T186R

IN THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT NEW DELHI

In the Matter of

XYZ AND OTHERS

Appellant

[REPRESENTED BY XYZ]

v.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[RPRESENTED BY PQR]

Respondent

Special Leave Petition no. XXX/2019

[Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXI, Rule 3(1)(a), of The

Supreme Court Rules, 2013]

On Behalf of the Respondents

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... ii

Index of Authorities ..................................................................................................................... iii

Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................ iv

Statement of Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................ vi

Issues for consideration .............................................................................................................. vii

I. Whether the act of the Government is violative of article 21 of the Constitution of India?.
vii

II. Whether the act of the Government is in line with the ambit of required economic
development?............................................................................................................................ vii

Summary of Arguments ............................................................................................................ viii

I. The act of the Government is not violative of article 21 of the Constitution of India. . viii

II. The act of the Government is in line with the ambit of required economic development.
viii

Arguments Advanced ................................................................................................................... 1

I. The act of the government is not violative of article 21 of the Constitution of India ...... 1

A. The Hon’ble High Court’s and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement ................... 1

B. Judicial Precedent ......................................................................................................... 1

C. The Government discharged the necessary duty of care .............................................. 2

II. The act of the Government was in line with the ambit of required economic development
2

Prayer ............................................................................................................................................. 5

ii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Sachidanand Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109 ........................................ 1

Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. : AIR 1986 SC 180 ................ 2

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2715 ............... 2

Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and Ors, AIR 2004 SC 1834 ........................................... 3

Statutes
Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950 ........................................................................................ viii

Article 48(a) and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950. ............................................. 2

International Declarations

Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972 .... 3

iii
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

• There was an agreement between Subhashini Zoo(hereafter, referred to as the ‘Zoo’) and

the Government of Rajasthan(hereafter, referred to as the ‘Government’), under which "X"

land (10 acres in area), which was separated from the Zoo by an 80-100 feet road, was

transferred to them, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions being that the land

must be restored to the government if thereafter required.

• After due consultation with the government authorities, the Rainbow group of hotels came

forward with a proposal of constructing a five-star hotel on land "X".

• After the Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan(referred to as 'Chief Minister' hereafter)

received the proposal, he reviewed the site with the Minister of Tourism and the Minister

for Metropolitan Development, along with the Director of the Zoo, who knew about the

proposal right from the beginning.

• A memorandum was presented before the cabinet, wherein with reference to land "X", it

was stated: "From the property of the Subhashini Zoo, it is possible to carve out about 7

acres of land currently being used for acclimatization, fodder production and dumping

garbage. Adequate measures can be made for these elsewhere in the same or nearby area."

The cabinet approved the proposal and granted a 99-year lease on land "X" to the Rainbow

group of hotels.

• The Managing Committee of the Zoo passed a resolution expressing itself against the

proposal to construct a hotel on land belonging to the Zoo, which they subsequently

rescinded after receiving necessary assurances from the Government.

iv
• Eight petitioners filed a petition in public interest before the Hon'ble High Court of

Rajasthan (hereafter, referred to as the ‘Hon’ble High Court’), seeking to restrain the Zoo

authorities from handing over the said seven acres of land "X" to the Government for the

purpose of Hotel construction. The petitioners argued that economic activities of the State

cannot be encouraged at the cost of wildlife protection.

• The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the Government did not

show any lack of awareness of the problem of environment ecology in granting the lease

of land. Subsequently, an appeal was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

(hereafter, referred to as the ‘Hon’ble Supreme Court’) and a division bench confirmed the

said judgment.

v
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The defendants submit to the jurisdiction of this court under Article 136 of the Constitution of

India read with Order XXI, Rule 3(1)(a), of The Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

The parties most humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

vi
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

I. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

II. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT IS IN LINE WITH THE AMBIT OF REQUIRED

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?

vii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA.

The act of granting land “X” to the Rainbow group of hotels by the Government of Rajasthan is

not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India1 because necessary measures were taken by

the Government of Rajasthan and the Rainbow group of hotels in ensuring that this action does

not damage the environment in any possible manner.

II. THE ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT IS IN LINE WITH THE AMBIT OF REQUIRED ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT.

The act of granting land “X” to the Rainbow group of hotels would be classified as essential for

generating economic development.

1
Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950.

viii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

The act of the Government does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India as [A.]the

Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have already decided the case in the

Government’s favor, [B.]there has been a similar case with parallel facts adjudicated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court which proves the legal validity of the Respondent’s actions, [C.]the

Government followed the due procedure and respected the principles related to the protection of

environment.

A. The Hon’ble High Court’s and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement

The case has previously been discussed before the Hon’ble High Court where it observed that the

Government did not show any lack of awareness of the problem of environment ecology in

granting the lease of land. On further appeal, a division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

confirmed the said judgement.

B. Judicial Precedent

In Sachidanand Pandey v. The State of West Bengal2, a similar situation faced the Hon’ble

Supreme Court when the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition against the act of the

Government of West Bengal for granting the Begumbari property, near the Alipore Zoological

Garden, to the Taj group of hotels for constructing a five star hotel, citing that this would disturb

the ecological conditions of the Alipore Zoological Garden. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reviewed

2
Sachidanand Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109.

1
the petition and gave a verdict in favor of the Respondents. The facts of this case run parallel to

the case at hand, and thus prove that the actions of the Government were legal.

C. The Government discharged the necessary duty of care

The Government showed its adherence to Articles 48(a) and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India 3

when it made sure that no damage was done to the environment, as was observed by the Hon’ble

High Court and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It showed its awareness of the

‘Precautionary Principle’ laid down in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (UOI)4.

Conclusively, The Government did not fail to take into account any relevant considerations. Its

action was not against the interests of the Zoo.

It also assured the Zoo authorities that,

“if further facilities are necessary for the zoo, the government will provide for them."

II. THE ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN LINE WITH THE AMBIT OF REQUIRED ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

Right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has many facets, one of

which is the ‘right to livelihood’5. It was in furtherance of realizing this aspect of the right that

the Government decided to give the land to the Rainbow group of hotels for the construction of a

five-star hotel.

3
Article 48(a) and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
4
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2715.
5
Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 180.

2
The construction of a five-star hotel on land “X” will lead to generation of various direct and

indirect economic activities. This will provide livelihood to residents of the State and affect their

standard of living in a positive manner.

Principle 8 of the Stockholm Declaration 6 states:

“Economic and social development is essential for ensuring a favorable living and working

environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for the

improvement of the quality of life.”

It has been noted that the projected profitability of the venture to the Government is expected to

be high, which will aid the economic development of the country. Thus, this act of the

Government is also in line with Principle 8 of the Stockholm Declaration.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also underlined the value of economic development in Essar Oil

Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and Ors.7 ,wherein it stated:

“This, therefore, is the aim - namely to balance economic and social needs on the one hand with

environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental

threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in the population together

with consequential demands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open

lands, cutting down of forests, the filling up of lakes and pollution of water resources and the

very air which we breathe. However, there need not necessarily be a deadlock between

development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on

6
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972.
7
Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and Ors, AIR 2004 SC 1834.

3
environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at

the altar of the other.”

The act of the Government was also in consonance with the aforementioned.

4
 PRAYER

In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is prayed

before this Hon’ble Supreme Court to:

1. Uphold the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this matter.

2. Dismiss the Special Leave Petition.

and pass any such order which the Hon’ble Supreme Court may deem fit in the eyes of equity,

justice, and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully, submitted.

22nd July, 2019 T186R

New Delhi (Counsel for the Respondents)