Sie sind auf Seite 1von 41

Team Code: T8

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART

Under Article 131 of the Constitution of Aryavart

UNION OF ARYAVART

(Plaintiff)

STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH AND STATE OF SAMRIDH PRADESH

(Defendant)

STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH

(Plaintiff)

STATE OF SAMRIDH PRADESH

(Defendant)

Written Submissions on Behalf of the Plaintiffs

(Counsels Appearing on Behalf of the Plaintiffs)


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...........................................................................................x

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................xi

ARGUMENT PRESENTED..................................................................................................xiii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................xiv

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

I. THE SUIT FILED BY THE UNION OF ARYAVART IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER


ARTICLE 131 OF THE CONSTITUTION...........................................................................1

1. The dispute must arise between the Government of India and one or more States,
between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more
other States on the other or between two or more states. 1

2. If and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which
the existence or extent of a legal right depends. 2

A. The Legal Right in question is the Right of the Union of Aryavart to act as Parens
Patriae of its Citizens for the protection of the General Health, Comfort, and Welfare
of the inhabitants of two States.......................................................................................3

II. THE PANEL CONSTITUTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT AN INTER-


STATE COUNCIL SET UP UNDER ARTICLE 263 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVART
AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PANEL ARE BINDING IN NATURE, AS
THE SAME IS NOT AN INTER-STATE COUNCIL................................................................5

III. THE STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH AND STATE OF SAMRIDH PRADESH


FAILED TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE CONCERNING
UPPCL....................................................................................................................................8

IV. THE STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH CAN LEGALLY CHARGE FOR THE
WATER OF RIVER SARASWATI TO BE USED BY THE HYDROELECTRIC POWER
PLANT LOCATED IN OUDH..............................................................................................9

i
Table of Contents

V. THAT UPPCL, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE ARYAVART


COMPANIES ACT, FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE TERM “UNDERTAKING”
WHEN THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE REORGANISATION
ACT......................................................................................................................................10

1. When Meaning of a word not defined is Plain, it must be given effect irrespective of
the Consequences 10

2. ‘Undertaking’ as interpreted under different Legislations in furtherance of the Object


and Purpose of the Statute 12

VI. THAT THE ORDER DATED MARCH 27, 2014 PASED BY THE STATE OF
SAMRIDH PRADESH IS VIOLATIVE OF THE SCHEME OF REORGANISATION
ACT, ELECTRICITY SUPLLY ACT, AND THE CONSTITUTION.................................14

1. That the Order violated the scheme of the Reorganisation Act 14

2. That the Order is arbitrary and violated the scheme of Electricity Act, 2003 and
Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 14

3. That the Order dated March 27, 2014 issued by Government of Samridh Pradesh, is
ultra vires the constitution 15

A. That the Govt. Of S.P. lacked authority to pass March 27, Order..........................15

B. That, Order dated March 27, passed by Govt. of S.P. is arbitrary exercise of Executive
power.............................................................................................................................16

VII. THAT THE STATE OF U.P. IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP


OVER THE ASSETS OF UPPCL IN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION............................16

1. That Power Generation part of UPPCL is exclusively located in Oudh, U.P. and
therefore Section 23 of the Reorganisation Act is applicable. 17

A. That Generation of Electricity is different from Supply of Electricity..................17

2. That the Government of U.P. is the Competent Government in respect of the


generating plant specifically, and the company generally. 19

3. Equitable & practical solution, substantive justice, opportunity cost, revenue interest
of the state. 19

ii
Table of Contents

4. Object of the relevant provisions of The Reorganisation Act and a practical asset
distribution which does not prejudice the interests of the State or such prejudice is
unavoidable in the interest of other party. 20

PRAYER IN SUIT NO.1......................................................................................................xviii

PRAYER IN SUIT NO.2......................................................................................................xviii

iii
List of Abbreviations

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. & - And
2. AIR - All India Reporter
3. Anr - Another
4. AP - Andhra Pradesh
5. Assn. - Association
6. Bom - Bombay
7. Cal - Calcutta
8. CHN - Calcutta High Court Notes
9. Co - Company
10. Comp cas Bom - Comany Cases Bombay
11. Coop - Cooperative
12. CTC - Current Tamil Nadu Cases
13. edn - Edition
14. ITR - Income Tax Reports
15. Ker - Kerela
16. KLT - Kerala Law Times
17. L. Ed - Lawyers' Edition
18. Ltd - Limited
19. Mad - Madras
20. Mah LJ - Maharashtra Law Journal
21. Ori - Orissa
22. Ors - Others
23. P&H - Punjab and Haryana
24. PC - Privy Council
25. RO Act - Reorganisation Act
26. S.P. - Samridh Pradesh
27. SCC - Supreme Court Cases
28. SCR - Supreme Court Reports
29. Supp - Supplementary
30. U.P. - Uttam Pradesh
31. US - United States

iv
Index of Authorities

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

A Uma Rani v Coop Socities (2004) 7 SCC 112......................................................................15


Ambresh Kumar v Principal LLRM College AIR 1987 SC 400..............................................15
Anand Singh v State of UP (2010) 11 SCC 242.......................................................................20
AS Production Agencies v Industrial Tribunal, Haryana AIR 1979 SC 170...........................13
Bajaj Hindustan Ltd v Sir Shadi Lal Enterprise (2011) 1 SCC 640; Satya Narain Shukla v
Union of India AIR 2006 SC 2511.........................................................................................9
Balabhagas Hulas Chand v State of Orissa AIR 1976 SC 1016.............................................18
Baldev Singh Gandhi v State of Punjab (2002) 3 SCC 667.....................................................12
Banatwala & Co v LIC (2011) 13 SCC 446.............................................................................14
Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v A Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213........................12
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd v State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 557.....................................................9
Bharat Coop Bank (Mumbai) Ltd v Employees Union (2007) 4 SCC 685;.............................17
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 39......................9
Biswambar Singh v State of Orissa AIR 1954 SC 139............................................................15
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co Ltd v Bombay Environmental Action Group (2006) 3 SCC 434. .15
Burrakur Coal Company Ltd v Union of India AIR 1961 SC 954...........................................19
Carew & Co Ltd v Union of India (1975) 2 SCC 791..............................................................12
CCE v Rajasthan State Chemicals Mills AIR 1991 SC 2222..................................................17
CDS Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd v BPL Communications Ltd (2004) 121 Comp Cas
374 Bom...............................................................................................................................12
Central Inland water Transport Corp Ltd v Workmen (1975) 4 SCC 348.........................12, 19
Cf R R Dalavai v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 1559................................................16, 20
Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613...........................................................3, 4
Chhattisgarh SEB v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 5 SCC 23...............13
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi v Swarna Rekha Cokes and Coal (P) Ltd (2004)
6 SCC 689.............................................................................................................................20
Commissioner of IT v Bhageeratha Eng Ltd 1991 SCC OnLine Ker 417...............................13
Dalco Engg (P) Ltd v Satish Prabhakar Padhye (2010) 4 SCC 378.......................................20
Devi Das Gopal Krishnan v State of Punjab...........................................................................17
Diamond Sugar Mills Ltd v State of UP AIR 1961 SC 652.....................................................18
v
Index of Authorities

Dibyasingh Malana v Stet of Orissa AIR 1989 SC 1737; Commr of Commercial Tax Board of
Revenue v RS Jhaver AIR 1968 SC 59.................................................................................19
Dwarka Prasad v Dwwarka Das Sarraf AIR 1975 SC 1758...................................................19
Eastern India Motion Pictures Association v Indian Performing Right Society Ltd AIR 1974
Cal 257..................................................................................................................................18
Firm Ashok traders v Gurmukh Das (2004) 3 SCC 155..........................................................18
G I Fernandez v State of Mysore AIR 1967 SC 1753..............................................................16
G Sundarrajan v Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 620..................................................................3
Gauri Shankar Gaur v State of UP (1994) 1 SCC 92..............................................................14
Girnar Traders v State of Maharashtra (2011) 3 SCC 1.........................................................14
Govt of India v Court Liquidator's Employees Assn (1999) 8 SCC 560..................................19
Gurbax Singh v Financial Commissioner AIR 1991 SC 435..................................................19
Hindustan Steel Ltd v Workmen (1973) 3 SCC 564.................................................................11
Hindustan Times v State of UP (2003) 1 SCC 591..................................................................16
Indian Hotels Co Ltd v ITO AIR 2000 SC 2645......................................................................11
Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 SCC OnLine Bom
594........................................................................................................................................17
ION Exchange Waterleau Ltd v Madurai Municipal Corporation (2008) 3 CTC 675............20
ITO v Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd (2010) 2 SCC 699......................................................17
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v State of Gujarat AIR 1995 SC 142............................................18
Kanan v Tamil Tahlir Kalv Kazhagam (1998) 5 SCC 21.........................................................13
Kandukuri Bala Suryaprasada Raw & Anr v Secretary to State for India AIR 1971 PC 42................9
Karnani Properties Ltd v Augustine AIR 1957 SC 309...........................................................12
Katikara Chintamani Dora v Guntreddi AIR 1974 SC 1069...................................................20
Kerela State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd v CIT (1998) 5 SCC 48........................13
Khoday Distilleries Ltd v State of Karnataka (1996) 10 SCC 304..........................................16
KS Ardanareeswarar Gounder v Tahsildar, Bhavani & Anr AIR 1976 Mad.............................9
Leelabai Gajanan Pansare & Ors v Oriental Insurance Company & Ors (2008) 9 SCC 72012
Lingappa Pochanna v State of Maharashtra AIR 1985 SC 359..............................................19
Loknath Misra v State of Orissa AIR 1952 Ori 42...................................................................13
M/S Rekhchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd v State of Maharashtra (1997) 6
SCC 12..................................................................................................................................10
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v State of UP (2013) 2 SCC 617.........................14
Maruti Suzuki Ltd v CCE (2009) 9 SCC 193...........................................................................17
vi
Index of Authorities

Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka AIR 1992 SC 1858.............................................................15


Mor Modern Cooperative Transport Society Limited v Financial Commissioner and
Secretary to Government of Haryana (2002) 6 SCC 269....................................................12
Municipal Council v Vraj Lal Mani Lal & Co AIR 1982 SC 844...........................................17
National Union of Commercial Employees v MR Meher AIR 1960 Bom 22..........................12
Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. v City Municipality Bodhan & Anr AIR 1965 AP 91..............................10
Northern Railways v UP SEB (2012) 3 SCC 329....................................................................19
Otis Elevator Employees' Union S Reg v Union of India (2003) 12 SCC 68..........................16
P Alikunju v Commissioner of Income-tax 166 ITR 804.........................................................13
P Kasillingam v PSG College of Technology AIR 1995 SC 1395...........................................17
Piara Singh and Ors v The State AIR 1960 P&H 538.............................................................10
Pradip Kumar Maitey v Chinmoy Bhunia (2013) 11 SCC 122................................................16
Province of Madras v Lady of Dolours Convent, Trichinopoly, represented by Mother Superior & Ors
AIR 1942 Mad 719...................................................................................................................9
Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court
(1990) 3 SCC 682.................................................................................................................17
Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549........................................................15
Ram Phal Kundu v Kamal Sharma AIR 2004 SC 1657...........................................................18
Ramabai v Dinesh 1976 Mah LJ 565.......................................................................................10
Ramakrishna Poultry (P) Ltd v R Chellapan (2009) 16 SCC 743...........................................19
Ramankutty Guptan v Avara (1994) 2 SCC 642......................................................................19
RC Cooper v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 564.......................................................................12
Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd v CCE (1990) 3 SCC 447.....................................................13
S Samuel, MD, Harrisons Malyalam v Union of India (2004) 1 SCC 256..............................10
Samatha v State of AP AIR 1997 SC 3279...............................................................................19
Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union v Management of Gymkhana Club AIR
1968 SC 54...........................................................................................................................12
SG Chemicals & Dyes Trading Employees' Union v SG Chemicals & Dyes Trading Ltd
(1986) 2 SCC 624.................................................................................................................11
Shakti Kumar M Sancheti v State of Maharashtra (1995) 1 SCC 351....................................18
Sharma Transport v Govt of AP (2002) 2 SCC 188.................................................................16
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd v Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1.....14
SM Nilajkar v Telecom District Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27....................................................11

vii
Index of Authorities

Snehadeep Structures (P) Ltd v Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development


Corporation Ltd (2010) 3 SCC 34.......................................................................................14
Sonia Bhatia v State of UP AIR 1981 SC 1274.......................................................................18
Southern Petrochemical Industries Ltd v Electricity Inspector AIR 2007 SC 1984................17
State of Bihar v Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252.............................................................20
State of Bihar v Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 67......................................................................2
State of Haryana v State of Punjab (2004) 12 SCC 692............................................................2
State of Jharkhand v Govind Singh (2005) 10 SCC 437..........................................................10
State of Karnataka v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 68: (1977) 4 SCC 608...........................1, 2
State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592.................................................1, 2, 3, 7
T Barai v Henry Ah Hoe (1983) 1 SCC 177......................................................................14, 15
Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd v State of Karnataka (2006) 1 SCC 442.............................1
Tata Power Company Limited v Reliance Energy Limited (2009) 16 SCC 659......................18
Terai Overseas Ltd v Commissioner of Customs, Custom House (2001) 3 CHN 352.............12
Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd v Pollution Control Board (1990) 2 KLT 924..............11
Udhav Uttam Patil v Daga Holkya Bhil 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 220....................................20
Union of India v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (2008) 7 SCC 502..............................................13
Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co Ltd v UP electricity Board AIR 1973 SC 683...17
Vatan Mal v Kailash Nath (1989) 3 SCC 79............................................................................13
Vijay Kumar Sharma v State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 562................................................14
Vijay Kumar Sharma v State of Karnataka AIR 1990 SC 2072...............................................15
Vishnu Dayal Jhunjhunwala & Anr v Union of India & Ors 1984 Supp SCC 118.................12
Workmenn of Indian Standards Institution v Management of Indian Standards Institution
(1975) 2 SCC 847.................................................................................................................11
Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v State of Maharashtra (2010) 5 SCC......................14

Cases from Other Jurisdiction

Alfred L Snapp & Son v Puerto Rico 458 US 592: 73 L Ed 2d 995...........................................4


Capital Cities Communication Inc v Canada (Canadian Radio-Television & telecommunications
Commission) [1978] 2 SCR 141..............................................................................................11
Georgia v Tennessee Copper Co 206 US 230: 51 L Ed 1038....................................................4
Hawaii v Standard Oil Company 405 US 25.............................................................................4
Kansas v Colorado 206 US 46: 51 L Ed 956.............................................................................4
Louisiana v Texas 176 US 1: 44 L Ed 347.................................................................................4

viii
Index of Authorities

Missouri v Illinois180 US 208: 45 L Ed 497.............................................................................4


Mormon Church v United States 136 US 1................................................................................3
North Dakota v Minnesota 263 US 365: 68 L Ed 342...............................................................4
Oklahoma ex rel Johnson v Cook 304 US 387...........................................................................4
Oklahoma v Atchinson T& SFR Company 220 US 277.............................................................4
Pennsylvania v New Jersey 426 US 660....................................................................................4
Pennsylvania v West Virginia 262 US 553:67 L Ed 1117..........................................................4
State of New York v New Jersey 256 US 296: 65 L Ed 937.......................................................4

Statutes

Industrial Dispute Act 1947......................................................................................................11


Inter-State Council Order 1990..................................................................................................6
Uttam Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014...........................................................................14, 18

Treatises

Durga Das Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India (8th edn, LexisNexis


ButterworthsWadhwa Nagpur 2007) 5638.............................................................................1
HM Seervai, Contitution of India (4th edn, Universal Law Publication Co P Ltd 1992)......1, 2
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (6th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur
2010).......................................................................................................................................2

Other Authorities

DP Mittal, Taxmann’s Law Dictionary (Taxmann 2007).........................................................13


Gove Philip Babcock, Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language
(3rd edn, Merriam-Webster 2002.........................................................................................11
JB Saunders and SR Burrows, Words and Phrases Legally Defined (Butterworth 2006).......11
Peter W Hogg, Constitutional law of Canada (5th edn, Thomson Carswell 2007) 22; P Ramanatha
Aiyar, The Law Lexicon (2nd edn, Wadhwa & Co Nagpur 1997................................................11

ix
Statement of Jurisdiction

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart exercises its Original Jurisdiction with respect to
any dispute referred to in Article 131 of the Constitution of Aryavart. The Plaintiff submits to
the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 131. The present memorandum set forth
the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

x
Statement of Facts

STATEMENT OF FACTS
I
The Republic of Aryavart is a large, populous and diverse country. The State of Uttam Pradesh is the
largest, most populated (12 crores approx. - 2011 Census) and most diverse state of Aryavart. The
western half of the State has a mountainous terrain with Aryavart’s largest river, Saraswati, flowing
through it. However, the eastern part is rather dry and depends mostly on some man-made canals
bringing Saraswati’s water from the western side for irrigation and other purposes. Lately, State of
Uttam Pradesh was undergoing turmoil, as a large section of the society was demanding the creation
of a new state, ‘Samridh Pradesh’.

II
On February 2, 2014, the Parliament of Aryavart passed The Uttam Pradesh Reorganisation Act,
2014 (hereinafter “the Act”),which got published in the Official Gazette of Aryavart on the same day,
declaring Samridh Pradesh as the 21st state of Aryavart. The territorial division was such that the
western half of the territory of the erstwhile State remained as Uttam Pradesh and the eastern half
came to be known as Samridh Pradesh. Section 23 and Section 28 of the Act provide for the
apportionment of assets and liabilities.

III
Uttam Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter “UPPCL”), a corporation formed by way of a
resolution of the erstwhile State under provisions of the Aryavart Companies Act, 1956 and the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, was solely responsible for production and distribution of electricity in
the erstwhile State. Thereafter, the Registrar of Companies incorporated UPPCL as a Company and a
certificate to that effect was granted to it. As per the Memorandum of Association the main objects of
the UPPCL are construction, generation and maintenance of Hydroelectric Power Stations and
Projects and to sell the power so generated to the consumers of the State. The registered head office of
the aforementioned Corporation is situated in the Kashinagri district, its hydroelectric power plant is
located the Oudh district and it has its distribution units in all the major districts of Uttam Pradesh.
Generally, half of the Board of Directors sat at the Oudh office and the other half at the Kashinagri
office of the corporation. The meetings of the corporations were held as per the convenience of the
Board.

IV
By an order dated March 27, 2014, the State of Samridh Pradesh, acquired the UPPCL as its

x
Statement of Facts

undertaking and also made amendments in its Memorandum and Articles of Association accordingly.
The registered head office remained in Kashinagri, capital of Samridh Pradesh. On March 28, 2014,
the Advocate General of Uttam Pradesh stated that the order dated March 27, 2014 is arbitrary, illegal
and in stark violation of the provisions of the Act.

V
On April 14, the Central Government appointed a panel (hereinafter “the Panel”) to resolve the
dispute between the two states. It gave several proposals to both the states to reach an amicable
solution/ mutual agreement in accordance with the Act. On May12, 2014, the Panel proposed a
settlement under which Uttam Pradesh was to retain ownership over the hydroelectric power plant
and the distribution units located within its territory. Samridh Pradesh was to get the ownership and
control over UPPCL and several distribution units located within its territory. It was proposed that
Samridh Pradesh would pay a predetermined amount as rent to Uttam Pradesh every year for using
the power plant and the distribution units and will also buy electricity produced from the power plant
at a price decided by an Expert Committee appointed by the Central Government.

VI
The Chief Minister of Uttam Pradesh, in a reply to the proposal of the Panel, stated that it can accept
the proposal of the Panel on two conditions. Firstly, the amount of rent would be decided by the State,
commensurate to the current market rate, and it would reserve the right to increase the rent if the value
of the property increases over time. Secondly, the State of Samridh Pradesh will have to pay for the
water of the river Saraswati used by the hydroelectric power plant, at a reasonable rate determined by
the State. The Chief Minister of Samridh Pradesh rejected the proposal and refused to pay any rent
determined by Uttam Pradesh or for the electricity produced from its own power plant. Also, stated
that Uttam Pradesh couldn’t charge Samridh Pradesh for using the water of the river. Thereafter, the
Central Government presented a few more similar proposals to the two states in dispute.
VII
On July 17, 2014, the Union of Aryavart filed a petition against the State of Uttam Pradesh and the
State of Samridh Pradesh under Article 131 of the Constitution of Aryavart, invoking the original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Aryavart. Subsequently, State of Uttam Pradesh also filed an
Article 131 petition before the Supreme Court of Aryavart challenging, inter alia, the order dated
March 27, 2014 passed by the State of Samridh Pradesh. On the date of listing, the Court clubbed
both the petitions, and listed them for hearing on September 6, 2014.

xi
Arguments Presented

ARGUMENT PRESENTED

I. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY UNION OF ARYAVART IS


MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 131 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
II. WHETHER THE PANEL CONSTITUTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
CAN BE CONSIDERED AS INTER-STATE COUNCIL SET UP UNDER ARTICLE
263 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVART AND WHETHER THE STATES
ARE BOUND TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL(S) OF SUCH A COUNCIL?
III. WHETHER THE STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH AND STATE OF SAMRIDH
PRADESH FAILED TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO THE SETTLE THE
DISPUTE CONCERNING UPPCL?
IV. WHETHER IT IS LEGAL FOR THE STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH TO CHARGE
FOR THE WATER OF RIVER SARASWATI TO BE USED BY THE
HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT LOCATED IN OUDH?
V. WHETHER UPPCL, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE ARYAVART
COMPANIES ACT, FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE TERM
“UNDERTAKING” WHEN THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE
UTTAM PRADESH REORGANISATION ACT?
VI. WHETHER THE ORDER DATED MARCH 27, 2014 PASSED BY THE STATE OF
SAMRIDH PRADESH AND THE AMENDMENTS TO THE MEMORANDUM
AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF UPPCL, ARE IN VIOLATION OF
SECTION 23 AND/ OR SECTION 28 OF THE UTTAM PRADESH
REORGANISATION ACT, ARYAVART COMPANIES ACT AND/ OR ANY OTHER
LAW IN FORCE IN ARYAVART?
VII. WHETHER THE STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO
CLAIM OWNERSHIP OVER THE ASSETS OF UPPCL LOCATED WITHIN ITS
TERRITORY, INCLUDING THE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT LOCATED
IN ITS OUDH DISTRICT?

xii
Summary of Arguments

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. The suit filed by the Union of Aryavart is maintainable under Article 131 of the
Constitution.
There are two limitations in regard to the nature of the suit which can be entertained by the Supreme
Court under this Article. One is in regard to parties and the other is in regard to the subject matter. The
Plaintiff submits that no private party, citizen or a firm or a corporation along with a States or Union
of Aryavart has been impleaded in the suit either jointly or in the alternative. Hence, the limitation of a
dispute existing between Government of India (as repository of the executive power of the Union of
Aryavart) or one or more States arrayed on one side, as embodied under Article 131 is fulfilled.
The other limitation as to subject-matter under Article 131 flows from the words “if and in so far as
the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal
right depends.” The Plaintiff in the present case claims the assertion and vindication of its legal rights
Government to act as Parens Patriae of its citizens. The Union of Aryavart has standing to sue as
Parens Patriae as its quasi-sovereign interests are implicated and it is not merely a litigant as a
volunteer of the personal claims of the victims. The stoppage of power production and distribution
between states, under the authority of one of them, thereby putting the health and comfort of the
citizens of the other in jeopardy, presents a cause of action justiciable under the Constitution and
hence, sue as Parens Patriae.

II. The Panel constituted by the Central Government is not an Inter-State Council set up
under Article 263 of the Constitution of Aryavart and the recommendations made by the Panel
are binding in nature, as the same is not an Inter-State Council.

The President has powers under Article 263 of the Constitution of Aryavart to establish a Council,
where it appears to him that Public interest could be served. Paragraph 2 of the Presidential Order
states the composition of the Council. However, no reasonable inference can be drawn from the facts
on record as to the Composition of the Panel appointed by the Central Government. Procedure for
Conduct of Business of Inter-State Council requires formal reference to the Council, addressed to the
Secretary of the Council. However, in the instant case, the Central Government has appointed a new
Panel and no reference has been made to the Council, as is the requirement mentioned above.

The Plaintiff submits that the recommendations of the Panel appointed by the Central Government in
exercise of the executive power to the State Governments are binding in nature. This dispute between

xiii
Summary of Arguments

the two states lead to the worst power crisis Aryavart has ever seen with no power for industrial,
irrigation and household purposes, food reserves rotting in cold storages leading to an unprecedented
rise in food prices, the industrial production came to an all-time low and the prices of basic
commodities going beyond the reach of common man, giving rise to a huge financial crisis. Thus, it
implies that the two State Governments have failed to discharge the mandate of principles embodied
under Directive Principles of State Policy, and according to a possible view be construed as a failure
of its duties to carry out what the Constitution requires. Hence, the actions of the two States are
against the concept of welfare State writ large throughout the Constitution, especially Part IV. The
Plaintiff, therefore, submits that it is the duty of the Union to ensure that the Government of two States
is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution as required by Article 355 read with
Article 256 and 257 of the Constitution of Aryavart.

III. The State of Uttam Pradesh and State of Samridh Pradesh failed to take appropriate
steps to settle the dispute concerning UPPCL.

With respect to the facts mentioned, the Plaintiff submits that two states did not take appropriate steps
or positive steps to follow the mandate of Proviso to Section 23 in letter and spirit. Thus, their actions
are not in accordance with law made by the Parliament and are completely unwarranted and
impermissible under law.

IV. The State of Uttam Pradesh can legally charge for the water of river Saraswati to be
used by the Hydroelectric Power Plant located in Oudh.

The demand of the State of Uttam Pradesh for the charge for water of River Saraswati to be used by
the hydroelectric power plant at a reasonable rate comes within Entry 45 of List II. Entry 45 of List II
is the appropriate entry and is required to be broadly interpreted so as to bring back within the
legislative competence under Article 246 of the Constitution. The meaning of the word land under
Entry 45 List II should be held to include charge on water. However there being no legislative
enactment, the executive power of the State under Article 162 shall extend to the matters with respect
to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws read with Entry 45 List II. Hence, , the
demand for the charge of water of River Saraswati to be used by the Hydro-electric power plant at a
reasonable rate is legal as the State of UttamPradesh.
V. UPPCL, a company incorporated under the Aryavart Companies Act, falls
within the ambit of the term “undertaking” when the same has not been defined under
the Uttam Pradesh Reorganisation Act.

xiv
Summary of Arguments

The Plaintiff submits that the word “Undertaking” has not been defined in the Uttam Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, and therefore in order to gather the true import of the statute, reference has to be
made to the context and object and purpose of the legislative measure in question. The words when
not defined in a statute, when those words are clear, plain or unambiguous, it must be given plain
meaning and construed in popular sense as understood in common parlance. It has been observed by
the Apex Court that the undertaking may be either a ‘private undertaking’ or a ‘Government or public
sector undertaking’ including a statutory corporation. The word ‘undertaking’ should be read in
entirety with the words preceding and following it. The expression ‘undertaking’ means a separate
and distinct business or industrial activity and does not comprehend an infinitesimally small part of
manufacturing process, it is however the assets, rights and obligation of a going concern which
constitutes the undertaking.

VI. The order dated March 27, 2014 passed by the State of Samridh Pradesh and the
amendments to the memorandum and articles of association of UPPCL, are in violation
of section 23 and/ or section 28 of the Uttam Pradesh Reorganisation Act, Aryavart
companies act and other laws in force in Aryavart.
The petitioner humbly submits that the order passed by the state of Samridh Pradesh dated
March 27, 2014 is illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner submits that the order runs
contrary to the scheme of the reorganization act and by force of section 40 of the
reorganization act the order will be null and void. The petitioner respectfully submits that an
executive order in such a manner cannot create an exception to the scheme of the
reorganization act. The Reorganisation act being a central legislation cannot be avoided by
the executive order of a state when the central government has competence to pass legislation
and it has so done. The petitioner further submits that, the order issued by the Government of
Samridh Pradesh on March 27, is contrary to the scheme of Electricity Act and Electricity
supply act and if the order were to be kept in force it will run contrary to the scheme of these
two cardinal laws of Electric Power Sector regulatory Laws and such a situation would be
arbitrary and ultra vires the constitution. The petitioner humbly submits that the power to
issue the order of the nature of March 27 Order is not available to the state under article 162
of the constitution but rather it has to identify a source of power for the same and in absence
of any such explicit enabling provision under the scheme of reorganization act, the same
should have been done by a valid legislation and not mere executive order. The petitioner also
submits that when both the states of Samridh Pradesh and Uttam Pradesh have an active
interest in UPPCL state cannot unilateral undertake to do, even if were legally competent to
do so, anything which is prejudicial to the interest of other stakeholders without making
xv
Summary of Arguments

provision for their adequate compensation or honouring their interests. On these ground the
petitioner most respectfully submits to the honourable court that the March, 27 order issued
by the state of Samridh Pradesh be declared null and void.

VII. The State of Uttam Pradesh is legally entitled to claim ownership over the assets
of UPPCL located within its territory, including the hydroelectric power plant located in
its Oudh district.
The state of Uttam Pradesh is legally entitled to the assets of UPPCL located within its
territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner humbly submits that the ‘power generation’ facility of
UPPCL is severable from ‘power supply and transmission “facility of UPPCL and therefore,
the generation unit can stand independently as a part of UPPCL distinct from the supply or
transmission Lines. The petitioner also submits that since the hydroelectric plant is located
completely in Oudh district it falls within the definition of the term ‘exclusively located’ in
Section 23 of the reorganization Act. The petitioner also submits that local area means a
district but not a complete state. Therefore, the petitioner most respectfully submits to this
honorable Court that by virtue of Section 23 of the reorganization Act read with Section 40 of
the Act, The hydroelectric power plant should pass in control and ownership to the state of
Uttam Pradesh. The petitioner also acknowledges that supply and transmission infrastructure
and facility has become interstate and therefore, on a harmonious construction of the proviso
of section 23 of the reorganization act with the main part, the petitioner humbly proposes that
division of supply and transmission infrastructure of UPPCL should, as a matter of practical
solution, be divided amongst the states based on geographical location and demographics.
The petitioner further submits that the reorganization act has to be understood in light of the
objects of the act and specialty of circumstance and that the dispute before the honorable
court should be resolved in an equitable manner which is non prejudicial to the interests of
the state.

xvi
Arguments Advanced

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE SUIT FILED BY THE UNION OF ARYAVART IS MAINTAINABLE


UNDER ARTICLE 131 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The Plaintiff submits that Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, to
the exclusion of all other courts, in respect of certain categories of suits. 1 There are two
limitations in regard to the nature of the suit which can be entertained by the Supreme Court
under this Article. One is in regard to parties and the other is in regard to the subject matter.
Hence, the Plaintiff submits that to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under Article 131 of the Constitution, the above mentioned limitations should be observed.
This submission of the Plaintiff is two-fold:

1. The dispute must arise between the Government of India and one or more States,
between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more
other States on the other or between two or more states.
The Plaintiff submits that to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
Article 131 of the Constitution, a dispute must arise between the Government of India and
one or more States, between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and
one or more other States on the other or between two or more States. 2The Article is a
necessary concomitant of a federal or quasi-federal form of Government and is attracted only
when the parties to the dispute are the Government of India or one or more States arrayed on
one side.3It does not contemplate any private party being arrayed as a disputant on one side or
the other. The parties to the dispute must fall within one or the other category specified in
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 131.4A dispute which falls within the ambit of Article 131
can only be determined in the forum mentioned therein, namely, the Supreme Court of India,
provided there has not been impleaded in any said dispute any private party, be it a citizen or
a firm or a corporation along with a State either jointly or in the alternative. 5 A dispute in

1
State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592; HM Seervai, Contitution of India (4th edn, Universal
Law Publication Co P Ltd 1992).
2
Constitution of Aryavart 1950, art 131.
3
State of Karnataka v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 68: (1977) 4 SCC 608; Durga Das Basu, Commentary on
Constitution of India (8th edn, LexisNexis ButterworthsWadhwa Nagpur 2007) 5638.
4
State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592; HM Seervai (n 1).
5
Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd v State of Karnataka (2006) 1 SCC 442.

1
Arguments Advanced

which such a private party is involved must be brought before a court, other than this court,
having jurisdiction over the matter.6 This is the limitation as to parties.7

In the instant case, the Central Govt. is acting as the repository of the executive power of the
Union of Aryavart. It has filed a suit against the State of Uttam Pradesh and Samridh Pradesh
under Article 131 of the Constitution of Aryavart. The Plaintiff submits that no private party,
citizen or a firm or a corporation along with a States or Union has been impleaded in the suit
either jointly or in the alternative. Hence, the limitation of a dispute existing between
Government of India (as repository of the executive power of the Union of Aryavart) or one
or more States arrayed on one side, as embodied under Article 131 is fulfilled.

2. If and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on
which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
The Plaintiff submits that the other limitation as to subject-matter under Article 131 flows
from the words “if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact)
on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.” These words clearly indicate that
the dispute must be one relating to a legal right and not a dispute on the political plans, not
based on a legal right.8The object of Article 131 is to provide high-powered machinery for
ensuring that the Central Government and the State Government act within the respective
spheres of their authority and do not trespass upon each other’s constitutional functions or
powers.9 Hence, it is submitted that the constitutional capacity of the Plaintiff to act in an
intended manner is enough to attract the application of Article 131, particularly when the
defendant claims that right exclusively for itself. The dispute must, therefore, involve
assertion or vindication of a legal right of the Government of India or a State. Unless, the
plaintiff can establish that there is such a right in law, there would be no question of this
Court deciding any dispute regarding the extent or existence of such right under Article 131. 10
However, it is not necessary that the right must be a constitutional right. All that is necessary
is that it must be a legal right.11It is true that in the State of Bihar v. Union of India12 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while discussing the scope of the dispute which may be

6
ibid; State of Bihar v Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 67: (1970) 2 SCR 522.
7
State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592; State of Bihar v Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 67:
(1970) 2 SCR 52; MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (6th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur
2010).
8
State of Haryana v State of Punjab (2004) 12 SCC 692; State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592.
9
State of Karnataka v Union of India (1977) 4 SCC 608, 691; HM Seervai (n 1).
10
State of Haryana v State of Punjab (2004) 12 SCC 692.
11
State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592.
12
(1970) 1 SCC 67: (1970) 2 SCR 522.

2
Arguments Advanced

determined by the Supreme Court under Article 131, the Hon’ble Court made an observation
that “this much is certain that the legal right which is the subject of dispute must arise in the
context of the Constitution and the federalism it sets up.” But this observation, in so far as it
suggests that the legal right must be one which arises under the Constitution, goes much
further than what the language of Article 131 warrants.13 The Article speaks only of ‘legal
right’ and does not qualify it by any other words. However, in the instant case, the legal right
which is the subject of dispute has arisen in the context of the Constitution and the
Federalism it sets up.

The Plaintiff in the present case claims the assertion and vindication of its legal rights
Government to act as Parens Patriae of its citizens.

A. The Legal Right in question is the Right of the Union of Aryavart to act as Parens
Patriae of its Citizens for the protection of the General Health, Comfort, and Welfare of the
inhabitants of two States.
The Plaintiff submits that the legal right of the Central Government to intervene in the
dispute between the States of Uttam Pradesh and Samridh Pradesh is in recognition of the
right of the sovereign to act as Parens Patriae. This prerogative of Parens Patriae is inherent
in the supreme power of every state, whether that power is lodged in a royal person, or in the
legislature, and is a most beneficent function……often necessary to be exercised in the
interests of humanity, and for the prevention of injury to those who cannot protect
themselves.14 Conceptually, Parens Patriae theory is the obligation of the State to protect and
take into custody the rights and privileges of its citizens for discharging its obligations. 15 Our
Constitution makes it imperative for the State to secure to all its citizens the rights guaranteed
by the Constitution and where the citizens are not in a position to assert and secure their
rights, the State must come into picture and protect and fight for the right of the citizens. 16
The Preamble to the Constitution, read with the Directive Principles contained in Articles 38,
39 and 39A enjoins the State to take up these responsibilities. The concept of welfare State is
a facet of Article 38 of the Constitution of India. It is obligation of the State to see that the
welfare of the people is appositely promoted.17 It is the protective measure to which the social
welfare state is committed. It is necessary for the State to ensure the fundamental rights in

13
State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592.
14
Mormon Church v United States 136 US 1.
15
Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613.
16
ibid.
17
G Sundarrajan v Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 620.

3
Arguments Advanced

conjunction with the Directive Principles of State Policy to effectively discharge its
obligation and for this purpose, if necessary, to deprive some rights and privileges of the
individual victims or their heirs to protect their rights better and secure these further.18

The Supreme Court of United States has recognized the legitimacy of Parens Patriae suits.19
The Court has observed that the State has standing to sue only when its sovereign or quasi-
sovereign interests are implicated and it is not merely a litigant as a volunteer of the personal
claims of the victims.20If the State is only a nominal party without a real interest of its own,
then it will not have standing under the Parens Patriae doctrine.21It is submitted that the
quasi-sovereign interests of the State consist of a set of interests that the State has in the well-
being of its populace.22 The characteristics of a quasi-sovereign interest can lie in the health
and well-being- both physical and economic of its resident in general.23

This Court's acceptance of the notion of Parens Patriae suits is established in a series of
cases including Missouri v. Illinois24, holding that Missouri was permitted to sue Illinois and a
Chicago sanitation district on behalf of Missouri citizens to enjoin the discharge of sewage
into the Mississippi River; Kansas v. Colorado,25 holding that Kansas was permitted to sue as
Parens Patriae to enjoin the diversion of water from an interstate stream; Georgia v.
Tennessee Copper Co.,26 holding that Georgia was entitled to sue to enjoin fumes from a
copper plant across the state border from injuring land in five Georgia counties; People of
State of New York v. New Jersey,27 holding that New York could sue to enjoin the discharge of
sewage into the New York harbor; Pennsylvania v. West Virginia,28 holding that Pennsylvania
might sue to enjoin restraints on the commercial flow of natural gas; and North Dakota v.
Minnesota,29 holding that Minnesota could sue to enjoin changes in drainage which increase
the flow of water in an interstate stream. These cases establish the right of a State to sue as
Parens Patriae to prevent or repair harm to its 'quasi-sovereign' interests. They deal primarily

18
Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613.
19
Hawaii v Standard Oil Company 405 US 25; Louisiana v Texas 176 US 1: 44 L Ed 347.
20
Pennsylvania v New Jersey 426 US 660.
21
Oklahoma ex rel Johnson v Cook 304 US 387; Oklahoma v Atchinson T& SFR Company 220 US 277.
22
Alfred L Snapp & Son v Puerto Rico 458 US 592: 73 L Ed 2d 995.
23
ibid.
24
Missouri v Illinois180 US 208: 45 L Ed 497.
25
Kansas v Colorado 206 US 46: 51 L Ed 956.
26
Georgia v Tennessee Copper Co 206 US 230: 51 L Ed 1038.
27
State of New York v New Jersey 256 US 296: 65 L Ed 937.
28
Pennsylvania v West Virginia 262 US 553:67 L Ed 1117.
29
North Dakota v Minnesota 263 US 365: 68 L Ed 342.

4
Arguments Advanced

with original suits brought directly in this Court pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the Constitution
of United States of America under common-law rights of action.

In the instant case, the dispute concerning UPPCL between the States of Uttam Pradesh and
Samridh Pradesh resulted in the worst power crisis Aryavart has ever seen. 30 There was no
power for industrial, irrigation and household purposes. Food reserves were rotting in cold
storages leading to an unprecedented rise in food prices. Hence, the health, comfort and
welfare of the residents of two states are threatened by the stoppage of power production and
distribution in both States. This is matter of grave public concern, in which the Central
Government as the representative of the public has an interest apart from the individuals
affected. It is not merely a remote and ethical interest but one which is recognized by law. It
is further submitted that the industrial production came to an all-time low and the prices of
basic commodities went beyond the reach of the man 31, thereby, hampering the economic
prosperity of the two States. Hence, the power crisis has caused substantial impairment of the
health and prosperity of the towns and cities of the state situated in the two States, including
its commercial metropolis which would injuriously affect the entire state.

In light of the above submissions the mere fact that a Central Government or Union of
Aryavart had no sovereign or proprietary interest in the controversy would not defeat the
original jurisdiction of this Court, which might be invoked by the Central Government as
Parens Patriae, trustee, guardian, or representative of all or a considerable portion of its
citizens. The stoppage of power production and distribution between states, under the
authority of one of them, thereby putting the health and comfort of the citizens of the other in
jeopardy, presents a cause of action justiciable under the Constitution.

II. THE PANEL CONSTITUTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT AN


INTER-STATE COUNCIL SET UP UNDER ARTICLE 263 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
ARYAVART AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PANEL ARE BINDING
IN NATURE, AS THE SAME IS NOT AN INTER-STATE COUNCIL.
The Plaintiff submits that the President has powers under Article 263 of the Constitution of
Aryavart to establish a Council, where it appears to him that Public interest could be served.
On the recommendation of Sarkaria Commission for establishing a permanent Inter-State
Council, the Council was set-up under Article 263 of the Constitution of India vide

30
Moot Problem [7].
31
ibid.

5
Arguments Advanced

Presidential Order (hereinafter referred to as the Presidential Order) dated 28.5.1990. 32


Paragraph 2 of the Presidential Order states the composition of the Council. However, no
reasonable inference can be drawn from the facts on record as to the Composition of the
Panel appointed by the Central Government. It is further submitted that the Procedure for
Conduct of Business of Inter-State Council are made in pursuance of clause (f) of Paragraph
5 of the Inter-State Council Order, 1990 which lays down the procedure to be observed by it
in the Conduct of business. Paragraph 1 of the Procedure for Conduct of Business of Inter-
State Council requires formal reference to the Council, addressed to the Secretary of the
Council by the Central Government or by Government of the two States to the Secretary of
the Council, if any matter is sought up before the Council. However, in the instant case, the
Central Government has appointed a new Panel and no reference has been made to the
Council, as is the requirement mentioned above.

The Plaintiff further submits that Guidelines for Identifying and Selecting Issues are made in
pursuance of clause (f) of Paragraph 5 of the Inter-State Council Order, 1990 for identifying
and selecting issues to be brought up before the Council. Paragraph 3 of Guidelines for
Identifying and Selecting Issues lays down the issues that may not be brought up before the
Council, on grounds of expediency. Clause (i) mentions that any issue which can be resolved
by discussion at the official level or at the level of the minsters between the Central
Government and the State Governments concerned. In the present case, the dispute between
the two States concerning UPPCL could have been resolved by mutual agreement
accordingly, by requesting the Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of Aryavart to
convene a meeting of the Chief Secretaries of the States of Uttam Pradesh and Samridh
Pradesh and also the Chairman of the Power Finance Corporation of Aryavart to facilitate
them to arrive at the mutual agreement. Hence, the Panel appointed by the Central
Government to resolve the dispute is not an Inter-State Council within the meaning of Article
263 of the Constitution of Aryavart and the recommendations made by the Panel are binding
in nature for the reasons set out below.

Notwithstanding the submission of the Plaintiff with respect to the Inter-State Council, the
Plaintiff submits that the recommendations of the Panel appointed by the Central Government
in exercise of the executive power to the State Governments are binding in nature. Articles
256 and 257 mention a wide range of subjects on which the Union Government may give
executive directions to State Governments. Article 73(1) (a) of the Constitution tells us that
32
Inter-State Council Order 1990.

6
Arguments Advanced

the Executive power of the Union extends to all matters on which “Parliament has power to
make laws.”33 Article 3 and 4 of the Constitution, vests exclusively in the Parliament of
making law with respect to formation of new States, alteration of new areas, boundaries or
names of existing States. Article 256 of the Constitution covers cases where the President
may want to give directions in exercise of the executive power of the Union to a State
Government in relation to a matter covered by an existing law (i.e. no provision for the
Intervention of Central Government) made by Parliament which applies to that State. But,
article 257(1) imposes a wider obligation upon a State to exercise its powers in such a way as
not to impede the exercise of executive power of the Union which, as would appear from
Article 73 of the Constitution,34 read with Article 3 and 4 may cover even a situation on
which there is no existing law but on which some legislation by Parliament is possible. It
could, therefore, be argued that although the Constitution or the Uttam Pradesh
Reorganization Act, 2014 does not lay down specifically when the power of intervention
should be exercised by the President on the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers, in case
of an impasse between the two States on the question of division of assets and liabilities, yet
if a direction on that matter was properly given by the Union Government to a State
Government, there is a duty to carry it out. The power of intervention of the Central
Government is not covered by any specific provision of the Act, 2014. It is possible, however,
for the Union Government, in exercise of its residuary executive powers to consider it a fit
subject for the issue of an appropriate direction when it considers that the political situation in
the country is such that dispute resolution is necessary in the interest of general public to
establish the confidence of the people in the Government of the State.

In the instant case, the States of Samridh Pradesh and Uttam Pradesh have failed to discharge
their obligation to ensure compliance with the Uttam Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 and
thereafter, refusing the recommendations made by the Central Government appointed Panel
in accordance with Section 23 of the Uttam Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. This dispute
between the two states lead to the worst power crisis, Aryavart has ever seen with no power
for industrial, irrigation and household purposes, food reserves rotting in cold storages
leading to an unprecedented rise in food prices, the industrial production came to an all-time
low and the prices of basic commodities going beyond the reach of common man 35, giving
rise to a huge financial crisis. Thus, it implies that the two State Governments have failed to

33
State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 572.
34
ibid.
35
Moot Problem [7].

7
Arguments Advanced

discharge the mandate of principles embodied under Directive Principles of State Policy, and
according to a possible view be construed as a failure of its duties to carry out what the
Constitution requires. Hence, the actions of the two States are against the concept of welfare
State writ large throughout the Constitution, especially Part IV. The Plaintiff, therefore,
submits that it is the duty of the Union to ensure that the Government of two States is carried
on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution as required by Article 355 of the
Constitution of Aryavart.

In conclusion, the Plaintiff submits that the Panel appointed by the Central Government is not
an Inter-State Council and the recommendations made by the Panel, for reasons mentioned
above are binding in nature.

III. THE STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH AND STATE OF SAMRIDH PRADESH


FAILED TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE
CONCERNING UPPCL
It is vehemently contended that the dispute concerning UPPCL resulted in the worst power
crisis Aryavart had ever seen. In consequence of the emergence of the dispute between the
two States, the Central Government on 14th April 2014 appointed a Panel to resolve the
dispute between the two States to put an end to the crisis. It gave several proposals to both
the States to reach an amicable solution in accordance with Section 23 of the Act. On 12 th
May 2014, the panel proposed a settlement to the two States.36 However, the Chief Minister
of Uttam Pradesh conditionally accepted the proposal of the Panel and made certain demands
in pursuance, thereof. To the contrary, the Chief Minister of Samridh Pradesh rejected the two
demands of the Chief Minister of Uttam Pradesh. He also rejected the proposed settlement of
the Panel dated 12th May 2014. Thereafter, the Central Government proposed a few more
proposals to the States in dispute. But the two states refused to yield.

With respect to the facts mentioned, the Plaintiff submits that two states did not take
appropriate steps or positive steps to follow the mandate of Proviso to Section 23 in letter and
spirit. Thus, their actions are not in accordance with law made by the Parliament and are
completely unwarranted and impermissible under law.

36
Moot Problem [10].

8
Arguments Advanced

IV. THE STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH CAN LEGALLY CHARGE FOR THE
WATER OF RIVER SARASWATI TO BE USED BY THE HYDROELECTRIC
POWER PLANT LOCATED IN OUDH.

The Plaintiff submits that the State of Uttam Pradesh can legally charge for the water of river
Saraswati to be used by the Hydroelectric Power Plant located in Oudh.

The demand of the State of Uttam Pradesh for the charge for water of River Saraswati to be used by
the hydroelectric power plant at a reasonable rate comes within Entry 45 of List II. List II Entries,
namely, Entries 18, 45 and 49 are to be read with reference to the use to which land and water are put.
Water is nothing but integral part of land; without land, water does not exist. Entry 45 of List II is the
appropriate entry and is required to be broadly interpreted so as to bring back within the legislative
competence under Article 246 of the Constitution. However, there is no legislative enactment by the
State in exercise of powers under Article 246 to charge for water. The Plaintiff therefore, submits that
the executive power of the State under Article 162 shall extend to the matters with respect to which
the legislature of the State has power to make laws. To support this contention, it submitted that it is
well settled proposition that executive power of the State is co-extensive with the legislative power of
the State legislature.37Therefore, the State of Uttam Pradesh, in exercise of its executive powers can
collect charges for the use of water.

It is in this context, the Plaintiff submits that a conjoint reading of respective entries would indicate
that the land revenue including the assessment and collection of revenue, the maintenance of land
records, survey for revenue purposes and records of rights, and alienation of revenue lie under the
broad-head 'land revenue' and should be held to include charge on water. In Province of Madras v
Lady of Dolours Convent, Trichinopoly, represented by Mother Superior & Ors38 the word 'land' was
interpreted to include land cess, in Kandukuri Bala Suryaprasada Raw & Anr. v. Secretary to State for
India39the Privy Council had also interpreted "charge" on water in the nature of land cess. Similarly,
water cess is land revenue as was held in K.S. Ardanareeswarar Gounder v. Tahsildar, Bhavani
&Anr.40 With regard to the incidence of cess on the use of water in the urban area, the Division Bench
of the Andhra Pradesh High court in Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. v. City Municipality Bodhan & Anr. 41,

37
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd v State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 557; Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v State of
Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 39; Bajaj Hindustan Ltd v Sir Shadi Lal Enterprise (2011) 1 SCC 640; Satya
Narain Shukla v Union of India AIR 2006 SC 2511.
38
Province of Madras v Lady of Dolours Convent, Trichinopoly, represented by Mother Superior & Ors AIR 1942 Mad 719.
39
Kandukuri Bala Suryaprasada Raw & Anr v Secretary to State for India AIR 1971 PC 42.
40
KS Ardanareeswarar Gounder v Tahsildar, Bhavani & Anr AIR 1976 Mad 318, 320.
41
Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. v City Municipality Bodhan & Anr AIR 1965 AP 91.

9
Arguments Advanced

held that it is land revenue under Entry 49. Thus, we hold that the legislative Entry 45 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution brings within the ambit power of the legislature under Article
246 to levy cess on use of the water even from flowing river. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in M/S Rekhchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd v State of Maharashtra42, the Court
while dealing with a person using the water for industrial purpose and using the water by
artificial contrivance, drawing water from the flowing river, held that the levy of cess stands
vested in the state therefore, the state has power to regulate the payment of cess by virtue of
legislative competence in Entry 45 in List II, by interpreting the word ‘land’ to include
‘water’.

In the instant case, the demand for the charge of water of River Saraswati to be used by the Hydro-
electric power plant at a reasonable rate is legal as the State of Uttam Pradesh, in exercise of its
executive powers under Article 162 read with Entry 45 List II can charge for the use of water.

V. THAT UPPCL, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE ARYAVART


COMPANIES ACT, FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE TERM
“UNDERTAKING” WHEN THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE
REORGANISATION ACT
The Plaintiff submits that the word “Undertaking” has not been defined in the Uttam Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, and therefore in order to gather the true import of the statute, reference
has to be made to the context and object and purpose of the legislative measure in question. 43
When a word is not been defined in a statute, for finding the intention of the legislature resort
has to be made to dictionaries and judicial interpretation of the word as used in other statutes.

1. When Meaning of a word not defined is Plain, it must be given effect irrespective
of the Consequences
The Plaintiff submits that, when a word is not defined in a statute and when those words are
clear, plain or unambiguous44, it must be given plain meaning and construed in popular sense
as understood in common parlance. 45 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Hotels
Co Ltd v ITO observed that the word ‘Industrial undertaking’, has to be understood as per
common parlance language.46

42
M/S Rekhchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd v State of Maharashtra (1997) 6 SCC 12.
43
Piara Singh and Ors v The State AIR 1960 P&H 538.
44
State of Jharkhand v Govind Singh (2005) 10 SCC 437.
45
S Samuel, Harrisons Malyalam v Union of India (2004) 1 SCC 256; Ramabai v Dinesh 1976 Mah LJ 565.
46
Indian Hotels Co Ltd v ITO AIR 2000 SC 2645; Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd v Pollution Control
Board (1990) 2 KLT 924.

10
Arguments Advanced

In Webster's New International Dictionary "undertaking" has been assigned the meaning:

"The act of one who undertakes or engages in a project or business; the business of an
undertaker: a business, work, or project which one engages in or attempts".47

In Words and Phrases legally defined, "Undertaking’ has been defined as:

It includes any trade, business or profession and, in relation to a public or local authority,
includes any of the powers or duties of that authority, and, in relation to any other body of
persons, whether corporate or unincorporated, includes any of the activities of that body".48

In the Capital Cities case, the Supreme Court of Canada observed that "Undertaking" is not a
physical thing but is an arrangement under which of course physical things are used. 49 An
"undertaking" is an intangible "arrangement" or "organization" or "enterprise".50

It is thus observed by the Court that the word “undertaking” wherever it occurs in the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unless a specific meaning is given to that term by that particular
provision51, is to be understood in its ordinary meaning and sense, 52 connoting thereby any
work, enterprise, project or business undertaking.53 Undertaking is a concept narrower than
industry. An undertaking may be a part of the whole, that is, the industry. It carries a restricted
meaning54 and a wide meaning & liberal approach is warranted for the advancement of the
object and purpose of the legislation.55

In case Mor Modern Cooperative Transport Society Limited v Financial Commissioner and
Secretary to Government of Haryana, the court applying the dictionary meaning of the word
‘undertaking’ held that it is abundantly clear that the undertaking may be either a ‘private
undertaking’ or a ‘Government or public sector undertaking’56 including a statutory

47
Gove Philip Babcock, Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (3rd edn,
Merriam-Webster 2002).
48
JB Saunders and SR Burrows, Words and Phrases Legally Defined (Butterworth 2006).
49
Capital Cities Communication Inc v Canada (Canadian Radio-Television & telecommunications Commission) [1978] 2
SCR 141.
50
Peter W Hogg, Constitutional law of Canada (5th edn, Thomson Carswell 2007) 22; P Ramanatha Aiyar, The Law
Lexicon (2nd edn, Wadhwa & Co Nagpur 1997).
51
Industrial Dispute Act 1947.
52
SG Chemicals & Dyes Trading Employees' Union v SG Chemicals & Dyes Trading Ltd (1986) 2 SCC 624.
53
Hindustan Steel Ltd v Workmen (1973) 3 SCC 564.
54
SM Nilajkar v Telecom District Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27.
55
Workmenn of Indian Standards Institution v Management of Indian Standards Institution (1975) 2 SCC 847.
56
Leelabai Gajanan Pansare & Ors v Oriental Insurance Company & Ors (2008) 9 SCC 720.

11
Arguments Advanced

corporation. Therefore, a State undertaking such as Haryana Roadways is within the


contemplation of sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act.57

Thus it is humbly submitted that, the Court is entitled to put recourse on the dictionary
meaning58 and therefore the word ‘Undertaking’ has to be construed in wider sense and can
be inferred as an enterprise analogous to trade and business or can even be interpreted as a
public sector undertaking in the present case.

2. ‘Undertaking’ as interpreted under different Legislations in furtherance of the


Object and Purpose of the Statute
The Plaintiff submits that, since there exist different meaning of an expression, the same has
to construe with reference to the subject and the context 59 wherein it appears.60 The meaning
of the word 'undertaking' has to be understood in this background and context 61; it can be
used in its economic sense and in its wider connotation. It is an expression of flexible
semantics and variable connotation.62 The word ‘undertaking’ must be defined as ‘any
business or any work or project which one engages in or attempts as an enterprise analogous
to business or trade63, and which can be owned and transferred.64 The Hon’ble court in case of
Central Inland water Transport Corp. Ltd v Workmen, 65 observed that the word
“establishment” may consist of different departments or undertakings. “Establishment”
means the whole trading, business or manufacturing apparatus with a separate identifiable
existence. This apparatus which is used for the purpose of carrying on trade, business or
undertaking may change hands and pass from one owner to another. When the ownership of
the establishment, which is nothing but another name for this apparatus, is transferred from
one person to another, the establishment remains the same: merely its ownership is changed
and it cannot be said to be a new establishment in the hands of the transferee.

57
Mor Modern Cooperative Transport Society Ltd v Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of
Haryana (2002) 6 SCC 269.
58
Karnani Properties Ltd v Augustine AIR 1957 SC 309.
59
Terai Overseas Ltd v Commissioner of Customs, Custom House (2001) 3 CHN 352.
60
Baldev Singh Gandhi v State of Punjab (2002) 3 SCC 667.
61
Vishnu Dayal Jhunjhunwala & Anr v Union of India & Ors 1984 Supp SCC 118.
62
Carew & Co Ltd v Union of India (1975) 2 SCC 791.
63
RC Cooper v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 564, 630; Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union v
Management of Gymkhana Club AIR 1968 SC 54; Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v A Rajappa
(1978) 2 SCC 213; CDS Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd v BPL Communications Ltd (2004) 121 Comp Cas
374 Bom.
64
National Union of Commercial Employees v MR Meher AIR 1960 Bom 22, 24.
65
Central Inland water Transport Corp Ltd v Workmen (1975) 4 SCC 348.

12
Arguments Advanced

The expression ‘undertaking’ means a separate and distinct business66 or industrial activity
and does not comprehend an small part of manufacturing process 67, it is however the assets,
rights and obligation of a going concern which constitutes the undertaking.68

The Plaintiff submits that a word not defined should be read in conjunction with words
preceding or following it69, therefore “the meaning of a word is to be judged by the company
it keeps”.70 In the present case, the word ‘undertaking’ should be read in entirety with the
words preceding it i.e. ‘Commercial’ or ‘Industrial’. Construing the words “industrial
undertaking” occurring in S. 54D of the Income-tax Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in P. Alikunju v. Commissioner of Income-tax71 stated thus:

Words used in a statute dealing with matters relating to the general public are presumed to
have been used in their popular rather than their narrow, legal or technical sense. An
undertaking mentioned in Section 54D must be one maintained by a person for the purpose of
carrying on his business. “Undertaking” for the purpose of this section, however, must be an
“industrial undertaking”. The demonstrative adjective “industrial” qualify the word
“undertaking” unmistakably and with precision shows that the undertaking must be one
which partakes of the character of a business”72.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chhattisgarh SEB v. Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission observed that, words when not defined, deserves to be interpreted by applying
the rule of contextual interpretation and keeping in view the language of the relevant
provision73. It is further submitted that the interpretation of the provisions of a statute should
confirm to the legislative intent as far as possible and provisions have to be considered in
light of the object and purpose of the act 74, the courts should not take a narrow or restricted
view which will defeat the purpose of the act. 75 An ambiguous word should be given an

66
Loknath Misra v State of Orissa AIR 1952 Ori 42.
67
AS Production Agencies v Industrial Tribunal, Haryana AIR 1979 SC 170.
68
DP Mittal, Taxmann’s Law Dictionary (Taxmann 2007).
69
Kerela State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd v CIT (1998) 5 SCC 48.
70
Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd v CCE (1990) 3 SCC 447.
71
P Alikunju v Commissioner of Income-tax 166 ITR 804.
72
Commissioner of IT v Bhageeratha Eng Ltd 1991 SCC OnLine Ker 417.
73
Chhattisgarh SEB v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 5 SCC 23.
74
Union of India v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (2008) 7 SCC 502.
75
Vatan Mal v Kailash Nath (1989) 3 SCC 79.

13
Arguments Advanced

interpretation which subserves the object 76 and purpose77 of the legislation, but, a word of
definite and clear meaning should be interpreted irrespective of consequences.78

It is thereby humbly submitted that as far as the object and purpose of this statute are
concerned, the word ‘Undertaking’ would be inclined to place on a broader rather than a
narrower construction.

VI. THAT THE ORDER DATED MARCH 27, 2014 PASED BY THE STATE OF
SAMRIDH PRADESH IS VIOLATIVE OF THE SCHEME OF REORGANISATION
ACT, ELECTRICITY SUPLLY ACT, AND THE CONSTITUTION

1. That the Order violated the scheme of the Reorganisation Act


The Plaintiff humbly submits that the order issued by the State of Samridh Pradesh is ultra
vires the RO Act and thus, void.79 The RO Act expressly provides for a scheme of
‘distribution of assets’ between the successors states based on mechanism provided in the
Act. The March 27, order violates and undermines the scheme laid down in the Act. Thus, the
Plaintiff submits that the order be declared null and void under Section 40 of the RO Act.

The Plaintiff submits that the RO Act being a central legislation and having expressly
provided for overriding effect to the scheme of the act over any other law, the order issued by
State of U.P. shall be declared void for being repugnant to the scheme of RO Act. A state Law
is subject to central law80. A state law will be repugnant to union law when there is a direct
conflict between the two laws,81 or where both laws operate in the same field and two
possibly cannot stand together.82 There is a direct conflict between the Reorganisation Act, a
central legislation, and the Order issued by Govt. of S.P. and thus the latter is void. 83 The
Plaintiff humbly submits that the order dated March 27, 2014 issued by Government of
Samridh Pradesh be declared null and void.

76
Kanan v Tamil Tahlir Kalv Kazhagam (1998) 5 SCC 21.
77
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd v Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1.
78
Snehadeep Structures (P) Ltd v Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd (2010) 3
SCC 34.
79
Uttam Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014.
80
Vijay Kumar v State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 562; Gauri Shankar Gaur v State of UP (1994) 1 SCC 92.
81
Banatwala & Co v LIC (2011) 13 SCC 446.
82
T Barai v Henry Ah Hoe (1983) 1 SCC 177.
83
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v State of UP (2013) 2 SCC 617; Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman
Sheikh v State of Maharashtra (2010) 5 SCC 246; Girnar Traders v State of Maharashtra (2011) 3 SCC 1.

14
Arguments Advanced

2. That the Order is arbitrary and violated the scheme of Electricity Act, 2003 and
Electricity (Supply) Act 1948
The Plaintiff submits that the Electricity act 84 and Electricity supply Act 85 exclusively define
‘appropriate government’ and ‘competent government’ respectively for the purposes of the
generating company. The supply act defines the appropriate government as a government of
the state where generating plant is located. The Plaintiff humbly submits that if March 27
order of the state of Samridh Pradesh was held to be valid, then it will lead to an arbitrary
situation, in violation of section 23 of Reorganisation Act, which makes UPPCL an
undertaking of state of Samridh Pradesh but the competent government in reference to
UPPCL as under the scheme of Electricity supply act shall be The Government of Uttam
Pradesh. The generating company needs to work under permission and supervision of the
‘competent government’ and thus, the competent government always maintains a control over
functioning of the company. State action which defeats any constitutional mandate is
arbitrary and violative86 the Plaintiff humbly submits that the court should strike down the
order for being void and arbitrary87 and arbitrary exercise of legislative power.88

3. That the Order dated March 27, 2014 issued by Government of Samridh
Pradesh, is ultra vires the constitution

A. That the Govt. Of S.P. lacked authority to pass March 27, Order.
Plaintiff submits that the State Executive has powers flowing from the constitution to issue
executive orders and that march 27, order of the Government of S.P. is an executive order. 89
But the power to issue executive order extend to those fields where the state has competence
to make laws90 Thus, the Plaintiff submits that if the state of S.P. could not have made a law
purporting to do what the order tries to, then the order itself is void. The Supreme Court of
India has unequivocally laid down that Article 162 cannot be invoked by the state as a ‘source
of power ’to pass an executive order since the source of power to issue appropriate order
must be traced to a statute itself. 91Thus the S.P. order needs to locate the precise point in the

84
Electricity Act 2003.
85
Electricity (Supply) Act 1948.
86
Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka AIR 1992 SC 1858.
87
Biswambar Singh v State of Orissa AIR 1954 SC 139; Praven Singh v State of Punjab (2008) 8 SCC 633;
Om Prakash Sharma v State of UP AIR 1991 SC 425.
88
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co Ltd v Bombay Environmental Action Group (2006) 3 SCC 434.
89
Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549.
90
Ambresh Kumar v Principal LLRM College AIR 1987 SC 400; T Barai v Hnry Ah Hoe AIR 1983 SC 150;
Vijay Kumar Sharma v State of Karnataka AIR 1990 SC 2072.
91
A Uma Rani v Coop Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112.

15
Arguments Advanced

scheme of Reorganization Act, or any other statute from where the power to issue March 27
order necessary flows. In case it does not flow from Reorganization Act for the act is silent on
such a point, then the State of Samridh Pradesh cannot pass an executive order unless a
statute empowering the State of Uttam Pradesh to do so is in force.

The Plaintiff humbly submits that if no such provision in Law exists which is the source of
power to issue March 27 order of govt. of S.P., then the Govt. of S.P could have done the
desideratum by way of a legislation and not mere executive order. The Supreme court has
pointed out that ‘Article 162 of the Constitution does not confer any authority on the State
government to issue statutory rules .It only provides for the extent and scope of executive
power of the state government, and that coincides with the legislative powers of the state. The
government can pass executive instructions but for them to have force of statutory rules it is
necessary to show that they flow from authority conferred upon state government under some
statute or under some provision of constitution providing there for.92

B. That, Order dated March 27, passed by Govt. of S.P. is arbitrary exercise of Executive power
IN ARGUENDO TO 3.1 above, the Plaintiff humbly submits that even if it were to be
assumed for a moment that the govt. of S.P. did have competence to issue March 27 order, it
would still be void as it is arbitrary exercise of executive power and the unconstitutional.

The State of U.P. and the State of S.P. have an active interest in UPPCL, undertaking of
erstwhile State of U.P. In such a situation, the Plaintiff humbly submits that, the Govt. of S.P.
cannot pass executive order which is prejudicial to the interest of the state of U.P. The
Plaintiff humbly submits that when multiple states have common interest over the same
object, entity etc, one state cannot use such object, entity to the prejudice of the interest of the
other state. Thus, such an order suffers from the vice of arbitrary exercise of executive power
and is thus unconstitutional.93 Executive orders cease to have efficacy if they violate the
constitution or any other statute.94Thus, the Plaintiff humbly submits to this Hon’ble Court
that, in exercise of its competent jurisdiction the Court shall quash the order dated March 27,
2014 issued by Government of S.P. and declare the order to be void and unconstitutional.

92
G I Fernandez v State of Mysore AIR 1967 SC 1753.
93
Cf R R Dalavai v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 1559; Pradip Kumar Maitey v Chinmoy Bhunia (2013) 11
SCC 122; Hindustan Times v State of UP (2003) 1 SCC 591; Sharma Transport v Govt of AP (2002) 2 SCC 188
[25]; Khoday Distilleries Ltd v State of Karnataka (1996) 10 SCC 304; Otis Elevator Employees' Union S Reg v
Union of India (2003) 12 SCC 68.
94
Pradip Kumar Maitey v Chinmoy Bhunia (2013) 11 SCC 122.

16
Arguments Advanced

VII. THAT THE STATE OF U.P. IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP


OVER THE ASSETS OF UPPCL IN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
The Plaintiff humbly submits that the State of U.P. is legally entitled to all the assets of
UPPCL located in its territory, including the hydroelectric power plant located in its Oudh
district. The Plaintiff, humbly, makes following submissions in that regard:

1. That Power Generation part of UPPCL is exclusively located in Oudh, U.P. and
therefore Section 23 of the Reorganisation Act is applicable.

A. That Generation of Electricity is different from Supply of Electricity


The Plaintiff submits that the HEP located in the Oudh District of Uttam Pradesh constitutes a
severable part of operations of UPPCL. The SC has stated that electricity generation is more
of a process having its own economics95. The SC has also distinguished ‘supply’ to mean ‘any
means used to convey, transmit or distribute electricity. 96 The HEP falls within the definition
of generating station as provided in the Electricity Supply act 97 and Electricity Act98.
Furthermore, The Act itself defines the scope of the term ‘generate’ 99 and thus, any reference
to’ generation of electricity’ must be understood in that context. 100 Court have described the
101
production or manufacture of electricity as use or change of a non living physical object
article or thing to create a new distinct object article or thing.102 Courts have also explained
that ‘production’ is a wider activity than ‘manufacture’ such that all manufacture amounts to
production103. Thus, it can be concluded that the power ‘generation’ functions of UPPCL are
distinct from power ‘supply’ functions.104

B: That Local Area means a particular region within the State but not the Complete State

The Plaintiff submits that the term ‘Local area’ appearing in the scheme of Reorganization
Act should be given same meaning throughout until it is repugnant to the context or doing so
leads to absurdity. It is a well-established rule of statutory interpretation that the legislature
95
Maruti Suzuki Ltd v CCE (2009) 9 SCC 193.
96
Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co Ltd v UP electricity Board AIR 1973 SC 683.
97
Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, s 2(5).
98
Electricity Act 2003, s 2(30).
99
Electricity Act 2003, s 2(29).
100
P Kasillingam v PSG College of Technology AIR 1995 SC 1395; Bharat Coop Bank (Mumbai) Ltd v
Employees Union (2007) 4 SCC 685; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn Ltd v Presiding
Officer, Labour Court (1990) 3 SCC 682.
101
Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 594.
102
Municipal Council v Vraj Lal Mani Lal & Co AIR 1982 SC 844.
103
ITO v Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd (2010) 2 SCC 699; Devi Das Gopal Krishnan v State of Punjab.
AIR 1967 SC 1895; CCE v Rajasthan State Chemicals Mills AIR 1991 SC 2222.
104
Southern Petrochemical Industries Ltd v Electricity Inspector AIR 2007 SC 1984.

17
Arguments Advanced

does not use unnecessary words. It is also a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that
words must be given their plain meaning first in the hierarchy of interpretation. The Supreme
Court of India has held in relation to the scheme of constitution that ‘local area is any area
administered by a local body, and does not comprehend entire state as the use of word ‘a’
before the phrase ‘local area’ is significant and thus refers to a local area within the state. 105 In
another case106 the court held that local area means a district.

Thus, the Plaintiff submits that the hydroelectric power plant is situated in the local area of
Oudh District in the territorial jurisdiction of the state of Uttam Pradesh.

C: That generating unit of UPPCL is exclusively located in U.P.

It is a well-established rule of statutory interpretation that the legislature does not use
unnecessary words (presumption against redundancy)107. Thus the use of expression
‘exclusive’ in the reorganization act108 modifies the expression ‘located in’. On plain meaning
interpretation, which shall be enforced by the courts unless repugnant to context or leading to
ambiguity, the term ‘exclusive’ means sole, undivided, unshared, independent 109 etc.110The
Electricity Act separates power generation functions from power supply-functions.111

The Plaintiff submits that in the scheme of Reorganisation Act, the expression should be read
as referring to an entity which has, or is capable of an ‘independent an undivided,’ existence.
Thus, the Plaintiff submits that the HEP is exclusively located in Oudh District.

D: That power supply facility of UPPCL has become Inter-State and the same needs to be
divided based on mutual consensus and practical solution

The Plaintiff submits that the power supply and transmission infrastructure has become
interstate and therefore needs to be divided on the basis of mutual consensus and practical
solution112. As, a practical solution , the Plaintiff humbly prays that the power supply
infrastructure being intricately linked to the geographical and demographical distribution of
the state , the Supply and transmission infrastructure should be divided based upon territorial

105
Shakti Kumar M Sancheti v State of Maharashtra (1995) 1 SCC 351.
106
Diamond Sugar Mills Ltd v State of UP AIR 1961 SC 652.
107
Balabhagas Hulas Chand v State of Orissa AIR 1976 SC 1016; Sonia Bhatia v State of UP AIR 1981 SC
1274; Ram Phal Kundu v Kamal Sharma AIR 2004 SC 1657.
108
Uttam Pradesh Reorganization Act 2014.
109
Eastern India Motion Pictures Association v Indian Performing Right Society Ltd AIR 1974 Cal 257.
110
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v State of Gujarat AIR 1995 SC 142.
111
Tata Power Company Limited v Reliance Energy Limited (2009) 16 SCC 659.
112
Firm Ashok traders v Gurmukh Das (2004) 3 SCC 155.

18
Arguments Advanced

location. Thus, the scheme of compromise, the Plaintiff humbly submits, should be
effectuated under the proviso to section 23 of the Reorganisation Act.

E: That Proviso of S. 23 of RO Act should be harmoniously constructed with the main part

The main part of Section 23113 contemplates ‘distribution of assets and liabilities’ and such
scheme purports to transfer of assets of the undertaking to that state where a part of such
undertaking is exclusively located. The proviso talks about ‘operations’ becoming interstate.
The term ‘operation’ means work, enterprise.114 The proviso needs to be harmoniously
constructed with the main part to avoid any violence to any part of the provision. 115. Thus, the
Plaintiff submits that the proviso should be understood in reference to UPPCL to be
applicable only in case of supply and transmission lines.

2. That the Government of U.P. is the Competent Government in respect of the


generating plant, specifically and the company, generally.
The electricity Act116 and Electricity Supply Act117 both define ‘appropriate government ‘and
‘competent government’. Thus, under the scheme of the Act, the power generation would be
controlled by the appropriate or competent governments and thus generating company
functions under the policy framework of the competent governments 118. Therefore, the state
of U.P. is the competent govt. to take over control and administration of the power plant.

3. Equitable & practical solution, substantive justice, opportunity cost, revenue


interest of the state.
The Plaintiff humbly submits that the court is bound to give a practical solution to the
problem119, do substantive justice when the procedure or provisions of law manifestly leads to
injustice or they are absent altogether.120 The Plaintiff humbly pleads that the court should
take into consideration that the loss of opportunity or opportunity cost that the State of U.P.
will have to unavoidable bear as an additional burden will be in Prejudice to the financial

113
Uttam Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014.
114
Burrakur Coal Company Ltd v Union of India AIR 1961 SC 954.
115
Dibyasingh Malana v State of Orissa AIR 1989 SC 1737; Commr of Commercial Tax Board of Revenue v RS
Jhaver AIR 1968 SC 59; Dwarka Prasad v Dwwarka Das Sarraf AIR 1975 SC 1758.
116
Electricity Act 2003, s 2(5).
117
Electricity Supply Act 1948, s 2(3A).
118
Northern Railways v UP SEB (2012) 3 SCC 329.
119
Govt of India v Court Liquidator's Employees Assn (1999) 8 SCC 560; Ramakrishna Poultry (P) Ltd v R
Chellapan (2009) 16 SCC 743.
120
Ramankutty Guptan v Avara (1994) 2 SCC 642.

19
Arguments Advanced

interests of the state and would also be an inequitable distribution of assets between the states
which will be counter thesis to the doctrine of distributive justice. 121 The Reorganisation Act
provides for a scheme for division of assets and liabilities of a state undertaking based upon
geographical location and area of operation, and such is intended to provide an equitable and
practical solution, even if not particularly equal in the form of division of assets and liabilities
between the successor states. The state has an active interest 122 in its social welfare. The state
government is the Guardians of the financial interest of the state123.

The Plaintiff submits that an ‘equitable distribution’ of the assets of undertaking of erstwhile
state needs to be done in a manner which is not prejudicial to the interest of the stakeholders
and is in public interest.124

4. Object of the relevant provisions of The Reorganisation Act and a practical asset
distribution which does not prejudice the interests of the State or such prejudice is
unavoidable in the interest of other party.
The Plaintiff humbly submits that UPPCL was a company incorporated under the provisions
of the Companies Act but it was ‘established’ under the scheme of the Electricity (Supply)
Act125. Since, ESA is legislation aimed at promoting energy sector and to serve a social
purpose in this regard, the scheme of the ESA was directed towards promotion of fair
practices in the energy sector so that public interest is not compromised. 126 UPPCL is a
Companies Act company still in its existence and it serves a social purpose.

It is submitted that the incorporation was done to meet financial requirements and other
instances which a corporate vehicle facilitated. But when the provision of the RO Act itself
provides for ‘overlooking’ any other law which comes to obstruction of operation of the RO
act, the court can look beyond the limitations of corporate personality to give full effect to the
scheme of RO Act to give effect to its ultimate objective. The Supreme Court has held that
legislative exercises aiming a distributive justice cannot be decided divorced from socio-
economic realities.127

121
Gurbax Singh v Financial Commissioner AIR 1991 SC 435; Lingappa Pochanna v State of Maharashtra AIR
1985 SC 359; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v Brojonath Ganguly AIR 1986 SC 1571; Samatha v
State of AP AIR 1997 SC 3279.
122
Cf R R Dalavai (n 93); Anand Singh v State of UP (2010) 11 SCC 242.
123
ION Exchange Waterleau Ltd v Madurai Municipal Corporation (2008) 3 CTC 675.
124
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi v Swarna Rekha Cokes and Coal (P) Ltd (2004) 6 SCC 689;
State of Bihar v Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252.
125
Dalco Engg (P) Ltd v Satish Prabhakar Padhye (2010) 4 SCC 378.
126
Udhav Uttam Patil v Daga Holkya Bhil 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 220.
127
Katikara Chintamani Dora v Guntreddi AIR 1974 SC 1069.

20
Arguments Advanced

Thus, the Plaintiff humbly submits that the scheme of Reorganization Act should be
implemented in context of its underlying purpose and aimed toward doing distributive justice
which is not prejudicial to public interest.

21
Prayer in Suit No.1

PRAYER IN SUIT NO.1

Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The suit filed on behalf of the Union of Aryavart is maintainable and the Union of Aryvart
has a legal right to represent the inhabitants of two States as Parens Patriae of its citizens.
2. The Panel appointed by the Central Government is not an inter-State Council within the
meaning of Article 263 of the Constitution of Aryavart and the recommendations made by
the Central Government appointed Panel are binding in nature.
3. The two States of Samridh Pradesh and Uttam Pradesh have failed to resolve the dispute
concerning UPPCL.
4. The suit filed by the State of Uttam Pradesh against Samridh Pradesh is liable to
dismissed.

And pass any other order in favor of the Plaintiff-Union of Aryavart that it may deem fit in
the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.

Sd/-

Counsel for Plaintiff

xvii
Prayer in Suit No.2

PRAYER IN SUIT NO.2

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The order issued by The State of Samridh Pradesh on March 27 as null and void and
unconstitutional for being repugnant to the Reorganisation Act, Electricity laws, and the
Constitution itself for being an arbitrary exercise of executive power.
2. The State of Uttam Pradesh is legally entitled to the assets of UPPCL relating to ‘power
generation’ lying in its territorial jurisdiction by the virtue of Section 23 of the Uttam
Pradesh Reorganisation Act.
3. As a matter of practical solution, and equitable recourse in public interest, the scheme of
settlement in relation to ‘transmission and supply infrastructure’ of UPPCL , offered most
humbly by the state of Uttam Pradesh , be effected to divide the assets in question under
the proviso to section 23 of the Uttam Pradesh Reorganisation Act.
4. The demand of State of Uttam Pradesh for the charge of water of River Saraswati to be used by the
Hydro-electric power plant at a reasonable rate is legal.

And pass any other order in favor of the Plaintiff-Union of Aryavart that it may deem fit in
the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.

Sd/-

Counsel for Plaintiff

xviii

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen