Team Code: ___________

2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF INDUS LAND,
INDUS LAND

IN THE MATTER OF
PETITIONER

RAM KRISHNA P
V
RESPONDENTS

STATE OF NORTHERN PURVANCHAL

AND
UNION OF INDUS LAND

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDUS LAND

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

1|Page

TABLE OF CONTENT
Sr. No

Topic

Pg. No
2

1.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7-8

5.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

10-11

7.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY

12-18

3-5
6

MR. RAMKRISHNA P IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER

Art. 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?
1.1. Whether the Bar under Sec. 11 of Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956 does not operate?
1.2. Whether the petitioner has Locus Standi to initiate the
present litigation?
2. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF
NORTHERN PURVANCHAL WERE NOT VIOLATIVE OF
STATES REORGANISATION ACT, 1956?
3. WHETHER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUS LAND
HAS BEEN GIVEN DISCRETIONARY POWER BY THE
PARLIAMENT?
4. WHETHER THE PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE
EXERCISED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES?
8.

SUBMISSION TO THE COURT

19

2|Page

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS

Fundamental Rights And Their Enforcement, Udai Raj Rai, Eastern Economy Edition.

Law of WRITS and other Constitutional Remedies by PREM & CHATURVEDI 3 rd

Ed Vol. 1 & Vol. 2

Principles of Administrative Law, A exhaustive commentary on Administrative Law

and Constitutional Principles, with Indian and Foreign case-law references, 7th Ed by
M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain Vol.1 & Vol. 2

Indian Constitutional Law by M.P. Jain 7th Ed.

The Law Lexicon The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary with Legal Maxim, Latin Terms,
Words & Phrases, P Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Ed

Public Interest Litigation by P.M. Bakshi, 3rd Ed.

Constitutional And Administrative Law by John Alder, 6th Ed

Public Interest Litigation with Model PIL Formats by Dr. B L Wadehra, 4th Ed

Public Interest Litigation Legal Aid and Lok Adalats by Mamta Rao Eastern Book
Company

Administrative Law, H.W.R Wade & C.F. Forsyth, 10th Ed, Oxford

Administrative Law by Justice C.K. Thakker, 2nd Edition, Eastern Book Company

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ISWD Act- Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Sec.- Section.
Art - Article

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS

The River Boards Act, 1956

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Constitution of Indus Land, 1950.

The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956

The States Re-organization Act, 1956

3|Page

CASES

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540

Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. and Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Ors, AIR
2004 SC 561

Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors,
AIR 2006 SC 1428

State of Karnataka Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1560

Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai

Padhugappu Sangam vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1316

Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh, (1984) 1 SCC 390: AIR 1984 SC 309: 1984 UJ
(SC) 873.

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., AIR 2014 SC 2407

State of Karnataka Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., AIR 1978 SC 68

Gandhi Sahitya Sangh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 356

Selvi J. Jayalalithaa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 401

Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs. Union of India and ors., AIR 2001 SC 3810

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. G. C. Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1774

S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149

Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 892

In the matter of: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, AIR 1992 SC 522

In Re: Networking of Rivers, 2012(3) SCALE 74

Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400

Henley Vs. Lyme Corporation, 130 ER 995

Asst. Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Prayag Dass Agarwal, AIR 1981 SC 1263

Clariant International Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), AIR
2004 SC 4236

Som Raj and others etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1176

Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, AIR 1950 SC 163

State of Orissa vs. Government of India and Anr, (2009 )5 SCC 492
4|Page

The Praga Tools Corporation Vs. Shri C.A. Imanual and Ors., AIR 1969 SC 1306
Kunga Nima Lepcha Vs. State of Sikkim, (2010) 4 SCC 513
Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 913

5|Page

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Ram Krishna P. submits the following public interest litigation to this Court by the Jurisdiction
of this Court thus extends to all matters referred to by the parties in accordance with Article 32 of
the Constitution of Indus Land1

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

6|Page

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Union of Indus Land is a Federal Democratic Republic Country. There was one Purvanchal
Dam constructed to construct a canal for production of electricity and also for supply of
water for irrigation of the agricultural land of the state. The canal was so built that it was
covering entire state.

2) The canal was passing from northern part of the state to southern part of the state.
Purvanchal dam/Purvanchal Power Station was constructed in such a way that water level
was increased to such level that flow of water could be maintained with same pressure even
till last part of the canal. Entire states electricity requirement was fulfilled from the same
Purvanchal Hydral Power Station. On the other hand the canal was fulfilling the irrigational
requirement of entire state from northern side to southern side of the state.
However state of Purvanchal was reorganized into two different states, one was named as
Southern Purvanchal and the other state was named as Northern Purvanchal under the State
Re-organization Act 1956.

3) After partition of the state Purvanchal, the control of release of water from dam and release
of electricity from the Purvanchal Hydral Power Station came under complete control of
Northern Purvanchal state .
From the dam 20500 cusecs of water used to be released per day in canal so that 1000
cusecs of water per day used to reach to Southern Purvanchal State. The Purvanchal Hydral
Power Station used to produce 2000 MW of electricity and 1000 MW of electricity used to
be supplied from the Purvanchal Hydral Power Station to Southern Purvanchal State.

4) According to agreement Southern Purvanchal was sharing the electricity production cost
and also cost of maintenance of canal equally. Initially Northern Purvanchal State used to
share the electricity 1000 MW of Electricity and used to release water almost 10000 cusecs
of water per day to state of Southern Purvanchal State.

5) After 5 years there were assembly elections in both the states. In both the state new political
parties had come into power. After the election when Northern Purvanchal State started
7|Page

sharing only 500MW of the electricity to Southern Purvanchal State whereas production at
Purvanchal Hydral Power Station was same that of 2000 MW of electricity. Similarly the
quantity of water supply in canal was reduced. Instead of supply of 10000 cusecs of water
per day the supply of water in canal was reduced to 6000 cusecs of water per day. Whereas
there was no shortage of water level in dam. This resulted into serious irrigational problem
for the farmers of Southern Purvanchal State, whose fields otherwise was totally dependent
for irrigation from supply of the 10000 cusecs of water per day in the canal.

6) The farmers of Southern Purvanchal State were protesting and were asking the state
government of Suouthern Purvanchal State to intervene in the matter . However the state
government of Southern Purvanchal State could not resolve the issue inspite of the fact that
they had approached the government of Northern Purvanchal State several times for
restoring the earlier sharing of water and electricity. Nevertheless the government of
Southern Purvanchal State was not taking appropriate legal step.

7) The government of Southern Purvanchal State approached to the central government,

however both in the Central government as well as in the state government of Northern
Purvanchal State the governments were run by same political party, therefore the Central
government had not shown much interest in intervening in the matter whereas the farmers
of the Southern Purvanchal State were great sufferers because of the crops were destroyed
due to insufficient water supply in the canal and due to cut in eclectic supply the farmers
could not resort to alternative method of irrigation.
Mr. RamKrishna. P, a farmer of Southern Purvanchal State, has filed the present PIL.

8|Page

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.

WHETHER PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY MR.

RAMKRISHNA P IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER Art. 32 OF THE
INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

1.1. Whether the Petitioner has no locus standi to initiate the present litigation?
1.2. Whether the petition is vexatious and guided by political motivations?
2. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF NORTHERN PURVANCHAL
WERE NOT VIOLATIVE OF STATES REORGANISATION ACT, 1956?
3.

WHETHER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUS LAND HAS BEEN GIVEN

DISCRETIONARY POWER BY THE PARLIAMENT?

4.

WHETHER THE PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED ALTERNATIVE

REMEDIES?

9|Page

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY MR. RAMKRISHNA P IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE UNDER Art. 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

1.1 The Petitioner has no locus standi to initiate the present litigation.
The expression Public Interest Litigation means the legal action initiated in a Court of Law for
enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of community
have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. The
Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition
filed by any interested person, in the welfare of the people, who is in a disadvantaged position.
Article 262 provides that Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or
complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State
river or river valley. The jurisdiction of the Courts in respect of any dispute or complaint referred
to in Article 262(1), can be barred by Parliament by making law. The ISWD Act, 1956 was
enacted by Parliament in exercise of power under Article 262 of the Constitution.
1.2 The petition is vexatious and guided by political motivations.
Where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way
and not contrary to it at all. The legal right to be enforced under Article 32 must ordinarily be the
rights of the petitioner himself who complains of the infraction of such rights. There vests no
right in the petitioner to compel the performance of some duty cast on the opponent. This
principle is based on the theory that remedies and rights are correlative and therefore, only a
person whose own right is in jeopardy is entitled to seek a remedy.
2.

THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF NORTHERN PURVANCHAL WERE NOT

VIOLATIVE OF STATES REORGANISATION ACT, 1956.

The Constitution confers supreme and exclusive power on Parliament under Articles 3 and 4 so
that while creating new States by reorganisation, the Parliament may enact provisions for
dividing land, water and other resources; distribute the assets and liabilities of predecessor States
amongst the new States; make provisions for contracts and other legal rights and obligations. The
State of Purvanchal was re-organized in two different states under the States Reorganization Act,
10 | P a g e

1956. Sec. 108 of the said Act pertains to continuance of agreements and arrangements relating
to certain irrigation, power or multipurpose project.
3.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUS LAND

DISCRETIONARY POWER BY THE PARLIAMENT.

HAS

BEEN

GIVEN

Sec. 107 of the States Reorganisation Act empowers the Central Government to direct the State
Government if it appears to the Central Government that the arrangement in regard to the
generation or supply of electric power or the supply of water has been modified to the
disadvantage of that area by reason of the fact that it has been transferred. The Central
Government may give such directions as it deems proper to the State Government or other
authority concerned for the maintenance, so far as practicable, of the previous arrangement.
Sec. 2 of the River Boards Act, 1956 declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the
Central Government should take under its control the regulation and development of inter-State
rivers and river valleys to the extent provided in the act.
4.

THE PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES.

The existence of alternative remedies is a thing taken into consideration in the matter governing
writ. The farmers of the State of Southern Purvanchal approached their State Government for
settlement of the water dispute amicably. The State Government made efforts on those
considerations. In the same manner, the petitioner can approach their State Government to make
a request under section 3 of the ISWD Act, for settlement of the dispute as well as interim orders.
In the matter of The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, it was held that the Tribunal could pass
interim orders in any pending water dispute when a reference for such relief is made by the
Central Government under Section 5(2) of the Act.

11 | P a g e

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY MR. RAMKRISHNA P IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE UNDER Art. 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

1.1 The Petitioner has no locus standi to initiate the present litigation.
The expression Public Interest Litigation means the legal action initiated in a Court of Law for
enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of community
have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.2
The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can entertain a
petition filed by any interested person, in the welfare of the people, who is in a disadvantaged
position.3
Article 262 provides that Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or
complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State
river or river valley. The jurisdiction of the Courts in respect of any dispute or complaint referred
to in Article 262(1), can be barred by Parliament by making law. The ISWD Act, 1956 was
enacted by Parliament in exercise of power under Article 262 of the Constitution.4
Section 3 of the Act provides under what conditions, a State can make a complaint and request to
the Central Government for referring a dispute to a tribunal for adjudication.5 The State of
Southern Purvanchal made no such request to the Central Government. In Halburys Laws of
England it is stated that when writ of Mandamus is asked for, order will not be granted unless
the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means
of considering whether or not he should comply and it must be shown by evidence that there was
a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce and that that
demand was met by a refusal.6

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540

3
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. and Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Ors, AIR 2004 SC 561
4
Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, AIR 2006 SC 1428
5

State of Karnataka Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1560

Halburys Laws of England, Vol. 13 (3rd ed.), pg 106

12 | P a g e

In the case of Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai
Padhugappu Sangam Vs. Union of India and Ors.7, this honourable Federal Court allowed the
petition (under Article 32) by a registered society on the grounds that the aggrieved State
Government i.e. State of Tamil Nadu, supported the petitioner entirely and without any
reservation adopted the petitioners stand in total. The Honourable Court treated the petition as
one in which the State of Tamil Nadu was indeed the petitioner. In the present case, the State of
Southern Purvanchal has not filed this petition, or even been made as a respondent in the
petition. It has certainly not adopted the petitioners stand before this Honourable Federal Court.
Locus standi means the legal capacity to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.8
Article 131 of the Constitution deals with the original jurisdiction of this Court.9 It is attracted
only when the parties to the dispute are the Government of India or one or more States arrayed
on either side. This is the limitation as to parties.10 The Honourable Federal Court thus held in
Gandhi Sahitya Sangh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.11 that,under Article 131 of the
Constitution of India, the water disputes between two States can only be brought by a State and
not by an individual or a society. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has no locus
standi to challenge the validity of the Act or setting up of the Tribunal and also to the reference
of the disputes for adjudication to the Tribunal.
1.2 The petition is vexatious and guided by political motivations.
Where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way
and not contrary to it at all.12 The legal right to be enforced under Article 32 must ordinarily be
the rights of the petitioner himself who complains of the infraction of such rights.13 There vests
no right in the petitioner to compel the performance of some duty cast on the opponent.14 This

Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam vs. Union of
India and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1316
8
Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh, (1984) 1 SCC 390: AIR 1984 SC 309: 1984 UJ (SC) 873.
9
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., AIR2014SC2407
10
State of Karnataka Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., AIR 1978 SC 68
11
Gandhi Sahitya Sangh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 356
12
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2014)2SCC401
13
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs. Union of India and ors., AIR2001SC3810
14

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. G. C. Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493

13 | P a g e

principle is based on the theory that remedies and rights are correlative and therefore, only a
person whose own right is in jeopardy is entitled to seek a remedy.15
A person acting bona fide alone can approach the court in public interest. Such a remedy is not
open to an unscrupulous person who acts, in fact, for someone else.16 The relaxation of the rule
of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome
interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. 17 Busybody is a
person whose motive in challenging governmental action is not to right a wrong but to achieve
some ulterior end.18This petition has been filed five years after the changes in water supply.
Honourable Justice Bhagwati warned in the case of S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Ors. 19,
that the Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay
legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective. "Political pressure groups who
could not achieve their aims through the administrative process" and we might add, through the
political process, "may try to use the courts to further their aims." These are some of the dangers
in public interest litigation which the court has to be careful to avoid.
It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts,
innumerable days are wasted which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of
cases of the genuine litigants.20 Though the petition filed by the petitioner carried the attractive
brand name of "Public Interest Litigation"21, no trust can be placed by court on a mala fide
applicant in public interest litigation.22
2.

THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF NORTHERN PURVANCHAL WERE NOT

VIOLATIVE OF STATES REORGANISATION ACT, 1956.

The Constitution confers supreme and exclusive power on Parliament under Articles 3 and 4 so
that while creating new States by reorganisation, the Parliament may enact provisions for

15

M P Jain and S N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law Vol. 2(7th ed. 2011), pg 2070

16
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR2006SC1774
17
S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149
18
Dr. B L Wadhera, Public Interest Litigation, (4 th ed. 2014), pg 38
19
Supra footnote 17
20
Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., AIR1993SC892
21
Supra footnote 2
22

Supra footnote 16

14 | P a g e

dividing land, water and other resources; distribute the assets and liabilities of predecessor States
amongst the new States; make provisions for contracts and other legal rights and obligations.23
The State of Purvanchal was re-organized in two different states under the States Reorganization
Act, 1956. Sec. 108 of the said Act pertains to continuance of agreements and arrangements
relating to certain irrigation, power or multipurpose project.24 Sec. 108(1) of the States
Reorganisation Act allows an adaption or modification of the agreement or arrangement between
the Central Government and one or more existing States or between two or more existing States.
There was no agreement or arrangement between the Central Government and the undivided
State of Purvanchal. The arrangement of sharing of water and electricity was not between two
existing States at the time of reorganisation, it was within the undivided state of Purvanchal. The
agreement made after the reorganisation between the states of Southern Purvanchal and Northern
pertained to the sharing of cost for maintenance of the dam and hydral power station.
3.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUS LAND

DISCRETIONARY POWER BY THE PARLIAMENT.

HAS

BEEN

GIVEN

Sec. 107 of the States Reorganisation Act empowers the Central Government to direct the State
Government if it appears to the Central Government that the arrangement in regard to the
generation or supply of electric power or the supply of water has been modified to the
disadvantage of that area by reason of the fact that it has been transferred. The Central
Government may give such directions as it deems proper to the State Government or other
authority concerned for the maintenance, so far as practicable, of the previous arrangement.
Sec. 2 of the River Boards Act, 1956 declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the
Central Government should take under its control the regulation and development of inter-State
rivers and river valleys to the extent provided25 in the act. The scope of the declaration in
Section 2 thereof being limited 'to the extent hereinafter provided', that is to say provided by that
statute.26 It is an Act to establish Boards for the Regulation and development of inter-State river
basins, through advice and coordination, and thereby to reduce the friction amongst the

23

Supra footnote 4.

24

Supra footnote 4.
River Boards Act, 1956
26
In the matter of: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, AIR 1992 SC 522
25

15 | P a g e

concerned States.27 Sec. 4 states that the Central Government may establish a Board on a request
from the State Government or otherwise. The State of Southern Purvanchal has made no such
request, and it would be futile to force the government into a Board when it is in no mood to
receive adivce.
Sec. 4 of the ISWD Act indicates that on the basis of the request referred to in Sec. 3 of the Act,
if Central Government is of the opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, it
is mandatory for the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal (within one year of the request)
for adjudication of the dispute.28
Statutory duties, if they are intended to be mandatory in character, are indicated by the use of the
words "shall" or "must".29 It is settled law that all discretionary powers must be exercised
reasonable and in larger public interest.30 The Central Government should exercise its discretion
bona fide and in good faith by addressing itself to the matter before it and should not allow itself
to be influenced by extraneous and irrelevant considerations. The question should not be
disposed of in an arbitrary or capricious way.31 It must be a sound exercise in law. The
discretionary power is to be exercised keeping in view the purpose for which it is conferred, the
object sought to be achieved and the reasons for granting such wide jurisdiction.32 The existence
of a legal right in the petitioner and corresponding legal duty on the respondent are the
conditions precedent for issuing mandamus. The performance of the duty should be imperative
and not discretionary.33
The matter is a very sensitive one. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the Government at
the centre is by one political party while the respective Governments in the two States are run by
different political parties.34 The disputes of this nature have the potentiality of creating avoidable
feelings of bitterness among the people of the States concerned. The Central Government as the
guardian of the interests of the people in all the States must, therefore, on all such occasions35
27

In Re: Networking of Rivers, 2012(3) SCALE 74

28
Supra footnote 7
29
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400
30
Henley Vs. Lyme Corporation, 130 ER 995
31
Asst. Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Prayag Dass Agarwal, AIR 1981 SC 1263
32
Clariant International Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), AIR 2004 SC 4236
33
M P Jain and S N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law Vol. 2(7th ed. 2011), pg 2362
34
Supra footnote 7
35

Supra footnote 7

16 | P a g e

exercise its discretionary power with utmost care. If the discretion is exercised without any
principle or without any rule, it is a situation amounting to the anti-thesis of Rule of Law.36

THE PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES.

The existence of alternative remedies is a thing taken into consideration in the matter governing
writ.37
The farmers of the State of Southern Purvanchal approached their State Government for
settlement of the water dispute amicably. The State Government made efforts on those
considerations. In the same manner, the petitioner can approach their State Government to make
a request under section 3 of the ISWD Act, for settlement of the dispute as well as interim orders.
In the matter of The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal38, it was held that the Tribunal could pass
interim orders in any pending water dispute when a reference for such relief is made by the
Central Government under Section 5(2) of the Act.39
A mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of
which the one who applies for it has a sufficient legal interest.40 It is an extraordinary remedy. It
is not a writ of right. It is intended to supply a deficiency in law and is thus a discretionary
remedy.41 In Halsburys Laws of England42, it is stated:
The Court will as a general rule and in the exercise of its discretion, refuse an order of
mandamus, where there is an alternative specific remedy at law, which is not less convenient,
beneficial and effective.
The remedy under article 32 of the constitution cannot be granted as a matter of due course to
provide redressal in situations where statutory remedies are available.43

36

Som Raj and others etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR1990SC1176

37
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, AIR 1950 SC 163
38
Supra footnote 26
39
State of Orissa vs. Government of India and Anr, (2009 )5 SCC 492
40
The Praga Tools Corporation Vs. Shri C.A. Imanual and Ors., AIR1969SC1306
41
C K Thakker, Administrative Law (2th ed. 2012), pg 982
42
Halburys Laws of England, Vol. I (4th ed.) 135, pg 126
43

Kunga Nima Lepcha Vs. State of Sikkim, (2010) 4 SCC 513

17 | P a g e

Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration
of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics
interest litigation".44

44

Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors., AIR2008SC913

18 | P a g e

SUBMISSION TO THE COURT

Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the Petitioner humbly submit that the Federal Court of Indus Land be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:
1) The present PIL is not maintainable under Art. 32 as the petitioner has no locus standi.
2) The PIL should also be dismissed as the petition is guided by political motivations and
the petitioner did not exhaust alternative remedies available to him.
And pass any other relief, that this Honourable Federal Court of Indus Land may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

19 | P a g e