I ntra Ba tch Fr es her s ’ Moot 2019, R 16 |1

R16

Intra Batch Freshers' Moot 2019

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT
OF

CIHAR

People’s Liberty
(Petitioner)

Versus

M/s RPF Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Govt. of Popular Democratic

Front (PDF)
(Respondents)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Page |i
 R 16 |i

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION......................................................................................i
2. LIST OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................ii
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................v
4. ISSUES RAISED.....................................................................................................vii
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..............................................................................viii
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................1
I. THAT WRIT DOESN‟T LIES AGAINST A PRIVATE PARTY.................1
A. A writ can only be issued against a „state‟.
B. The respondents do not qualify the test of „government instrumentality‟.

II. THAT ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 HAVE NOT BEEN VIOLATED..4

A. It does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
B. It does not infringe Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

III. THAT PEOPLES‟ LIBERTY DOES NOT HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI
AND ALTERNATIVE REMEDY NEEDS TO BE EXHAUSTED TO
EXERCISE WRIT JURISDICTION...............................................................7
A. The appellant must have a legal right.
B. Ordinary remedies are not sought to be replaced by Art. 226.
7. PRAYER FOR RELIEF........................................................................................10

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 1 6 | ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

A.I.R. All India Reporter.

Addl. Additional
Anr. Another
ed. Editor(s)
Etc. et cetra
Govt. Government
H.C. High Court
Ind. Industries
I.L.R. Indian Law Reporter
J. Justice
Ltd. Limited
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
Mad. Madras
Ors. Others
p. Page
Para. Paragraph
Pvt. Private
Rep. Report(s)
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
Supp. Supplement
UOI Union of India
v. versus
Vol. Volume

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 1 6 | iii

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTIONS:

 Constitution of India.

ACTS/STATUTES/RULES:

 Indian Contract Act, 1872.

 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

CASES CITED:

Sukhdev v. Bhagat Ram, AIR 1975 SC 1331

Binny Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan & Ors AIR 2005 SC 3202.

Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Immanual, AIR 1969 SC 1306

Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 733

Union of India & Anr. v. S.B. Vohra & Ors (2004) 1 SCALE 131

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487.

Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733

Chandrakant Saha v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 314

L.I.C. of India v. Escorts Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 1370.

Federation of Rly. Officers Assn. v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289.

Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of

Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.

Gupta S.P. v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.

Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corpn. of India v. Debyajoti

Bose, AIR 2000 Cal 43.

Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 1 6 | iv

S.P. Gupta v. President of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy, (2003) 12 627.

State of MP v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, (2008) 1 SCC 456.

Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882.

Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603.

State of West Bengal v. North Adjai Coal Co (1971) 1 SCC 309.

Himmat Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 403.

Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering

Services v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521.

BOOKS:

 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERSWORTH

WADHWA NAGPUR, 6TH ED. 2013).

 ARVIND P. DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2ND

ED. WADHWA AND CO. NAGPUR 2007).

DICTIONARIES:

GARNER BRYAN, BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY (8th Edition, West Group Publications.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 16 |v

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Indiana at the centre is ruled by Popular Democratic Front (“PDF”) who came with a
thumping majority in the general election of 2014. Indiana at the centre is ruled by
Popular Democratic Front (“PDF”) who came with a thumping majority in the general
election of 2014. Unemployment has been a big problem in Indiana. One of the
election promises of PDF during the general election was with regards to taking steps
to counter the rising unemployment.
2. The Prime Minister of Indiana tasked the Finance Minister to form a committee
known as the Economic Panel which was headed by the Finance Minister and
consisted of two economic advisors, representatives from various Central Ministries
and one representative from each State Government. The Panel collected data about
unemployment across all the states, made a detailed analysis and took into
consideration the problems faced by each state. It was ultimately concluded that a
proper policy/legislation for boosting industrial growth needs to be framed by the
government which shall act as a catalyst in reducing unemployment by creating ample
job opportunities.
3. PDF came out with „Make In Indiana‟ Policy 2018 (“Policy”), the purpose and aim of
which was to encourage industrialization, development of self-sufficient industries
and thereby reduce unemployment and accelerate growth. The Policy was a detailed
one and it contained the guidelines regarding the tender procedure to be adopted for
setting up the industries, the rehabilitation package for the displaced people which
was mainly along the lines as contained in the Resettlement Policy as existing in
Indiana and other ancillary provisions.
4. As a governmental initiative, it was decided that the Policy shall first be implemented
in the states of Cihar, Lyndia & Vimachal since these states had the maximum
unemployment as per governmental records.
5. Tenders were issued for various projects and large scale domestic industries were set
up. M/s RPF Industries Pvt Ltd, had won most of the tenders and they set up
industries mainly in the State of Cihar. It lead to a lot employment opportunities in
the region.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 1 6 | vi

6. Additionally, they also set up schools and hospitals in the State as a part of their
Corporate Social Responsibility. To a certain extent, the initiatives of M/s RPF
Industries in the region helped in uplifting the life of the people.
7. However, after about six months, on the basis of media reports, People‟s Liberty, a
NGO, carried out the report and made serious allegations against the respondents. The
report had no veracity and is acting hands in glove with the Opposition parties to
topple the Government.
8. With the support of People‟s Liberty, several demonstrations were carried out and
affected people took to streets opposing the industries so set up.
9. The respondent stated that no tender rules were flouted and the Government reserved
the right to issue tender to an entity in case there was no bidder keeping in mind the
larger public interest involved.
10. A report showing the economic progress made by the State of Cihar pursuant to the
setting up of industries was also shown to the Peoples‟ Liberty. The report stated that
the State of Cihar had achieved a gradual economic development as compared to the
previous financial years.
11. The matter has been listed for hearing on maintainability and merits before the
hon‟ble Court.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 1 6 | vii

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1:
WHETHER A WRIT LIES AGAINST A PRIVATE PARTY?

ISSUE 2:
WHETHER PEOPLES‟ LIBERTY HAS THE LOCUS STANDI AND
WHETHER ALTERNATIVE REMEDY NEEDS TO BE EXHAUSTED TO
EXERCISE WRIT JURISDICTION?

ISSUE 3:
WHETHER ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 HAVE BEEN VIOLATED?

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 1 6 | viii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I. WHETHER A WRIT LIES AGAINST A PRIVATE PARTY?

It is submitted that a writ of mandamus is issued against the State. The Supreme Court
has laid down an appropriate test for deciding whether an autonomous body falls within
the definition of „State‟ under Art. 12 viz., the test of „instrumentality‟ of state. The facts
show that M/s RPF Industries Pvt. Ltd. is not a government instrumentality and hence the
writ against M/s RPF Industries is not maintainable.

II. WHETHER PEOPLES’ LIBERTY HAS THE LOCUS STANDI

AND WHETHER ALTERNATIVE REMEDY NEEDS TO BE
EXHAUSTED TO EXERCISE WRIT JURISDICTION?

It is submitted that the Peoples‟ Liberty, a NGO, has the onus probandi of legal standing.
Article 226 cannot be invoked on the basis of appeal to sympathy. The appellant must
have a legal right. Also, the report prepared by the Peoples‟ Liberty is not authentic. The
Supreme Court has laid down an appropriate principle that Ordinary remedies are not
sought to be replaced by Art. 226. Hence, alternative remedy needs to be exhausted to
exercise writ jurisdiction.

III. WHETHER ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 HAVE BEEN

VIOLATED?

It is submitted that the „Make in Indiana Policy 2018‟ contained the guidelines regarding
the tender procedure to be adopted for setting up the industries, the rehabilitation package
for the displaced people was along the lines as contained in the Resettlement Policy as
existing in Indiana and other ancillary provisions. Hence, there was no violation of Art.14
and Art.21.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 16 |1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT WRIT DOESN’T LIES AGAINST A PRIVATE PARTY.

1. It is contended that the respondent M/s RPF Industries Pvt Ltd is an autonomous body
and it needs to pass the test of „government instrumentality‟ to determine if it falls
within the definition of „State‟ under Art. 12. This is because:
A. A writ can only be issued against a „state‟.
B. The respondents do not qualify the test of „government instrumentality‟.

A. A WRIT CAN ONLY BE ISSUED AGAINST A ‘STATE’.

2. It is contented that a writ of mandamus or certiorari is issued to a government

instrumentality whether statutory or not1. In Sukhdev v. Bhagat Ram2, the question was
whether the statutory corporations are authorities within the meaning of Article 12. The
statutes for consideration are the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1956; the
Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948; and the Life Insurance Corporation Act,
1956. The question which really falls for decision is whether regulations framed under
these statutes have the force of law.
3. The Court has pointed out the difficulty in drawing a line between public functions and
private functions when they are being discharged by a purely private authority. In Binny
Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan & Ors3. the Court clarified that though writ can be issued
against any private body or person, the scope of mandamus is limited to enforcement of
public duty. It is the nature of duty performed by such person/body which is the
determinative factor as the Court is to enforce the said duty and the identity of authority
against whom the right is sought is not relevant. Such duty, the Court clarified, can
either be statutory or even otherwise, but, there has to be public law element in the
action of that body. The facts of each case decide the point.4
4. In the context of a company or a corporation, it was held that a mandamus would lie
against a company constituted by a statute for the purpose of fulfilling public

1
Sukhdev v. Bhagat Ram, AIR 1975 SC 1331.
2
Ibid.
3
AIR 2005 SC 3202.
4
1 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUITIONAL LAW 593 (6th ed.2013).

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 16 |2

responsibilities. But where a company5 is non-statutory body and incorporated under the
Companies Act, no mandamus could be issued. 6
5. Since the respondent M/s RPF Ind. Pvt. Ltd. is a private entity and had submitted the
tenders purely for personal profit and the Govt. of PDF had issued tenders for public
welfare and not public duty per se.

B. THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT QUALIFY THE TEST OF

‘GOVERNMENTAL INSTRUMENTALITY’.

6. In Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors. 7, the Apex Court concluded that a writ
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) The
State (government); (ii) An Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrument or
agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the Government;
(vi) a private body run substantially on State finance; (vii) a private body discharging
public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under
liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a
statutory function.
7. In Union of India & Anr. v. S.B. Vohra & Ors. 8, , a three Judges bench of the Apex
Court observed that the legal right of an individual may be founded upon a contract or a
statute or an instrument having the force of law. For a public law remedy enforceable
under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the action of the authority needs to fall in the realm
of public law, be it legislative act of the State, an executive act of the State or an
instrumentality or a person or authority imbued with public law element. The question is
required to be determined in each case having the aforesaid principle in mind.
8. The counsel is concerned with the interpretation of the term „other authorities‟ in Art.
12. While the govt. acting departmentally, or through officials, undoubtedly, falls within
the definition of „state‟ under Art.12, doubts have been cast as regards the character of
autonomous bodies.
9. For this purpose, the Supreme Court has developed the concept of an “instrumentality”
of the state. Any body which can be regarded as an “instrumentality” of the state falls
under Art.12.

5
Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Immanual, AIR 1969 SC 1306.
6
ARVIND P DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1203 (2d ed. 2007).
7
(2003) 10 SCC 733
8
(2004) 1 SCALE 131

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 16 |3

10. In Ajay Hasia9, The Supreme Court laid down the following tests to adjudge whether a
body is an instrumentality of the govt. or not:
(1) If the entire share capital of the body is held by the govt., it goes a long way
towards indicating that the body is an instrumentality of the govt.
(2) Where the financial assistance given by the govt. is so large as to meet almost
entire expenditure of the body, it may indicate that the body is impregnated with
governmental character.
(3) It is a relevant factor if the body enjoys monopoly status which is conferred or
protected by the state.
(4) Existence of deep and pervasive state control may afford an indication that the
body is a state instrumentality.
(5) If the functions performed by the body are of public importance and closely related
to governmental functions, it is a relevant factor to treat the body as an
instrumentality of the govt.10
11. The Supreme Court has pointed out that even if it may be assumed that one or the other
test as provided in the case of Ajay Hasia may be attracted, that by itself would not be
sufficient to hold that it is an agency of the State or a company carrying on the functions
of public nature.11
12. Mere regulatory control whether under statute or otherwise would not serve to make a
body a part of the State. Hence, when the facts revealed:
(1) The business house is not created by a statute;
(2) No part of the share capital of the M/s RPF is held by the Govt.
(3) Practically no financial assistance is given by the Govt to meet the whole or entire
expenditure of the Industry;
(4) The Industry is not created by transfer of a govt. owned corporation and is an
autonomous body.
13. There may be some element of public duty involved in the discharge of the Industries‟
functions the Industry would not be an authority for the purpose of Art. 12.
14. Therefore, the respondent M/s RPF Industries would be a private party and hence writ
cannot be issued against it.

9
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487.
10
JAIN, supra note 4, at 1202.
11
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733 : AIR 2003 SC 4325.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 16 |4

II. THAT ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 HAVE NOT BEEN

VIOLATED.

15. It is contended that the „Make in Indiana Policy 2018‟ contained the clear guidelines
regarding the tender procedure to be adopted for setting up the industries, the
rehabilitation package for the displaced people was along the lines as contained in the
Resettlement Policy as existing in Indiana and other ancillary provisions. It does not
infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioner. This is because:
C. It does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
D. It does not infringe Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

A. IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA.

16. As regards laying down of principles or guiding norms, it has been held, for instance,
that is not essential that the very section in the statute which confers the power should
also lay down the rules of guidance, or the policy for the administrator to follow. If the
same can be gathered from the preamble, or the long title of the statute and other
provisions therein, the discretion would not be regarded as uncontrolled or unguided and
the statute in question will not be invalid. At times, even vague policy statements to
guide administrative discretion have been held by the courts as complying with Art.14. 12
17. Hence, even if the Policy mandated that tender could be issued for industries only where
there are at least two bidders competing for it and the respondent M/s RPF Industries
Pvt Ltd had been awarded tenders for industrial projects in which they were the sole
bidder, the discretion as said above should not be regarded as unguided discretion.
18. Every action of the authority must be subject to the rule of law and must be informed by
reason. Art.14 cannot be construed as a charter for judicial review of State action and
the State action and the State cannot be called upon to account for its actions in its
manifold activities by giving reasons for such action. 13
19. Every exercise of discretion is not an act of discrimination. It becomes an act of
discrimination only when the person against whom that discretion is exercised faces
certain appreciable disadvantages, which he would not have faced otherwise.
12
Chandrakant Saha v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 314.
13
L.I.C. of India v. Escorts Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 1370.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 16 |5

20. In the present case, the facts state that the M/s RPF Ind. were the sole bidders and the
Government reserved the right to issue tender to an entity in case there was no bidder
keeping in mind the larger public interest involved. By larger public interest herein,
means creating employment opportunities in the region.
21. Art.14 is said to be violated if there is failure to implement a scheme within a reasonable
time but according to the facts of the case, there had been only six months since the
„Make in Indiana Policy 2018‟ came into existence. The „reasonable time‟ is upon the
Court to decide.
22. Art.14 withstands discretion that is exercisable according to a policy or for a purpose
clearly stated in the statute, is not unrestricted discretion. 14 And, as such, the statute
cannot be considered as conferring arbitrary power. This justifies that Govt. exercised
its discretion according to the „Make in Indiana Policy 2018‟ by accepting tender from
the M/s RPF ind. (P) Ltd. being the sole bidders. Hence, there was no violation of Art.
14 by the Govt. at centre.

B. IT DOES NOT INFRINGE ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA.

23. Art.21 does not mean merely „animal existence‟ but living with „human dignity‟. The
Court has thus given very extensive parameters to Art.21. As the Supreme Court has
observed in Francis Coralie. 15
“ But the question which arises is whether the right to life is limited only to protection
of limb or faculty or does it go further and embrace something more. We think that the
right to life includes right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz.,
the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head
and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving
about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings. Of course, the magnitude
and content of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of economic
development of the country, but it must, in any view of matter, include the right to the
basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as
constitute the bare minimum expression of the human self.”

14
Federation of Rly. Officers Assn. v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289.
15
Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746 at 753.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 16 |6

24. By reading Art.21 along with the Preamble to the Constitution and several Directive
Principles, the Supreme Court has ruled that economic empowerment of the weaker
sections of the society constitute Fundamental Right.16
25. One important aspect is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the
means of livelihood. The easiest way to deprive a person of his right to live is to deprive
him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. 17
26. The respondents tried their best to uplift the life of the people of Cihar by setting up an
effective policy „Make in Indiana Policy 2018‟ and large scale domestic industries for
creating ample job opportunities.
27. The Court has ruled that the Constitution envisages establishment of a welfare state, and
in a welfare state, the primary duty of the govt. is to provide adequate medical facilities
for the people. The govt. discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health
centres to provide medical care to those who need them.18
28. The respondents set up schools and hospitals in the State as a part of their Corporate
Social Responsibility. This gives enough evidence that the motive of M/s RPF Ind. is to
protect and supports Art.21 i.e., Right to life which includes Right to livelihood.
29. The right to life enshrined in Art.21 has been liberally interpreted so as to mean
something more than mere survival and mere existence or animal existence. It therefore
includes all those aspects of life which go to make a man‟s life meaningful, complete
and worth living. 19

III. THAT PEOPLES’ LIBERTY DOES NOT HAVE THE LOCUS

STANDI AND ALTERNATIVE REMEDY NEEDS TO BE
EXHAUSTED TO EXERCISE WRIT JURISDICTION.
30. It is contended that the Peoples‟ Liberty, a NGO, has the onus probandi of legal
standing i.e., Locus Standi. As for the reason :
C. The appellant must have a legal right.
D. Ordinary remedies are not sought to be replaced by Art. 226.

16
MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1655 (6th ed. 2013).
17
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
18
JAIN, supra note 12, at 1633.
19
JAIN, supra note 12, at 1623.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 16 |7

A. THE APPELLANT MUST HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT.

31. It was held by the Supreme Court that wherever there is a public wrong or public injury
caused by an act of omission of State, any member having „sufficient interest‟ and
acting bonafide can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public
injury. But this right will not be available to a busybody, a “ meddlesome interloper”, a
person acting for personal gain or out of political motivation or some oblique
20
consideration. It is hence contended that the Petitioner, Peoples‟ Liberty, is a person
acting out of political motivation with opposition party. The reason of this allegation is
that the NGO has filed writ against the Govt. of PDF and not the State or Union, which
means that the Peoples‟ Liberty has some oblique consideration.
32. The „Policy‟ is made with the consent and voting of the parliament and not alone by the
ruling party, therefore, by making allegations against the Popular Democratic Front and
not the Union, the mala fide of the petitioner has been revealed.
33. Also, for a petitioner should have „legal standing‟ to file a writ petition.21 As Supreme
Court has observed, “ The requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is
mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or
public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily
ascertained at the threshold.22
34. Until and unless the petitioner fails to prove the sufficient interest in the subject-matter
or his legal rights are adversely affected, or that breach is likely to be committed, he is
not entitled to file the petition. This principle has been stated by the Supreme Court as
follows in S.P. Gupta v. President of India.23
“ The traditional rule in regard to locus standi is that judicial redress is available only
to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or
legally protected interest by the impugned action of the state or a public authority or
any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened
violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by any such action. The basis
of entitlement to judicial redress is personal injury to property, body, mind or

20
Gupta S.P. v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
21
Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corpn. of India v. Debyajoti Bose, AIR 2000 Cal 43.
22
Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892.
23
AIR 1982 SC 149.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 16 |8

reputation arising from violation, actual or threatened, of the legal right or legally
protected interest of the person seeking such redress.”
35. It must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved
party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. 24
36. Art.226 cannot be invoked on the basis of appeal to sympathy. The applicant must have
a legal right.25 As the facts state, several demonstrations were carried out by the
Peoples‟ Liberty by providing and gaining sympathy from people, Art.226 cannot be
invoked.
37. All this judgments point out that there needs to be infringement of a legal right or
fundamental right, but as the counsel has contended under issue (II) that there is no
violation of Art.14 as well as Art.21, the petitioner do not have a locus standi and hence
the writ is not maintainable.

B. ORDINARY REMEDIES ARE NOT SOUGHT TO BE REPLACED BY

ART. 226.

38. Under Art.226, the High Court does not decide disputes for which remedies under the
general law are available. Ordinary remedies are not sought to be replaced by Art.226.
The principle has been stated by the Supreme Court as follows: 26
“It is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the
litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of
another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ; but the
existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the
matter of granting writs...”
39. Art.226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures.27 The facts are
quite clear that the NGO took no alternative remedy under the Land Acquisition Act,
section 18, about the issues raised, hence Art.226 cannot be invoked.
40. In State of West Bengal v. North Adjai Coal Co.,28 the Supreme Court has held that
normally before a writ petition under Art.226 is entertained, the High Court would insist

24
Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy, (2003) 12 627.
25
State of MP v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, (2008) 1 SCC 456.
26
Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882.
27
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603.
28
(1971) 1 SCC 309, 310.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 16 |9

that the party aggrieved by the order of a quasi-judicial tribunal should have recourse to
the statutory authorities which have power to give relief.
41. The existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy is not a bar to the invocation of
the High Court‟s jurisdiction under Art.226 when relief is sought in case of infringement
of a Fundamental Right.29
42. The Supreme Court has laid down the proposition that when a statutory forum or
tribunal is specially created by a statute for redressal of specified grievances of persons
on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventilate
their specified grievances before it by entertaining petitions under Art.226 of the
Constitution. 30
43. All of this contend that the Petitioner, Peoples‟ Liberty, had failed to exhaust the
alternative remedy which is one of the important procedure before filing a writ, the writ
shall not be maintained.

29
Himmat Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 403.
30
Secretary,Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521.

Memorial for the Respondent

 R 1 6 | 10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent, humbly prays before the Hon‟ble High Court, that:

1. To dismiss the writ petition.

2. To adjudge and declare that „Policy‟ is valid and does not violate any Fundamental
Rights.
3. That the prayer of petitioner for immediate closure of Industries is not maintainable.

The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which the Court may deem fit in light
of justice equity and good conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Place: Cihar
Date: 25/01/2019 Counsel on behalf of Respondent
Indiana R16

Memorial for the Respondent