M.V.P.LAW COLLEGE , NASHIK.

MOOT COURT PRESENTATION

Practical Training Paper

Year 2017-2018

WRIT PETITION No. 630 OF 2009

HON`BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

,AT DELHI.
Before: Hon'ble Shri Justice Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD

. Presented before;- Prof. C.C.Khairnar

Practical Training
Faculty In charge
Principal: Dr. S.V.M.Kamasai.
PRESENTED BY
Mr. Sharad Bhausaheb Malode
Student Advocate

on behalf of Appellant,

Roll No., L.L.B 3rd

M.V.P.S.Law College, Nashik.

 INDEX

Sr.No PERTICULAR
Page
No.

1. Title Page

2. Index

3. Vakalatnama

4. Writ Petition

5. Affidavit

6. Fact Of petitioner

7. Statement of Issues

8. Argument Of The Petitioner

10. Verification

11. Bibliography
 VAKALATNAMA

THE HON’BLE SUPREAME COURT OF

DELHI.
IN MATTER OF

WRIT PETITION NO-630 OF2009

NAVEEN KUMAR -- APPELLANT

V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH -- RESPONDENT
and ors.

I, the above APPELLANT do, here by appoint

Mr. Sharad Bhausaheb Malode Student Advocate to act
appear and plead for me in the above matter in witness
where of I have set my hands to this writing this .

sd/- sd/-
(APPELLENT) Mr. Sharad Bhausaheb Malode
(Student Advocate)
 WRIT PETITION
MEMORENDUM OF WRIT PETITION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

,AT DELHI
W.P.NO. 3563 OF 2016

NAVEEN KUMAR - PETITIONER

S/O JEEVAN KUMAR

Age-Major,Occ-service,

R/o-at-M.G. Road,

Delhi

V/S

1) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - RESPONDENT

PETITION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The petitioner must respect fully submit this petition

as under :-

1. The Collector, (Mining Branch), District Burhanpur W.P.

No.3563/2016/2 issued an auction notice in a prescribed
proforma as per Rule 36(2) of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996
(hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1996'). By the aforesaid
notice, persons were invited to participate in an auction, which
had been held on 06.12.2014 at the office of the Collector,
Burhanpur for grant of mining lease rights in regard to certain
quarries mentioned in the schedule. In the schedule, two
quarries i.e. Nachankheda and Rehta, area of 7 hectares and 5
hectares respectively, were also included.
2. The petitioner and other persons participated in the auction.
The bids of respondents No. 5 and 6 were found highest.
Hence, their bids were accepted. The bid of mining lease situate
at village Rehta was finalized in favour of respondent No.5 and
the bid of village Nachankheda was finalized in favour of the
respondent No. 6. Letters of allotment were issued in favour of
the respondents No. 5 and 6 vide order dated 24.12.2014. The
respondents were granted 6 months' time to submit necessary
environmental clearance from the prescribed authority i.e. State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority and the mining plan
duly approved and sanctioned by D.G.M.
3. The respondents did not fulfill the aforesaid condition. As per
the condition of bid document, the successful bidder W.P. No.
3563/2016/3 had to execute the agreement within 30 days.
4. Because the respondents No.5 and 6 did not submit the required
documents within stipulated time i.e. within 6 months. Show
cause notices were issued to them by the Assistant Mining
Officer, Burhanpur on 26.08.2015. It is mentioned in the show
cause notices that as per the letter of acceptance of bid, the
respondents No. 5 and 6 had to submit approved mining plan
and environment clearance within 6 months, however, the
respondents did not submit the aforesaid documents with the
department. Hence, the respondents are directed to show cause
that why the bid be not canceled and the security be not
forfeited. It is an admitted fact that the respondents No. 5 and 6
did not submit the required mining plan and environment
clearance.
5. The respondent No.5 submitted environment clearance on
02.09.2015 and mining plan on 07.12.2015. He further pleaded
that there was a delay due to family reasons. Hence, the delay
be condoned. The Collector (Mining Branch), Burhanpur on
09.12.2015 wrote a letter to the Director, Mining and sought
instructions from the authority in this regard. The Director
(Mining) vide letter dated 11.12.2015 directed the Collector
(Mining Branch) to take action in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules of 1996. On 22.12.2015, the Collector
(Mining Branch), Burhanpur W.P. No. 3563/2016/4 wrote a
letter to the Director mentioning the facts that three sand
quarries of the District were canceled due to non execution of
agreement which were put to auction on 08.10.2015. There is
scarcity of sand in the district. Hence, the permission to execute
agreement in regard to sand quarries of village Rehta may be
granted authority has committed an error in exercising powers
under Rule 66 of the Rules of 1996 in favour of respondents
No. 5 and 6.
 6. The provisions of W.P. No. 3563/2016/5 Rule do not confer
any such power with the State Government to grant lease of
sand quarries in favour of the persons who had not followed the
terms and conditions of the Statutory Rule 26.
7. The petitioner submits that he had not filed any petition
seeking similar relief’s in respect of the same subject-matter
earlier.

PRAYER

That the petitioner prayed that-

1. The petition may be allowed.
2. The impugned order Annexure P/11 dated 26.12.2015 may
quashed. The agreements executed in favour of the
respondents No.5 and 6 and the lease granted to them in
pursuance to order dated 26.12.2015 may quashed.
3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to award
monetary compensation to the petitioners for their illegal arrest
and torture by the Delhi police which has resulted in gross
violation of their fundamental rights to live with dignity as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India.
4. And any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may think fit on
behalf of the petitioner.

Place: -

Date :- / / 2018.

sd/-

NAVEEN KUMAR

sd\- (PETITIONER)

Mr. Sharad Bhausaheb Malode

(Student Advocate)
 VERIFICATION

I, NAVEEN KUMAR, Age-Major, Occ-

service, R/o- Tripathi village, Chennai, being the petitioner
acquainted with the facts do hereby verify and state that the
contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition
are true to my personal knowledge, and believed and has
signed below for the conformation of the same.

In witness thereof I have affix our seal and Sign

here under.

Place: MADHYA PRADESH

Date:

sd/- sd/-
Mr. Sharad Bhausaheb Malode (Petitioner)
(Student Advocate)
 IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AT DELHI.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3563 OF 2016

NAVEEN KUMAR - PETITIONER

v/s

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT
I, NAVEEN KUMAR, Age-Major, Occ-Service, R/O-at Tripathi village,
MADHYA PRADESH. Do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on
oath as follows:

1. The Collector, (Mining Branch), District Burhanpur W.P.

No.3563/2016/2 issued an auction notice in a prescribed
proforma as per Rule 36(2) of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996
(hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1996'). By the aforesaid
notice, persons were invited to participate in an auction, which
had been held on 06.12.2014 at the office of the Collector,
Burhanpur for grant of mining lease rights in regard to certain
quarries mentioned in the schedule. In the schedule, two
quarries i.e. Nachankheda and Rehta, area of 7 hectares and 5
hectares respectively, were also included.
2. The petitioner and other persons participated in the auction.
The bids of respondents No. 5 and 6 were found highest.
Hence, their bids were accepted. The bid of mining lease situate
at village Rehta was finalized in favour of respondent No.5 and
the bid of village Nachankheda was finalized in favour of the
respondent No. 6. Letters of allotment were issued in favour of
the respondents No. 5 and 6 vide order dated 24.12.2014. The
respondents were granted 6 months' time to submit necessary
environmental clearance from the prescribed authority i.e. State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority and the mining plan
duly approved and sanctioned by D.G.M.
3. The respondents did not fulfill the aforesaid condition. As per
the condition of bid document, the successful bidder W.P. No.
3563/2016/3 had to execute the agreement within 30 days.
4. Because the respondents No.5 and 6 did not submit the required
documents within stipulated time i.e. within 6 months. Show
cause notices were issued to them by the Assistant Mining
Officer, Burhanpur on 26.08.2015. It is mentioned in the show
cause notices that as per the letter of acceptance of bid, the
 respondents No. 5 and 6 had to submit approved mining plan
and environment clearance within 6 months, however, the
respondents did not submit the aforesaid documents with the
department. Hence, the respondents are directed to show cause
that why the bid be not canceled and the security be not
forfeited. It is an admitted fact that the respondents No. 5 and 6
did not submit the required mining plan and environment
clearance.
5. The respondent No.5 submitted environment clearance on
02.09.2015 and mining plan on 07.12.2015. He further pleaded
that there was a delay due to family reasons. Hence, the delay
be condoned. The Collector (Mining Branch), Burhanpur on
09.12.2015 wrote a letter to the Director, Mining and sought
instructions from the authority in this regard. The Director
(Mining) vide letter dated 11.12.2015 directed the Collector
(Mining Branch) to take action in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules of 1996. On 22.12.2015, the Collector
(Mining Branch), Burhanpur W.P. No. 3563/2016/4 wrote a
letter to the Director mentioning the facts that three sand
quarries of the District were canceled due to non execution of
agreement which were put to auction on 08.10.2015. There is
scarcity of sand in the district. Hence, the permission to execute
agreement in regard to sand quarries of village Rehta may be
granted authority has committed an error in exercising powers
under Rule 66 of the Rules of 1996 in favour of respondents
No. 5 and 6.
6. The provisions of W.P. No. 3563/2016/5 Rule do not confer
any such power with the State Government to grant lease of
sand quarries in favour of the persons who had not followed the
terms and conditions of the Statutory Rule 26.
7. The petitioner submits that he had not filed any petition
seeking similar relief’s in respect of the same subject-matter
earlier.
8. That the contents of this brief are to the best of my
knowledge and belief and has signed below for the
conformation of the same

In witness where of I have sign here under.

sd/- sd/-
Mr. Sharad Bhausaheb Malode (Petitioner)
(Student Advocate)
 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,

AT NEW DELHI.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF petitioner

May it please Your Honor,

I Mr. Sharad Bhausaheb Malode , Student Advocate Appearing

on behalf of Petitioners most respectfully submits as under

1. My first contention is that the Collector, (Mining Branch),

District Burhanpur W.P. No.3563/2016/2 issued an auction
notice in a prescribed proforma as per Rule 36(2) of M.P.
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996.
2. My second contention is that the petitioner and other persons
participated in the auction. The bids of respondents No. 5 and 6
were found highest. Hence, their bids were accepted. The bid of
mining lease situate at village Rehta was finalized in favour of
respondent No.5 and the bid of village Nachankheda was
finalized in favour of the respondent No. 6. Letters of allotment
were issued in favour of the respondents No. 5 and 6 vide order
dated 24.12.2014. The respondents were granted 6 months' time
to submit necessary environmental clearance from the
prescribed authority i.e. State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority and the mining plan duly approved and sanctioned by
D.G.M.
3. My third contention is that the respondents did not fulfill the
aforesaid condition. As per the condition of bid document, the
successful bidder W.P. No. 3563/2016/3 had to execute the
agreement within 30 days.
4. My fourth contention is that the respondents No.5 and 6 did not
submit the required documents within stipulated time i.e. within
6 months. Show cause notices were issued to them by the
Assistant Mining Officer, Burhanpur on 26.08.2015. It is
mentioned in the show cause notices that as per the letter of
acceptance of bid, the respondents No. 5 and 6 had to submit
approved mining plan and environment clearance within 6
months, however, the respondents did not submit the aforesaid
documents with the department. Hence, the respondents are
directed to show cause that why the bid be not canceled and the
security be not forfeited. It is an admitted fact that the
 respondents No. 5 and 6 did not submit the required mining
plan and environment clearance.
5. My fifth contention is that the respondent No.5 submitted
environment clearance on 02.09.2015 and mining plan on
07.12.2015. respondent pleaded that there was a delay due to
family reasons. Hence, the delay be condoned. The Collector
(Mining Branch), Burhanpur on 09.12.2015 wrote a letter to the
Director, Mining and sought instructions from the authority in
this regard. The Director (Mining) vide letter dated 11.12.2015
directed the Collector (Mining Branch) to take action in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1996. On
22.12.2015, the Collector (Mining Branch), Burhanpur W.P.
No. 3563/2016/4 wrote a letter to the Director mentioning the
facts that three sand quarries of the District were canceled due
to non execution of agreement which were put to auction on
08.10.2015. There is scarcity of sand in the district. Hence, the
permission to execute agreement in regard to sand quarries of
village Rehta may be granted authority has committed an error
in exercising powers under Rule 66 of the Rules of 1996 in
favour of respondents No. 5 and 6.
6. My sixth contention is that the provisions of W.P. No.
3563/2016/5 Rule do not confer any such power with the State
Government to grant lease of sand quarries in favour of the
persons who had not followed the terms and conditions of the
Statutory Rule 26.

PRAYER

Hence, considering the above grounds it is prayed that-

1. The writ petition may kindly be allowed.
2. The impugned order Annexure P/11 dated 26.12.2015 may
quashed. The agreements executed in favour of the
respondents No.5 and 6 and the lease granted to them in
pursuance to order dated 26.12.2015 may quashed.
3. Issue a writ of mandamus may kindly be issue or any other writ
or direction to award monetary compensation to the petitioners
for their illegal arrest and torture by the Delhi police which has
resulted in gross violation of their fundamental rights to live with
dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of
India.
 4. And any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may think fit on
behalf of the petitioner.

Place: - Delhi

Date :- / / 2017.

sd/-

NAVEEN KUMAR

sd\- (PETITIONER)

Mr. Sharad Bhausaheb Malode

(Student Advocate)
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFFERED:-
1. Indian penal code.
2. The Indian Evidence Act
3. Criminal procedure code
4. AIR

Case referred:-

1. Sri Anjan Kumar Dutta Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Assam
Through The ... on 21 January, 2004
2. Sanjay Kumar Jain vs State Of Delhi on 16 December, 2010
3. Pg. Kiriti Bhusan Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on
23 July, 2013
4. Shiv Shankar vs State Of U.P. on 24 November, 2017
5. State vs Ravi Kapoor & Anr on 4 January, 2018

Website visited:-

http//w.w.w.indiakanun.com
http//www.indiakanoon.com
http//www.bombayhighcourt.nic.in
Google
Vakil No. 1
www.indian law

ABBREVIATION:-
AIR All India Reporter
J Justice
SLP Special leave petition.
Spre Supreme
Ors Others
SCC Supreme Court Cases
IPC Indian Penal Code
Cr p c Code of Criminal Procedure
Sec Section
H. C High Court