THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW MOOT, 2017

TEAM CODE : E12

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF URI

IN THE MATTER OF

P.S. SHARMAPETITIONER

V.

STATE OF RATNACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.......RESPONDENT

WRIT FILED UNDER ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF URI

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. ISSUES RAISED
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7. WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
8. PRAYER

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
AO. Assessing Officer
CIT Commissioner of Income Tax
Ed. Edition
Govt. Government
Honble Honorable
i.e. That is
ITO Income Tax Officer
Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Ors. Others
PAN Permanent Account Number
Pvt. Private
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
TDS Tax Deducted at Source
u/s Under Section

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. Table of Cases

1. G.SUNDARRAJAN VS. UNION OF INDIA

2. HAMSA MINERALS AND EXPORTS, ONGOLE VS. GOVT. OF A.P.
3. R VS. INSPECTORATE OF POLLUTION
4. R VS ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AKA. MARCHIORI VSS ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY
5. R VS. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIROMENT, LANCASHIRE
6. NARAMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN 1
7. CHANDER AND OTHER VS. HPCL AND OTHERS
8. ORRISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MoEF AND OTHERS
9. YASH THOMAS MANNULLY VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
B. STATUTES

ATOMIC ENERGY ACT, 1962

ATOMIC ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD CODE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESMENT, 2006
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986
COASTAL REGULATORY ZONE, 1991
CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE ACT, 2010

C. Journals Referred

1. All India Reporter

2. High Court on Income Tax

3. Indian Law Reporter

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

iv
 4. Supreme Court Cases

5. Supreme Court on Income Tax

6. Supreme Court Reports

D. Database Referred

www.judis.nic.in

www.lexisnexis.com

www.manupatrafast.com

www.scconline.com

www.westlaw.com

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

v
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Uri,1950. The
respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Honorable court.1

1
Art 32 of the Indian Constitution

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

vi
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Initially Uri used to purchase nuclear reactors from the erstwhile Soviet Union and with
the fall of the Soviet Union it found a new ally in USA. They got engaged with new
found civil nuclear deal and started promoting nuclear power projects in a big way. The
state government of Ratnachal Pradesh, a provincial government of Uri keen to join the
elite nuclear club came up with a proposal to setup a 6660 megawatts nuclear power plant
at Vanasthalam. Vanasthalam is a sleepy village in the north coastal district of
Periyapaiem in the state of Ratnaehal Pradesh.
2. Apparently
4 villages including Vanasthalam fell within the exclusion zone,
another ten villages within the sterilized zone and a total sum of 13 villages
within the emergency planning zone.
The second biggest city of Ratnaehal Pradcsh and the densely populated district
headquarters of Periyapalem falls within the emergency planning zone of VNPP.
Approximately 3500 people would be displaced from the project site and one
lakh people live in the emergency planning zone.
3. The state govemment started the process of land acquisition in 2010 much before the
finalization of the project. It convicted people who could be convinced, built up pressure
on those who were not willing coerced those who were dead against it and acquired 1000
hectares of land at Vanasthalam in 20l2.
4. The federal and the state governments brushed aside the villagers apprehensions and went
ahead of the processes of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) was taken up by the
Ratnachal Pollution control board at Vansthalam on HA report submitted by NPCUL was
marred by protests and police lathi charge .
5. Meanwhile in 2015 NPCUL entered into memorandum of association with the
Westinghouse Electric Company, a US based nuclear power company to build six 10
megawatts APlOOO third generation pressurized water reactors (PWRs) at Vanasthalam.
6. Westinghouse claims to be the leader and start up in advanced pressurized water reactor
(PWR) systems. APIOOO is a two looped pressurized water reactor which is considered

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

vii
 to be an evolutionary improvement over AP600. AP1000 received the final design
certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of USA in 2005
7. Meanwhile the local people and environmentalists continued their protests against the
Vanasthalam Nuclear Power Plant (VNPP). Mr. P. Sarma, a former energy secretary and
an environmentalist moved the Supreme Court u/a 32 of the constitution of Uri against
the Ministry of Environment, forest and climatic change, the Atomic energy Regulatory
Board (AERB).

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

viii
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. THE RESPONDENTS HAVE FOLLOWED THE MOEF & CC PROCESS OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT NOTIFICATION.2006 AND DOES NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH
THE CRZ NOTIFICATION.
II. NUCLEAR REACTORS MANUFACTURED BY THE RESPONDENTS ARE SAFE,
SOUND AND QUALITY PRODUCTS

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

ix
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. The respondents have followed (he MOEF & CC process 0] environmental clearance
under Environmental Impact Assessmem Nott/ication.2006 and does not need to comply
with the CRZ notification.
i. The petitioner has claimed that the respondents have not followed the due process and
that their clearance are not competent enough. The petitioner has severely mistaken
himself in this way. the Appendix lll of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Notification.2006. states that when a plan is approved it heads to be given permission on
producing of certain documents, which has already happened in the terms of reference
with which the permission was granted.
ii. The CRZ notification of 20, does not apply on the present project, the beginning of any
project is when the proposal of that project is accepted. The project was accepted in 2008
and hence is governed by the CRZ notification of 199], which states that an atomic
energy project does not need to obtain a clearance.

II. Nuclear reactors manufactured by the respondents are safe. Sound and quality products.

i. The product APlOOO is an advance version of AP600 and is evolutionary uses a two
looped pressurized water reactor which is considered to be an evolutionary improvement
over AP600. They are known for simplification of safety systems, normal operating
systems, construction techniques, instrumentation and control systems which make them
easier and less expensive to build. Operate and maintain.
ii. It has certification from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of USA in 2005, is in
use in China and Kudankoolam project in India.
III. Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, 2010 is constitutional.
In a Kerela High Court judgement the act was held constitutional, by stating that the
CNLD doesnot deviate from the established decisions of the SC on absolute liability;
tribunals accepts the high technical competence of AERB.
IV. Nuclear Energy is the best way to meet future energy requirements.
Nuclear Energy does not contribute to GHG emissions and that it is clean and cost effective.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

x
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. The respondents have followed he MOEF & CC process of environmental

clearance under Environmental impact assessment notification , 2006 and does
not need to comply with CRZ notification.
i. The petitioner has claimed that the respondents have not followed the due process and
that their clearances are not competent enough. The petitioner has severely mistaken
himself in this way. The Appendix III of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Notification, 2006, gives the details of all the necessary documents which are requisite. 7
of the EIA NOTIFICATION, 20062. Stages in the Prior Environmental Clearance (EC)
Process for New Projects". gives us the process of scrutiny that any project has to go
through before the clearance is provided. This explains to us that the clearance received
by the project has been through scrutiny.
In G.Sundnrmjnn V. Union of India3, Koodankulam nuclear plant (KKNPP) has been
set up by Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) based on the indo Russia Joint
Agreement under the guidance and supervision of Atomic Energy Commission (ABC),
Balsa Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).
MoEF, TNPCB, Central and State Governments etc. ~ Appellant submitted that having
seen the experience at Three Mile island (USA), Chernobyl in Russia and Fukushina in
Japan etc.. safety of the people and the environment were of paramount importance and if
the units were allowed to be commissioned before making sufficient safeguards on the
basis of the recommendations made by the Task Force of NPCIL, it may lead to serious
consequences which could not be remedied Further submitted that unless the [7
recommendations made by the Task Force appointed by NPCIL were implemented
before commissioning the plant. Serious consequences may follow Respondent
contended that plant has been set up after following all the safety standards laid down by
AERB. Held, KKNPP has, been set up as part of lndia's National Policy so as to develop,
control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people of India.

2
APPENDIX III of EIA.GENERIC STRUCTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESMENT
3
(2013) 6 SCC 620

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

xi
 The TERMS OF REFFERENCE clearly states that Since there is no impact on
environmental parameters, the committee accepted this submission.4 By quoting the ratio of
Hamsa Minerals and Exports. Ongole v Government of Andhra Proxies/I, Industries And
Commerce (Miner) Department, Hyderabad, and others5, By stoppage of mining operations,
mining activities will come to a standstill and unless circumstances warrant so. it cannot be
stopped", the council would like the honble court to look into the situation and understand the
situation doesnt warrant the taking away of the clearances, the aftermath of which would be
stoppage of work.

In the circumstance of closure or stoppage of work the government would be liable to pay
compensation to Westington Ltd. Which has been established in R. v Inspectorate of Pollution
Ex I). Greenpeace Ltd. (No.1)6, Where an applicant in proceedings for judicial review seeks
interim relief in the form of the stay of statutory permission granted to a third party who is not
involved in the proceedings. the court must apply the same balancing principles in exercising its
discretion as it would apply where the third party was a party to the judicial review proceedings.
0 had been allowed leave to apply for judicial review of the decision by the relevant
governmental authorities to allow a third party to begin on Operation involving the reprocessing
of nuclear materials. G applied also for the permission to be suspended until the hearing of the
judicial review applications This was refused and G appealed.

Held. dismissing the appeal, that as G had given no cross undertaking in damages to compensate
the third party for any loss it may suffer should the permission to begin operations be suspended.
the judge had been correct in refusing the application.

ii. The project had been established in the year of 2008 when the proposal was accepted by
the Government of Uri, the initialization of any project is from the date on which its
proposal is accepted. This means that the plan does not need to take permission under
CRZ notification. 201 l. we should be governed under CRZ notification, l99l, which
permits exemption to the projects of ministry of atomic energy.

4
Paragraph 2, Environmental Protection Nuclear Damage
5
2013 Indlaw AP 528
6
(1994) W.L.R 570

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

xii
in the case of R. (on the application of Marchiori) v Environment Agency Also known as:
Marchiori v Environment Agency7. The Environment Agency had acted lawfully in granting
authorisations permitting the discharge of radioactive waste from two military installations
where Trident nuclear warheads were manufactured; the merits of Trident were a matter of
defense policy for the Government alone to decide.

M, an opponent of nuclear weapons, appealed against a decision ([200l] EWHC Admin 267) that
authorizations granted by E under the Radioactive Substances Act I993 for the discharge of
nuclear waste from two military installations where Trident nuclear warheads were manufactured
were not unlawful. M argued that the authorizations would only be lawful if E had regard to the
justification principle" stipulated in Council Directive (Euratom) 80/836 Art.6(l), made under
the Euratom Treaty 1957 Title 2 Chapter lll. E submitted. inter alia, that the Directive had not
been engaged as Title 2 Chapter III of the Treaty did not apply to military installations.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that E had acted lawfully under the 5.13) Of the Act when it had
granted the authorisations. The courts did not have jurisdiction to review the merits of
Government defence policy and therefore E could not be criticised for treating Tridents status as
a benefit as indisputable for the purposes of the justification principle. In the opinion of Laws,
LJ. Chapter III of the Treaty had no application to military uses. application to military uses.

The permissions granted were essential and were according to the law and did not need a public
opinion going by the case of R. v Secretary umete for the Environment Ex p. Lancashire Cd.8
in which Authorisations granted to allow a company to reproccss radioactive waste were
lawfully granted without a local inquiry. A company involved in the business of reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel was granted planning permission for a new themal oxide reprocessing plant on
its site. Once it had been completed the company applied for new authorisations for the discharge
of the radioactive waste. Dratt authorisations were made available for public consultation. The
Inspectorate for Pollution and the Department of the Environment concluded that no new matters
had been raised in the responses received to prompt any alteration of the draft authorisations. The
authorisations were challenged by Greenpeace and the local authority.

7
(2002) EWCA Civ 3
8
(1994) 2 All. E. R. 352

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

xiii
Held, that authorisations granted to allow a company to reprocess radioactive waste were
lawfully granted without a local inquiry as all economic, health and environmental issues had
been considered by the minister who had properly balanced the benefits and detriments arising
from the authorisations. His conclusion that the authorisations produced a net benefit was one
that could not be challenged. we can say that our act was valid and the permissions obtained by
us were in no consequence against the policies.

II. Nuclear reactors manufactured by the respondents are safe, sound and quality
products.

The technological advancements of the systems to be established are already being used in
various nations such as United States of America, China and India; they are not having any
issues with the technology in issue. The clearance given to them are in plausible ways according
to laws, the court must take into cognizance this factor.

This is a proper policy decision taken by authority after due deliberations and taking into
consideration views of various departments cannot be quashed unless same is illegal and with
malafide intention9. Neither do we have malafide intention nor do we have issue with
technology.

The Supreme Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan- 10I" held as under:

"62. The displacement of the tribals and other persons would not per se result in the violation of
their fundamental or other rights. The effect is to see that on their rehabilitation at new locations
they are better off than what they were. At the rehabilitation sites, they will have more and better
amenities than those they enjoyed in their tribal hamlets. The gradual assimilation in the
mainstream of the society will lead to betterment and progress."

We the authorities also believe in the same principle and hence request the court to take the
matter in the light of development and improvement.

9
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India
10
AIR 2000 SC 3751

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

xiv
In G. Sundarrajan v Union of India And Others11. Koodankulam nuclear plant (KKNPP) has
been set up by Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPClL) based on the lndo Russia Joint
Agreement under the guidance and supervision of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Baba
Atomic Research Centre (BARC). Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), MoEF, TNPCB,
Central and State Governments etc. Appellant submitted that having seen the experience at Three
Mile Island (USA), Chernobyl in Russia and Fukushima in Japan etc.. safety of the people and
the environment were of paramount importance and if the units were allowed to be
commissioned before making sufficient safeguards on the basis of the recommendations made by
the Task Force of NPCIL, it may lead to serious consequences which could not be remedied
Further submitted that unless the l7 recommendations made by the Task Force appointed by
NPCIL were implemented before commissioning the plant, serious consequences may follow
Respondent contended that plant has been set up after following all the safety standards laid
down by AERB Design of KKNPP incorporates advance safety features complying with current
standards of redundancy, reliability, independence and prevention of common cause failures in
its safety system - Whether the project proponent has taken adequate safely requirements in site
and off site of the KKNPP and followed the Code of Practices laid down by AERB and
nationally and internationally recognized safety methods Held. KKNPP has, been set up as part
of India's National Policy so as to develop. control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of
the people of India Policy makers consider nuclear energy as an important element in India's
energy mix for sustaining economic growth of natural and domestic use For setting up the
project. the project proponent has taken all safety requirements in site and all site and has
followed the code of practices laid down by AERB, based on nationally and internationally
recognized safety methods Safeguarding the nuclear plants. radioactive materials and ensuring its
physical security have become a central part of Nuclear Low Adequate measures have, therefore.
to be taken for storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel (NSF) at site. and also for the physical safety of
stored NSF 0f the 17 suggested safety measures. by AERB. LWR. 12 have already been
implemented and the rest. in a phased manner have to be implemented which the experts say.
were meant for extra security Disaster Management Plan (DMP) was already in place, so also the
emergency preparedness plan, off site and on site and all programs under CSR were progressing

11
(20130 6 SCC 620

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

xv
in the right direction with the co-operation and assistance of the District Administration Appeals
disposed of.
We can say that from the above mentioned decision of the court that the concerned project is also
as safe as the other and has received all requisite and necessary certifications.
The fears of the public are mere apprehensions and such apprehensions shouldnt be given
leverage when they are unfounded. in the case of Harish Chander and others v Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited and others12 the Delhi High Court held that though as per
Rules. I999. Activities of storage, transfer and processing of petroleum products was shown in
list of Red Category' industries but said Rules were not notified. DPCC explained that as per
draft Rules, there was provision for granting sanction to 'Red Category industries and it cannot
thus be said that such industries were prohibited for which no consent could be given. Cannot be
said that concerns of petitioners as residents of village in vicinity of subject oil storage depot
were unfounded. Moreover, with intervention of petitioners, HPCL which at time of filing of
petition appeared to be going ahead with commissioning of subject oil storage depot without
even preparing Comprehensive Emergency Response and Disaster Management Plan and
without having such plan tested, as was required. After giving anxious consideration, no case
found for restraining commissioning of subject oil storage depot. Though petitioners held to be
not entitled to reliefs claimed but at same time, it was essential to ensure that Comprehensive
Emergency Response and Disaster Management Plan continue to be efficacious. Petition
disposed of.
The work has been done in a proper manner and can cause no issues in any form, the matter
should not be further prickled with as established in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation
Limited v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and others13. Petitioner/Mining Corporation,
had approached SC seeking Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by respondent/Ministry
of Environment and Forests (MOEF) rejecting the Stage-ll forest clearance for diversion of
660.749 hectares of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Bauxite Mines in different districts
of State Whether rejection of clearance for mining was sustainable Held, petitioner had assailed
the order of respondent as an attempt to reopen matters that had obtained finality Further, it was
also submitted that the order wrongly cites the violation of certain conditions of environmental

12
2012 IndLaw DEL 273
13
2013 IndLaw SC 255

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

xvi
clearance by Alumina Refinery Project as grounds for denial of Stage ll clearance to appellant
for its 'Bauxite Mining Project.

III. Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, 2010 & the Atomic Energy Act,1962 is
constitutional.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed challenging the constitutional validity of Sections
3(1), 4(2) and proviso, 4(4), 5, 6, 9(2), 15(2),16(5), 18(b), 19, 20, 32(10), 35 and 38(1) of the
Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 201014 has been dismissed by the Division Bench of
Kerala High Court comprising of Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A.M.Shafffique
on not being satisfied that the enactment suffers from any infirmity, arbitrariness or violation
of fundamental rights. The act has been promulgated to provide for civil liability for nuclear
damage and prompt compensation to the victims of a nuclear incident through a no-fault
liability regime channelling liability to the operator, appointment of Claims Commissioner,
establishmentof Nuclear Damage Claims Commission and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.15 The court also upheld the competence of the Board to consider whether
any nuclear incident can cause unacceptable radiation damage or not. It went ahead to state
that claim for damages can arise only if actual damage is suffered by a person and that only
those incidents which may cause radiation damage can give rise to a claim for compensation.
Further Section 18 of the Act states that the right to claim compensation for nuclear damage
shall extinguish, if such claim is not made within a period of ten years, in the case of damage
to property and twenty years, in the case of personal injury to any person, from the date of
occurrence of the incident notified. The court in while considering the constitutionality of
this provision observed that even in the absence of such a provision, the law of limitation
applies to suit filed before a a civil court. The same limitation period is specified under the
present statute. In regard to the extinguishment of the claim, either 10 years or 20 years as the
case may be, from the date of notifying the nuclear incident. The claim in fact has to be
preferred within 3 years from the date of knowledge of the nuclear damage. Therefore
sufficient flexibility has been provided under the Act, to prefer the claim. Law of limitation is
a well accepted procedure, which is prescribed to ensure that claims are filed within a

14
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx
15
Yash Thomas Mannully v Union of India

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

xvii
 specified time.
The court after hearing the rival submissions observed that the Board being a statutory
authority constituted under the Atomic Energy Act, to exercise such duties and powers as
may be conferred on it; there is no reason to doubt the independence of the said organisation.
In fact the power to be exercised by the Central Government under the Act is delegated to
the Boar , said the court. It was also observed that the Board functions based on specific
standards ant codes which are internationally accepted. Being such an expert body, it can
prescribe its own methodology for deciding existence of unclear damage, I said the court. It
was also added that that there is no basis for the contention that that that there are no
standards or an objective evaluation of the factors to be considered in notifying a nuclear
incident and the Board is the sole regulator and enforcement agency.

IV. Nuclear Energy is the best way to meet future energy requirements.
Nearly 65 per cent of the electricity in India is generated in thermal power plants, where India
utilises its large coal resources. According to estimates, India produces 22 percent electricity
from hydroelectric power plants and only 3 per cent electricity, at present comes from nuclear
power plants. This is despite having 21 operational nuclear power plants across the country. The
rest 10 per cent is generated with the help of alternate resources like solar, wind, biomass etc.
Nuclear energy has to play an important role in Indias energy scenario from three angles. First is
that unlike renewables, nuclear sources can provide bulk energy in a certain manner (without
uncertainty) to the base load. The Kudankulalm power projects two reactors have added 2000
MW electricity to the southern states. Secondly, nuclear energy is a clean energy source and
hence is very important to attain carbon free energy economy. Thirdly, nuclear energy enhances
energy independence and energy security especially with the potential use of domestically
available thorium input use.
Now, let us delve more into the other issue that of plant safety. Throughout the history of
nuclear power generation there have been four major incidents of plant failure the Kyshtym
accident in fuel reprocessing in 1957, the relatively smaller Three Mile Island meltdown (United
States), the much bigger Chernobyl accident (USSR, 1986) and the recent Japanese incident at
Fukushima. The first accident was purely due to underdeveloped technology, and much of the

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

xviii
blame for the next two disasters is attributed to human error. Even in the case of the Fukushima
disaster of 2011, there were extraordinary natural forces in action the rare occurrence of the
tremendous stress load of an earthquake coupled with the unprecedented shear load of a tsunami.
Of course, there is a need for better technology and more stable plant design across the world,
but the occurrence of four failures in six decades cannot be made out as a case for completely
disbanding the technology which is one of our foremost keys to graduating beyond the fossil
fuel-based low-end energy. The best of technological progress, while being the biggest ally of
mankind, does come at an incremental risk. The key is to learn and evolve to mitigate the risk,
rather than use the first incident as an excuse to disband science.

As one of the largest and fastest-growing nations on earth, India has a pressing need to develop
more electric power generation to fuel business growth and satisfy the needs of a growing middle
class. Traditional coal-burning power plants emit dangerous levels of pollution, and India lacks
sufficient natural gas resources and pipelines to allow cleaner burning gas-fired power plants.
This leaves nuclear energy as the only viable option. In France, nuclear energy safely provides
most of the generating capacity, and India must follow that model out of necessity.

The Jharia coalfields in Jharkhand constitute the richest coal-bearing area in the country:
they contain large quantities of high-grade coking coal. But the presence of this natural
resource has been a curse for the local tribal villagers. The Jharia area also has a large
number of ongoing mine fires, which have a history of more than a century and have
been causing great loss to life and property.

The entire area has been destroyed by the mining activity and rendered uninhabitable for
humans or any other life form. Sadly, it can never be restored, at least not for the next
million years. Much of the coal mined today is used for electricity generation across the
world, and there are many more Jharias being created across the rural and forest lands of
earth. These will continue to swell in numbers and size unless we find sustainable
alternative fuel sources to replace fossil fuels.16

16
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/whyu.htm

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

xix
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Respondent humbly pray before this Honble
Commissioner (Appeals) that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The clearances received by the respondents are of right nature and have duly complied
with the provisions of the EIA notification, 2006.
2. The Project should continue and bring help Indian in becoming a hub of nuclear energy.
3. Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages to be held constitutional.
4. The powers given in Atomic Energy Act,1962 are not arbitrary, thus constitutional.

Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity, justice and good
conscience and for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships the Respondent shall as duty bound
ever pray.

Sd/- _______________________

Counsels for the Respondent.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-

xx