BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

Original Writ Jurisdiction

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO____________OF 2014

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA

MR.RAMANATHAN…………………………………PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS...........................RESPONDENTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF

JUSTICE AND OTHER JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …….…….……………………………2

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………….……………………………3,4
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………….5
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS ……..……………………………………..6
5. ISSUES RAISED ………….………………………………………….7
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………...8
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ……………………………………......9,10,11

1. WHETHER THE MINISTER OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS IS

ENTITLED TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE STATE EXCHEQUER

8. PRAYER ....................................................................................................12

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Definition

& And

Ors. Others

M.P Madhya Pradesh

Res. Residential

Anr. Another

Ltd. Limited

S.C. Supreme Court

Bom. Bombay

A.I.R. All India Report

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

SL.NO: CASES CITATION

1 Dr.Rupal Bandi v. State of M.P And Anr A.I.R. 1994 M.P.103

2 Golden Iron And Steel Forging v. Union A.I.R.2011 S.C.10695

Of India And Others

3 G.Sarana v. University of Lucknow And A.I.R.1976 U.P.2428

Others

4 Harisankar v. Deputy Commisioner A.I.R. 1975 S.C.1121

5 Khoday Distilleries Ltd. And Others v. A.I.R. 1996 S.C.911
State Of Karnataka And Others

6 M/S.Philips Medi.. v. M/S.Indian Mri A.I.R.2008 S.C.2461

Dia.& Res. Ltd

7
M.Nagaraj & Others v. Union Of India & A.I.R.2006 S.C.61
Others

8 Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab A.I.R.2009 S.C.441

and others

9 Sethi Auto Service Station And Another

A.I.R.2008 S.C.6143
v. Delhi Development Authority And
Others

10 Shashikant Laxman Kale And Anr v. A.I.R.1990 S.C.2114

Union Of India And Anr

11 Shivaji Dayanu Patil And Another v. A.I.R.1991 S.C.1769

Vatschala Uttam More (Smt)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 4

12 Rekhaben W v. State of Gujarat A.I.R.2016 S.C.5171

13 Tri-Sure India Ltd. v. A.F. Ferguson And A.I.R 1987 Bom.548

Co. And Others

14 Wazir Kaur v. State of Punjab A.I.R.2014 S.C.17832

BOOKS REFERRED

1. M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LEXIS NEXIS (7TH ed.2016)

2. DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,EASTERN
BOOK COMPANY (21ST ed.1960)

STATUTES REFERRED

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. PETROLEUM ACT, 1934

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONEMRISDIC

THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR VIOLATON OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ENUMERATED IN PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE RESPONDANT
MAINTAINS THAT NO VIOLATION OF RIGHTS HAS TAKEN PLACE. THEREFORE,
THIS HON’BLE COURT NEED NOT ENTERTAIN ITS JURISDICTION IN THIS WRIT
PETITION.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. X was the Minister of petroleum and natural gas. He was to allot retail outlets of
petroleum products from his discretionary quota. The procedure for the selection candidates
was as given below:

1. Advertisements were provided in the local newspapers for inviting applicants from
the public.
2. The eligibility criteria for selection were prescribed in the newspaper.
3. The applicants were to have at least two petrol pumps in a major city and should have
experience as a petroleum dealer for not less than ten years.
4. The final selection for allotting the petroleum outlets was made by a selection
committee formed under the minister.

Mr.Ramanathan was a politician belonging to the opposite party. He challenged the

allotments by means of Article 32. He stated that the minister had allotted the outlets
arbitrarily from his discretionary quota. He also stated that the minister had allotted the
petroleum outlets to sons and relatives of the members of the selection committee. He
requested the court to direct the concerned minister to pay the compensation to the state
exchequer for the loss caused by him arbitrary allotting the same.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE MINISTER IS ENTITLED TO PAY

COMPENSATION TO THE STATE EXCHEQUER?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

1. THE MINISTER IS NOT ENTITLED TO PAY

COMPENSATION TO THE STATE EXCHEQUER.

A compensation is payable only when there is bias or arbitrariness and when

fundamental rights are violated, Here there is no bias or arbitrariness as the candidates
selected through eligibility criteria possess all the qualifications mentioned in the
eligibility criteria. The fundamental rights such as Article 14 is not violated as the
selection occurred through intelligible differentia, Article 19 is not violated as the
eligibility criteria is made up of Article 19(6),Article 21 is not violated as the
employment opportunity is not denied.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 9

ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE RESPONDENT NEED NOT PAY THE

COMPENSATION

Compensation 1is an act which a court orders to be done, or money which a court orders to
lie paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another ,in order
that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss or be made whole in
respect of his injury

Compensation is given when:

(1)When there is bias or arbitrariness

(2)When Fundamental Rights are violated

1.1 THERE IS NO BIAS AND ARBITRARINESS

Article 12 2says about the powers and functions of a state.3According to Directive Principles of State

Policy,these provisions are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down therein are

considered irrefutable in the governance of the country making it duty of the state. The selection

included all these principles. If any corruption arbitrary or bias will happen with the employees of

petroleum and oil industry the society will only blame the government so the selection is a

crucial process.

There is no bias4 .Here the people qualified in the selection process possess all the basic
qualifications mentioned in the eligibility criteria. Here the question is regarding why they are
selected? They are selected because they possess all the conditions included in the eligibility

1Rekhaben W v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R.2016 S.C.5171

2 Article 12; In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the state” includes the Government and
parliament, government and legislature of each of the states, All local authorities within the territory of India or
under the control of the government of India.
3 Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and others, A.I.R.2009 S.C.441
4 G.Sarana v. University of Lucknow And Others, A.I.R.1976 S.C.2428

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 10

criteria5.The people who are not selected might not eligible for the selection because they
may not possess the conditions written in eligibility criteria and the fact itself doesn’t
mentions that only sons and relatives are allotted. The Respondent side given chance equally
and those who are capable are selected.The famous idiom ‘AS IS OUR CONFIDENCE SO
IS OUR CAPACITY’ in respect to that every person who are applying will not be selected as
the eligibility criteria is the basic qualification for applying and further filtration will be done
through interview based on business excellency6, whether they are capable of running petrol
pumps smoothly. The selected people passed the interview with confidence have the capacity
so they are selected. If the Respondent side had the desire to appoint their relatives and sons;
then there is no need of giving advertisements in local newspapers for inviting applications
from the public7. The respondent side followed all rules and regulations strictly mentioned in
the eligibility criteria.

The eligibility criteria include:

1. The applicants were to have at least two petrol pumps in a major city.
2. The applicants should have experience as a petroleum dealer for a period of not less
than 10 years.

While dealing with explosive petroleum and oil products, certain rules and regulations should
be maintained as safety is the first priority. This eligibility criteria is made purely based on
Article19(6)8. In Article 19(6) it is said that in harmful trade practises, the state is entitled to
follow certain restrictions and rules. Petroleum is considered as explosive9 in Explosives Act,
1884 section 4(d). So the selection committee selected candidates based on these rules10. So
here itself it is clear from eligibility criteria as the Respondent side need experienced people
as a lot of explosions and blasts happened in petroleum and oil field because of carelessness

5 Dr.Rupal Bandi v. State of M.P And Anr, A.I.R.1994 M.P.103

6 Tri-Sure India Ltd. v. A.F. Ferguson And Co. And Others, A.I.R 1987 Bom.548
7 M/S.Philips Medi.. v. M/S.Indian Mri Dia.& Res. Ltd., A.I.R.2008 S.C.2461
8 Article19(6) says that Nothing in the sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing

law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general
public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular,
2[nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent
the state from making any law relating to,-
(i) The professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying any
occupation ,trade or business, or
(ii) The carrying on by the state or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade,
business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or
otherwise].
9 Shivaji Dayanu Patil And Another v. Vatschala Uttam More (Smt), A.I.R.1991 S.C.1769
10 Harisankar v. Deputy Commisioner , A.I.R.1975 S.C.1121

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 11

and unawareness in our society. The Hyderabad petrol pump blast is the perfect example. The
incident reportedly was sequel to an attempt to pilfer petrol from the tanker wielding it after
transferring petrol into small drums which results in severe injury to 18 people including
three fire service personnel, when a tanker loaded with 12,000 litres of petrol exploded. And
these are the basic qualifications for applying and further selection will be based on business
excellency in this field. This writ is filed only because they have a political motive as the
tendancy of opposition party is to criticize the ruling party.

1.2 THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Article 1411(Right to equality) is not violated as the selection process occurred through
Intelligible Differentia and this Intelligible Differentia 12have Rational Nexus 13as petroleum
and oil industry is a harmful trade, The government is really concerned about this and can’t
select everyone who is applying.If the candidates who are the relatives and sons are qualified
and are not selected because they have a blood relation with the members of selection
committee will violate the fundamental Right of Right to Equality of this people14.

Article 19( Right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business) is
not violated as Article 19(6) said that In harmful trade practises15, The state is entitled to
follow certain rules and restrictions and the eligibility criteria is purely based on article 19(6)
as mentioned above.

Article 2116(Right to life and Personal Liberty) is also not violated as the petitioner side is
arguing that the employment opportunity is denied17, so that the right to life is denied, The
council want to say that the eligibility criteria itself mentions that the person having two
petrol pumps 18must apply for the selection so they would already have employment to move
on their life. And from this the council would like to conclude that the respondent need not
pay the compensation.

11 Article14 says that The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws within the territory of India.
12 Golden Iron And Steel Forging v. Union Of India And Others, A.I.R.2011 S.C.10695
13 Shashikant Laxman Kale And Anr v. Union Of India And Anr, A.I.R.1990 S.C.2114
14 Wazir Kaur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R.2014 S.C.17832
15 Khoday Distilleries Ltd. And Others v. State Of Karnataka And Others, A.I.R. 1996 S.C.911
16 Article21 says that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure

established by law.
17M.Nagaraj & Others v. Union Of India & Others, A.I.R.2006 S.C.61
18 Sethi Auto Service Station And Another v. Delhi Development Authority And Others, A.I.R.2008 S.C.6143

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 12

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited the court may
please adjudge and declare that:

The Minister is not entitled to pay compensation to the State Exchequer

And the court may pass any other order that deems to fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good faith.

KAVYA KRISHNAN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS