TEAM CODE- R11

Before

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

Civil Appeal No. ****/2016 and W.P.(C) No. ****/2016

In the case concerning

Compensation for Nuclear Accident, Forceful Acquisition of Land and Right to

Live with Dignity

In the matter of

Victims of Nuclear Accident……………………….………………………... Appellant

v.

Union of Hogwarts, Represented by NPCHL & Slytherin Power Corporation

.……..……………….............................. Respondent

Clubbed With

Ms. Aishani………..…………………………Petitioner

v.

Union of Hogwarts, Represented by NPCHL & Slytherin Power Corporation

…………..………………………Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................IV

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................................VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ VII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..............................................................................................................IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................ X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................................ 1

1. Whether the Amount of Compensation should be enhanced. ............................................ 1

1.1 That the Claims Commissioner has not erred in its decision. ..................................... 1

1.1.1 That the Award was just, fair and reasonable. ...................................................... 1

1.1.2 That Award made by Claims Commissioner is final. ........................................... 2

1.2 That the Compensation given was sufficient in nature. ............................................... 2

1.3 That the accident did not happen due to overlooking of the Consenting Process. ...... 3

1.4 That anticipation of destruction of fisheries will not attract compensation. ............... 3

1.4.1 That the Environmental Survey Laboratory can be set up to determine damage. 3

1.5 That the act of Government was in larger public interest. .......................................... 4

2. Whether the Land Acquisition is Forceful. ........................................................................ 5

2.1 That the Acquisition of Land was not forceful. ............................................................ 5

2.1.1 That the decision taken by Government was appropriate. .................................... 5

2.2 That the Government can reasonably acquire land. .................................................... 6

II
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

2.3 That the Dispute regarding compensation for land acquisition should be settled by
the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority. .................................... 7

2.4 That the Right to Live with Dignity has not been violated. .......................................... 8

3. Whether Right To Live With Dignity has been violated. .................................................. 9

3.1 That the Act of State was within the ambit of democratic socialism. .......................... 9

3.2 That there was no infringement of right to live with dignity. .............................. 9

3.2.1 That rehabilitation was given to ensure right to live with Dignity. ...................... 9

3.2.2 That Environmental degradation in the interest of public was not violative of
right to live with dignity. ................................................................................... 10

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................... 12

III
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

The Constitution of India, 1950

Statutes

 The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010

 The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
 The Atomic Energy Act, 1962

List of Cases

Cases

1. Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 166. ...................................................... 8

2. D.S.Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. ........................................................ 8
3. Dr. Bhikaji Jagannath Waghdhare and Ors. Vs.Union of India (UOI) through the
Department of Atomic Energy and Ors., Writ Petition No. 8458 of 2008. ................... 5
4. Excel wear v. Union of India, (1978) 4 SCC 224. ......................................................... 8
5. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
........................................................................................................................................ 9
6. G. Sundarrajan Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 620 ....................... 3
7. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
2000 SC 2695................................................................................................................. 8
8. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 142. ......................................... 4
9. M.P Gopalkrishanan Nair v State of Kerala, AIR 2005 SC 3053................................. 8
10. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 664. ................ 6
11. T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (through K.M. Chinnappa) v. Union of India and
Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606. ............................................................................................ 10
12. Yash Thomas Mannully and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 27960 of
2011 (S).......................................................................................................................... 2

IV
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Govt. Government
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
Ltd. Limited
NPCHL Nuclear Power Corporation of Hogwarts Limited
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
W.P.(C) Writ Petition Civil

V
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondents have appeared before the Hon’ble High Court of Hogsmeade in response to
petition filed by the petitioner that has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The memorandum of the respondent set forth the Facts, Contentions and Arguments
present in the case.

VI
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Union of Hogwarts have laws pari-materia with Indian laws.

The State of Hogsmeade is a part of the Union of Hogwarts having laws pari-materia with the
laws of Union of India. Union of Hogwarts follows democracy. Union of Hogwarts had
abundant Urapluto (a rare radioactive material). Godric is a small village in the territory of
the State of Hogsmeade, where abundant Urapluto was found.

Union of Hogwarts signed the Urapluto Treaty, agreeing to let open its markets and to relax
regulations to export uraplutobut not ratified.

United Nation Climate Control Conference asserted that Urapluto was the only way to
produce clean and efficient energy. Accordingly, Union of Hogwarts signed the Urapluto
Treaty, agreeing to let open its markets and to relax regulations to export Urapluto. This
treaty was not ratified by the Union of Hogwarts. The ruling party did not pay heed to its
international commitment due to some protests regarding environment.

The DA Party essentially believed that capitalism must co-exist with socialism.

Union of Hogwarts saw potential in harnessing nuclear energy and supplying the same to
other neighboring countries. They decided to open market in the nuclear energy sector and
increased FDI from 20% to 49%, where it was agreed that, any institution/company intending
to invest in nuclear power, shall agree to share their complete know-how with Union of
Hogwarts and shall ensure that only citizens of Hogwarts are employed. It was again made
mandatory that all companies shall work in collaboration with Nuclear Power Corporation of
Hogwarts.

Union of Hogwarts signed and entered into an MOU with Slytherin Power Corporation.

Union of Hogwarts signed and entered into an MOU with Slytherin Power Corporation to
establish Nuclear Power Plant at Godric Village due to abundant and easy extraction of
urapluto. A press release was also made in favor of the same.

Nuclear Power Plant involves a Four-Staged Consenting Process.

VII
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

The first stage of the process involves the submission of a Site Evaluation Report. This is
followed by a Safety Analysis Report and Commissioning Tests. The last stage is called
‘Consent for Operation’. The Government accelerated Consenting Process of the Plant due to
some external reasons. The government failed to take into consideration that this area is a
seismically sensitive area. Slytherin Power Corporation and NPCHL failed to provide for
adequate safety measures and emergency provisions in the facility, thereby overlooking the
first and second stages of the Consenting Process. However, they did comply with the third
and fourth stages of the Process.

Acquisition of land and creation of job oppurtunities.

Government acquired portion of land from the villagers, by promising them that they would
be employed within the Power Plant. 30% of the villagers accepted the compensation while
the remaining people surrendered their land with an anticipation of employment. However,
the compensation given to them was less than the market value of the land. But, 50% of jobs
were given at the Power Plant to the population of Godric village. Others were re-allotted
agricultural land behind the Power Plant.

Leak in the plant causing discharge of toxic substances.

Unexpectedly, there was a leak in the plant causing discharge of toxic substances into the soil
(farm land), contaminating the ground water. The land turned and effects were also seen on
the plants and animals. Fishermen in villages around were anxious about the destruction of
the fisheries in the sea

Victims of this accident approached the Claims Commissioner under The Civil Liability for
Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLND Act).

Victims were compensated and the amount of compensation awarded to them was
inadequate. Aggrieved with the compensation awarded, the victims approached the High
Court of Hogsmeade.

PIL before the High Court of Hogsmeade.

A PIL by Ms. Aishani, challenged the amount of compensation awarded to the victims, the
forceful acquisition of land from the villagers, inter alia contending that, Right to Live with
Dignity has been violated by the state.

VIII
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I.

WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION SHOULD BE ENHANCED.

II.

WHETHER THE LAND ACQUISITION IS FORCEFUL.

III.

WHETHER RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY HAS BEEN VIOLATED.

IX
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION SHOULD BE ENHANCED.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Hogsmeade that the compensation
granted by the Claims Commissioner under The Claims Commissioner under The Civil
Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, is just, fair and reasonable and he has not erred in its
decision. The claim made by respondent has been supported by various contentions inclusive
of which is that accident did not occur due to any negligent act of Respondent which would
have aided the Nuclear Accident.

II. WHETHER THE LAND ACQUISITION IS FORCEFUL.

It is submitted before the Court that acquisition of land made by Government was not
forceful but in anticipation of providing employment to the people of Godric. Moreover, the
dispute of compensation amount being given to the villagers for the land acquisition has to be
decided by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.

III. WHETHER RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY HAS BEEN VIOLATED.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Right to Life as enshrined under Art.
21 of Constitution of India has not been violated and the act of Government to establish the
Nuclear Power Plant in Godric and acquisition of land for the same purpose is entirely
justified.

X
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION SHOULD BE ENHANCED.

In the instantaneous case, unexpectedly a leak caused discharge of toxic substances into the
soil turning land barren and unfit for agriculture, contamination of ground water and releasing
of radioactive gases due to which signs of cancer was seen in the people. Moreover, they also
suffered from certain disorders. The compensation was awarded for the same by The Claims
Commissioner under the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.

It is humbly submitted before the Court that compensation awarded to the victims of the
accident by the Claim Commissioner was sufficient and should not be enhanced.

1.1 That the Claims Commissioner has not erred in its decision.

In case of nuclear incident, Claim Commissioner have jurisdiction in respect of nuclear

damage and it can be made by:1

(a) a person who has sustained injury; or

(b) the owner of the property to which damage has been caused; or
(c) the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) any agent duly authorized by such person or owner or legal representatives.

In the instant case, people of Godric has developed certain disorders. In addition to this, their
land turned barren and became unfit for agriculture. So, these victims approached to Claims
Commissioner under The Claims Commissioner under The Civil Liability for Nuclear
Damage Act, 2010 and an application was made to him to grant compensation for their loss.
Consequently, the Claim Commissioner exercised his jurisdiction and awarded compensation
to the victims of Nuclear Accident.

1.1.1 That the Award was just, fair and reasonable.

Claim Commissioner under this Act makes an Award only after hearing of both
the parties.2 He also does not take into consideration benefit, reimbursement or

1
Section 14, The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act, 2010.

1
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

amount received by the applicant in pursuance of contract of insurance taken by

him or for members of his family or otherwise.3 He has also duty to associate
with such persons having expertise in the nuclear field or such other persons and
in such manner as may be prescribed.4 Claims Commissioner performs a
statutory function and is expected to carry out the statutory duty in accordance
with law and it cannot be stated otherwise.5

In the present case, Claims Commissioner has followed the statute and then only
awarded the compensation and thus, the compensation awarded is just, fair and
reasonable and no question for any enhancement arises.

1.1.2 That Award made by Claims Commissioner is final.

Section 10(4) of The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 provides that
the Claims Commissioner have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit. Furthermore,
Section 16(5) of The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 indicates
that every award made under Sub-section (1) shall be final. Therefore, it is most
humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that compensation shall not be
enhanced.

1.2 That the Compensation given was sufficient in nature.

In the instant case, radiations caused by discharge of toxic substances posed a serious health
hazard to the people of Godric.6 But, it is not prima facie evident from the facts that signs of
cancer which are seen in many of them is only because of the radiation as they only posed a
serious threat but has not caused any harm or injury to any person in Godric village yet.

Moreover, slight tremors which has been caused by excessive extraction of Urapluto by the
Power Plant has not resulted in any kind of damage to the people of Godric village.

Hence, compensation awarded to the victims of Nuclear Accident is sufficient and shall not
be raised any further by the Hon’ble Court. Besides this, there is no scientific data on which
the amount of compensation given to the victims of Nuclear Accident shall be raised.

2
Section 16(1), The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.
3
Section 16(2), The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.
4
Section 12(2), The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.
5
Yash Thomas Mannully and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 27960 of 2011 (S).
6
Factsheet ¶ 17.

2
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

1.3 That the accident did not happen due to overlooking of the Consenting Process.

In the given case, the government failed to take into consideration that this area is a
seismically sensitive area and falls under Zone IV. Slytherin Power Corporation and NPCHL
also failed to provide for adequate safety measures and emergency provisions in the facility
for the same. This impliedly meant that they overlooked first and second stages of the
Consenting Process.7 However, it is evident from this case that leak in plant occurred
unexpectedly but not due to any kind of seismic activity or due to any of the reasons
overlooked by the Government or Slytherin Power Corporation and NPCHL.8 So, there was
no negligent act committed on the behalf of respondent which would have aided the Nuclear
Accident.

Moreover, last stage was the most crucial for establishment of Nuclear Plant which was
vehemently followed by the Government.

1.4 That anticipation of destruction of fisheries will not attract compensation.

Apprehension, however, legitimate it may be, cannot override the justification of the project.
It is not reasonably foreseeable as to what would happen in future and to a larger extent we
have to leave it to the destiny. But once the justification test is satisfied, the apprehension test
is bound to fail. Apprehension is something we anticipate with anxiety or fear, a fearful
anticipation, which may vary from person to person.9 Thus, it is submitted before the Hon’ble
Court that compensation cannot be awarded basing on this apprehension made by the people
of Godric that releasing of heated water in Purple Sea would result into the destruction of
fisheries.

1.4.1 That the Environmental Survey Laboratory can be set up to determine damage.

As suggested in the case of G. Sundarrajan vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.,10
an Environmental Survey Laboratory (ESL) can be set up near nuclear power
plant and samples of water and fish would be analysed to find out the amount of
radioactivity on the flora and fauna. After the completion of this survey only, it
can be decided that whether compensation should be granted to the people of
Godric or not.

7
Factsheet ¶ 15.
8
Factsheet ¶ 17.
9
G. Sundarrajan Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 620, ¶ 181.
10
Ibid, ¶ 126.

3
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

1.5 That the act of Government was in larger public interest.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the initiative by the Government
regarding Nuclear Plant installation was much for the public interest, thereby creating
employment opportunity and providing means of livelihood to the People of Hogwarts.
Therefore, in such matters, the required standard is that the risk to human health is to be
decided in public interest, according to a “reasonable person’s” test. The development of the
industries, irrigation resources and power projects are necessary to improve employment
opportunities and generation of revenue, therefore, cannot be ignored.11

Hence, in light of the above contention, it is pleaded before the Hon’ble Court that there
arises no cause for enhancing compensation and the same is sufficient as provided by the
Claims Commissioner.

11
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 142.

4
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

2. WHETHER THE LAND ACQUISITION IS FORCEFUL.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the people of Hogsmeade were not forced
to surrender their land for the establishment of Nuclear Power Plant and thus acquisition of
land done by the government is not violative of Right to Live with Dignity. Therefore,
contention raised by petitioner needs to be rejected at the outset.

2.1 That the Acquisition of Land was not forceful.

In the instantaneous case, villagers in Godric surrendered their land only after an anticipation
of getting employment in the Power Plant and Fifty Percent of the jobs were given to the
population of Godric village.12 Due to certain reasons, Government was not able to provide
job to all the villagers in Godric and as a consequence remaining of the people were re-
allotted agricultural land behind the Power Plant.13 That was a need of circumstance for
acquiring land in order to install Nuclear Plant, but the re-allotment of the agricultural land
makes it quite imperative that there existed no forcefulness on part of government. It is quite
evident from the above fact that there cannot be forcefulness on anticipation of getting job in
the Nuclear Power Plant.

Moreover, the Nuclear Power Project stands always remains on a higher footing as it is going
to supply power to millions of people14 and thus acquisition of land is a necessary process
which cannot be overlooked.

2.1.1 That the decision taken by Government was appropriate.

The decision of the government to establish the Nuclear Power Plant at Godric
was appropriate due to the presence of Urapulto in the region. In addition to this,
use of Uropluto has been considered the only way to produce clean and efficient
energy with its minimum usage, by the United Nation Climate Control
Conference15 and also setting of this power plant has decreased the dependence
of Union of Hogwarts on foreign soil.16 Besides, in a democracy, welfare of the

12
Factsheet ¶ 14.
13
Factsheet ¶ 16.
14
Dr. Bhikaji Jagannath Waghdhare and Ors. Vs.Union of India (UOI) through the Department of Atomic
Energy and Ors., Writ Petition No. 8458 of 2008.
15
Factsheet ¶ 5.
16
Factsheet ¶ 11.

5
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the
concern of a responsible Government.17

So, the decision of acquisition of land by the Government was correct in its
approach.

2.2 That the Government can reasonably acquire land.

Section 10 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 clearly confers the power to Central Government
for acquisition of rights to work on the prescribed substances. And, Section 2(g) of the Act
defines “prescribed substance” as any substance including any mineral which the Central
Government may, by notification, prescribe, being a substance which in its opinion is or may
be used for the production or use of atomic energy or research into matters connected
therewith and includes uranium, plutonium, thorium, beryllium, deuterium or any of their
respective derivatives or compounds or any other materials containing any of the aforesaid
substances.

Here, in the instantaneous case, Urapluto is being used for harnessing maximum nuclear
energy through its minimum usage18 and thus it can be categorised into the “prescribed
substance” under the above mentioned provision of Atomic Energy Act, 1962.

Section 10 of the Act prescribes that-

Compulsory acquisition of rights to work minerals.

(1) Where it appears to the Central Government that any minerals from which in its opinion
any of the prescribed substances can be obtained are present in or on any land, either in a
natural state or in a deposit of waste material obtained from any underground or surface
working, it may by order provide for compulsorily vesting in the Central Government the
exclusive right, so long as the order remains in force, to work those minerals and any other
minerals which it appears to the Central Government to be necessary to work with those
minerals, and may also provide, by that order or a subsequent order, for compulsorily
vesting in the Central Government any other ancillary rights which appear to the Central
Government to be necessary for the purpose of working the minerals aforesaid including
(without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions) —

17
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 664.
18
Factsheet ¶ 5.

6
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

c) rights to use and occupy the surface of any land for the purpose of erecting any
necessary buildings and installing any necessary plant in connection with the working
of the minerals aforesaid;
d) rights to use and occupy for the purpose of working the minerals aforesaid any land
forming part of or used in connection with an existing mine or quarry, and to use or
acquire any plant used in connection with any such mine or quarry.

In the given case, Government has exercised its authority under the above stated provision
which creates statutory right on the part of Government to acquire any such land where the
“prescribed substance”, and in this case, ‘Urapluto’ is found. As a result, there can be no
forceful acquisition of land while establishing the Nuclear Power Plant in the village at
Godric and the same has been acquired as a matter of right on part of Government and
therefore, justified.

2.3 That the Dispute regarding compensation for land acquisition should be settled by
the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority.

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, clearly states that disputes related to land acquisition, compensation,
rehabilitation and resettlement has to be resolved by “the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Authority” established by the Appropriate Government.19 Here, reference
has to be made by the people where their objection is for either measurement of the land, or,
the amount of the compensation, or, the person to whom it is payable, or, the rights of
Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons.20 Also, the Authority has original jurisdiction upon every
reference made under Section 64 of the Act.21

In the given case, the contention of the petitioner is that the villagers of Godric, whose land
has been taken away, got the amount of compensation less than market value of the land. So,
dispute regarding inadequate compensation in regard to acquisition of land of villagers of

19
Section 51, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
20
Section 64, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
21
Section 60(2), The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.

7
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

Godric can be referred to the Authority for final disposal. Subsequently, determination of
award has to be done accordingly by the Authority.22

Therefore, it is a humble request to the Hon’ble Court to refer the dispute regarding the claim
of inadequate compensation by the petitioner to the Authority for determination of such
compensation award.

2.4 That the Right to Live with Dignity has not been violated.

While analysing the benefit of establishing Nuclear Power Plant, we have to strike a balance,
since the production of nuclear energy is of extreme importance for the economic growth of
any country, alleviate poverty, generate employment etc. While setting up a project of this
nature, we have to have an overall view of larger public interest rather than smaller violation
of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.23

Nuclear power plant is being established not to negate right to life but to protect the right to
life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioner’s contention that the
establishment of nuclear power plant will make an inroad into the right to live guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution, is therefore has no basis. On the other hand it will only
protect the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution for achieving a larger
public interest.24

Apparently, economic benefit has to be viewed on a larger canvas which not only augment
our economic growth but alleviate poverty and generate more employment. Larger public
interest of the community should give way to individual apprehension of violation of human
rights and right to life guaranteed under Article 21.25

Basing on above arguments, it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Right to Live with
Dignity of the villagers of Godric has not been taken away while acquiring the land of
villagers. Also, they have been provided with the means of livelihood as job has been given
to fifty percent of the people and agricultural lands were re-allotted to the rest of the people.
By giving the means of livelihood, dignity cannot be taken away. Hence, no Right to Live
with Dignity has been violated in the given case.

22
Section 69, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
23
Supra 9, ¶ 175.
24
Supra 9, ¶ 184.
25
Supra 9, (2013) 6 SCC 620, ¶ 179.

8
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

3. WHETHER RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY HAS BEEN VIOLATED.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Right to Live with Dignity has not
been violated.

3.1 That the Act of State was within the ambit of democratic socialism.

In this case, the petitioner’s act of bringing PIL against the establishment of nuclear power is
not justified because the state has acted within the ambit of the concept of democratic
socialism. The Indian socialist society wants the development of each individual but requires
this development to be such that it leads to the upliftment of the society as a whole.26 So the
word socialist has been purposefully inserted in the preamble to eliminate the inequality in
income and status and standards of life. This socialist concept ought to be implemented in the
true spirit of the Constitution.27 The Court has also said that the basic framework of socialism
is to provide a decent standard of life and security to the working people.28 The directive
principle in itself plays a key role in developmental process of the SOCIALIST REPUBLIC
that India has adopted.29 The democratic socialism aims to end poverty, ignorance, disease,
and inequality of opportunity.30 To the socialist, nationalization or State ownership is a matter
of principle and its justification is the general notion of social welfare. 31 In the present case,
the establishment of the nuclear power plant at Godric attracted new industries and potential
investors, thereby creating many job opportunities for the people of Union of Hogwarts. 32
Therefore, it clearly establishes that the act of the state is nowhere unjustified and completely
in favor of interest of society at large and such installation is a valid act by the welfare-state.

3.2 That there was no infringement of right to live with dignity.

3.2.1 That rehabilitation was given to ensure right to live with Dignity.

Right to life with dignity will include all the aspects of life which would go to
make a man’s life meaningful and worth living.33 The act of the state is quite

26
M.P Gopalkrishanan Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 2005 SC 3053.
27
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2000 SC 2695.
28
D.S.Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305.
29
Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 166.
30
Supra 25.
31
Excel wear v. Union of India, (1978) 4 SCC 224.
32
Factsheet ¶ 16
33
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.

9
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

judicious in its approach because 50% of jobs were given at the power plant to
the population of Godric while others were re-allotted agricultural land behind
the power plant.34 Thus, all were ensured their life with dignity because there
was no infringement of Right to life35 as guaranteed under the Constitution.

3.2.2 That Environmental degradation in the interest of public was not violative of
right to live with dignity.

It was agreed unanimously in the United Nations Climate Conference that

Urapluto was the only way to produce clean and efficient energy. 36 Also a press
release was made stating, “nuclear power generated from the power plant is a
sustainable source of energy that reduces carbon emission and increases energy
security by decreasing Hogwarts’s dependence on foreign soil.”37

The concept of welfare State is a facet of Article 38 of the Constitution of India.

It is the obligation of the State to see that the welfare of the people is appositely
promoted. It is the obligation passed by the Constitution of the State to establish
a welfare State. The words used in the Preamble of the Atomic Energy Act,
1962 are “welfare for the people” and “peace”. There is a necessity for
generation of electrical energy and regard being had to the hazards, there has to
be guidance which the Acts, Rules and Notifications provide.38

Court has observed that it cannot be disputed that no development is possible

without some adverse effect on the ecology and environment, and the projects of
public utility cannot be abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the
people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment. A balance has to be
struck between the two interests. Where the commercial venture or enterprise
would bring in results which are far more useful for the people, difficulty of a
small number of people has to be bypassed. The comparative hardships have to
be balanced and the convenience and benefit to a larger section of the people has
to get primacy over comparatively lesser hardship.39

34
Factsheet ¶ 16.
35
Article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950.
36
Factsheet ¶ 5.
37
Factsheet ¶ 11
38
Supra 9, ¶ 217.
39
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (through K.M. Chinnappa) v. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606.

10
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

Thus the act of the government was totally justified and there was no violation
of right to live with dignity.

11
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HOGSMEADE

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the authorities cited, questions presented and arguments advanced,
it is most humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble Court that the Court adjudges and declare that:

 The Claims Commissioner has not erred in its judgment.

 The quantum of Compensation is sufficient and should not be increased.
 There was no forceful acquisition of land and act of government was just, fair and
reasonable.

And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of
justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Sd/-

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

12
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT