TABLE OF CONTENTS

________________________________________________________________

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....2

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..3

3. LIST OF CASES....4

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..5

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS.6

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...7

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..8-14

8. PRAYER..15

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
___________________________________________________________________________

1. Honble - Honourable

2. SC - Supreme Court

3. SCC - Supreme Court Cases

4. A.I.R - All India Reporter

5. v. - Versus

6. SCC - Supreme Court Cases

7. Assn. - Association

8. Art. - Article

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
___________________________________________________________________________

I. STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India 1950

II. BOOKS

1. Shyam Dewan, Environment Law and Policy in India, Our India, 2nd Edition

III. WEBSITES

1. www.manupatra.com
2. indiankanoon.com

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 LIST OF CASES
________________________________________________________________________

1. Guruswami v. Mysore. AIR 1954 SC 592

2. Union of India v. S.B. Vohra....(2004) 2 SCC 150

3. Tata Cellular v. Union of India..... AIR 1996 SC 11

4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India...(2009) 6 SCC 142

5. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.(3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group(2006)
3 SCC 434

6. Suo Motu v. State of Rajasthan.... AIR 2005 Raj 82,83

7. Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P..... AIR 1985 SC 1259

8. T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India... AIR 2003 SC 724

9. N.D. Jayal v. Union of India. AIR 2004 SC 867

10. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India... AIR 1996 SC 1446

11. Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Assn. v. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Assn...
AIR 2010 SC 3645

12. M.C. Mehtav. Kamal Nath..... AIR 2000 SC 1997

13. T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corpn., Hyderabad... AIR 1987 AP

171

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
___________________________________________________________________________

The Petitioner has approached this Honble court under Article 321 of the

Constitution of India, 1950.

1
Article 32: 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

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
___________________________________________________________________________

1. Ramgarh district famous for its coal mines and other minerals, on 2011, January the
Supreme Court of India banned all kind of mining in the district and only Coal India
was allowed to do their business.

2. After hearing a public interest litigation filed by one NGO, The Supreme Court gave
such judgment on the recommendation of its forest advisory wing, the centrally
empowered committee (CEC) which proved illegal mining in Ramgarh area and two
adjacent districts also.

3. On 2012, July the Supreme Court of India lifted the ban on certain conditions after
several appeals and other public interest litigations filed for developmental and
industrial purposes and above all economic betterment of the area issued several leases
to different private parties for mining.

4. During banning transport sectors were badly suffered but after lifting of ban their
business are in boom and causing vehicular pollution of the area.

5. On 2013 January two steel companies have started their production where they need
nearly 50,000 tons of coal a day for their manufacturing

6. The concerned NGO in the present case alleges that it is the contrary and the Ramgarh
and nearby districts are based on agrarian economy and during ban farmers produced
much and forest is one of the source of their livelihood.

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 ISSUES RAISED
___________________________________________________________________________

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT IN THE COURT OF LAW?

II. WHETHER THE COAL MINING IS AFFECTING THE ECOLOGICAL

SYSTEM AND SUSTAINANIBLE DEVELOPMENT?

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
___________________________________________________________________________

III. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT IN THE COURT OF LAW?

It is most humbly submitted that the writ petition submitted by the petitioner is maintainable
in the court of law. Writ as mandamus is issued to direct a public authority from not doing
a particular act which is against the law. In the present case, there has been a violation of
the Fundamental Rights by the act of government.

IV. WHETHER THE COAL MINING IS AFFECTING THE ECOLOGICAL

SYSTEM AND SUSTAINANIBLE DEVELOPMENT?

It is most humbly submitted that the illegal coal mining and the industrial activities are
affecting the ecological balance. As of the excessive mining activities and establishment of
two industries and excessive increase of use of transport vehicle, there is huge amount of
deforestation is done in the area and it is affecting the life of villagers, farmers and poor
people and their right to pollution free environment which is part of right to life provided
under article 21 is violated.

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
___________________________________________________________________________

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT IN THE COURT OF LAW?

It is most humbly submitted that the writ petition submitted by the petitioner is maintainable in
the court of law as writ is an effective way of enforcing fundamental rights. Article 21 of
Constitution of India 1950 guarantees fundamental right to life and personal liberty, to include
the right to live in a healthy and pollution free environment.

In the present case, right of the people of Ramgarh district to live in a healthy and pollution
free environment is violated and therefore, the present petition is maintainable in the Honble
Court.

Mandamas is a command issued by a Court commanding a public authority to perform a public

duty belonging to its office.2 Madamus is issued to enforce performance of public duties by
authorities of all its kind.

The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be
granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and where justice despite
demanded has not been granted.3

Mandamus can be issued in the following circumstances:

1. The applicant must have a legal right to the performance of a legal duty.
2. The legal duty must be of a public nature.

In the State of Kerala Scheduled Tribes case4 although the statutory provision required
restoration of equal extent of land, the Court, perhaps, without reference to the word equal
issued in mandamus (in cases where restoration was not possible) directing the State to allot
not only equal extent of land, but where restoration was not possible to allot such land by taking

2
Guruswami v. Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 592
3
Union of India v. S.B. Vohra,(2004) 2 SCC 150
4
(2009) 8 Scc 46

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
recourse to acquisition proceedings with a further direction to allot hilly or other types of land
not suitable for agricultural purposes.

The scope of mandamus is a determined by the nature of the duty to be enforced, rather than
the identity of the authority against whom it is sought.

The Supreme Court has emphasized in Tata Cellular v. Union of India5 that the Court can
interfere when the State decision or action is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality,
irrationality or unreasonableness.

In the present case, because of the excessive mining activity and establishment of two industries
and excessive increase of use of transport vehicle, there is huge amount of deforestation is done
in the area and it is affecting the life of villagers, farmers and poor people and their right to
pollution free environment which is part of right to life provided under article 21 is violated.
Hence, this public interest litigation is necessary for raising the rights of poor people.

5
AIR 1996 SC 11

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 II. WHETHER THE COAL MINING IS AFFECTING THE ECOLOGICAL
SYSTEM AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

It is most humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the coal mining is affecting the
ecological system and the sustainable development.

1. Fundamental Right violated.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India6, the Supreme Court affirmed that environment and ecology
are national assets. They are subject to inter-generational equity. Time has now come to
suspend all mining in the above area on sustainable development principle which is part of
Articles 21, 48-A, and 51-A (g) of

The environmental laws which have been passed by Parliament and State Legislatures are
based on the recognition of clean environment as a human right or fundamental right. As it has
been recognised that a clean environment is the basic need for the survival of humanity and it
cannot be ensured without ecological balance, thus, this right belongs to all as survival of
mankind depends on clean, healthful or pollution free environment.7

The Stockholm Conference of 1972 also declared that man has the fundamental right to
freedom of equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits
a life of dignity and well-being8

The Constitutional scheme to protect and preserve the environment has been provided under
Article 21, 48-A and 51 A (g) which includes fundamental right to have healthy and pollution
free environment, constitutional obligation on the State and fundamental duties of all the
citizens of India to protect and improve the natural environment.9

The Rajasthan High Court in Suo Motu v. State of Rajasthan10 explained that right to life
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India takes within its sweep right to life which is

6
(2009) 6 SCC 142
7
R.P. Mishra, Ecological Balance as a Human Right in Environmental Law in India (1996) 20-26
8
Stockholm Declaration, 1972, Principle I.
9
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.(3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 SCC 434
10
AIR 2005 Raj 82,83

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
worth living, and it includes righto food, clothing and shelter and right to decent environment
including right to live in clean city.

In the present case, the farmers of the Ramgarh district are based on agrarian economy and
during ban, farmers produced much and forest is one of their livelihood. Mining does not affect
the economy of the area because maximum profits are being earned by outsiders and labourers
are being hired through different place. As discussed in the above cases that Art. 21 of
Constitution of India includes worth living. And therefore, this right is being violated because
of the above situations discussed.

Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.11, involving environmental and eco-
imbalance problems, involved the haphazard and dangerous limestaone quarrying practices in
the Mussoorie hill range of the Himalayas. Because of unbridled quarrying, vegetation cover
and natural falls started disappearing and resulted in shortage of potable water, damage to the
ecology due to transportation activity creating noise pollution, air pollution, vibration and
spread of debris of mines. The Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra never claimed the
violation of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it can be inferred
from the judgment of the Supreme Court entertained the environmental complaint under Article
32 of the Constitution as involving the violation of Article 21-right to life.

In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India12 Singh J declared in unequivocal terms that the closure of
industries may bring unemployment and loss of revenue to the State, but life, health and
ecology have greater importance for the people.

From the above cases, it is clear that ecology have greater importance for the people and the
illegal mining in the area of Ramgarh district is polluting the environment and disturbing the
ecological balance. Thus, the mining should be banned in the given area.

2. The Concept of Sustainable Development not followed.

The Indian Supreme Court has also pointed out, time and again, that the UN Conference on
Human Environment created an awareness for environmental protection.13 I has also been
observed that the concept of sustainable development was also introduced for the first time

11
AIR 1985 SC 1259
12
supra
13
supra

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
by the Stockholm Conference of 1972. Now, this concept has been accepted as a part of the
customary international law.

The World Commission on Environment and Development suggested institutional and legal
changes at international, national and regional levels in six priority areas:

1. Getting at source
2. Dealing with effects
3. Assessing global risks
4. Making informed choices
5. Providing the legal means
6. Investing in our future

These priorities for institutional and legal changes are required to make a transition to
sustainable development.14

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India15, the Supreme Court declared that there
are two salutary principles which govern the law of environment: I) the principle of sustainable
development and 2) the precautionary principle. And that sustainable development is
essentially a policy and strategy for continued economic and social development without
detriment to the environment and natural resources, on the quality of which continued activity
and further development depend.

In N.D. Jayal v. Union of India16, the Supreme Court has declared that the adherence to
sustainable development is a sine qua non for maintenance of symbiotic balance between the
right to development and development. This concept is an integral part of right to life under
Article 21.

3. Genesis of Precautionary Principle

Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 provided:

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied
by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible

14
Reffered in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715,2720
15
AIR 2003 SC 724
16
AIR 2004 SC 867

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation. Later on, it was adopted by others.

The Indian Supreme Court has also adopted the precautionary principle but in a modified form.
The Court adopting the principle, explained that this principle has led to the special principle
of burden of proof in environmental cases where burden as to the absence of injurious effect
of the actions proposed is placed on those who want to change the status quo.17

In case insufficient proof is presented, the presumption of the court will operate in favour of
environmental protection and the activity would not be allowed to operate or continue to
operate.

4. Polluter Pays Principle

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India18, the polluter pays principle
was explained as under:

Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying
on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any person by his activity irrespective
of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity.

(a) The polluting industry is absolutely liable to compensate for harm caused to the
environment.
(b) He is also liable to pay the cost of restoring the environmental degradation-
reversing the damaged ecology.

This principle means the absolute liability for harm to the environment. Thus, it became a
principle of remediation of the damaged environment- a part of the process of sustainable
development.

The SC declared in Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Assn. v. Noyyal River Ayacutdars
Protection Assn,19 that the polluter pays principle and precautionary principle have to be
read with the doctrine of sustainable development. In this case the court imposed heavy fine
for polluting the water of Noyyal River to meet the expenses of reversing the ecology.

17
C.M. Jariwala, Complex Enviro-Techno Science Issues: Judicial Direction, 42 JILI 29(January- March 2000)
18
AIR 1996 SC 1446
19
AIR 2010 SC 3645

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 5. Public Trust Doctrine.

The SC, in M.C. Mehtav. Kamal Nath20, declared in unequivocal terms:

Our legal system- based on English common law- includes the public trust doctrine as
a part of jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all national resources which are by the
nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore,
running waters, airs, forests, and ecologically fragile lands. The States as a trustee is under a
legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be
converted into private ownership.

Most of the judgments pronounced by Indian courts are based on this English common-law
doctrine.

This constitutional mandate to preserve the environment and maintain ecological balance is a
task of the State under Article 48-A and the State should give priority to such issues as they
have wide and serious ramifications.21

In T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corpn., Hyderabad22, the court made it clear that
protection of the environment is not only the duty of the citizen but it is the obligation of the
State and all other State organs including courts. Therefore, the courts must also be alive to
these considerations and take conscious decisions in environmental pollution cases.

In the facts, it is clearly given that on January 2013, two companies are using 50,000 tons of
coal for their manufacturing and for this they vacated 13 villages and the villagers have lost
their fields, crops, gazing land, streams and even large portion of burial ground also. Even they
are living with the coal dust in their environment. According to the above doctrines discussed,
the villagers of Ramgarh district should be given their fields and the industries should be closed
because of the pollution, it is creating to the environment and the imbalance it is creating in the
ecology.

Therefore, the coal mining is affecting the ecological system and sustainable development

20
AIR 2000 SC 1997
21
supra
22
AIR 1987 AP 171

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
 PRAYER
___________________________________________________________________________

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
this Hon'ble Court might be pleased to adjudge and declare that,

The public interest litigation is maintainable.

Issue writ of mandamus against public authority.
Give remedy for damages to the villagers of the affected area.
Direct the state to restore the ecological balance in the affected area.

And/or

Pass any other order which it deems fit in the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most respectfully submitted.

________________ S/d,

Counsel on behalf of Petitioner

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .
15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F P E T I T I O N E R .