QP

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016
Q-P
BEFORE THE HONBLE
SUPREME COURT OF RHODO
In the matter of
Union of Rhodo..Appellant
V.
Dashanan Motors Ltd............................................................................................Respondent
SLP 8015/2015
And
Ms. Maya Mehta.......Appellant

V.
Dashanan Motors Ltd........Respondent
SLP 031/2016
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
1
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Index of Authorities.
4-7
2. Statement of Jurisdiction...
3. Statement of Facts
9-11
4. Issues Involved
12-13
5. Summary of Arguments
14-118
6. Argument Advanced.
19-33
1. WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF SHIVPURI WAS JUSTIFIED IN

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION OR NOT.
1.A WHETHER THE RIGHT TO ENJOYMENT OF POLLUTION FREE
WATER AND AIR IS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OR NOT.
1.B WHETHER THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND SAFEGUARDING THE FOREST AND
WILDLIFE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL GOAL OR NOT.
1.C WHETHER THERE IS AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION FOR

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OR NOT.
1.D WHETHER THE LOSS AND REDUCTION AND MANUFACTURING

WILL BE A GROUND FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OR NOT.
2. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING DAMAGE AND

NOT CLOSING DOWN THE PLANTS OR NOT.
2
ARGUMENDO THE CLOSURE OF THE PLANT MAY BRING

UNEMPLOYMENT, THE COURT MAY ASK FOR THE SHIFTING OF THE
PLANT.
2.A WHETHER RIGHT TO TRADE AND PROFESSION AS GUARANTEED
UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(G) INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS INFRINGED IN THE
NAME OF ENVIRONMENT OR NOT .
3. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE
APPELLANT UNDER MBCF OR NOT.
4. WHETHER THE SLP FILED BY MS. MAYA MEHTA WOULD BE
MAINTAINABLE AND RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT OF POLLUTION FREE WATER
AND AIR FOR FULL ENJOYMENT OF LIFE OF THE NATIVES LIVING IN THE
MOHANA REGION IS VIOLATED OR NOT.
5. WHETHER ALL THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED WERE ACCORDING TO THE
RULES AND PROCEDURE PROVIDED OR NOT.
6. WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY THE DASHANAN MOTORS LTD COMES
UNDER THE PURVIEW OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY OR NOT.
7. Prayer.
34
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:
3
1.
The Constitution of India, 1950
2.
Environment Protection Act, 1986S
3.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
4.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978
5.
The Hazardous Wastage (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989
CASES:
1)
Unni
Krishnan
v.
State
of
Andhra
Pradesh
1993(3)SCALE
248...19
2)
Western
India
Plywood
Ltd.
P.
Ashokan,
(1997)
SCC
63819
3)
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of IndiaAIR1990SC148020
4)
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR1991SC420 ....20, 28
5)
Tirupathi v. State of Andhra PradeshAIR 2006SC1350..21,29
6)
Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy v.
Union
of
India
2007GLH(3)422..21,30
7)
Prem Chandra Garg v. Excise Commissioner,U.P, AIR1963SC996..22
8)
Re Santram CaseAIR1960SC93222
9)
In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (Kanpur Tanneries)1992(2) SCALE637..23
10)
M.C.Mehta
v.
Union
of
India
(Calcutta
Tanneries)1997(1)
UJ13..
23
11)
Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer AIR 1954 SC
22024
12)
Burra
Bazar
FWDA
v.
Commissioner
of
Police,Kolkata
AIR1998CAL121.........................................................................................................24
13)
Ganga Pollution(Tanneries)Case: M.C.Mehta v.Union of India,AIR1988SC
1037
14)
.24
Goa
Foundation
v.
Union
of
India
(2005)11SCC
560....24
4
15)
Oak
Resort
(Pvt.)
Ltd.
V.
Panchgani
H.S.
AIR
2001
SC
3478..25
16)
State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd.(2001) 9 SCC
605....25
17)
Vineet Kumar Mathur v. Union of India (1996)1 SCC 11925
18)
M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath 2000(5) SCALE69..26
19)
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of IndiaAIR 1996SC 2715..27
20)
M.C.Mehta [Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes matter] v. Union of India (1997)
3SCC 715.27
21)
A.P.Pollution Control Board v. M.V.NayuduAIR 1999 SC81227
22)
Daryoo v. State of U.P AIR 1961 SC 145728
23)
Romesh Thappar v. State of MadrasAIR 1950 SC 124.29
24)
Manoj
Mishra
v.
Union
of
India
AIR
2013
SC
2809..................31
25)
General Secy. v. R.M.S (1991) 2 UJSC 400 ..19
26)
Shriram Gas Leak case ..32
27) Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330........32
28) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1446..29
29) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 35633
CONVENTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
The Principles of Stockholm Conference, 1972

The Principles of Kyoto Protocol, 1992
The Principles of Rio Summit, 1992
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. BASU D.D., COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8th
ed.,WADHWA AND COMPANY, NAGPUR, 2010)
2. JUSTICE BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, WRIT REMEDIES (WITH A
SPECIAL CHAPTER ON PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION), (3rd ed. WADHWA
AND COMPANY, NAGPUR, 2004)
3. BASU D.D., CONSTITUTION
OF
INDIA
(14th
ed.,
LEXISNEXIS
BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA, NAGPUR, 2009)

4. JAIN M.P, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (6 th ed., LEXISNEXIS
BUTTERWORTH WADHWA, NAGPUR, 2011)
5
5. B.K.DUBEY, MANUAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLLUTION LAWS

(WADHWA AND COMPANY, INDORE, 2010)
6. R.S.BEDI, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLLUTION
LAWS (2nd ed. NOIDA MANUPATRA, 2006)
7.
S.C.SHASTRI, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (3rd ed., EASTERN BOOK
COMPANY 2008)
8. R.B. SINGH AND SURESH MISRA, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN INDIA:
ISSUES AND RESPONSES (CONCEPT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 1996)
9. A.K.TIWARI, ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND MANAGEMENT IN INDIA,
(DEEP& DEEP PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD, 2006)
10. N V PARANJAPE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND MANAGEMENT IN
INDIA, (1st ed. THOMSON REUTERS, 2015)
12. JUSTICE T.S.DOABIA, WITH A FOREWORD BY DR. M.VEERAPPA MOILY,
ENVIRONMENTAL& POLLUTION LAWS IN INDIA (2nd ed.,LEXISNEXIS
BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA, NAGPUR, 2010)
13. SHYAM DIVAN & ARMIN ROSENCRANZ, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND
POLICY IN INDIA - CASES, MATERIALS AND STATUTES, (2 nd ed., OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2002)
14.P.LEELAKRISHNAN, ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW
IN
INDIA,(3 rd
ed.
LEXISNEXIS, 2010)
15. H.D.PITHAWALLA, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (C JAMNADAS & CO, 2013)
16. NOMITA AGGARWAL, SOCIAL AUDITING OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
IN INDIA (NEW CENTURY PUBLICATIONS, 2003)
LEGAL DATABASES:
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Westlaw
4. Hein Online
LEXICONS:
1. Aiyar P Ramanathan, Law Lexicon, 2005
2. Garner Bryana, Blacks Law Dictionary,7th Edition,1999
3. Whartons Law Lexicon, 15th Edn. (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd., 2009).
6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honorable Supreme Court of Rhodo has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 136
of the Constitution of Rhodo which reads as follows:
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of Rhodo.
7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Dashanan Motors Ltd.(DML) situated in the country of Rhodo, produced a car namely
Pushpak. It also manufactured buses which were marketed under the name Garuda. Due to
the widespread popularity, affordability and reliability of DML vehicles they soon emerged as
the preferred means of mass transit in both rural and urban areas across the country.
2. The sole and principal manufacturing unit of DML is situated in the suburbs of the capital
city of Northern Province, Shivpuri on the banks of the River Asli, due to the easy availability
of resources and raw materials in the hinterland.
3. In the meantime, there was a growing concern in the international community regarding
the degradation of environment, which led to various international treaties and conferences
with the aim of creating a consensus among nations to make their environmental safety norms
more stringent. The Republic of Rhodo was an active participant and signatory in many of
these significant conventions like the Stockholm Conference, 1972, Kyoto Protocol, 1992,
Rio Summit, 1992, etc. and subsequently it passed various legislations to that effect including
an amendment to its Constitution. It also beefed up its vehicle emission standards and issued
a directive to the Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) of all its provinces to ensure strict
compliance to the afore-mentioned norms.
4. Due to economic crisis during 1990s, during the period of liberalization there was private
acquisition of DML after which it started gaining profit.
8
5. The factory discharged all its trade effluents in the river Asli. Fifty miles down the river
from where the factory was situated, the river Asli has its confluence with the Khari Sea.
There it has created the largest riverine delta network on the planet, the Mohana which
incidentally has been recognized as an extremely important biosphere reserve by several
international organizations. It has a vast spectrum of flora and fauna species and is inhabited
by a number of endangered species, and has extensive foliage of mangroves.
6. It was in the year 2015 that certain drastic changes were observed in the flora and fauna,
and the health of the natives of this region. The natives of the region started complaining of
having developed black sores on various parts of the body and shortness of breath. About the
same time period, bloated bodies of dead riverine dolphins unique to the Mohana delta
floated up on the shores. These riverine dolphins happened to be of special varieties which
were considered to be endangered. Deleterious changes became evident on the health of the
natives of the region; they started complaining of having developed black sores on various
parts of the body and shortness of breath.
7. This raised an alarm amongst the observing scientists and activists of the Mohana
Biodiversity Conservation Forum (hereinafter referred to as MBCF). The MBCF conducted
an exhaustive research to elicit the reason as to why such detrimental changes had occurred.
Their study revealed that the water of the river Asli was heavily polluted. It contained various
chemicals which are hazardous to flora and fauna of the region.
8. The MBCF also averred it was due to the emission of trade effluents from the plant of
DML. And therefore it opined that the DML was responsible for such environmental
deterioration.
9. Government of Republic of Rhodo led by the Jan RhodoParty(JRP) after proper
consideration and deliberation, working for environmental conservation opted to switch from
Euro IV emission norms to those of Euro VI from 1 January 2016, and issued a directive to
this effect in October 2015 in which it was strictly ordered to all automobile manufacturing
companies to desist the manufacturing and selling all vehicles which do not comply with the
new norms.
10. The DML manufactured only three vehicles namely Pushpak Hatchback and Pushpak
Sedan among cars and Garuda Premium bus which were non-compliant with the new norms.
9
And thus the board of directors were of the view that the directive of the government was
inconsiderate and violated their fundamental rights.
11. The Board of Directors of the company moved to the Honble High Court of Judicature of
Shivpuri seeking issuance of a writ in nature of mandamus so as to get the impugned
directive annulled. The petitioner in this case alleged that the directive of the central
government was unconstitutional as it violated their fundamental right to freedom of trade
and profession, and also the right to livelihood of their employees. The Honble High Court
took the arguments of the DML into proper consideration and ordered in favor of the
Petitioners.
12. Central Government feeling aggrieved by decision of the High Court approached the
Supreme Court of Rhodo under its appellate jurisdiction. It filed an SLP under article 136 of
the Constitution.
13. Ms. Maya Mehta, a environmental activist turned to the third pillar of democracy and
filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court of Judicature of Northern Province
at Shivpuri on 16 November 2015 regarding the same matter.
14. The High Court in its final judgment held that the report of the Pollution Control Board
revealed that the plant discharged such effluents in the river Asli which contained many
chemicals which were way beyond the prescribed limits. The court further held that it was
necessary to grant damages to the natives of the region and that it was also compelled to issue
a directive to close the plant. But after having paid heed to the arguments of the respondent
company it was of the opinion that if the plant was closed then it would render about 45000
employees of the enterprise unemployed, and that it would it would also leave around 2 lac
family members of these employees in misery, hunger and squalor. Hence it decided not to
issue any directive to shut the plant but it did order the company to pay damages worth Rs.10
crores to the aggrieved natives.
15. Aggrieved by the decision that it was not as per to secure end of justice she filed a Special
Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of Republic of Rhodo seeking enhancement of the
awarded damages and closure of the plants.
10
ISSUES INVOLVED
1. WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF SHIVPURI WAS JUSTIFIED IN

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION OR NOT.
1.A WHETHER THE RIGHT TO ENJOYMENT OF POLLUTION FREE WATER
AND AIR IS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OR NOT.
IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND SAFEGUARDING THE FOREST
AND WILDLIFE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL GOAL OR NOT.
1.D WHETHER THE LOSS AND REDUCTION AND MANUFACTURING WILL
BE A GROUND FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OR NOT.
ARGUMENDO
THE
CLOSURE
OF
THE
PLANT
MAY
BRING
UNEMPLOYMENT, THE COURT MAY ASK FOR THE SHIFTING OF THE

PLANT.
11

UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(G) INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS INFRINGED IN THE
NAME OF ENVIRONMENT OR NOT.
APPELLANT UNDER MBCF OR NOT.
4. WHETHER
THE
SLP
FILED
BY
MS.
MAYA MEHTA WOULD
BE
MAINTAINABLE AND RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT OF POLLUTION FREE WATER

AND AIR FOR FULL ENJOYMENT OF LIFE OF THE NATIVES LIVING IN THE
MOHANA REGION IS VIOLATED OR NOT.
5. WHETHER ALL THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED WERE ACCORDING TO THE
RULES AND PROCEDURE PROVIDED OR NOT.
12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF SHIVPURI HAS TAKEN FACTS
OF THE CASE IN PROPER CONSIDERATION OR NOT.
The Supreme Court can interfere under a special leave petition with an order of the
High Court under Article 226 where the High Court is incorrect in point of law or
where a basic error of law is committed by the High Court. The Honble High Court
of Shivpuri was not justified in its judgemnet on the writ petition. The court has not
taken into proper consideration regarding the conditions of the environment. The
bodies of dead riverine dolphin found dead on the river surface. Deleterious changes
became evident on the health of the natives of the region; they started complaining of
having developed black sores on various parts of the body and shortness of breath.
The court has not focused on the current situation of these people. So, the High Court
was not justified in dismissing the writ petition.
The courts have undertaken to explicate the development of ideology of environment
as being part of the right to life by various judicial pronouncements.
Environmental deterioration could eventually endanger life of present and future
generations. Therefore, the right to life has been used in a diversified manner in India.
It includes, inter alia, the right to survive as a species, quality of life, the right to live
with dignity, right to good environment and the right to livelihood. In India these
rights have been implicitly recognized as constitutional rights. The right to healthy
environment has been incorporated, directly or indirectly, into the judgment of the
court. Thus it is clear that Article 21 has a multidimensional interpretation. Any
arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act on the part of the state, depriving the life or
personal liberty would be against Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND SAFEGUARDING THE FOREST
AND WILDLIFE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL GOAL OR NOT?
13
Article 47, 48(a), and 51A (g) form the constitutional mandate to protect and improve
the environment. Article 48 A says that the state shall endeavor to protect and improve
environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A (g)
talks of the fundamental duties to protect and improve the natural environment
including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creature.
Apart from the constitutional mandate there are number of legislation on the subject
which impose duty on the governments to precept ecology and environmental
pollution.
Further in the landmark judgment in intellectual forum Tirupathi v. state of Andhra
Pradesh, the supreme court has held that under article 21 and article 51 A, it is
constitutional obligation of the government to protect and preserve the environment.
Article 48-A of The Constitution of India mandates that the state shall endeavor to
protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the
country. Article 51A of the constitution enjoins that it shall be the duty of every
citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve national environment including
forests, lake, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. These two
articles are not only fundamental in the governance of the country but also it shall be
duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OR NOT?
Yes, there is international obligation to republic of Rhodo. As, all of us know that the
Republic of Rhodo was an active participant and signatory in many of these
significant conventions like the Stockholm Conference, 1972, Kyoto Protocol, 1992,
Rio Summit, 1992, etc. and subsequently it passed various legislations to that effect
including an amendment to its Constitution. It also beefed up its vehicle emission
standards and issued a directive to the Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) of all its
provinces to ensure strict compliance to the afore-mentioned norms. There are various
principles in these norms which talks regarding the international obligation for
sustainable development.
WILL BE A GROUND FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OR NOT?
The loss and reduction of manufacturing will not be a ground for non-compliance of
the issues. In this case there is matter of general interest and when there is a matter of
general interest then the individual interest should not be concerned. . Further in the
case of Re Santram case, it is said that, a person cant claim of right to dwell to right
of livelihood where the issue of general public importance or hamper the general
public interest.
14
2 .WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING DAMAGE AND

NOT CLOSING DOWN THE PLANTS?
The high court was not justified in granting damage and not closing down the plants.
Merely unemployment cant be a ground for escaping pollution. Where there is
general interest, the court must think on the general interest of the people.
Argumendo the closure of the plant may bring unemployment, the court may ask for
the shifting of the plant.
There is also an argumendo in this case, that if the closure of the plant may bring
unemployment, the court may ask for the shifting of the plant. There are various
examples in which the court has ordered to shift the branch to some other place so that
neither the nature is harmed nor the people became unemployed. So the court has not
considered it. If the high court was really worried regarding the unemployment and
conditions of the families of the people of those workers then the court may order to
shift it. But the court didnt do so. The court may order for the rehabilitation of the
employees but it didnt do so.
UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(G) INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS INFRINGED IN
THE NAME OF ENVIRONMENT OR NOT ?
Accordingly, it must be held that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India does not
guarantee the fundamental right to carry on trade or business which creates pollution
or which takes away that communities' safety, health and peace. It cannot be said that
a citizen have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
to carry on trade or business and/or manufacture poison which may be used for killing
of people. This right is negative as nobody has any right to carry on any trade or
business in intoxicating liqueurs by virtue of the right conferred under Article 19(1)
(g). As reasonable restrictions can be imposed by state in order to protect the interest
of larger public over some specific.
15

APPELLANT UNDER MBCF OR NOT?
The High Court erred in grating relief to the appellant under MBCF because the High
Court has not considered the polluter pays principle and the precautionary
principles.
As Rhodo is a signatory country in all the above mentioned summits so it should
follow the polluter pays and the precautionary principles. But in spite of having these
principles, the high court has not applied it.
4. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY MS. MAYA MEHTA

WOULD BE MAINTAINABLE AND RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT OF POLLUTION
FREE WATER AND AIR FOR FULL ENJOYMENT OF LIFE OF THE NATIVES
LIVING IN THE MOHANA REGION IS VIOLATED OR NOT.
The people have right to life and right to have pollution free water. It was held in
Subhas Kumar v. state of Bihar, it was held that public interest litigation is
maintainable for ensuring enjoyment of pollution free water and air which is included
in the right to live under article 21 of the constitution. And further through various
judgments it is held that right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full
enjoyment of life of the natives living in the Mohana Region is violated.
16
5. WHETHER ALL THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED WERE ACCORDING TO

THE RULES AND PROCEDURE PROVIDED OR NOT.
The procedures which are being followed is according to the rules provided under
water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1978. According to section 17 of
water (prevention and control of pollution) act, it provides that there should be an
inspection of control of water pollution and for establishment of the board to control
it. And according to this section PCB was constituted. Further according to section 24
of water (prevention and control of pollution) act, no person shall knowingly cause of
permit poisoness, noxious or polluting matter so that it can cause pollution. Section 32
of water (prevention and control of pollution) act, says that, government can take
certain precautionary measures to stop the pollution. According to section 20, 21, 23
of water (prevention and control of pollution) act confer power on the state board to
obtain information necessary for implementation of the provisions of the water act, to
take samples of the effluents and to analyze them and to follow the procedures
prescribed in convention therewith and power to entry and inspection for the purpose
enforcing the provision of water act.

The act which was done by the Dashanan Motors Ltd comes within the purview of tortious
liability. As we see in this problem that the act done by the Dashanan Motors Ltd falls under
the category of absolute liability where in this tortious doctrine there is no any availability of
self-defense to protect the Dashanan Motors Ltd within the ambit of tort. So after applying
this doctrine of absolute liability we can say that the act done by the Dashanan Motors Ltd
comes under the ambit of tortious liability.
17
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF SHIVPURI HAS TAKEN FACTS

OF THE CASE IN PROPER CONSIDERATION OR NOT.
The Supreme Court can interfere under a special leave petition with an order of the
High Court under Article 226 where the High Court is incorrect in point of law (it was
decided in Western India Plywood Limited v. P.Ashokan 1, or where a basic error of
law is committed by the High Court (it was decided in general secy. v.R.M.S 2. The
Honble court of Shivpuri was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. The court
has not taken into proper consideration regarding the conditions of the environment.
In the year 2015 that certain drastic changes were observed in the flora and fauna, and
the health of the natives of this region. The over-ground breathing roots of these
mangroves were found to be plugged with sludge as a result of which vast patches of
mangrove forests withered away and died. About the same time period, bloated bodies
of dead riverine dolphins unique to the Mohana delta floated up on the shores. These
riverine dolphins happened to be of special varieties which were considered to be
endangered. Deleterious changes became evident on the health of the natives of the
region; they started complaining of having developed black sores on various parts of
the body and shortness of breath. The court has not focused on the current situation of
these people.
It is clearly mentioned in the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3
that right to live in a decent environment is one of the basic important right. And in
our present context we find that the DML is producing large amount of toxins which
is preventing the citizens to live in such a decent environment.
Article 21 and the right to pollution free environment: the second major development
has been the jurisprudence arising from certain remarkable judicial pronouncements
1(1997) 7 SCC 638 (para 14)
2 (1991) 2 UJSC 400 (para 9)
3 1993(3)SCALE 248
18
in recent years, more specially relating to article 21 of the constitution dealing with
the right to life. The constitution makers themselves construct the fundamental rights
in its broad sense especially to right to life. The Supreme Court of India has given
essence to the right so that every person can enjoy life to its fullest extent. The Indian
Supreme Court came out of the shackles of mechanical and the rule beyond justice
and provided impetus to the expanded horizons of the fundamental right to life and
personal liberty guaranteed in article 21. Two methods are used by Supreme court to
strengthen article 21 and to interpret unremunerated rights under article 21, it required
law affecting personal liberty to pass the test of article 14 and 19 of the constitution,
thereby ensuring that the procedure depriving a person of his or her personal liberty
be reasonable, fair and just. The court recognized several matriculated rights that were
implied by article 21. It is by this method the Supreme Court interpreted the right to
life and personal liberty to include the right to wholesome environment and all other
things. Thus courts have undertaken to explicate the development of ideology of
environment as being part of the right to life by various judicial pronouncements.
Environmental deterioration could eventually endanger life of present and future generations.
Therefore, the right to life has been used in a diversified manner in India. It includes, inter
alia, the right to survive as a species, quality of life, the right to live with dignity, right to
good environment and the right to livelihood. In India these rights have been implicitly
recognized as constitutional rights. The right to healthy environment has been incorporated,
directly or indirectly, into the judgment of the court. Thus it is clear that article 21 has a
multidimensional interpretation. Any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act on the part of the
state, depriving the life or personal liberty would be against article 21 of the Indian
constitution.
The right to life was first addressed by a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the
Charan Lal Sahu case v. Union of India4in 1991, the Supreme Court interpreted the right to
life guaranteed by article 21 of the constitution to include right to a wholesome environment.
In Subash kumar v. State of Bihar 5,the court observed that right to life guaranteed by article
21 includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life.
Though this case, the court recognized the right to a wholesome environment as part of the
fundamental right to life.

IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND SAFEGUARDING THE
FOREST AND WILDLIFE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL GOAL OR NOT.
4AIR1990SC1480 (para 41)
5 AIR1991SC420 (para 6)
19
Article 21 of the constitution guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. Article
47, 48(a), and 51A (g) form the constitutional mandate to protect and improve the
environment. Article 48 A says that the state shall endeavor to protect and improve
environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A (g)
talks of the fundamental duties to protect and improve the natural environment
including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creature.
Apart from the constitutional mandate there are number of legislation on the subject
which impose duty on the governments to precept ecology and environmental
pollution.
Further in the landmark judgment in Intellectual Forum Tirupathi v. State of Andhra
Pradesh6, the supreme court has held that under article 21 and article 51 A, it is
constitutional obligation of the government to protect and preserve the environment.
Article 48-A of The Constitution of India mandates that the state shall endeavor to
protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the
country. Article 51A of the constitution enjoins that it shall be the duty of every
citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve national environment including
forests, lake, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. These two
articles are not only fundamental in the governance of the country but also it shall be
duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.
In Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy v. Union of
India7, in a writ petition filed by the research foundation for science, technology and under
natural resource policy through its director for direction to ban all imports of hazardous
wastage, to amend rules in conformity with the BASEL convention and article 21, 47 and
48A of the constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court. The supreme court held that
polluter pays principle will apply when such violation occur but no ban can be imposed on
import till such time as a particular product is identified as being hazardous. The provisions
of the hazardous wastage (management and handling) rules, 1989cant be declared
unconstitutional since the same are in aid and not in derogation of the provision of article 21,
39(e), 47,48A of the constitution.
Yes, there is international obligation to republic of Rhodo. As, all of us know that the
Republic of Rhodo was an active participant and signatory in many of these
significant conventions like the Stockholm Conference, 1972, Kyoto Protocol, 1992,
6AIR 2006SC1350
7 2007GLH(3)422 (para 9)
20
Rio Summit, 1992, etc. and subsequently it passed various legislations to that effect
including an amendment to its Constitution. It also beefed up its vehicle emission
standards and issued a directive to the Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) of all its
provinces to ensure strict compliance to the afore-mentioned norms.
So as per the principle 15 of the Rio declaration 1992, where there is threat of serious or
irreversible environmental damage lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a
reason for postponing majors to prevent environmental degradation. In another words any
human activity or behavior which bears the harmful effects to the environment has got to be
prevented at all cost.
As we all are aware that our country is a signatory country of the Stockholm declaration
1972, principle 6 of this declaration provides that the discharge of toxic substances or of the
substances that release heat on such a quantity that exceeds the capacity if environment to
render them harmless must be stopped to ensure that serious irreversible damage should not
occur.
So from these various principles we can easily understand that republic of Rhodo is under
international obligation.
WILL BE A GROUND FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OR NOT.
The loss and reduction of manufacturing will not be a ground for non-compliance of
the issues. In this case there is matter of general interest and when there is a matter of
general interest then the individual interest should not be concerned.
In the case of Prem Chandra Garg v. Excise Commissioner,U.P, 8the Supreme Court held that
the court regards itself as the protector and the guarantor of fundamental rights and should
not refuse its responsibility. It would act for the generality not the individuality. Further in the
case of Re Santram case9, it is said that, a person cant claim of right to dwell to right of
livelihood where the issue of general public importance or hamper the general public interest.
8AIR1963SC996 (para 2)
9 AIR1960SC932
21

The high court was not justified in granting damage and not closing down the plants.
Merely unemployment cant be a ground for escaping pollution. Where there is
general interest, the court must think on the general interest of the people. In
M.C.Mehta v. union of India (Kanpurtanneries)10the Supreme Court has held that life,
public health and ecology have priority over unemployment and loss of revenue. In
this case the precautionary principles are also given. The Supreme Court ordered the
central government to show the steps they have taken to achieve this goal through
national policy and to restore the quality of environment.
There is also an argumendo in this case, that if the closure of the plant may bring
unemployment, the court may ask for the shifting of the plant. There are various
examples in which the court has ordered to shift the branch to some other place so that
neither the nature is harmed nor the people became unemployed. So the court has not
considered it. If the high court was really worried regarding the unemployment and
conditions of the families of the people of those workers then the court may order to
shift it. But the court didnt do so. The court may order for the rehabilitation of the
employees but it didnt do so.
In the case of M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (Calcutta tanneries) 11,
the court gave order to the company to shift at the other place so that the people didnt get
unemployed and there would be no loss to the environment also.

UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(G) INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS INFRINGED IN
THE NAME OF ENVIRONMENT OR NOT.
101992(2)SCALE637
11 1997(1)UJ13
22
Article 19 (1)(g) provides to practice any trade any profession, or to carry any
occupation or business. But the right to carry any business, being a fundamental right,
its exercise is subject only to restriction imposed by the law in the interest of general
public under article 19 (6). There are two restrictions that the trade must bea) Reasonable
b) And in the interest of general public.
And in this case it is quite unreasonable and not in the interest of general public. It is
totally health hazard. So these are the reasonable restrictions. A citizen cannot practice
on carry on any business activity if it is health hazard to the society or the general
public. Thus safeguards for environment protection are inherent in it. The supreme
court while deciding the matter relating to carry on trade of liquor in Cooverjee B.
Bharucha v. excise commissioner, Ajmer12observed that, if there is clash between
environmental protection and right to freedom of trade and profession, the court have
to balance environmental interests with the fundamental right to carry on any
occupation.
Accordingly, it must be held that Article 19(1) (g) of the
Constitution of India does not guarantee the fundamental right to carry on trade or
business which creates pollution or which takes away that communities' safety, health
and peace. It cannot be said that a citizen have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)
(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on trade or business and/or manufacture
poison which may be used for killing of people. This right is negative as nobody has
any right to carry on any trade or business in intoxicating liqueurs by virtue of the
right conferred under Article 19(1) (g).
In the case of Burra Bazar FWDA v. Commissioner of Police, Kolkata 13, Honble court held
that article 19(1) (g) doesnt guarantee the fundamental right to carry on trade or business
which generates pollution or which would endanger health and public order.
In Cooverjee v. Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer 14, the court held
that its the right of every citizen to pursue any lawful trade or business subject to such
reasonable condition as may be deemed by the governing authorities of the country essential
to the safety, health, peace, order and morals of community.
Furthermore in Ganga Pollution (tanneries) case: M.C.Mehta v. Union of India,15; group of
owner of tanneries doing business on the bank of Ganga were alleged to be polluting the
river. The Supreme Court issued direction to the tanneries to set up primary treatment plant
12AIR 1954 SC 220
13AIR 1998 CAL 121
14 AIR1954SC220 (para 7)
15 AIR 1988 SC 1037
23
within a period of six months. The court also directed the central government, pollution
control board and the district magistrate to oversee the work. In supporting judgment justice
K.N.Singh observed that the pollution of river Ganga is affecting the life, health, ecology of
the indo-genetic plan. He also conducted that, the closure of tenneries may bring
unemployment, loss of revenue but life, health and ecology have a greater importance to the
people. So here my lord, I would clearly like to say that public interest is quite more
important that the individual interest.
In Goa Foundation v. Union of India 16(decided by Supreme Court on 22-02-05) Supreme
Court compromising the bench of Mr. Y.K.Shabbarawal and Mr. P.P.Naolekar passed an order
on directing the central government to issue directives to close down 218 industrial units
across the country to close down for flouting environmental norms.
Again in live Oak Resort (Pvt.) Ltd. V. Panchgani H.S. municipal council 17 the Honble court
declared that there is need for balance between development and precaution of ecology. The
court said that the closing of the resort may bring unemployment but for the large public
interest the rights of the individual cant be infringed.
In state of M.P. v. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd.18, the Supreme Court pulled up the Madhya
Pradesh State Pollution Control Board for not taking any interest and, in fact, acting
negligently in the matter of discharging its function since various industries were discharging
pollutants in contravention of the provisions of the laws.
In Vineet Kumar Mathur v. Union of India 19, the court took note of the continued
violation of the state, as well as industries by continuing to pollute water by discharging
effluents and also in not setting up of common effluent treatment plants. The court held that
in the circumstances the officer were in clear contempt of the court.
16 2013(14)SCALE20
17AIR2001SC3478
18 (2001) 9 SCC 605
19 (1996)1 SCC 119
24

APPELLANT UNDER MBCF OR NOT?
The high court has not taken into consideration the polluter pay principle and the
precautionary principles. My lord firstly I would like to explain the precautionary
principle, as per this principle any substance or human activity that causes or which
may cause threat to the environment/harm to the environment and even if there is no
any conclusive scientific proof that those substance are harmful then also it must be
prevented at all the costs. It is component of the concept of ecologically sustainable
development.
And as we all are aware of the fact that republic of Rhodo has been an
active participant and a signatory country in the Rio summit, 1992. So as per the principle 15
of the Rio declaration 1992, where there is threat of serious or irreversible environmental
damage lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing majors
to prevent environmental degradation. In another words any human activity or behavior
which bears the harmful effects to the environment has got to be prevented at all cost.
As we all are aware that our country is a signatory country of the Stockholm
declaration 1972, principle 6 of this declaration provides that the discharge of toxic
substances or of the substances that release heat on such a quantity that exceeds the capacity
if environment to render them harmless must be stopped to ensure that serious irreversible
damage should not occur.
I would also like to explain the polluter pay principle.According to this principle the court
would not calculate the environmental damage on the basis of claims put forward by party,
but it should also be on the basis of the further environmental damages as per the examination
25
of situation by the court. This principle is necessary for protection of environment and save
the country from the threats possessed by environmental pollution in the modernized
industrial society. Polluter page principle was also recognized as an integral part of
sustainable development by international community arid was incorporated as principle 16 of
Rio declaration 1992. As a matter of fact this principle was already accepted and included as
principle 4 of Stockholm declaration in 1972 but it was legally an internationally recognized
as a substantiveprinciple of environmental law under principle 16 of Rio declaration.
The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath 20 observed that polluter pays
principle has been recognized as fundamental objective of governments environmental
policy to prevent and control pollution. The court in this case observed that the calculation of
environmental damages should not be on basis of claim put forward by party, but it should be
on basis of examination by the court, keeping in view the factors such as deterrent nature of
award.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India 21,the supreme court directed
central government to constitute an authority under section 3[3] of the environment
protection act 1986 and confer on this authority all the powers necessary to deal with
situation created by tanneries and other polluting industries in state of Tamil Nadu.The
authority so constituted shall implement the precautionary principles and the polluter pays
principle. In this case it was held that precautionary principle and the polluters pay have
been accepted as accepted as the law of the land.
The precautionary principle and the polluters principle is also explained in M.C Mehta
[Badkhal and Surajkund lakes matter] v. Union of India 22. In A.P. Pollution Control Board v.
M.V.Nayudu23, the apex court observed that where the state government makes an attempt to
balance need of environment and need of economic development, it would not be proper to
prohibited from doing so. In such a case, it would be safer to apply protective principle and
principle of polluter pays,keeping in mind the principle of sustainabledevelopmentand
principle of intergenerational equity.
So, in this case the High court has not taken the appropriate steps. The high
court has only provided the compensation only to those who are the aggrieved people. It has
only provided 10 crores to the aggrieved people. The court didnt take any decision regarding
the people who are going to be suffered later on by those toxins. The court didnt shut the
202000(5) SCALE69
21AIR 1996SC 2715
22(1997) 3SCC 715
23AIR 1999 SC812
26
plant hence the court didnt work on the principle of polluter pays. The court has erred in
granting relief to the petitioner under MBCF.
4. WHETHER THE SLP FILED BY MS. MAYA MEHTA WOULD BE

MAINTAINABLE AND RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT OF POLLUTION FREE
WATER AND AIR FOR FULL ENJOYMENT OF LIFE OF THE NATIVES
LIVING IN THE MOHANA REGION IS VIOLATED OR NOT?
Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the
Apex Court. It provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the Fundamental
rights of a citizen. Right to live is a fundamental right Under Article 21 of the
Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for
full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in
derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32 of the
Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be determined to
the quality of life. A petition Under Article 32 for the prevention of pollution is
maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers
or journalists.
The factory ever since its inception discharged all its trade effluents in the
river Asli. Fifty miles down the river from where the factory is situated, the river Asli has its
confluence with the Khari Sea. There it has created the largest riverine delta network on the
planet, the Mohana which incidentally has been recognized as an extremely important
biosphere reserve by several international organizations. It has a vast spectrum of flora and
fauna species and is inhabited by a number of endangered species, and has extensive foliage
of mangroves. It was in the year 2015 that certain drastic changes were observed in the flora
and fauna, and the health of the natives of this region. The over-ground breathing roots of
27
these mangroves were found to be plugged with sludge as a result of which vast patches of
mangrove forests withered away and died. About the same time period, bloated bodies of
dead riverine dolphins unique to the Mohana delta floated up on the shores. These riverine
dolphins happened to be of special varieties which were considered to be endangered.
Deleterious changes became evident on the health of the natives of the region; they started
complaining of having developed black sores on various parts of the body and shortness of
breath.
The people have right to life and right to have pollution free water. It was held in Subhas
Kumar v. State of Bihar24, it was held that public interest litigation is maintainable for
ensuring enjoyment of pollution free water and air which is included in the right to live
under article 21 of the constitution.
In Daryoo v. State of U.P25, the Supreme Court declared that the fundamental rights are
intended not only to protect individual right but they are based on the high public policies.
Liberty of the individual and the protection of the fundamental rights are the very essence of
the democratic way of life adopted by the constitution and its privilege and the duty of this
court to uphold these rights. The court would naturally refuse to circumscribe them or to
curtail them expert as provided by the constitution itself.
In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras26s, the court said that the court is constituted as the
protector and guarantor of fundamental right, and it cannot consistently with the
responsibility laid upon it, refuse to entertain application seeking protection against
infringement of such right.
In Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India 27, the Supreme Court has held
that if by the action of private corporate bodies a persons fundamental right is violated for
court would not accept the argument that it is not state within the meaning of article 12 and,
therefore, action cannot be taken against it. If the court finds that the government or the
authorities concerned have not taken the action required of them by law and this has resulted
in violation of the right to life of the citizen. It will be the duty of the court to intervene. In
this case an environmentalist organization filed a petition before the court complaining the
vicinity of chemical industrial plant in India and requesting for appropriate remedial
measures. The court further gave appropriate orders and directions for implementing and
enforcing the laws to protect ecology.
24AIR 1991 SC 420
25AIR 1961 SC 1457
26AIR 1950 SC 124 (Para 3)
27AIR 1996 SC 1446
28
Article 21 of the constitution guarantees protection of life and personal

liberty. Article 47, 48(a), and 51A (g) form the constitutional mandate to protect and improve
the environment. Article 48 A says that the state shall endeavor to protect and improve
environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A (g) talks of
the fundamental duties to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes,
rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creature. Apart from the constitutional
mandate there are number of legislation on the subject which impose duty on the
governments to precept ecology and environmental pollution.
Further in the landmark judgment in intellectual forum Tirupathi v. State of Andhra
Pradesh , the supreme court has held that under article 21 and article 51 A, it is constitutional
obligation of the government to protect and preserve the environment. Article 48-A of The
Constitution of India mandates that the state shall endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51A of the
constitution enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and
improve national environment including forests, lake, and wildlife and to have compassion
for living creatures. These two articles are not only fundamental in the governance of the
country but also it shall be duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.
28
In Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy V. Union of
India29, in a writ petition filed by the research foundation for science, technology and under
natural resource policy through its director for direction to ban all imports of hazardous
wastage, to amend rules in conformity with the BASEL convention and article 21, 47 and
48A of the constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court. The supreme court held that
polluter pays principle will apply when such violation occur but no ban can be imposed on
import till such time as a particular product is identified as being hazardous. The provisions
of the hazardous wastage (management and handling) rules, 1989cant be declared
unconstitutional since the same are in aid and not in derogation of the provision of article 21,
39(e), 47,48A of the constitution.
28AIR 2006SC1350
292007 GLH(3)422
29
5. WHETHER ALL THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED WERE ACCORDING

TO THE RULES AND PROCEDURE PROVIDED OR NOT?
The procedures which are being followed is according to the rules provided under
water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1978. According to section 17 of
water (prevention and control of pollution) act, it provides that there should be an
inspection of control of water pollution and for establishment of the board to control
it. And according to this section PCB was constituted. Further according to section 24
of water (prevention and control of pollution) act, no person shall knowingly cause of
permit poisonous, noxious or polluting matter so that it can cause pollution. Section
32 of water (prevention and control of pollution) act, says that, government can take
certain precautionary measures to stop the pollution. According to section 20, 21, 23
of water (prevention and control of pollution) act confer power on the state board to
obtain information necessary for implementation of the provisions of the water act, to
take samples of the effluents and to analyze them and to follow the procedures
prescribed in convention therewith and power to entry and inspection for the purpose
enforcing the provision of water act.
30
And after the inspection, it was found that the toxins discharged were
beyond the prescribed limits. In the case of Manoj Mishra v. Union of India 30,
Honble Supreme court in the year 2015 declared that if the toxins were above the
prescribed limit, the company must be closed. The limit was 3mg/litres. So, all the
procedures are followed according to the provided rules and procedures.
6. WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY THE DASHANAN MOTORS LTD

COMES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY OR NOT.
The act which was done by the Dashanan Motors ltd comes within the purview of
tortious liability.
With the expansion of chemical- based industries in India, increasing number of
enterprises store and use of hazardous substances. These activities are not banned
because they have great social unity. Traditionally, the doctrine of strict liability was
considered adequate to regulate such hazardous enterprises. The doctrine allows for
the growth of hazardous industries, while ensuring that such enterprises will bear the
burden of the damage they cause when a hazardous substance escape. Shortly after the
Bhopal gas leak tragedy of 1984, the traditional doctrine was replaced by the rule of
Absolute Liability a stricter than strict liability. Absolute liability was first time
articulated by the Supreme Court and has since adopted by the Parliament.
The genesis of absolute liability was the Shriram Gas leak case 31 which was decided
by the Supreme Court in December 1986. The case originated in a writ petition filed
in the Supreme Court by the environmentalists and lawyer, MC Mehta as public
interest litigation. The petition sought to close and relocate shrirams caustic chlorine
and sulphuric acid plants which were located in a thickly populated part of Delhi.
30AIR 2013 SC 2809
31M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR1987SC 1086
31
The Supreme Court took a bold decision holding that it was not bound to follow the
19th century rule of English law, and it could evolve a rule suitable to the social
economic conditions prevailing in India at the present day. It evolved the rule of
Absolute Liability as part of Indian law in preference to the rule of strict liability laid
down in Rylands v. Fletcher32. It expressly declared that the new rule was not subject
to any of the exceptions under rule in Rylands v Fletcher33.
The Supreme Court also laid down that the measures of compensation should be
correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise, so that the compensation
can have deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater
must be the amount of compensation payable of it thus unlike the strict liability where
ordinary or compensatory damage are awarded, under absolute liability, exemplary
damages are awarded. The rule of MC Mehta case was summed up in the following
words, with the assertion that this rule will not be subject to any of the exceptions
recognized under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
Firstly that the enterprise carrying on such hazardous and inherently dangerous
activity for private profit has a social obligation to compensate those suffering there
form and it should absorb such loss as an item of overheads and,
Secondly the enterprise along has the resources to discover and guard against such
hazards and dangers.
The absolute liability theory laid down by the Supreme Court in Shriram was first
applied by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to support its award of interim
compensation to Bhopal victims.
However, soon thereafter the wisdom of the theory was questioned by Chief Justice
Rangnath Mishra who presided over the proceedings before the Supreme Court for a
review of the Bhopal case settlement. Chief Justice Mishra in his concurring judgment
observed that the issue before the Shriram court was whether the delinquent company
came within the ambit of state under article 12 of the constitution so as to be subject
to the discipline of article 21 and to proceedings under article 32 of the constitution.
Thus according to the Chief Justice, what was said about the departure from the
Rylands V. Fletcher rule was essentially obiter.
The Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal action v Union of
India34followed its earlier decision, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 35, imposing absolute
liability on enterprises carrying on hazardous and inherently dangerous activity.in this
case it was held that the Supreme Court could direct the Central Government to
32(1868) LR 3 HL 330
33Ibid.
34AIR1996 SC1446
35(2002) 4 SCC 356
32
recover cost of remedial measures from the private companies. The central
government was to determine the amount required for carrying out the remedial
measures including the removal of sludge lying in and around the complex of the
respondent companies.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the lights of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Honble Court, that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare1.
The Honble High Court of Shivpuri erred in deciding the public interest
2.
litigation.
To issue an order for the closure of the DML company.
And pass any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
33
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS
34

QP

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

QP

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

Ms. Maya Mehta.......Appellant

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

1. WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF SHIVPURI WAS JUSTIFIED IN

1.B WHETHER THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

1.C WHETHER THERE IS AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION FOR

1.D WHETHER THE LOSS AND REDUCTION AND MANUFACTURING

2. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING DAMAGE AND

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

ARGUMENDO THE CLOSURE OF THE PLANT MAY BRING

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

The Constitution of India, 1950

Environment Protection Act, 1986S

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978

The Hazardous Wastage (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of IndiaAIR1990SC148020

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR1991SC420 ....20, 28

Tirupathi v. State of Andhra PradeshAIR 2006SC1350..21,29

Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy v.

Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer AIR 1954 SC

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

The Principles of Stockholm Conference, 1972

BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA, NAGPUR, 2009)

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

5. B.K.DUBEY, MANUAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLLUTION LAWS

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

1. WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF SHIVPURI WAS JUSTIFIED IN

UNEMPLOYMENT, THE COURT MAY ASK FOR THE SHIFTING OF THE

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

2.A WHETHER RIGHT TO TRADE AND PROFESSION AS GUARANTEED

MAYA MEHTA WOULD

MAINTAINABLE AND RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT OF POLLUTION FREE WATER

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

2 .WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING DAMAGE AND

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

3. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE

4. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY MS. MAYA MEHTA

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

5. WHETHER ALL THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED WERE ACCORDING TO

6. WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY THE DASHANAN MOTORS LTD COMES

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

1. WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF SHIVPURI HAS TAKEN FACTS

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

1.B WHETHER THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

2. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING DAMAGE AND

2.A WHETHER RIGHT TO TRADE AND PROFESSION AS GUARANTEED

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

3. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

IV MAHAMANA MALVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

4. WHETHER THE SLP FILED BY MS. MAYA MEHTA WOULD BE