 51(c) of the Constitution
of India

1. The fundamental rights in the constitution are violated: The right against
deportation, in keeping with the Constitutional Guarantees under Article 14 and
Article21 of the Constitution of India, read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution
of India, which protects against arbitrary deportation of the drohingyas who have
taken refuge in Bharat after escaping from their home country Barma due to
atrocities committed against them and due to threat to their life
2. Inte rnational law is being violated: It is humbly submitted that India ratified the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10th December 1948. UDHR, while
laying down the basic foundation for Human Rights, protects the Refugees by
explicitly recognising the Principle of Non-Refoulement. Article 14 of UDHR.

B. G.O. 1183 is violating Article 14, Article 19, Article 21 and Article 48(A) of the
Constitution of India

1. Environmental Rights include Statutory Rights under Environme nt


(Protection Act, 1986): It is humbly submitted that the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 holds that power conferred under this may be exercised to advance
environmental protection and not for purpose that would defeat the object of law.
2. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is violated: Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in
ecological imbalance and provision of conservation of forests must apply to all
forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification.
3. E.I.A. is faulty: An EIA is conducted in order to anticipate the likely
consequences of the project. The criteria of “aggrieved person” are not been
satisfied as insignificant number of people attended the public hearing. It is the
right of person affected to attend the public hearing, failing in which the EIA is
stated faulty.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


xi
UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

II. WHETHER KOOLHAAS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BREACH IN


TUNNEL HAPPENED ON 17th OCTOBER, 2017 OR NOT?

A. No rash or negligent act on the part of Koolhaas


1. Due care given through supe rvision by the experts of Koolhaas: It is humbly
submitted that in order to impose criminal liability under sections 304A, 336, 337
and 338, IPC, 1860, it is necessary that the death must have been the direct result
of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that the act must be proximate and
efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence. There has been
no negligence, infact, proper due care in the form of supervision has been given
by the experts of Koolhaas.
2. Rashness and negligence on the part of the State : A rash act is primarily an
over- hasty act, and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but it also includes an act
which, though it may be said to be deliberate act, is yet done without due
deliberation and caution. The state who had pressurized their own engineers to
hurry and pace up the work for their own motive of seeking victory in the 2017
elections. Hence, the state has indulged in an over-hasty act.
3. Breach in tunnel constitutes deficiency in way of working of govt. engineers:
It is humbly submitted that the construction of the dam was started only after the
government engineers of Purvanchal Pradesh had selected and approved of the
design and the budget for it. It corroborates to the fact that there has been
negligence on the part of the government engineers while constructing the tunnel.

B. State is liable to pay damages arising out of the disaster


1. Rule of strict liability does not apply on Koolhaas: As laid down in the case of
Rylands v. Fletcher, if the damage had been caused by the plaintiff’s own default,
he cannot complain for the damage so caused. It is humbly submitted that in the
present case, the rule of strict liability does not arise on the architectural company.
2. State has caused loss of life, violated Article 21 and environme ntal
safeguards: it was the government of Purvanchal Pradesh which has showed
negligence. Article 21 envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a person.
The word “life” under Article 21 means a quality of life which guarantees the
fundamental right of every individual to live in the safe and sound premises.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ON BEHALF OF MR. GAURAV MULEKHI

I. WHETHER THE G.O. 1183 AND G.O. 1184 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF PURVACHAL PRADESH ARE VALID OR NOT?

A. G.O. 1184 is violating Article 14, Article 21 and Article 51(c) of the Constitution
of India
[A.1] The fundamental rights in the constitution are violated

1. It is humbly submitted that the right against deportation, in keeping with the
Constitutional Guarantees under Article 14 and Article21 of the Constitution of India,
read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India, which protects against arbitrary
deportation of the drohingyas who have taken refuge in Bharat after escaping from
their home country Barma due to atrocities committed against them and due to threat
to their life 3 .
2. It is humbly submitted that the Constitutional Provisions of Article 14, Article 21 and
Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India provides equal rights and liberty to any
person whether he is a citizen or alien 4 . In the case of NHRC v. State of Arunachal
Pradesh5 , the court held that:
Our Constitution confers certain rights on every human being and certain
other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law
and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Thus, the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human
being, be he a citizen or otherwise
3. Further, In the case of Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union of India 6 , the Gujarat
High Court held that:
This principle prevents expulsion of a refugee where his life or freedom
would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Its application

3
Facts on record, para 2.
4
The State Trading Corporation v. The Co mmercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811.
5
AIR 1996 SC 1234.
6
1999 CriLJ 919.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
2

protects life and liberty of a human being irrespective of his nationality. It is


encompassed in Article 21 of the Constitution, so long as the presence of
refugee is not prejudicial to the law and order and security of India.
4. It is humbly submitted that the protection against refoulement under Article 33(1)
applies to any person who is a refugee under the terms of the 1951 Convention, that is,
anyone who meets the requirements of the refugee definition contained in Article 1A
(2) of the 1951 Convention (the “inclusion” criteria) and does not come within the
scope of one of its exclusion provisions 7 . The term “refugee”, shall apply to any
person who “owing to a well- founded fear of being persecuted, for reasons of race,
religions, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is
outside the country of his (or her) habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear,
unwilling to return to it”8 .
5. It is humbly submitted that That the principle of Non Refoulement has been
enunciated explicitly under Article 33(1) of the 1951 United Nation Convention on
the Status of Refugees 9 :
No contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any
manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom
would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership
of a particular social group or political opinion.
6. It is humbly submitted that the fundamental principle of nonrefoulment is customary
international law. The General Assembly has called upon States “to respect the
fundamental principle of nonrefoulement, which is not subject to derogation”. 10
Article 38(1)(b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice lists “international
custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” 11 . The prohibition of
refoulement of refugees, as enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention and

7
UN High Co mmissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Advisory Opinion on the Ext raterritorial Applicat ion of
Non-Refoulement Ob ligations under the 1951 Convention relat ing to the Status of Refugees and its 1967
Protocol, 26 January 2007.
8
UN General Assembly, Protocol Relat ing to the Status of Refugees , 31 January 1967, United Nat ions, Treaty
Series, vol. 606, p. 267.
9
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 137.
10
UNGA Rosultion no. A/RES/ 51/ 75 dated 12 February, 1997.
11
United Nations, Statute of the International Court of Justice, 18 April 1946.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
3

complemented by non- refoulement obligations under international human rights law,


satisfies these criteria and constitutes a rule of customary international law 12 .
[A.2] International law is being violated

7. It is humbly submitted that India ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
on 10th December 1948 13 . UDHR, while laying down the basic foundation for Human
Rights, protects the Refugees by explicitly recognising the Principle of Non-
Refoulement. Article 14 of UDHR states that Article 14 “Everyone has the right to
seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. India ratified
International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights 14 (ICCPR) in 1979. the ICCPR
also encompass the obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a
person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there
is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by Articles 6 [Right to
life] and 7 [Right to be free from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment] of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to
be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed 15 .
8. Furthermore, India became a signatory to the International Conventio n on Protection
of All Persons against Enforced Disappearances 16 in 2007. The Convention seeks to
protect people extreme seriousness of enforced disappearance and protects the right of
any person, to not to be subjected to enforced disappearance. Article 16 of the
Convention explicitly lays down the Principle of Non-Refoulement which is as
hereunder:
i. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler"), surrender or extradite a
person to another State where there are substantial grounds for
believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to
enforced disappearance.

12
UN High Co mmissioner fo r Refugees (UNHCR), Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of
Non-Refoulement Ob ligations under the 1951 Convention relat ing to the Status of Refugees and its 1967
Protocol, 26 January 2007.
13
217 A (III).
14
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171.
15
UN High Co mmissioner fo r Refugees (UNHCR), Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of
Non-Refoule ment Ob ligations under the 1951 Convention relat ing to the Status of Refugees and its 1967
Protocol, 26 January 2007.
16
UN General Assembly, International Convention on Protection of All Persons against Enforced
Disappearances, 20 December, 2006.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
4

ii. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the
competent authorities shall take into account all relevant
considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State
concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations
of human rights or of serious violations of international humanitarian
law.
9. It is humbly submitted that India became a signatory to the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 17 in 1997.
Convention puts an obligation on States to take all necessary measures to prevent acts
of torture. This includes legislative, administrative and judicial measures, as well as
any other measures that may be appropriate. States are also obliged to prevent other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 3 of the Convention
explicitly recognises the Principle of Non-Refoulement.
[A.3] Article 14, Article 21 and Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India are violate d

10. It is humbly submitted that in a recent judgement the Delhi High Court, In Dongh
Lian Kham v. Union of India18 ,stated:
The principle of “non-refoulement”, which prohibits expulsion of a
refugee, who apprehends threat in his native country on account of his
race, religion and political opinion, is required to be taken as part of the
guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as “non-
refoulement” affects/protects the life and liberty of a human being,
irrespective of his nationality.
11. Since the petitioners apprehend danger to their lives on return to their country 19 , it
would only be in keeping with the golden traditions of this country in respecting
international comity and according good treatment to refugees.
12. Furthermore, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr. v. UOI and Ors 20 , the
Supreme Court has categorically stated:
Constitutional provisions must be read and interpreted in a manner which
would enhance their conformity with the global human rights regime.
India is a responsible member of the international community and the

17
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1465, p. 85.
18
226(2016) DLT 208.
19
Facts on record, Para. 2.
20
WP (C ) No. 494/2012.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
5

Court must adopt an interpretation which abides by the international


commitments made by the country particularly where its constitutional and
statutory mandates indicate no deviation.
13. It is humbly submitted that Article 51 (c), a Directive Principle of State Policy,
requires Bharat to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the
dealings of organised peoples with one another, hence Bharat must respect the
various Conventions and treaties that provide a framework for refugee protection
and extend such protection to the Drohingya refugees in Bharat.
14. Because the petitioners are being persecuted in their home country. Even today,
they apprehend that in case they are deported to the country in their native region,
they would be face a server threat of bodily harm. The principle of non –
refoulment, enunciated explicitly under Article 33(1) of the 1951 United Nations
Convention on the Status of Refugees prohibits sending back refugees to a place
where they face danger – is considered part of customary international law and
binding on all states whether they have signed the 1951 UNHCR Refugee
Convention or not, mandating India to recognise this principle in the protection of
the Drohingya refugees and prevent their deportation to their country where they
are facing discrimination and threat to their life.

B. G.O. 1183 is violating various provisions of the constitution of India along


with Provisions of Environment Act, 1986 and Forest Act, 1980
[B.1] Constitutional Provisions under Article 21, Article 14, Article 19, Article 48A
are being violated

15. The Court has strengthened Article 21 21 in two ways (i) laws affecting personal
liberty have to pass the tests of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution 22 and (ii)
the Court recognized several unarticulated liberties that are implied by Article 21. The
environmental issues must and should receive the highest attention from this court. 23
Every person enjoys the right to a wholesome environment, which is a facet of the
right to life guaranteed under Article 21. 24 It is basic right of all to live in a healthy

21
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21.
22
Maneka Gandhi v. Un ion of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
23
Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 448.
24
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420; M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1992 (3) SCC 256;
Virendar Gaur v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 577.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
6

environment. The acute poverty in the country requires developmental process to be


accelerated, but we cannot do so at the cost of environment hereby endangering not
only the present generation to meet their own needs but also of coming generations. 25
16. It is humbly submitted that the Samadi Srover Project will cause displacement of
500,000 people including refugees from that area along with destruction of vital
ecology due to its submergence under the reservoir 26 . Fundamental Rights are but
means to achieve the goal indicated in Part IV and thus must be construed in the light
of Directive Principles. 27 Apart from Article 21 of the Constitution, article 48-A, 51-
A(g) highlights the national consensus on the importance of environmental protection
and improvement and lay a foundation for a jurisprudence of environment
protection. 28
17. It is humbly submitted that damage to the environment is damage to the Country’s
assets as a whole. Ecology knows no boundaries and it can ha ve impact on the
climate. 29 Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before, the Court is bound to
bear in mind Article 48-A and Article 51-A(g). When the court is called upon to give
effect to the Directive Principle and the Fundamental Duty, the Court is not to shrug
its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the
policy making authority. 30 The Directive Principles of State Policy formed the
fundamental structure and the conscience of the Constitution and the Const itution
31
enjoins upon the State to implement these Directive Principles. Although not
enforceable by a court, Directive Principles are increasingly being cited by judges as
Complementary to the Fundamental Right. 32 In several environment cases the courts
have been guided by the language of Article 48-A. 33
[B.2] Environmental Rights include Statutory Rights under Environment
(Protection Act, 1986)

18. It is humbly submitted that the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is a parent
legislation enacted by the Parliament for protection and improvement of environment.

25
The World Co mmission on Environ ment and Development, 43 (1987).
26
Facts on record, para 5.
27
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645.
28
M.C. Mehta v. State of Orissa, AIR 1992 Ori 225.
29
T. N. Godavarman Thiru mulvad v. Union of India & Others, (2006) 1 SCC 1.
30
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109.
31
State of Kerala v. N. M . Tho mas, AIR 1976 SC 490.
32
So m Pra kash Rekh i v. Union of India, A IR 1981 SC 212.
33
Virendra Gaur v. State of Harayana, 1995 (2) SCC 571.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
7

The power conferred under an environmental statute may be exercised only to


advance environmental protection and not for a purpose that would defeat the object
of the law. 34 A power conferred by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 having
regard to its object cannot be treated as power simpliciter, but is a power coupled with
a duty and therefore it is a duty of the State to make sure that the conditions or
directions under the Act are fulfilled. 35 Enforcement agencies are under an obligation
to strictly enforce environmental laws. 36
19. It is humbly submitted that it is the duty of state to protect ecology. In the present
case, 5000 hectares of forest will be submerged and various extinct species may get
affected by the project 37 . If State does not take the appropriate action then Courts have
to make sure that fundamental rights of the people are safe guarded. In the case of
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 38 This Hon’ble Court
issued direction for the enforcement and implementation of the laws to protect the
Fundamental Right of life of the people. The Court observed that even though it is the
function of the executive, but because of non- functioning of the enforcement
agencies, the court as of necessity have had to pass orders directing the enforcement
agencies to implement the law for protection of fundamental rights of people.
20. Furthermore, The Supreme Court laid down that in view of the Constitutional
provisions contained in Articles 21, 47, 48-A, 51-A(g) and other relevant statutory
provisions contained in the Water Act, Air Act, Environment (Protection) Act
impliedly includes the precautionary principle and the polluter pay principle. 39 The
precautionary principle requires government authorities to anticipate, prevent and
attack the causes of environmental pollution. It also imposes the onus of proof on the
developer or industrialists to show that his or her action is environmentally benign. 40
Therefore in the instant case the Samadi Srovar Project, government should resist
from implementing this project otherwise the environmental rights of the people of
Aressia will be in great peril.

34
Bangalore Med ical Trust v. B. S. Muddappa, AIR 1991 SC 1902.
35
N. D. Jayal v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 86.
36
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Un ion of India, 1996 (5) SCC 281.
37
Facts on record, para 2.
38
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India,1996 (5) SCC 281.
39
Vellore Cit izen’s Welfare Foru m v. Un ion of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
40
Id., S. Jagannath v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 811; A. P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayadu,
AIR 1999 SC 812.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
8

[B.3] Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 is violated


21. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further
deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance and provision of
conservation of forests must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership
41
or classification therefore. Governmental Development agencies charged with
decision making ought to give due regard to ecological factors including (a) the
environmental policy of the Central and State government (b) the obligation of the
present generation to preserve natural resources and pass on to the future generations
an environment as intact as the one we inherited from the previous generation. 42 The
Principal aim of the National Forest Policy 43 is to ensure environment stability and
maintenance of ecological balance including atmospheric equilibrium which is vital
for sustenance of all life forms human, animal and plant. The derivation of direct
economic benefit must be subordinate to this principal aim. The National Forest
Policy, 1988 has a statutory flavor. The non- fulfillment of aforesaid principle aim
would be violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. 44
22. The state is the trustee of all national resources which are by nature meant for public
use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the running water, airs, forest
and ecologically fragile lands. The state as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect to
natural resources; these resources is meant for public use cannot be converted into
private ownership. 45
23. It is humbly submitted that Conservation and preservation of forest wealth and
environment is under the preview of public interest 46 . In the instance case 5000
hectares of forest will be submerged which will cause a huge loss to the ecology of the
country47 . The effects of a project on the environment must be assessed in order to
take account of the concerns to protect human health, to contribute by means of a
better environment to the quality of life, to ensure mainte nance of the diversity of
species and to maintain the reproductive capacity of the ecosystem as a basic resource
of life. 48

41
T. N. Godavarman Thiru mulakpad v. Un ion of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267.
42
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, AIR 1996 SC 149.
43
National Forest Policy, 1988.
44
T. N. Godavarman Thiru mulpad v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 4256.
45
M.C. Mehata v. Kamal nath (1997) 1 SCC 388.
46
Sushila Saw M ills v. State of Orissa, (1995) SCC 615.
47
Facts on record, Para 5.
48
Council of Eu ropean Co mmittee, 1996 report.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
9

[B.4] Environme nt Assessment Report is faulty

24. It is humbly submitted that An Environment Impact Assessment (hereinafter referred


to as EIA) is conducted in order to anticipate the likely consequences of the
project.The criteria of “aggrieved person” are not been satisfied 49 as insignificant
number of people attended the public hearing 50 . It is the right of person affected to
attend the public hearing, failing in which the EIA is stated faulty 51 . In Samata and
Forum of Sustainable Development v. Union of India & Ors the NGT held that:
In order to demonstrate [the] threadbare nature of discussions while
considering a project for giving its recommendation, it is essential that the
views, opinions, comments and suggestions made by each and every
member of the committee are recorded in a structured manifest/ format 52 .
25. Futhermore, In Adivasi Majdoor kisan Ekta Sangathan and Another v. Ministry of
Environment and Forest and Others the evidence of persons who voiced their
opposition to the project was not recorded and no summary of the public hearing was
prepared in the local language nor was it made public. Therefore the Court declared
the approval invalid 53 .
26. It is humbly submitted that the Environment Impact Assessment was obtained in
2012. It is no more valid as the validity of EIA is 5 years 54 . Further, the Environment
Impact Assessment furnished false facts in various aspects regarding the number of
people displaced 55 and the species present in the area 56 . The role of private expert
bodies and consultants conducting the EIA has also attracted judicial scrutiny.
Furnishing of false information by the consultant has been deemed by the Court
professional misconduct and it has recommended strict action in such cases. 57
27. In Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India 58 the Supreme Court discussed the
specific grounds on which administrative action involving the grant of environmental

49
Thammanna vs K. Veera Reddy, 1981 AIR 116.
50
Facts on record, para 6.
51
Vedanta Alumina Ltd. vs Prafulla Samantra & Ors, LPA 277/2009 DHC.
52
Appeal No. 9 of 2011. Judg ment of NGT (Southern Zone, Chennai) on December 13, 2013.
53
Appeal No. 3/ 2011 (T) (NEAA No. 26 of 2009). Judgment of Principal Bench of the Nat ional Green Tribunal
on April 20, 2012.
54
M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I , AIR 1988SC 382.
55
Facts on record, para 5.
56
Facts on record, para 6.
57
V. Srinivasan v. UOI, Appeal No. 18 of 2011 (T), Judgment of Principal Bench of the National Green
Tribunal on February 24, 2012.
58
2013 AIR SCW 3231.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
10

approval could be challenged. The grounds for judicial review were illegality,
irrationality and procedural impropriety. Thus the granting of environmental approval
by the competent authority outside the powers given to the authority by law, would be
grounds for illegality. If the decision were to suffer from Wednesbury
unreasonableness 59 , the Court could interfere on grounds of irrationality. Last, an
approval can be challenged on the grounds that it has been granted in breach of proper
procedure 60 . Nevertheless the Court has not restrained itself, in cases where it found
that the SEAC had recommended approvals without any application of mind 61 .
28. It is humbly submitted that in Gram Panchayat Navlakh Umbre v. Union of India and
Ors 62 , the Court held that:
decision making process of those authorities besides being transparent
must result in a reasoned conclusion which is reflective of a due
application of mind to the diverse concerns arising from a project such as
the present. The mere fact that a body is comprised of experts is not
sufficient a safeguard to ensure that the conclusion of its deliberations is
just and proper.
Therefore, the Environment Impact Assessment Report is faulty.
ON BEHALF OF KOOLHAAS

II. WHETHER KOOLHAAS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BREACH IN


TUNNEL HAPPENED ON 17th OCTOBER, 2017 OR NOT?
A. No rash or negligent act on the part of Koolhaas

[A.1] Due care given through supervision by the experts of Koolhaas

29. It is humbly submitted that in order to impose criminal liability under sections 304A,
336, 337 and 338, IPC, 1860, it is necessary that the death must have been the direct
result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that the act must be proximate
and efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence. 63 It must be the

59
The Wednesbury principle means that only an administrative decision that is unreasonable to an extreme
degree can be brought under the legitimate scope of judicial review. The princip le is generally considered as a
reason for courts not to interfere in ad ministrative body decisions. Non-applicability of the principle would
imply that courts will be less hesitant in interfering in such decisions.
60
The procedural breach has to be of a mandatory requirement in the procedure.
61
This phrase is frequently used in law to refer to the failu re of administrative authority to actively consider all
aspects and issues while arriv ing at a particular decision.
62
Public Interest Litigation No. 115 of 2010. Judg ment of Bo mbay High Court on June 28, 2012.
63
Sukaroo Kaviraj, (1887) 14 Cal. 566.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
11

causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been causa sine qua non.64 Culpable
rashness is acting with consciousness that the mischievous and the illegal
consequence may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief
that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happe ning. 65 Culpable
negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect
will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the
caution required by him, and that if he had he would have had the consc iousness. The
imputability arises from the neglect of the civic duty of circumspection. 66
30. Negligence in common parlance means and implies failure to exercise due care
expected from a reasonable prudent person. 67 It is humbly submitted that in the case
of K. Veeraraghavan v. The Secretary to Government, 68 the principle of law on
supervision being the ‘due care’ has been reiterated. It has been stated that
supervision will fall under the ambit of ‘due care’ only if it comes within the area of
competence. It is humbly contended that in the present case, due care was being given
through the supervision being provided by the experts of the Koolhaas. 69 For
negligence to apply, it must also be proved that the event causing the accident must
have been in the control of Koolhaas. The area of competence was merely to the
extent that the construction was being done in accordance with the design of the dam
provided or not. The way the tunnel was being constructed was still in the hands of
government.
31. It is humbly submitted that there have been no faults in the design. It is for the
prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt which it has
failed to do so. 70
[A.2] Rashness and negligence on the part of the State

32. Rash or negligent act is an act done not intentionally or designedly. 71 A rash act is
primarily an over- hasty act, and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but it also includes
an act which, though it may be said to be deliberate act, is yet done without due

64
Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, 5 Bo m. L.R. 679.
65
In re Nidamarti Nagabhushnam, (1872) 7 M.H.C.R. 119.
66
Bhalchandra, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1319.
67
K. Veeraraghavan v. The Secretary to Govern ment, (2014) 5 M LJ 479.
68
Ibid.
69
Facts on record, Para 4.
70
P. Rajappan v. State of Kerala, 1986 Cri. L.J. 511.
71
Istlingappa v. Emperor, 17 I.C. (Bo m) 542.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
12

deliberation and caution. 72 It is humbly submitted that it is the state of Purvanchal


Pradesh who had pressurized their own engineers to hurry and pace up the work for
their own motive of seeking victory in the 2017 elections, as a result of which
Koolhaas were not given time to procure material as prescribed in the budget. Infact,
due to the constant pressures from the government, it had to do away with the
resources available near the construction site. 73 State had indulged in an over-hasty
act which establishes rashness.
33. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a
reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct
of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would do. 74 The samples of the concrete showed that water to cement
ratio used was higher than what it should have been, taking into account the load it
could handle. 75 The government engineers, despite being experts in their field, could
not assess the basic requirement of engineering. Hence, it is stated that the
government engineers did not apply due care and caution and were negligent during
the construction of the tunnel.
[A.3] Breach in tunnel constitutes deficiency in way of working of govt. engineers

34. It is humbly submitted that the construction of the dam was started only after the
government engineers of Purvanchal Pradesh had selected and approved of the design
and the budget for it. 76 The term ‘breach’ corroborates to a ‘gap’ or a ‘crack’ in the
tunnel. 77 The breach in the tunnel constitutes a deficiency in the way of working of
the government engineers and material used which was of mediocre quality wherein
the government has flawed.
35. It is to be further noted that the government had employed ‘engineers’ and not
‘workers’. A reasonable and prudent engineer knows the correct ratio of cement and
water whereas, as per the high-powered committee, the very ratio between the two
was wrong. This corroborates to the fact that the diligence which had to be applied by
the government engineers was not applied and the state has failed on its part.

72
Nga Myat Thin v. Emperor, (1898) P.J.L.B. 426.
73
Facts on record, Para. 4.
74
Blyth v. Birminghan Water Worka Co., 11Ex. 784.
75
Facts on record, Para. 13.
76
Facts on record, Para. 3.
77
breach | Definit ion of breach in Eng lish by Oxford Dict ionaries, accessible at
<https://en.oxforddict ionaries.co m/definit ion/breach> accessed on 09 October, 2017.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
13

B. State is liable to pay damages arising out of the disaster

[B.1] Rule of strict liability does not apply on Koolhaas

36. As laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher,78 if the damage had been caused by
the plaintiff’s own default, he cannot complain for the damage so caused. It is humbly
submitted that in the present case, the rule of strict liability does not arise on the
architectural company, Koolhaas, because the State of Purvanchal Pradesh has itself
failed in their way of construction as it was the government engineers who were
constructing the tunnel.
37. Furthermore, as per the high-powered committee, it was found that the material used
was of mediocre quality, available near the site whereas the desired material would
have taken time to be transported and the construction would have delayed. 79 It is the
state of Purvanchal Pradesh who had pressurized their own engineers to hurry and
pace up the work for their own motive of seeking victory in the 2017 elections, as a
result of which Koolhaas were not given time to procure material as prescribed in the
budget. Infact, due to the constant pressures from the government, it had to procure
the resources available near the construction site. 80 It is therefore submitted that the
State is itself at default and cannot impose strict liability on Koolhaas. Hence, the
company, Koolhaas is not liable to pay damages arising out of the disaster.
[B.2] State has caused loss of life, violated Article 21 and environmental safeguards

38. It is humbly submitted that it was the government of Purvanchal Pradesh which has
showed negligence. Article 21 81 envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a
person. The word “life” under Article 21 means a quality of life which guarantees the
fundamental right of every individual to live in the safe and sound premises. 82
39. It is humbly submitted that the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is a parent
legislation enacted by the Parliament for protection and improvement of environment.
The power conferred under an environmental statute may be exercised only to
advance environmental protection and not for a purpose that would defeat the object
of the law. A power conferred by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 having

78
(1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.
79
Facts on record, Para. 12.
80
Facts on record, Para. 4.
81
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21.
82
Shantisar Bu ilders v. Narayanan Khimalal Totamen, AIR 1990 SC 630; Charan Lal Sahu v. Un ion of India,
AIR 1990 SC 1480.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
14

regard to its object cannot be treated as power simpliciter, but is a power coupled with
a duty and therefore it is a duty of the State to make sure that the conditions or
directions under the Act are fulfilled. Enforcement agencies are under an obligation to
strictly enforce environmental laws.
40. In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and Anr.,83
the Hon’ble Court held that it is on the state to perform statutory duties under the
Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. Failure to perform duties, also undermines the
right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
41. The same principle had been reiterated in the case of Association of Victims of
Uphaar Tragedy v. Union of India. 84 The court held that Article 21 imposes
affirmative duty on the State to protect the lives of individuals. By failing to protect
life and provide safe premises, the State was liable to pay compensation to the victims
for its violation of their Article 21 right.
42. The callous disregard to the statutory and moral obligations and to the fundamental
and indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21, 85 levies the obligations on the
State of paying the public in failing to provide safe premises, free from hazards that
could reasonably be foreseen. 86
43. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Anr., 87 a three-Judge Bench,
while dealing with the public projects and policies, has opined that the court does not
become the approving authority of such policies. Thereafter, the Bench observed:
Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and
consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not
merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a
responsible Government.

44. In the case Mr. Gatakala Venkateswarlu vs Union of India (Uoi) And Anr., 88 the court
held that:
In a welfare society, construction of dam or bundh for the sake of
community is essential function; and use of land or accumulation of water
for the benefit of society cannot be non-natural user. But that cannot
83
A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1446.
84
(2003) 2 ACC 114.
85
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21.
86
Association of Victims of Uphaar tragedy v. Un ion of India and Ors., (2003) 2 A CC 114.
87
(2000) 10 SCC 664.
88
128 (2006) DLT 1.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
15

absolve the State from its duty of being responsible to its citizens for such
violations as are actionable and result in damage, loss or injury.... Once the
occasion for loss or damage is failure of duty, general or specific, the
cause of action under tort arises. It may be due to negligence, nuisance,
trespass, inevitable mistake etc. It may be even otherwise. In a developed
or developing society the concept of duty keeps on changing where a
manufacturer was held responsible for injury to a consumer. They may
individually or even collectively give rise to tortious liability.
45. Since nearly 1,60,000 people have died and many have suffered loss on facts found
due to both at the stage of construction and failure to take steps even at the last
moment, state is liable to pay damages.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS


UILS INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017
16

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED,


REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITITES CITED, THE RESPONDENTS
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THIS HON’BLE COURT:

TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE

 G.O. 1183 AND G.O. 1184 ARE ULTRA VIRES AND THEREFORE, DECLARE
THEM AS INVALID.
 KOOLHAAS IS NOT LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE.
 THE STATE HAS TO PAY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE DISASTER.

MISCELLANEOUS

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO GRANT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

-Sd

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ENTS