NMCC 2020 22R

THE 3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
TEAM CODE: NMCC_2020_22R
THE 3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020
BEFORE
THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF
WRIT PETITION NO. ____/ OF 2019

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA)
SLYTHERIN……………….……………………………………….…...PETITIONER
V.
DUCKBURG & CO.…………………………......……………………...RESPONDENT
&
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. ___OF 2019
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA)
MR.POTTER…………………….…….………………..………………PETITIONER
V.
ABC CORP & ANR………………………………………………......RESPONDENTS
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………….……………………………….………...3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………...4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………………...7
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………….…………………...………….…….8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………….…..10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………..……….……11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………….…..13
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS

HON’BLE COURT?......................................................................................................................13
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DUCKBURG & CO HAS ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IN THIS

CASE?............................................................................................................................................18
ISSUE 3: WHETHER EXCESSIVE EXTRACTION OF GROUND WATER AMOUNTED TO

VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?..........................................................................24
ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIANA CAN BE MADE LIABLE

UNDER THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE FOR EXCESSIVE GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTION BY ABC CORP?.................................................................................................29
ISSUE 5: WHETHER THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AND EXCESSIVE GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTION IS ADEQUATE OR NOT?.................................................................................30
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………..………..31

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
&……………………………………………………………………………………………And
AIR………………………………………………………………………..…All India Reporter
Anr………………………………………………………………………………………Another
Art……………………………………………………………………………..………….Article
CPCB…………………………………………………….……Central Pollution Control Board
Ed…………………………………………………………………………….…………..Edition
Hon’ble……………………………………………………………………………....Honourable
Ibid………………………………………………………………………..………………Ibidem
LJ…………………………………………………………………….……………...Law Journal
PIL…………………………………………………………….….……Public Interest Litigation
SPCB……………………………………………………….……..State Pollution Control Board
Ors…………………………………………………………………...…………………….Others
Sec.…………………………………………………………………..……………………Section
SC……………………………………………….………………….…………….Supreme Court
SCC………………………………………………….….…………….……Supreme Court Cases
UOI……………………………………………………….……….….…………...Union of India
W.P…………………………………………………………………………………Writ Petition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 CONSTITUTION
1. The Constitution of India, 1950.
 STATUTES
1. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

2. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
3. The Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
4. The Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
5. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
6. The Indian Easement Act, 1882
7. The Kerala Ground Water (Control & Regulation) Act, 2002
 CASES
1. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892

2. State of H.P v. Student’s parent, Medical College, Shimla, AIR 1985 SC 910
3. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664
4. Kapan v. Jagmohan AIR 1981, SC 126, 25..
5. Chanan Singh v. Registrar. Co-op Societies, AIR 1976 SC 1821, 6-7.
6. Ramjilal v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1951 SC 97.
7. BALCO Employees’ Union (Resd.) v. Union of India AIR 2009 SC 350.
8. Avinash Chand Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 726.
9. PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732.
10. Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159.
11. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996.
12. Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457.

13. PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732.

14. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996)5 SCC 261.
15. N .D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362.
16. M.C.Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SCR (1) 819.
17. Union Carbide Company vs. Union of India AIR (1989)(1)SCC 674: AIR 1992 SC 248
18. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446.
19. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram Industries Case) AIR 1987 SC 965.
20. M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SCW 4033.
21. Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
22. A.P.Pollution Control Board v. M.V.Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812
23. Research Foundation for Science & Technology & Natural Resource Policy v. Union of
India,(2012) 7 SCC 764
24. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben (1997) 9 SCC 552.
25. Narmada BachaoAndolan v Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751
26. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa, (2006) 6 SCC 371:
AIR 2006 SC 2038
27. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481
28. Keshavananda bharati v State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
29. M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. and Others (1998) 8 SCC 227
30. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2007) 8 SCC 418
31. Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 727
32. Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 5 SCC 702 at 712
33. P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, (1996) 5 SCC 268.
34. Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar, AIR 1984 SC 147 .
35. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1, 159 (para 463).
36. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
37. Madurai Coats Private Ltd v. The Appellate Authority, W.P No. 33882 of 2007.
38. BALCO Employees’ Union (Resd.) v. Union of India AIR 2009 SC 350.
39. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot, AIR 2006 SC 2007.
40. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388.
41. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins, (2009) 3 SCC 571.

42. Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P, (AIR 2006 SC 1350)

43. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3
SCC 434.
44. Mrs.Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2006 SC 2893)
45. P.R Subhas Chandran v. Government of A.P. (2001) (5) ALD 771 (DB)
46. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388.
47. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins, (2009) 3 SCC 571.
BOOKS
1. M.P.JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (6TH ED, LEXISNEXIS BUTTERWORTH WADHWA,
2010)
2. P.RAMANATHA AIYAR, ADVANCED LAW LEXICON, (YV CHANDRACHUD, 3RD ED, LEXISNEXIS
BUTTERWORTH WADHWA, 2009)
3. P. LEELA KRISHNAN, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LEXIS NEXIS, INDIA, 2008, 3RD EDITION
4. S.C. SHASTRI, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, INDIA, 2008, 3RD EDITION
5. BILL MCGILLIVARY, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, OXFORD, USA, 2008, 7TH EDITION
6. SHANTI KUMAR, INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WADHWA, INDIA, 2008, 2ND
EDITION
7. SHYAM DIVAN & ARMIN ROSENCRANZ, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY, (2ND ED,
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2012)
8. DR. H.N. TIWARI, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (3RD ED, ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY, 2010)
9. DR. S.C. TRIPATHI & MRS. VIBHA ARORA, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (5TH ED, CENTRAL LAW
PUBLICATIONS, 2013)
 WEBSITES REFERED
1. www.manupatrafast.com
2. www.scconline.com
3. www.casemine.com
4. www.indiankanoon.org

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted that the Respondents are appearing before this Hon’ble Supreme
Court in all the matters the petitioners have invoked and linked by this Court under Article 321
of the Constitution of Indiana.
Article 32 The Constitution of Indiana, 1950 - Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
The respondents most humbly and respectfully submit before the jurisdiction of the present court
and accept that it has the power and authority to preside over the present case.
1
Article 32 of The Constitution of Indiana, 1950.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Indiana is a peninsular country having four major rivers. These rivers are important and
are lifeline to masses living along its courses. Gotham and Metropolis are two cities that
share different water bodies. Riverdale is one of the longest rivers of Indiana that flows
from Gotham City to Metropolis city.
2. Duckburg & Co. has set up a Chemical Industry in 2015 in Gotham city. The industry has
been set up at a far off place from the town. The company while setting up of the plant
has already taken permission from the Central Government and has complied with all the
provisions. It also has proper mechanism to treat the harmful effluents being discharged
from its plant and also has a mechanism to recycle those discharged effluents.
3. Gotham city is situated at the upper course of Riverdale while Metropolis is situated at
the lower course of the river. The Municipal Corporation of Metropolis supply water
through its plant at scheduled time to the wards of Metropolis. Metropolis Municipal
Corporation also has 3 Reservoir and significant amount of water comes from Riverdale.
4. The government of Indiana in 2016 took up a project of constructing a Dam across

Riverdale in the city of Gotham. Gotham City witnessed huge rainfall in July, 2018. The
rainfall caused massive flooding in the city and affected the chemical plant of Duckburg
& Co. Due to flood the treatment plant has been heavily affected and the hazardous
effluents are being discharged in to and mixing with the water of Riverdale without being
treated.
5. The contaminated water of Riverdale is now stored in the Reservoir which is maintained
by the Municipal Corporation of Metropolis. The filtration system of the Corporation is
not adequate enough to filter out the mixed harmful chemical substances. Residents
became unwell after consuming the contaminated water. Following this situation ABC
Corp., a Company, started selling drinking water in the city of Metropolis at a reasonable
price.

6. ABC Corp. is a leading company selling soft drinks as well in Indiana. The company
used to extract ground water at the outskirts of the city of Metropolis. Following this the
ground water level in the city has decreased to a considerable level. The city has not felt
this crisis as it had another source of water. However, due to the contaminated water of
Riverdale, it became unsuitable for drinking. Following this water crisis, ABC Corp. has
stopped manufacturing soft drinks and is only selling packaged drinking water across the
city of Metropolis.
7. Slytherin is a pan Indiana NGO which advocates and fights for the guarantee of
fundamental rights to every citizen. Following the contamination of water in the upper
course of Riverdale, Slytherin has filed a Writ Petition No. 19 of 2019 before the
Supreme Court of Indiana in January, 2019 against the Duckburg & Co. In the petition
Duckburg & Co. contended that the company was conscious enough about the harmful
effluents of the industry. Therefore, it had constructed treatment plant which was
subsequently damaged due to flood. While Slytherin contended that the company should
have taken steps to repair the damaged plant immediately after the flood keeping in mind
the hazardous substances being discharged from its company.
8. Following the water crisis in the city of Metropolis Mr.Potter has filed a PIL i.e., W.P.
No 239 of 2019 against ABC Corp and the Government of Indiana in July, 2019 before
the Supreme Court of Indiana. However, ABC Corp has contended that it has never, at
any point of time, been deviated from business ethics as during water crisis the company
stopped manufacturing soft drinks and started selling drinking water.
9. Slytherin NGO after knowing about the petition filed by Mr.Potter has requested the
Supreme Court to club WP No. 19/2019 and W.P. No. 239/2019 since the matters of
these two petitions are related to water crisis, the Supreme Court of Indiana has clubbed
both the petition and decided to hear the same on 23rd February, 2020.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THIS HON’BLE COURT?

CASE?
ISSUE 3: WHETHER EXCESSIVE EXTRACTION OF GROUND WATER

AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

EXTRACTION BY ABC CORP?

EXTRACTION IS ADEQUATE OR NOT?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: THIS WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

COURT OF INDIANA.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, the present petition filed by the Slytherin a
pan Indiana NGO, Mr.Potter is not maintainable; because the Petitioner should have a locus
standi first. This “Legal standing” has a quintessential connotation and it is a condition precedent
for the maintainability of a Writ Petition before the Court. “The requirement of locus standi of a
party to litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether
in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily
ascertained at the threshold.” Therefore, it becomes imperative to establish that the interest of the
People which the Petitioner in the instant case is espousing, have legally enforceable rights,
recognized under the Constitution of Indiana.

CASE?
Absolute liability is a standard of both tortious and criminal liability which stipulates that…
where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results
to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely
liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to
any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the
rule of Rylands v. Fletcher. The rule laid down by the Supreme Court is much wider with respect
to the rule laid down by House of Lords. The company while setting up of the plant has already
taken permission from the Central Government and has complied with all the provisions. So,
Absolute Liability cannot be applied to the present case as it doesn’t have the essential
ingredients of such liability.


It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble that that the preamble of the Environment Protection
Act, 19862 clearly indicates that Parliament took an affirmative action in protection and
improvement of Environment3. No violation of fundamental rights because of forced
assimilation.

Public Trust Doctrine has developed in India through several landmark cases in the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court has deduced this doctrine from various sources such as the Common
Law and Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to life, and
Article 39 in Part IV of the Constitution which provides for equitable distribution of material
resources. The Hon’ble Court cannot be make Government of Indiana liable under the Public
Trust Doctrine for the extraction by ABC Corp as it was not based on the scientific observations
or violation of the act instead it was just an allegation. Also the ABC Corp. stopped
manufacturing soft drinks and started selling drinking water to serve the people during the water
crisis in the city of Metropolis. The Ground water authority did not find any violation of the
provisions of the act regarding the PTD for which the Government of Indiana did not interfere
into the issue of groundwater extraction by the ABC Corp. So, Government of Indiana cannot be
made liable under the Public Trust Doctrine.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the existing legal framework governing
groundwater contamination and excessive groundwater extraction is not adequate and the
existing legal framework overlooks the environmental impact that this creates.
2
Id.
3
Section 2(a) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: THIS WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

COURT OF INDIANA.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, the present petition filed by the Slytherin a
pan Indiana NGO, Mr.Potter is not maintainable; because the Petitioner should have a locus
standi first. This “Legal standing” has a quintessential connotation and it is a condition precedent
for the maintainability of a Writ Petition before the Court. Therefore, it becomes imperative to
establish that the interest of the People which the petitioner is espousing, have legally
enforceable rights, recognized under the Constitution of Indiana. As the Supreme Court of
Indiana has observed, “The requirement of locus standi of a party to litigation is mandatory;
because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in
relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.”
Therefore, it becomes imperative to establish that the interest of the People which the Petitioner
in the instant case is espousing, have legally enforceable rights, recognized under the
Constitution of Indiana.
1.1 THE PETITIONER HAS NO LOCUS STANDI BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIANA.
i. It is humbly submitted that, the petitioner in the present does not have a locus standi.
The principle of equity enunciates that, “A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for
relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ
petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective.”4
ii. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “….The strict of rule of locus standi to
private litigation is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives the right of locus
standi to any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in
instating an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury, but who is not a
mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper; since the dominant object of PIL is to
ensure observance of the provisions of the constitution or the law which can be best
achieved to advance the cause of community or disadvantage groups and individuals
or public interest by permitting any person, having no personal gain or private
4
Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 852
motivation or any other oblique consideration but acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put
the judicial machinery in motion like action popularis of Roman law whereby any
citizen could bring such an action in respect of a public delict”5
iii. In the present matter it. is highly suspicious about what appears to be a bona fide act
by the petitioners, i.e. filing of the present petition because they are relying heavily on
the report prepared by themselves. The defendants can in no case be bound by such
reports unless it has either authorized an agency to do the same or the Hon’ble Court
has directed any agency to do the same.
iv. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that public interest litigation is a weapon
which has to be used with great care and circumspection and that the judiciary has to
be careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance it does not
encroach upon the sphere reserved by the constitution to the executive and the
legislature.6 It was held that when two or more views are possible and after
considering them the Government takes a policy decision, it is then not the function
of the court to go into the matter afresh.7
v. A writ petition may be liable to be dismissed if it is premature.8 Ordinarily, a Court
confines itself to the facts at hand and does not delve into assumptions.9
vi. In the present matter, the union govt. has given permission to setup Chemical industry
by Duckburg & Co. in the Gotham City and to extract ground water at the outskirts of
the city of Metropolis by the ABC Corp .The govt. went ahead with decision only
after looking in to the reports submitted by the Duckburg & Co and ABC Corp. and
after they are complying with the Environmental Impact Assessment and the set
parameters are being followed.
1.2 NO PRIMA-FACIE CASE FOR BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAS

BEEN ESTABLISHED
5
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892
6
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Student’s parent, Medical College, Shimla, AIR 1985 SC 910
7
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664
8
Kapan v. Jagmohan AIR 1981, SC 126, 25..
9
Chanan Singh v. Registrar. Co-op Societies, AIR 1976 SC 1821, 6-7.
i. The jurisdiction under Article 32 can be invoked only when Fundamental Rights are
violated. It has been held that if a right, other than a fundamental right is claimed to
be violated then such questions can be addressed only in the appropriate proceedings
and not on an application under Article 32.10
ii. The Hon’ble court has again reminded that the only ground on which a person can
maintain a PIL is where there has been an element of violation of Article 21, on the
human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and
the underprivileged who are unable to come to the court due to some disadvantage.11
iii. In the instant case, it is submitted that no fundamental rights of the Petitioners have
been violated; therefore, this petition must fail.
1.3 EXHAUSTION OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

i. It is humbly submitted that Article 32 is not an absolute right and are subject to the
self-imposed restraints evolved by the judiciary. It has been held that since Article 32
confers “extraordinary” jurisdiction, the same must be used sparingly and in
circumstances where no alternate efficacious remedy is available.12 The reason for
this is two-fold: first, to reduce the increasing pendency of cases13 and second, to
inspire faith in the hierarchy of Courts and the institution as a whole.14 Therefore, the
Petitioner is required to approach the High Court under Article 226 or the National
Green Tribunal before approaching the Supreme Court.
ii. Petitioners may contend that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies is
unconstitutional and violative of the guarantee in Art. 32(1). However, it is submitted
that the right under Art. 32(1) is not so absolute that no rules of procedure apply to it.
Art. 32(1) confers a right to move the SC by "appropriate proceedings". “Appropriate
proceedings” interpreted to mean “procedure relating to form, conditions of lodgment
of petitions, and compliance with a reasonable directions”.15
10
Ramjilal v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1951 SC 97.
11
BALCO Employees’ Union (Resd.) v. Union of India AIR 2009 SC 350.
12
Avinash Chand Gupta v. Stateof Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 726.
13
PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732.
14
Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159.
15
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996.
iii. Indeed, procedural factors such as res judicata16, delay in filing the petition and
parallel proceedings in another Court are considered before entertaining the
appropriateness of a particular proceeding. It is submitted that the rule of exhaustion
of local remedies is another such procedural guideline and does not violate the right
under Article 32.
iv. The power of High Court under Art. 226 is wider than the powers of this Court under
Art. 32 of the Constitution.17 This Hon’ble Court held that in cases concerning
environment, specifically, the High Courts would be in a better position to ascertain
local conditions and facts and therefore, for proper monitoring, they must be
preferred.18.
v. Alternatively, the Petitioner also has the option of approaching the National Green
Tribunal. It is submitted that the NGT has been expressly established to deal with
questions related to “enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and
giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.”19
vi. Therefore, any submission that the NGT cannot enforce rights or protect them
adequately is erroneous. Moreover, the NGT is specially equipped to evaluate
scientific claims apart from regular civil claims due to the presence of scientific
experts on the bench. In fact, the Supreme Court when faced with similar cases, in the
past has lamented the lack of separate, multi-faceted environmental courts equipped
with both judicial and scientific inputs.20 Thus, the Supreme Court itself has
recognized the value of the NGT to deal with such cases. Further, in various cases in
the past, the SC has had to refer scientific questions to special committees and expert
bodies, thus, delaying the resolution of dispute. It is submitted that an expeditious
resolution of the dispute is in the best interests of both parties.
vii. The Act provides that the NGT shall endeavor to adjudicate upon the dispute within
six months from the date of filing of application or appeal21. Therefore, for
16
Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457.
17
PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732.
18
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996)5 SCC 261.
19
Preamble, National Green Tribunal Act (2010).
20
.M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1986 (2) SCC 176.
21
Section 18(3), NGT Act 2010.
expeditious disposal of this case, NGT must be preferred. Assuming arguendo, this
petition is admitted by the Hon’ble Court, it will defeat the object of the NGT Act to
create a specialized tribunal for environmental cases. The instant case will be used as
a precedent to bypass the jurisdiction of the NGT to directly approach the Supreme
Court. This should be avoided. In any case, the NGT Act reserves the right of the
Petitioner to challenge an order passed by the NGT in the Supreme Court22.
In light of the foregoing, the Respondents request the Hon’ble Court dismiss the petition.

CASE?
The Supreme Court took a bold decision holding that it was not bound to follow the 19th century
rule of English Law, and it could evolve a rule suitable to the social and economic conditions
prevailing in Indiana at the present day. The rule of Absolute liability was laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oleum Gas Leak23 case and Bhopal Gas Leak24 case
where the Hon'ble Court has maximized the limit of ‘Rule of Ryland v. Fletcher’. The rule laid
down by the SC is much wider with respect to the rule laid down by House of Lords.
i. The Indian Judiciary tried to make a strong effort following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy,
December, 1984 to enforce greater amount of protection to the Public. The Doctrine
of Absolute Liability was therefore evolved in Oleum Gas Leak Case and can be said
to be a strong legal tool against rogue corporations that were negligent towards health
risks for the public. This legal doctrine was much more powerful than the legal
Doctrine of Strict Liability developed in the case of English tort law Rylands v
Fletcher. This meant that the defaulter could be held liable for even third party errors
when the public was at a realistic risk. This could ensure stricter compliance to
standards that were meant to safeguard the public.
22
Section 22, NGT Act, 2010.
23
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SCR (1) 819.
24
Union Carbide Company vs. Union of India AIR (1989)(1)SCC 674: AIR 1992 SC 248
ii. However, Absolute Liability cannot be applied to the present case as it doesn’t have
the essential ingredients of such liability. In negligence there is the duty of care
imposed upon the defendant. It is based upon the care that an ordinarily prudent man
would have taken to avoid any kind of damage, if any accident happens which is outside
the reasonable foreseeability of the defendant then defendant won’t be held liable as it is
essential ingredient for bringing such liability.
2.1 BALANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH DUTY TO TAKE

CARE AND APPLYING PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Blewitt,J. ‘Sustainable development is about protecting and conserving the planet’s natural
environment and promoting social equity and a degree of economic equality within and
between nations.’
i. In the Bichhri Village Case25, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the
Doctrine of Sustainable Development in the following words, “While economic
development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing
wide spread environmental destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity
to preserve the ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other
developments.
ii. Chief Justice Bhagwati was of the opinion that, we cannot adopt the policy to do
away with chemical or hazardous industries as they also help to improve the quality
of life, a sin this case this factory, was supplying chlorine to Delhi Water Supply
Undertaking which is used to maintain the wholesomeness of drinking water. Thus
industries even if hazardous have to be set up since they are essential for economic
development and advancement of wellbeing of the people.
iii. A balance has to be struck26. To strike such balance, the chemical industry has been
set up at a far off place from the town keeping in mind the harmful effluents of the
industry.
25
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446.
26
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SCW 4033.
iv. The person who wants to maintain status quo by maintaining a less polluted state
should not carry the burden of proof and the party who wants to alter it by carrying on
some activity must bear this burden.27
v. In the Tamil Nadu Tanneries Case, Supreme Court while applying precautionary
principle to the facts of the case. The Hon’ble Court has directed the tanneries to
setup common effluent treatment plants or other industrial pollution control devices
before they tried to obtain consent from state pollution control board. The court also
directed to close down only those tanneries to which consent was refused28.
vi. The Hon’ble Court held that, precautionary principle involves the anticipation of
environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least
environmentally harmful activity. The Court also held that State Government could
not grant exemption to a specified industry located within or attempting to locate
within an area where there was total prohibition against the establishment of
industries29.
2.2 FORSEEABILITY AND REMOTENESS OF THE DAMAGES
The liability in tort which arose in Common Law has been evolved by the courts in England but
law has not been well developed in our jurisdiction. In Common Law, there existed duty of
foreseeability, proximity, just and reasonable cause and policy. Attempts have been made to
identify general theory of liability in tort consistent with causation, fairness, reciprocity and
justice, balancing conflicting interests as well as economic efficiency. The tortious liability falls
into one of the three categories, viz., (a) some intentional wrongdoing, (b) negligence, and (c)
strict liability. The principle evolved by the courts in England is that a reasonable foresight of
harm to persons whom it is foreseeable or is likely to harm by one's carelessness is essential. The
liability in tort may be strict liability, absolute liability or special liability. The degree of liability
depends on degree of mental element.
i. The Hon’ble Court viewed that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or

inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety
27
C.M.Jariwaka, “Complex Enviro-Techno Science Issues: Judicial Direction”, 42 JILI 29 (Jan-Mar 2000).
28
Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
29
A.P.Pollution Control Board v. M.V.Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812
of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an
absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to
anyone on account of such nature of the activity which it has undertaken30.
ii. The action for breach of statutory duty may belong to the category of either strict or
absolute liability which is required, therefore, to be considered in the nature of
statutory duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff; whether or not the duty is absolute;
and the public policy underlying the duty. This should be pleaded and proved which
is lacking in the present case. Knowledge of harm likely to occur to the deceased is a
prerequisite of liability which must in some sense be foreseeable.31
iii. The Supreme Court of India in a case, pertaining to construction of large dams, held
that the project would make positive contribution for preservation of environment in
several ways. It was also observed that availability of water would be conducive for
agriculture and spread of green cover in areas facing water scarcity. The Court
devised the precautionary principle to balance both the environmental and
developmental imperatives. The Court held the project would neither violate the
mandate of Article 21 nor sustainable development32.
iv. The filtration system of Metropolis Municipal Corporation is not adequate enough to
filter out the harmful chemical substances that are being mixed from the plant of
Duckburg & Co. Hence the municipal corporation is negligent for letting such water
to be released for the purpose of drinking their people after having enough awareness
and foreseeability.
Even as per the English law, Absolute liability doesn’t apply as per the grounds of
Remoteness of damages, Foreseeability, Act of God and Duty of care being taken by the
Respondent. So, Duckburg & Co. cannot be made liable under Absolute Liability.

30
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SCR 819.
31
Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben (1997) 9 SCC 552.
32
Narmada BachaoAndolan v Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751
The preamble of the Environment Protection Act, 198633 clearly indicates that Parliament took
an affirmative action in protection and improvement of Environment.34 The object of this
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 corresponds to Principles laid down in Stockholm
Declaration. It is humbly submitted that there has been no violation of Fundamental rights of the
people of the City of Metropolis. The ABC Corp. & The Government of Indiana are fulfilling
their obligations by protecting an imperative component of the ecosystem in the manner desired
by, The Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and The Ground Water (Control &
Regulation) Act, 2002. In doing so the government is striving to uphold the right to environment
of the people of Indiana which is concomitant to right to life under Article 21. The fundamental
rights of the indigenous people have not been violated by the order of the government since; No
special right is guaranteed to them under the Constitution; Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and; No violation of fundamental rights because of forced assimilation.
3.1 NO SPECIAL RIGHT GUARANTEED TO THEM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
i. Public interest means a subject matter in which the rights of the public or section of
public is interested to the means of concern which is advantageous to people as whole35.
'Interest of general public' is a comprehensive expression intended to achieve the socio-
economic justice for people by the State. The purpose of introducing the Ground Water
(Control and Regulation) Act, 2002, was for the conservation of ground water and for
the regulation and control of its extraction and use, if indiscriminate extraction of ground
water is continuing.
ii. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has exposited that the directive principles are to be
construed in such a manner so that they help in realization of the basic rights36 and
anything done in pursuance of this objective cannot be termed as arbitrary37. The Courts
could interfere only if the decision taken by the authority was arbitrary, unreasonable or
not taken in public interest38.
33
Id.
34
Section 2(a) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
35
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481
36
Keshavananda bharati v State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
37
M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. and Others (1998) 8 SCC 227
38
Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2007) 8 SCC 418
iii. If the decision is reached fairly and objectively, it cannot be interfered with on the ground
of procedural fairness39 and as mentioned the decision was taken in consonance with the
wetland (conservation and management) rules. Thus where a change in the policy
decision is valid in law, any action taken pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof,
cannot be invalidated40 and no question of legitimate expectation would arise41.
iv. Social justice is the recognition of greater good to larger number without deprivation of
accrual of legal rights of anybody which are considered to be their fundamental rights,
and the government while exercising its power and by subscribing to the concept of
social and economic justice as enshrined in the constitution might detract from some
technical rule in favour of a party42, in order to do greater good to a large number so as to
act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust.
v. A matter within the legislative competence of the legislature has to be left to the
discretion and wisdom of the latter so long as it does not infringe any constitutional
provision or violate the fundamental rights.43
vi. It is submitted that the Precautionary Principle, which is an approach to the protection of
the environment and human health, is based around taking precautions, even if there is no
clear evidence of harm, or risk of harm, from an activity or substance.44 The
Precautionary Principle has been firmly embedded into contemporary Indian Law
through decisions where it has been held that it is part of Environmental Law of the
Country and several international conventions.45
vii. The respondent submits that where there is a reasonable apprehension of damage to the
environment, the Supreme Court may interfere directly.46 It is further submitted that the
action of the Government is not arbitrary. The Courts have accepted to provide a
balanced view of priorities while deciding environmental matters.47 The Courts have also
39
Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 727
40
Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 5 SCC 702 at 712
41
P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, (1996) 5 SCC 268
42
Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar, AIR 1984 SC 1471
43
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1, 159 (para 463)
44
STUART BELL & DONALD MCGILLIVRAY, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, OXFORD PUBLICATIONS (7TH
EDITION) pp 63 - 64
45
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
46
Madurai Coats Private Ltd v. The Appellate Authority, W.P No. 33882 of 2007
47
M.C.Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter)
observed that the traditional concepts of development and ecology are opposed to each
other and that is no longer acceptable.48
3.2 NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
i. ABC Corp being a public sector company has fulfilled all the obligations of the rules
and provisions of the city of Metropolis and Government of Indiana. Section 7 of the
‘Ground Water Rules49’ briefs regarding the “Grant of Permit to extract and use
ground water”- (1) Any person desiring to dig a well or to convert the existing well
into pumping well, for his own or social purpose in the notified area, shall submit an
application before the Authority for the grant of a permit it for the purpose and shall
not proceed with any activity connected with such digging or conversion unless a
permit has been granted by the Authority. (2) Every application under sub-section (1)
shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.
ii. This very court observed that, “Some persons with vested interest indulge in the
pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper
motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they
are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such
busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate
cases with exemplary costs.”50
iii. The environment issues arise because of the unforeseen contingency but they were
temporary. As the nature through the process of water cycle automatically replenish
the groundwater resources. The defendant’s company’s policies and business ethics
were aimed at a greater objective which ultimately will benefit the citizens. Hence
there is no violation on Article 21 or any other fundamental right guaranteed by the
Constitution of Indiana.
It is clear that, the Ground water extraction by the respondent is not in violation of the
fundamental rights.
48
Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India
49
Parimateria of the Kerala ground water (control & regulation) act, 2002.
50
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot, AIR 2006 SC 2007

Public Trust Doctrine has developed in India through several landmark cases in the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court has deduced this doctrine from various sources such as the Common
Law and Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to life, and
Article 39 in Part IV of the Constitution which provides for equitable distribution of material
resources.
i. The Public Trust doctrine (hereafter PTD) was first invoked in 1995 by the Supreme
Court in the famous M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (‘Span Motels case’)51. In this public
interest litigation, the court declared that the PTD, being part of the Common Law
system, was ‘law of the land’.
ii. The ‘Fomento Resorts Case52’ the Supreme Court reiterated that natural resources are
common properties held by the state as a trustee on behalf of the people, especially the
future generations. Therefore, the state cannot transfer public trust properties to a private
party, if such a transfer interferes with the access rights of the public. The public trust
doctrine allows the judiciary to protect the rights of public at large to have access to light,
air and water and also to protect rivers, seas, tanks, trees, forests and associated natural
eco-systems.
iii. The Court while referring the Intellectuals forum, Tirupati case also referred Bombay
dyeing case53 stated that whereas need to protect the environment is a priority, it is also
necessary to promote development. Also, brought up the concept of sustainable
development54.
iv. Andhra Pradesh State Government has issued notification prohibiting conversion of
agricultural land for another purpose namely for irrigation or for some other purpose
whatsoever by the State/Board of Revenue. AP High Court55 has held that, the same
cannot be said to be bad in law. Deep underground water belongs to the State in the sense
51
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388.
52
Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins, (2009) 3 SCC 571.
53
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 SCC 434.
54
Mrs.Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2006 SC 2893)
55
P.R Subhas Chandran v. Government of A.P. (2001) (5) ALD 771 (DB)

that doctrine of public trust extends thereto. A person who holds land for agricultural
purpose may, subject to reasonable restriction that may be made by the State may have
the right to use water for irrigational purposes and for the said purpose he may also
excavate a tank. But under no circumstances, he can be permitted to restrict the flow of
water to the neighboring lands or discharge the effluents in such a manner so as to affect
the right of his neighbor to use water for his own purposes.
v. The Hon’ble Court cannot be make Government of Indiana liable under the Public Trust
Doctrine for the extraction by ABC Corp as it was not based on the scientific
observations or violation of the act instead it was just an allegation. Also the ABC Corp.
stopped manufacturing soft drinks and started selling drinking water to serve the people
during the water crisis in the city of Metropolis. It is clear that there is no clear evidence
from the petitioners regarding the same. The court should not consider the accusations in
the nature of allegations. There is a benefit of doubt on the part of Respondent. The
Ground water authority did not find any violation of the provisions of the act regarding
the PTD for which the Government of Indiana did not interfere into the issue of
groundwater extraction by the ABC Corp.
So, The Government of Indiana cannot be made liable under the Public Trust Doctrine for the
groundwater extraction by the ABC Corp.

Unlike the British law, the Water Act56 does not provide specifically for the control of dumping
of waste on the land, which may eventually pollute underground water streams. The question can
be examined in light of definition of stream given in the Water Act. Streams include
subterranean waters. The plain meaning of subterranean waters is nothing but underground
waters. Thus, the control of pollution of subterranean waters includes control of pollution of
groundwater. However, in the beginning scant attention was paid by the pollution control boards
in taking up measures of control over groundwater pollution. The amendment of the Act in 1978
56
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Sections 25 and 28.
prohibits discharge of poisonous, noxious and other polluting matter not only into any stream or
well, but also into sewer or on land57. Dumping of polluting matter on the land, which may
eventually pollute groundwater, came to be regulated after the introduction of this amendment.
Such a liberal interpretation may be viewed as conferring on the pollution control board, powers
to take up appropriate measures against pollution of groundwater.
Rules have been framed under EPA58 for the control, collection, treatment, storage and disposal
of hazardous wastes. These rules have conferred on pollution control boards, the power to grant
authorisation for the activities connected with the disposal of hazardous wastes. The rules are
silent on the question whether the board should consider the various effects of hazardous waste
on groundwater before it grants authorisation for disposal in a particular locality. However, the
board is not barred from incorporating objective standards of maintaining groundwater safety
when the authorisation is issued.
Despite the potential provisions, it may well be burdened with too many responsibilities and
weakened by institutional pressures that the board are reluctant to act with the main aim of
protecting groundwater. The boards seldom interpret the provisions of the statute in such a
liberal fashion as to assume power at this level. Hence, it is desirable to look at the problem of
groundwater from a wider perspective.
Ground water overuse or overexploitation is defined as a situation in which, over a period of

time, average extraction rate from aquifers is greater than the average recharge rate. In India, the
availability of surface water is greater than ground water. However, owing to the decentralised
availability of groundwater, it is easily accessible and forms the largest share of India’s
agriculture and drinking water supply. 89% of ground water extracted is used in the irrigation
sector, making it the highest category user in the country. This is followed by ground water for
domestic use which is 9% of the extracted groundwater. Industrial use of ground water is 2%.
50% of urban water requirements and 85% of rural domestic water requirements are also fulfilled
by ground water.
57
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Sections 25 and 26.
58
Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, Rule 5 & 6
Currently, the Easement Act, 1882 provides every landowner with the right to collect and
dispose, within his own limits, all water under the land and on the surface59. This makes it
difficult to regulate extraction of ground water as it is owned by the person to whom the land
belongs. This gives landowners significant power over ground water. Further the law excludes
landless ground water users from its purview.
Water falls under the State List of the Constitution60. This implies that state legislative
assemblies can make laws on the subject. In order to provide broad guidelines to state
governments to frame their own laws relating to sustainable water usage, the central government
has published certain framework laws or model Bills. In 2011, the government published a
Model Bill for Ground Water Management based on which states could choose to enact their
laws. In addition, it outlined a National Water Policy in 2012 articulating key principles relating
to demand management, usage efficiencies, infrastructure and pricing aspects of water. As
recommended in this policy, the government published a National Water Framework Bill in
2013.
The Model Bills and National Water Policy address the governance of ground water under the
public trust doctrine. The concept of public trust doctrine ensures that resources meant for public
use cannot be converted into private ownership. Government being the trustee has the
responsibility to protect and preserve this natural resource for and on behalf of the beneficiaries,
that is, the people. Additionally, they allow every person the fundamental right to be provided
water of acceptable quality. It may be noted that the fundamental right to water has been evolved
by the Supreme Court and various High Courts of the country as part of ‘Right to Life’ under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Courts have delivered verdicts on concerns such as access to
drinking water and on the right to safe drinking water as a fundamental right.
The new groundwater laws mainly envisage three regulatory tools. First, they follow a
geographical classification method. This is generally done through notification of some areas in
the state where the groundwater stipulation requires regulatory intervention61. Another prevailing
59
Section 7(g), Indian Easement Act, 1882.
60
The Constitution of Indiana, Schedule VII, List II, Entry 17.
61
Kerala Groundwater Regulation (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002, Section 6
method is to classify areas into different categories according to the extent of the groundwater
problem for different categories according to the extent of the groundwater problem. For
instance, the groundwater law in Goa envisages classification of areas into scheduled, water
scarcity and over exploited areas62. The purpose of this classification is to regulate groundwater
use in such areas. The new groundwater laws do not seek to restrict groundwater use unless it is
necessary to do so.
Second, the new groundwater laws follow a licensing system. Therefore, users in notified areas
required to seek permission from the groundwater law. The use of groundwater is regulated
through terms and conditions that may be imposed by the authority while granting a license. The
terms and conditions in the license may be altered or cancelled if the groundwater situation
demands so.
Third, registration of drilling agencies is another tool through which the new groundwater laws
seek to exercise control over groundwater use. Drilling agencies are bound by the instructions
issued by the groundwater authority63. Thus, the new groundwater laws seek to control and
regulate groundwater use through a licensing system covering users as well as drilling agencies.
The new groundwater laws do not incorporate some of the emerging legal developments that are
very relevant in the groundwater context. Emerging environmental law principles such as the
precautionary principle and the doctrine of public trust have not yet found explicit
manifestation in groundwater laws. The fundamental right to water has been repeatedly
recognised by the judiciary in India64, the new groundwater laws failed to incorporate this right.
In a way this is understandable given the fact that state groundwater laws are copied from the
Model Groundwater Bill that is too old to recognise and incorporate these legal developments.
Therefore, groundwater laws are likely to remain outdated until and unless these legal
developments are incorporated into, and operationalized through, the statutory framework.
62
Goa Groundwater Regulation Act, 2002, Section 4.
63
Bihar Groundwater Act, 2006, Section 8.
64
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India AIR 2000 SC 375.
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That the Writ petition and the Public Interest Litigation filed by the Respondents are not
maintainable before the Supreme Court of Indiana.
2. The Duckburg & Co does not have Absolute Liability in this case.
3. The extraction of ground water does not amount to violation of fundamental rights.
4. The Government of Indiana cannot be made liable under the Public Trust Doctrine for
excessive groundwater extraction by ABC Corp.
5. The existing legal framework governing groundwater contamination and excessive

groundwater extraction is not adequate.
AND/OR
Pass any such order, writ or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, for this the
Respondents shall duty bound pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS


NMCC 2020 22R

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NMCC 2020 22R

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

THE 3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

TEAM CODE: NMCC_2020_22R

THE 3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

WRIT PETITION NO. ____/ OF 2019

DUCKBURG & CO.…………………………......……………………...RESPONDENT

ABC CORP & ANR………………………………………………......RESPONDENTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DUCKBURG & CO HAS ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IN THIS

ISSUE 3: WHETHER EXCESSIVE EXTRACTION OF GROUND WATER AMOUNTED TO

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIANA CAN BE MADE LIABLE

ISSUE 5: WHETHER THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 2

AIR………………………………………………………………………..…All India Reporter

CPCB…………………………………………………….……Central Pollution Control Board

PIL…………………………………………………………….….……Public Interest Litigation

SPCB……………………………………………………….……..State Pollution Control Board

SCC………………………………………………….….…………….……Supreme Court Cases

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 3

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

1. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

1. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 4

13. PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 5

42. Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P, (AIR 2006 SC 1350)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 7

4. The government of Indiana in 2016 took up a project of constructing a Dam across

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 8

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 9

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DUCKBURG & CO HAS ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IN THIS

ISSUE 3: WHETHER EXCESSIVE EXTRACTION OF GROUND WATER

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIANA CAN BE MADE LIABLE

ISSUE 5: WHETHER THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 10

ISSUE 1: THIS WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DUCKBURG & CO HAS ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IN THIS

ISSUE 3: WHETHER EXCESSIVE EXTRACTION OF GROUND WATER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 11

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIANA CAN BE MADE LIABLE

ISSUE 5: WHETHER THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING

ISSUE 1: THIS WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

1.2 NO PRIMA-FACIE CASE FOR BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAS

1.3 EXHAUSTION OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DUCKBURG & CO HAS ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IN THIS

2.1 BALANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH DUTY TO TAKE

2.2 FORSEEABILITY AND REMOTENESS OF THE DAMAGES

i. The Hon’ble Court viewed that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or

ISSUE 3: WHETHER EXCESSIVE EXTRACTION OF GROUND WATER

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIANA CAN BE MADE LIABLE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 24

ISSUE 5: WHETHER THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING

Ground water overuse or overexploitation is defined as a situation in which, over a period of

5. The existing legal framework governing groundwater contamination and excessive

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen