Page |1

TEAM CODE: 11

5TH SURANA & SURANA AND UILS - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

BOOST ARYA LIMITED (APPELLANT)

v.

JAGADPUR SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION AND CARE OF ANIMALS AND

JEEWAN SURAKSHA (RESPONDENT)

APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON’BLE NGT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................................II

INDEX OF AUTHORITES................................................................................................................................IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................................................................VII

STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................................................................VIII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES.................................................................................................................................IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..........................................................................................................................X

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

[I]. WHETHER SETTING UP OF THE BOOST ARYA LTD. PLANT IN THE CITY OF JAGADPUR
DONE LAWFULLY?.........................................................................................................................................1

A. PROPER PROCEDURES WERE NOT FOLLOWED IN ESTABLISHING THE INDUSTRY....1

1. NECESSARY PERMITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE WERE NOT

ACQUIRED...............................................................................................................................................1

2. VIOLATION OF MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION.............2

3. THE APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT SYSTEM IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH

THE DUE PROCEDURE..........................................................................................................................3

B. DECLARATION OF PARTS OF THE CITY AS SEZ IS IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE

DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW.......................................................................................................................4

1. NECESSARY RULES AND GUIDELINES OF THE SEZ HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. 4

2. THE CPC INDUSTRY HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED IN AT A PROPER PLACE...........5

3. DECLARATION OF THE PARTS OF THE CITY AS SEZ IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE

OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................6

[II]. WHETHER BOOST ARYA LIR. IS AT FAULT FOR IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF THE WASTE
ORIGINATING FROM ITS CPC PLANT AND THE SPILLAGE OF EFFLUENTS CONTAMINATING
THE ENVIRONMENT?.....................................................................................................................................7

A. BOOST ARYA LT. WAS AT FAULT FOR IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF THE WASTE..............7

1. WASTE EMANATING FROM THE PLANT WERE NOT BEING DISPOSED OF

PROPERLY...............................................................................................................................................7

1. IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF THE WASTE IN THE VIOLATION OF THE  HAZARDOUS

AND OTHER WASTES (MANAGEMENT AND TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT) RULES,
2016. 8

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | II

2. FAILURE IN SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL AUDIT AND SAFETY REPORTS IN THE

YEAR 2021 IS A VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION)
RULES, 1986.............................................................................................................................................9

B. BOOST ARYA LTD. WAS AT FAULT FOR SPILLAGE OF EFFLUENTS CONTAMINATING

THE ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................................................10

1. IRRESPONSIBLE ACT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT IN MANAGING THE

EFFLUENTS RELEASED FROM THE PLANT...................................................................................10

2. IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF WASTE IS AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEREST. 11

[III]. WHETHER THE BOOST ARYA LTD IS LIABLE TO PAY THE AWARD MONEY FOR THE
LOSS OF THE HUMAN LIFE COMPENSATION AND MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE
SICKNESS CAUSED, DEATH OF DOMESTIC/ WILD ANIMALS AND HARM CAUSED TO THE
ECOLOGY?......................................................................................................................................................11

A. BOOST ARYA LTD. IS LIABLE TO PAY THE AWARD GIVEN BY THE

NGT……………………………………………………………………………………..11

1. STATUTORY LIABILITY TO PAY IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS..............12

2. ABSOLUTE LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO PAY

COMPENSATION…………………………………………………………………..12

B. THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES....................................................13

1. THE NGT AWARD UPHOLDS THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE..................................13

C. VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.......................................................................14

1. THE APPELLANT RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT OF THE PEOPLE HAS

BEEN VIOLATED..................................................................................................................................15

PRAYER FOR RELIEF..................................................................................................................................XIII

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | III

INDEX OF AUTHORITES

CASES

A.P Pollution Control Board v Prof. M.V Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors, 1994 (3) SCC 1.............14
Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay v Dilikumar; Field, J. in Munn v Illinois.1983 SCC (1)
12..........................................................................................................................................15
Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group and Ors. v. Bombay Suburban Electricity
Supply Co. Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/0574/1991 : (1991) 2 SCC 539..................................6
Essar Oil v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti MANU/SC/0037/2004 : AIR 2004 SC 183.........................6
Goa Foundations v. Diksha Holdings(P) Ltd, AIR 2001 SC 184..............................................6
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. UoI [2019 SCC OnLine SC 441................................................3
Indian council for enviro legal action v. Union of India & ors, (1996) 5 SCC 281...................6
Lal Bahadur; Besant Nagar Residents v. MMDA [(1990) 1 Mad.............................................3
M.C. Mehtha v. UoI [(2004) 12 SCC 118..................................................................................3
P.V. Krishnamoorthy v. Govt. of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 36205...................................5
Palani Hills Conservation Council v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995 SCC OnLine Mad 977.........3
R.K. Mittal v. State of U.P. [(2012) 2 SCC 232];......................................................................3
Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v Union of India and
Anr(2005) 10 SCC 510........................................................................................................14
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B, (1987) 2 SCC 295.......................................................11
Society for Environmental protection Vs. Union Of India & Ors, 2013 SCC OnLine NGT 733
................................................................................................................................................3
Sushanta Tagore v. UoI [(2005) 3 SCC 16................................................................................3
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (87) v. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC..................................15
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India and Ors (1996)5 SCC 647......................14
Virendra Gaur & Ors v State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 57....................................................15

STATUTES

Environment Protection Act, 1986...........................................................................................14

European Act, 1986..................................................................................................................14
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980................................................................................................1
NGT Act, 2010.........................................................................................................................12
Town and Country Planning Act, 1971......................................................................................4

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | IV

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Buffer Zone Guidelines around waste processing and disposal facilities by CPCB..................1
EIA notification, 2006................................................................................................................1
Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 (Guidelines & Clarifications)...............................................1
Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016......8
L. Bhullar, Polluter Pays Principle : Scope and limits of Judicial Decisions, 152 in Indian
Environmental Law : Key Concepts and Principles (Shibani Ghosh, 1 ed., 2019).............13
MoEFCC (Handbook of Environmental Procedures and Guidelines, 1994).............................2
NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 201...............................................................................12
P. Sands & J. Peel, with A. Fabra & R. MacKenzie, Principles of International Environmental
Law 228 (3 ed., 2012)..........................................................................................................13
Rule 24, S. No. 57 of the Final list of Red Category industrial sectors included in Table G-2
of the notification dated 7/3/16 by the CPSC, MOEFCC....................................................12
S. No. 22 of the Final list of Red Category industrial sectors included in Table G-2 of the
notification dated 7/3/16 by the CPSC, MOEFCC................................................................4
Terms of Reference issued by MoEFCC (2015.........................................................................2
The 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland
Report)....................................................................................................................................6
the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.................................................................................9

TREATISES

Stockholm Convention, 1972.....................................................................................................6

The Rio Declaration on environment and Development c.f. 31 ILM 876 (1992)...................14
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992.............................14

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Art. 21 of the IND. Const.........................................................................................................10

Art. 243W, IND. CONST..........................................................................................................3
Schedule 12, IND. CONST........................................................................................................3

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |V

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Co. Another

Const. Constitution

CPCB Central Pollution Control Board

DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy

EPA EPA, 1986

EPR EPR, 1986

Hon’ble Honourable

MoEFCC Ministry of Environment, Forest and

Climate Change

NGT National Green Tribunal

¶ & Para. Paragraph

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SDG Sustainable Development goal

SPCB State Pollution Control Board

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change

v. Versus

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | VI

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court invoked
by the Appellant under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act 1, 2010 which reads as
follows:

“Appeal to Supreme Court

Any person aggrieved by any award, decision or order of Tribunal, may file an appeal to the
Supreme Court, within ninety days from the date of communication of the award, decision or
order of the Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”

1
Hereinafter referred to as NGT Act.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | VII

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Boost Group of Industries Ltd (“Appellant”), a MNC with its headquarters in the State of
Pandu Ranga, Arya, has one of the largest chains of CPC plants in the World. The State of
Silsa, a neighboring state of Pandu Ranga, invites proposal for setting up a CPC plant in its
territory owing to it having the lowest GDP and employment rate and with the objective to
boost industry, agriculture and generate employment. The proposal of the Appellant is
accepted and consequently Southern part of the city of Jagadpur & its outskirts are declared
as Special Economic Zone in 2006.

Environmentalists raised objections to the setting up of the industry, because people of Khabo
tribe lived there and they were dependent on nature and natural resources for their livelihood.
But were ignored by the government of Silsa. And After getting the acceptance from the
government to set up the industry in 2007, the Appellant got all the required environmental
clearances and NOCs from the appropriate authorities. The plan of installation of process
pipes was duly approved by the Municipal Corporation of Jagadpur and the production was
started in 2010.

The plant was sanctioned an area of 70 acres to dispose of its hazardous waste and an area of
470 acres was marked as a buffer around the plant. Agricultural land of 3000 bighas were
allotted to EWS farmers. Some farmers encroached upon the buffer zone and started
cultivating plants in the area and let their animals graze. Some incidents of encroachment by
the tribals were also reported. In 2021, an unusual death of some animals was reported and a
post-mortem report showed presence of chemical toxicity as a cause of death. A report
showed the presence of toxic chemicals in the soil and water bodies upto 7 acres from the
CPC plant. In Aug 2021, a report of 134 cases of severe stomach ache and vomiting and
some incidents of death was reported among people living in the village. However, no
pathological test could ascertain the exact cause of death.

Two cases were filed separately by two NGOs before the NGT against the Appellant which
were clubbed together and the Appellant was hold liable for the alleged violations and
environmental harm caused. A sum of Rs. 27 crore was asked to pay as compensation
challenging which the Appellant has appealed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Arya.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | VIII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The following issues have arisen for consideration before the Hon’ble Court:

[ISSUE I]

WHETHER SETTING UP OF THE BOOST ARYA LTD. PLANT IN THE CITY OF

JAGADPUR DONE LAWFULLY?

[ISSUE II]

WHETHER BOOST ARYA LTD. WAS AT FAULT FOR IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF

THE WASTE ORIGINATING FROM ITS CPC PLANT AND THE SPILLAGE OF
EFFLUENTS CONTAMINATING THE ENVIRONMENT?

[ISSUE III]

WHETHER THE BOOST ARYA LTD IS LIABLE TO PAY THE AWARD MONEY
FOR THE LOSS OF THE HUMAN LIFE COMPENSATION AND MEDICAL
REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE SICKNESS CAUSED, DEATH OF DOMESTIC/
WILD ANIMALS AND HARM CAUSED TO THE ECOLOGY?

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[ISSUE I]

WHETHER SETTING UP OF THE BOOST ARYA LTD. PLANT IN THE CITY OF

JAGADPUR DONE LAWFULLY?

It is humbly submitted that the setting up of the Boost Arya Ltd. was unlawful on the ground
that the proper procedures were not followed in establishing the plant. The Appellant have
not complied with all the required procedures given under the concerned environmental laws.
Non-compliance with the third stage of getting environmental clearance is a violation of the
due procedure as it is a mandatory requirement. Moreover, there is violation of Buffer Zone
Guidelines as an adequate area of buffer zone is not being maintained around the plant.
Furthermore, the plant has been set up in the designated SEZ declared by the government on
the principles of sustainable development and with due consideration of categorisation of
industrial zone.

[ISSUE II]

WHETHER BOOST ARYA LTD. WAS AT FAULT FOR IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF

THE WASTE ORIGINATING FROM ITS CPC PLANT AND THE SPILLAGE OF
EFFLUENTS CONTAMINATING THE ENVIRONMENT?

It is submitted that the Appellant is at fault as waste originated from the CPC plant were not
being disposed of properly. The industry was not operating in compliance with all the rules
and regulations governing the industry like Water Act, Air Act, Environment Protection
Rules etc. Moreover, no efforts were being made by the industry to preserve and protect the
environment. Buffer area of only 470 acres were being maintained around the plant for which
is insufficient for sinking the effluents released from the industry as well as no timely
compliance report were submitted. Furthermore, there is liability on the part of the Appellant
for the alleged environmental harm as there is substantive evidence to establish the liability
and spillage of effluents and environmental harm caused, by the Appellant.

[ISSUE III]

WHETHER THE BOOST ARYA LTD IS LIABLE TO PAY THE AWARD MONEY
FOR THE LOSS OF THE HUMAN LIFE COMPENSATION AND MEDICAL

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |X

REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE SICKNESS CAUSED, DEATH OF DOMESTIC/

WILD ANIMALS AND HARM CAUSED TO THE ECOLOGY?

It is humbly submitted that the Appellant is liable to pay the award money as the Appellant is
liable for the alleged violations and harms caused owing to the same being established in the
first two issues. Furthermore, the award by the NGT is in the interest of justice and
reasonable and based on the principles enunciated in the Act governing the award of the
compensation by the Tribunal. It is also submitted before the court that the appeal shall be
dismissed.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER SETTING UP OF THE BOOST ARYA LTD. PLANT IN THE CITY

OF JAGADPUR DONE LAWFULLY?

[1]. It is humbly submitted setting up of the industry has not been done lawfully because [A.],
proper procedures were not followed in establishing the industry, and [B.] declaration of
parts of the city as SEZ is in non-compliance with the due procedure of law.

A. PROPER PROCEDURES WERE NOT FOLLOWED IN ESTABLISHING THE INDUSTRY

[2]. Proper procedure were not followed in setting up the industry as [1.], necessary permits
and environmental clearance were not acquired, [2.], violation of mandatory requirement
of public consultation and [3.], the approval of industrial layout system in non-
compliance with the due procedure.

2. NECESSARY PERMITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE WERE NOT ACQUIRED

[3]. Green Belt refers to an area that is kept in reserve within the allotted land for setting up
facility, around the processing area, for the purpose of plantation and landscaping to
reduce the adverse effects from pollutants like air & noise, soil erosion control etc. It also
works as natural shield to protect people around the facility from these pollutants.2
[4]. There are three conditions that need to be ensured, one of which is that it is sufficient to
ensure that potential effects of the processing operation do not have any unacceptable
impact outside the site.3
[5]. However, in the present case, the locals living around the industrial unit have complaints
about a chemical smell emanating from the waste disposal area. 4 It shows the failure on
the part of the Appellant to maintain a proper Buffer zone around the industrial area.
[6]. Furthermore, According to the EIA notification, 20065 and Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 [FCA]6 and Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 (Guidelines & Clarifications) 7, one of
the condition stipulated by MoEFCC while according prior approval (stage I / Stage II)

2
S. No. 5 (e) of the Buffer Zone Guidelines around waste processing and disposal facilities by CPCB.
3
S. No. 5 (i) (c) of the Buffer zone Guidelines around waste processing and disposal facilities by CPCB.
4
Moot Proposition, ¶ 9.
5
EIA notification, 2006.
6
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
7
Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 (Guidelines & Clarifications).

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |2

for non-forest use of forest land under FCA, 1980 for industrial projects is that the user
agency has to maintain green belt (33%) within the allotted area.8
[7]. The MoEFCC (Handbook of Environmental Procedures and Guidelines, 1994)9 has
notified siting criteria for establishment of industries. The factors related to green belt are
given below:
 The green belt shall be 1/2 km wide around the battery limit of the industry, for
industries having odor problems it shall be one km wide.
 The green belt between two adjoining large-scale industries shall be one km.
 No prime agricultural land shall be converted into industrial sites.
 No forest land shall be converted into non-forest activity for the sustenance of the
industry (FCA, 1980).
 Land acquired shall be sufficiently large to provide space for appropriate
treatment of wastewater, the treated wastewater left after maximum possible reuse
and recycle should be used to raise green belt and to create water body for
aesthetics, recreation and if possible, for aquaculture.
[8]. Further, Green Buffer in the form of green belt to a width of 15m should be provided all
along the periphery of the industrial area.10 The individual units should keep 33% of the
allotted area as a green area.
[9]. It is submitted that the Appellant have not adequate green belt as out of total area of
3070.90 acres, 470 acres of land covering 15.30% of the area is developed with green belt
with a great variety of wildlife vegetation and a waste disposal area of 70 acres.11

3. VIOLATION OF MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION

[10]. The environmental Clearance process for new projects comprises four stages, 3rd stage
being public consultation. It refers to the process by which the concerns of local affected
persons and others who have plausible stake in the environmental impacts of the project
or activity are ascertained with a view to taking into account all the material concerns in
the project or activity design as appropriate.12

8
https://cpcb.nic.in/openpdffile.php?
id=TGF0ZXN0RmlsZS9MYXRlc3RfMTE4X0ZpbmFsX0RpcmVjdGlvbnMucGRm
9
MoEFCC (Handbook of Environmental Procedures and Guidelines, 1994)
10
Terms of Reference issued by MoEFCC (2015)
11
Additional Information, Moot Proposition.
12
Para 7 (i) III. Stage (3)(i)(b) of the EIA notification, 2006.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |3

[11]. This process of public consultation is a mandatory requirement.13 However, there are
certain exceptions to it including industries located within industrial estates governed
fulfilling the criteria given under item 7(c) of the Schedule.14
[12]. The contention of the Appellant that the CPC plant falls under the exemption provided
is baseless. The Hon’ble NGT has clarified that the intent of the notification is to grant
exemption from public consultation for small industrial units located in industrial estates
of 500 to 1000 ha. Area. The industrial units or activities itself located on an area of 500
ha. in industrial estate or regions of 10000 ha. has not been in the intent to be granted
exemption from public consultation.15
[13]. Moreover, the notification grants exemptions only to the projects located within
industrial estates or parks, not to industries located in the Special Economic Zones.
Therefore, considering both the arguments put forth, the CWC plant is not eligible to get
exemptions.

4. THE APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT SYSTEM IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE

DUE PROCEDURE

[14]. Article 243W16 of the Constitution confers power upon the Municipality to act as
institutions of self-government with respect to the matters of the preparation of plans for
economic development and social justice and powers in relation to the matters listed in
the Twelfth Schedule.17
[15]. It is further submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
Act, 1971, more particularly, Sections 17, 24, 26(2), 28 and 32, any town plan, before
being finalized, has to be published in the newspapers and opportunity should be afforded
to persons, who are likely to be affected likewise, any change in the Master Plan should
also follow the same process. Thus, there cannot be any deviation from the Master Plan
without following the procedures enumerated under the said Act.18

13
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. UoI [2019 SCC OnLine SC 441]
14
Item 7(c) of the Schedule, EIA notification, 2006.
15
Society for Environmental protection Vs. Union Of India & Ors, 2013 SCC OnLine NGT 733
16
Art. 243W, IND. CONST.
17
Schedule 12, IND. CONST.
18
R.K. Mittal v. State of U.P. [(2012) 2 SCC 232]; M.C. Mehtha v. UoI [(2004) 12 SCC 118]; Palani Hills
Conservation Council v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995 SCC OnLine Mad 977; Lal Bahadur; Besant Nagar
Residents v. MMDA [(1990) 1 Mad LJ 445]; Sushanta Tagore v. UoI [(2005) 3 SCC 16].

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |4

[16]. The industrial layout proposed by the plant was approved by the Municipal corporation
without giving opportunity to the public who are affected by this and therefore is in clear
violation of the procedures laid down in the Act.19
[17]. Therefore, all the due procedures were followed which are required for setting up an
industry.

B. DECLARATION OF PARTS OF THE CITY AS SEZ IS IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE

DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW

[18]. It is humbly submitted that the declaration of the Parts of the city has not been made
properly as [1.], necessary rules and guidelines of the Sez have not been followed, and
[2.] the CPC industry has not been established at proper place; [3.] declaration of the parts
of the city as SEZ is against the principles of Sustainable Development.

1. NECESSARY RULES AND GUIDELINES OF THE SEZ HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED

[19]. To maintain uniformity in categorisation of industries, the 57th Conference of Chairmen

and Member Secretaries of CPCB &SPBCs/PCCs and in exercise of the powers delegated
to the chairman, the CPCB under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water Act, 1974 categorized
industries into four categories namely Red, Orange Green, White based on the pollution
due to discharge of emissions and effluents and its likely impact on health.20
[20]. Organic Chemicals manufacturing21 and Petrochemical Manufacturing industries22 are
classified into Red Category industry as being one among the 17 categories of Higly
Polluting Industries.23 It is submitted that an establishment of a highly polluting or a red
category is prohibited in areas other than that declared special industrial and hazardous
use zone.24
[21]. Even if the contention of the Appellant is considered that change in classification is
permissible to the procedure under Town and Country Planning Act, 197125, it mandates
an opportunity to be given before such classification to those who will be affected by it.

19
Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
20
https://cpcb.nic.in/openpdffile.php?
id=TGF0ZXN0RmlsZS9MYXRlc3RfMTE4X0ZpbmFsX0RpcmVjdGlvbnMucGRm
21
S. No. 22 of the Final list of Red Category industrial sectors included in Table G-2 of the notification dated
7/3/16 by the CPSC, MOEFCC.
22
S. No. 57 of the Final list of Red Category industrial sectors included in Table G-2 of the notification dated
7/3/16 by the CPSC, MOEFCC.
23
S. No. 57 of the Final list of Red Category industrial sectors included in Table G-2 of the notification dated
7/3/16 by the CPSC, MOEFCC.
24
G.O. Ms. No. 1730 dated 24.07.1974.
25
Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |5

[22]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that industries which discharge highly toxic
effluents and which did not affirm to specific use zones. It was held that the Master plan
is required to define the various zones into which the area may be divided for the
purposes of development and indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is
proposed to be used.26 The preparation of the zonal development plan provides for
proposed land use and it also provides that no person shall use or permit to be used any
land or building otherwise than in conformity with the plan in a zone.
[23]. Therefore, the construction of the industrial unit in contravention with the concerned
rules and guidelines.

2. THE CPC INDUSTRY HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED IN AT A PROPER PLACE

[28]. It is submitted that Courts have always looked at balancing economic interest with
environmental interest and held that protection of the environment will always take
precedence over economic interest.27
[29]. Tribals (Khabo tribe) used to live in the area which was declared as SEZ and CPC plant
was established.28 These tribals were dependent on nature and natural resources in the
area for their livelihood. There has been opposition to the establishment of the petitioner
ever since the inception of the plant, but owing to insufficient public hearings, the public
did not get an opportunity to express their sentiments against the petitioner. Moreover,
not any compensatory step was taken to provide an alternate source of living to these
tribals. (EWS farmers were given agricultural land not tribals).
[30]. Thus, it is submitted that the people's interest is paramount and the same needs to be
protected. It is further submitted that in the name of sustainable development,
environmental degradation should not be allowed. Ever since the inspection of the plant,
the public of state of Silsa were opposing and continuously demanding it to be closed
down permanently.29
[31]. The petitioner should not be allowed to take advantage of the orders of consent granted
by the SPCB. The over exploitation by the petitioner in the name of sustainable
development is attributing to environmental deterioration affecting human existence, it
has disrupted environmental equilibrium and denied the right of healthy environment to
the public of Silsa.

26
M. C. Mehta v UOI, [(2004) 6 SCC 588].
27
P.V. Krishnamoorthy v. Govt. of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 36205.
28
Moot Proposition ¶ 6.
29
Ibid.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |6

3. DECLARATION OF THE PARTS OF THE CITY AS SEZ IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

[32]. The Hon’ble SC in the case of Goa Foundations v. Diksha Holdings(P) Ltd30 explained
the term “Doctrine of sustainable Development” as “The society have to prosper, but not
at the cost of the environment and in the similar vein, the environment shall have to be
protected but not at the cost of the development of the society – there shall have to be
both the development and the proper environment and as such, a balance has to be found
out and administrative action out to proceed in accordance therewith and not dehorns the
same”.
[33]. In other words, sustainable development meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. 31 In order to
achieve a more rational management of resources and thus to improve the environment,
States should adopt an integrated and coordinated approach to their development planning
so as to ensure that development is compatible with the need to protect and improve the
environment for the benefit of their population.32
[34]. In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute
an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from
it.33 Thus, there is a requirement of balancing economic and social needs on the one hand
with environmental considerations on the other.34
[35]. The State should consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the
conditions of living people on one hand and the necessity for preservation of social and
ecological balance and avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of the
atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the light of various factual,
technical and other aspects that may be brought to its notice by various bodies of laymen,
experts and public workers and strike a balance between the two conflicting objectives.35
[36]. The Hon’ble Court has reiterated the responsibility of the State Government to protect
environment and strike a balance between development and environment as part
sustainable development considering the economic development but without
compromising the necessity for protecting the environment.36
30
Goa Foundations v. Diksha Holdings(P) Ltd, AIR 2001 SC 184.
31
The 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report).
32
Para 13, Stockholm Convention, 1972.
33
Principle- 4, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
34
Essar Oil v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti MANU/SC/0037/2004 : AIR 2004 SC 1834
35
Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group and Ors. v. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.
and Ors. MANU/SC/0574/1991 : (1991) 2 SCC 539.
36
Indian council for enviro legal action v. Union of India & ors, (1996) 5 SCC 281.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |7

[37]. Thus, there is a gross violation of a established principle in environmental law and any
act in violation of it raises question on its legality.

4. WHETHER BOOST ARYA LIR. IS AT FAULT FOR IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF

THE WASTE ORIGINATING FROM ITS CPC PLANT AND THE SPILLAGE
OF EFFLUENTS CONTAMINATING THE ENVIRONMENT?

[34]. It is humbly submitted that the Appellant is at fault for the improper disposal of waste
because [A.], the waste emanating from the plant were not being disposed properly, [B.],
improper disposal of the waste in in the violation of Hazardous and Other Wastes
(Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and [C.], Failure in
submission of the annual audit and safety reports in the year 2021 is a violation of
provisions of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.

A. BOOST ARYA LT. WAS AT FAULT FOR IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF THE WASTE

[35]. It is humbly submitted that the Appellant is at fault for improper disposal of the waste as
[1.], waste emanating from the plant were not being managed, and [2.] Improper Disposal
Of The Waste In The Violation Of The  Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016; [3.] Failure in submission of the annual audit
and safety reports in the year 2021 is a violation of provisions of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986.

1. WASTE EMANATING FROM THE PLANT WERE NOT BEING DISPOSED OF PROPERLY

[36]. Waste originating from the plant was not being disposed of properly because the facts
clearly show that even after a complaint about a chemical smell emanating from the waste
disposal area and improper management of the waste 37, no attempts were made by the
industry to understand the condition.
[37]. In April 2021 the Silsa Pollution Control Board issued directions for proper treatment
and disposal of the waste on a time bound basis 38 which shows that there was a lack on
the part of the company.
[38]. The July39 and August40 2021 incidents are the result of conscious disregard of the duty
as the same was established by the report submitted by the National Water and Soil

37
Moot Proposition ¶ 9.
38
Ibid.
39
Moot Proposition ¶ 14.
40
Moot Proposition ¶ 17.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |8

Authority to MoEFCC highlighted the presence of toxic chemicals in the soil and water
bodies up to 7 acres from the CPC plant in the buffer zone caused due to leakage from
effluent pipes of the plant.41
[39]. Improper disposal of waste and its implication are evident from the death of domestic
and wild animals, human beings and from a report of 134 cases of severe stomach ache
and vomiting.42

1. IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF THE WASTE IN THE VIOLATION OF THE  HAZARDOUS AND

OTHER WASTES (MANAGEMENT AND TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT) RULES, 2016.

[38]. The waste being generated by the company is Hazardous in nature as defined by sec
3(17)43 of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement)
Rules, 2016.
[39]. Section 3(13)44 talks about “environmentally sound management of hazardous and other
wastes” which means taking all steps required to ensure that the hazardous and other
wastes are managed in a manner which shall protect health and the environment against
the adverse effects which may result from such waste; but in our case no such step was
taken by the company.
[40]. Further it is submitted that the company failed to comply with Section 4(1)(f) 45 and
section 4(2)46 which says that the occupier shall be responsible for safe and
environmentally sound management of hazardous and other wastes. And section 6 of the
rule which says the occupier shall take all the steps while managing hazardous and other
wastes to contain contaminants and prevent accidents and limit their consequences on
human beings and the environment.
[41]. In the instant case, the Appellant has failed to comply with the section 4(1)(f) 47, Section
4(2)48 and section 649 of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. And hence the liability of the company should
be fixed under Section 750 of the rule, which empowers for the cancellation of a letter of

41
Moot Proposition ¶ 16.
42
Moot Proposition ¶ 16.
43
3(17) of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
44
3(13) of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016
45
Section 4(1)(f) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules,
2016.
46
Section 4(2) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
47
Supra note 45.
48
Supra note 46.
49
Section 6 of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
50
Section 7 of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 Page |9

approval of the industry if the holder of the authorisation has failed to comply with any of
the conditions of the authorisation or with any provisions of the Act or these rules. The
violation of the provisions of the rule by the company attract liability under Section 23 51
of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules,
2016 which says the operator of the disposal facility shall be liable for all damages caused
to the environment or third party due to improper handling and management of the
hazardous and other waste. This section also talks about the liability to pay financial
penalties as levied for the damage caused. Hence the company should be held responsible
under secretion 7 and 23 of the rule for the violation of the provisions of the Rule.

2. FAILURE IN SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL AUDIT AND SAFETY REPORTS IN THE YEAR
2021 IS A VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) RULES,
1986

[42]. The company was also found to have not filed the annual audit and safety reports in the
year 2021 to the concerned authorities. Which shows that not filing the environmental
audit means defeating the purpose of the environmental audit report which violates the
provisions of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.52
[43]. The purpose of the Environmental Audit exercise is to self-assess to minimize the
generation of wastes and pollution potential. environmental auditing is a management tool
comprising a systematic, documented, periodic and objective evaluation of 1) how well
the management systems are performing with the aim of waste prevention and reduction:
2) assessing compliance with regulatory requirements; 3) facilitating control of
environmental practices by a Company's management: and 4) placing environmental
information in the public domain. 53 Not filing the environmental audit shows that the
company is at fault for improper disposal of the waste originating from its CPC plant and
the spillage of effluents contaminating the environment.
[44]. The previous conduct of the industry like improper disposal of waste, spillage of the
effluents and not generating the annual audit and safety reports as stated in the factual
matrix is the result of the conscious disregard of the duty on the part of the company
hence the company should be held liable for the contamination of the environment.

51
Section 23 of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. 
52
Section 14 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
53
https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/hwmd/Guidelines_HW_3.pdf

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | 10

B. BOOST ARYA LTD. WAS AT FAULT FOR SPILLAGE OF EFFLUENTS CONTAMINATING

THE ENVIRONMENT.

[40]. It is humbly submitted that the Appellant is at fault for spillage of the effluents
contaminating the environment as [1.], Irresponsible act on behalf of the Appellant in
managing the effluents released from the Plant, and [2.] Improper disposal of waste is
against the environmental interest; [3.]  Failure to take any preventive measure being the
owner of a dangerous premise.

1. IRRESPONSIBLE ACT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT IN MANAGING THE

EFFLUENTS RELEASED FROM THE PLANT

[45]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of its judgments has also emphasized the need
for a clean environment and has held that Article 2154 of the Constitution includes the
right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. In Subhash
Kumar v. State of Bihar, The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the right to life is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of
enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. Thus, it is submitted
that the right to a healthy environment, casts a duty on every person that he or they do not
impair the healthy environment.
[46]. The company was at fault because the maintenance of the underground pipeline was not
done properly and no system was laid down to keep check on the pipeline on a regular
basis. Generally the underground pipeline is kept at sufficient depth so that it can’t get
affected by normal human intervention. But in the present case the company failed to do
so.
[47]. The Appellant’s units are so unconscionable that even after a complaint about a
chemical smell emanating from the waste disposal area and improper management of the
waste, they have failed to adhere to environmental norms. The environmental damage
done by respondent units is massive and if no immediate steps are taken against such
industrial units, substantial environmental damage will be caused to the entire area which
comprises natural flora fauna, agricultural land, human beings, animals and water bodies.
Since such industrial units have completely failed to abide by the environmental norms,
the continuous pollution by this company led to a substantial increase in soil, air and
water pollution.

2. IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF WASTE IS AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEREST.

54
Art. 21 of the Ind. Const.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | 11

[48]. It is an un-denying fact that every population must manage the disposal of its waste or
suffer the health consequences. We must remind ourselves of the dictum of ancient
environmental ethics that guides us to live in harmony with nature. Observation of the
Apex Court in this direction highlights the same, wherein, the Apex Court in
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B.55 observed that,
“You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our
grandfathers so that they will respect the land. Tell your children that the earth is rich
with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have taught our children that earth
is our mother… Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own
waste.”56
[49]. The principle of sustainable development is also based on similar principles. 57 Which
says that sustainable development is based on the premise that they are co-extensive or
mutually interconnected.58 But in our case the company has failed to draw a balance
between the environmental interest and the economic interest because the improper
disposal of waste goes against the principle of sustainable development.
[50]. There has been opposition to the establishment of the appellant by the tribals ever since
the inception of the plant, but owing to insufficient public hearings, the public did not get
an opportunity to express their sentiments against the appellant. It is submitted that Courts
have always looked at balancing economic interest with environmental interest and held
that protection of the environment will always take precedence over economic interest.59

3. WHETHER THE BOOST ARYA LTD IS LIABLE TO PAY THE AWARD

MONEY FOR THE LOSS OF THE HUMAN LIFE COMPENSATION AND
MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE SICKNESS CAUSED, DEATH OF
DOMESTIC/ WILD ANIMALS AND HARM CAUSED TO THE ECOLOGY?

[57]. It is humbly submitted that the Appellant is [A.], liable to pay the award given by the
NGT; [B.] There is a violation of established principles; [C.], there is a violation of the
right of the people.

A. BOOST ARYA LTD. IS LIABLE TO PAY THE AWARD GIVEN BY THE NGT

55
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B, (1987) 2 SCC 295.
56
Ibid.
57
Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, (2004) 2 SCC 392.
58
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281.
59
P.V. Krishnamoorthy v. Government of India in W.P. No. 16630 of 2018.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | 12

[58]. That the Appellant is liable to pay the damages as ordered by the NGT as [1.], there is ,
statutory liability to pay and [2.], absolute liability to pay compensation.

1. STATUTORY LIABILITY TO PAY IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS

[59]. It is submitted that an enterprise is liable to pay compensation to the victims of pollution
and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I
of the NGT Act, 201060. Furthermore, if the act of the enterprise results in death, injury or
any other harm specified in Schedule I of the Act 61, it will be liable to compensate the
victim and make good whatever harm has resulted due to its activities. Also, the principle
of No- fault will be applicable in cases mentioned above.62
[60]. Additionally, NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 201163 confers the discretionary
power to NGT to pass such an order as may be necessary to secure ends of justice.64
[61]. As established in the above submissions, failure to take any preventive measures as well
as blatant disregard of Environmental guidelines resulted in loss of human life, sickness,
death of domestic/wild animals and harm caused to the ecology. Thus, the Boost Arya Ltd
is liable to pay the award money.

2. ABSOLUTE LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO PAY COMPENSATION

[62]. It is submitted that an enterprise that is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous

activity that could endanger the health and safety of those who work there and live nearby
owes the community an absolute, non-delegable duty to make sure that the activity is
carried out in accordance with the highest standards of safety.65Furthermore, even if the
company took all reasonable precautions and the injury occurred without any carelessness
on its side, it must be absolutely obliged to compensate for any damages that arise as a
result of the activity.66
[63]. It is further submitted that if an organization is allowed to engage in a hazardous or
intrinsically dangerous activity for financial benefit, the law must assume that approval is

60
Sec 15 of NGT Act, 2010.
61
Sec 17(a) of NGT Act, 2010
62
Sec 17(c) of NGT Act, 2010
63
NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011
64
Rule 24, S. No. 57 of the Final list of Red Category industrial sectors included in Table G-2 of the notification
dated 7/3/16 by the CPSC, MOEFCC.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | 13

contingent upon the organization bearing the expense of any accidents resulting from that
activity.67
[64]. Since, Boost Arya Ltd is dealing with petrochemicals and Petrochemical Manufacturing
industries68 are classified into Red Category industry as being one among the 17
categories of Highly Polluting Industries.69
[65]. In view of the above, by the very nature of the activity carried on by the industry, it is
absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused to people as well as the environment.
[66]. Additionally, since such pay must have a deterrent effect, the measure of compensation
in the types of circumstances mentioned in the previous paragraph must be correlated to
the size and capability of the firm. The amount of compensation that must be paid by the
enterprise for the harm caused by an accident in the course of engaging in the hazardous
or inherently risky activity must be greater the larger and more successful the firm.70
[67]. It is submitted that Boost Group of Industries Ltd. is a multinational corporation and has
the largest chain of CPC plants in the continent and the third largest in the world
Considering size and capability of the plant as well as the harm resulted due to its
activities, it liable to pay the awarded compensation..71

B. THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES

[68]. It is humble submitted that the award of the NGT is not in violation of established
principles as [1.], the NGT award hold the polluter pays principle.

1. THE NGT AWARD UPHOLDS THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE

[69]. It is submitted that the Polluter pays principle (“PPP”) is a well-recognized principle of
environmental law both at the international level72 and domestic level in India73. At the
international level, there are several multilateral environmental treaties that have
incorporated PPP.
[70]. It is further submitted that while passing any order or decision or award, it is mandatory
for the National Green tribunal to apply the principles of sustainable development, the
67
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395.
68
S. No. 57 of the Final list of Red Category industrial sectors included in Table G-2 of the notification dated
7/3/16 by the CPSC, MOEFCC.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid
71
Moot Proposition ¶ 4.
72
P. Sands & J. Peel, with A. Fabra & R. MacKenzie, Principles of International Environmental Law 228 (3 ed.,
2012).
73
L. Bhullar, Polluter Pays Principle : Scope and limits of Judicial Decisions, 152 in Indian Environmental
Law : Key Concepts and Principles (Shibani Ghosh, 1 ed., 2019).

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | 14

precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. 74 These principles form an
intrinsic part of the environmental laws of India.75
[71]. Additionally, the Environment [Protection] Act confers upon the Central Government
the power to give directions of the above nature and to the above effect. Levy of costs
required for carrying out remedial measures is implicit in Sections 3 and 4 76 which are
couched in a very wide and expansive language. Appropriate directions can be given by
this Court to the Central Government to invoke and exercise those powers with such
modulations as are called for in the facts and circumstances of this case.77
[72]. It is submitted that regardless of whether he exercised reasonable caution while
engaging in the activity, if it is hazardous or intrinsically dangerous, the person engaging
in it is responsible for compensating anyone who suffers loss as a result of it.78
[73]. The Modern day “principles of polluter pays” was 1st incorporated in Principles 21 and
22 of the Stockholm Declaration 1973.79 Thereafter, the european Charter on the
environment and Health, 198980 and single European Act, 198681 made provisions for
applying the polluter pays principles. The United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development, 199282 under Principle 15 incorporated the polluter pays principle.
[74]. Compensation from the company can at least be the balm to soothe the wounds of the
thousands who suffered physically, emotionally and financially. Therefore, the award
given by the NGT must be upheld by the Hon’ble Court.

C. VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

[75]. It is humbly submitted that the there is a violation of the rights of the people as [1.],
Right to a healthy environment of the people has been violated.

1. THE APPELLANT RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT OF THE PEOPLE HAS BEEN

VIOLATED.

74
Sec 20, NGT Act, 2010.
75
Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v Union of India and Anr(2005) 10
SCC 510; Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India and Ors (1996)5 SCC 647; A.P Pollution Control
Board v Prof. M.V Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors, 1994 (3) SCC 1.
76
Sec 3 and 4 of Environment Protection Act, 1986.
77
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India(1996) 3 SCC 212
78
Ibid.
79
11ILM 1416 (1972)
80
The Rio Declaration on environment and Development c.f. 31 ILM 876 (1992).
81
European Act, 1986
82
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | 15

[76]. It is submitted that the right to life83 with human dignity encompasses, the protection
and preservation of the environment, ecological balance, free from pollution of air and
water, without which life cannot be enjoyed. 84 Right to life has a much wider meaning
than just animal existence.85 If there was any danger made to the ecology, it results with
infringement of the fundamental right to a healthy life protected under Article 21.86
[77]. It is further submitted that, in the present case the improper disposal of the waste
originating from its CPC plant and the spillage of effluents contaminated the environment
which resulted in the unnatural death of wild as well as domestic animals. he chemical
toxicity as cited in the post mortem report of the animals. 134 people also suffered with
stomach pain and vomiting and the same resulted in the deaths of two people.87
[78]. It is submitted that the boost Arya Ltd’s failure to carry out their statutory duties
inflicted untold misery upon the people as well as domestic and wild animals and
ultimately undermined the right to life of the residents of Samsar Village and the affected
area guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

83
Art. 21 of the Ind. Const.
84
Virendra Gaur & Ors v State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 577
85
Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay v Dilikumar; Field, J. in Munn v Illinois.1983 SCC (1) 124
86
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (87) v. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC 1
87
Moot Proposition ¶ 17.

5th Surana & Surana and UILS - National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, 2023
 P a g e | XIII

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed before this Court that it may be pleased to declare the appeal as
dismissed.

And pass any other order as it may deem fit in favour of the RESPONDENT to meet the
ends of justice, fairness and equity.

All of which is humbly prayed.

Date: 14th January 2023 S/d

Counsels for the Respondent