BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALYANA

IN THE MATTER OF

JAGO BHARATH........................................................................PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF KALYANA AND ORS...........................................RESPONDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

SD/-

COUNSELS FOR PETITIONERS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL. NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 BOOKS 4
 DICTIONARIES
2. 4
 LEGISLATIONS
 LEGAL DATABASE 5
 WEBSITES REFERRED
 TABLE OF CASES 7

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 8

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8. PRAYER

MEMORIALS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Acc According

Art Article

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme court cases

Ltd Limited

i.e That is

Sec Section

Admn Administration

SC Supreme Court

Hon’ble Honorable

UOI Union of India

Ors Others

ECC Environment clearance certificate

etc Et cetera

v/s versus

Page | 3
MEMORIALS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA – Dr. J. N. PANDEY

2. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA – V. N. SHUKLA

DICTIONARIES AND LAW LEXICONS

1. BLACK HENRY CAMPBELL, BLACK ' S LAW DICTIONARY 6TH EDN.,1990

2. GARNER BRYAN, BLACK ' LAW DICTIONARY, 7TH EDN
3. GARNER BRYAN, MODERN LEGAL USAGE, 1991

LEGISLATIONS

Page | 4
MEMORIALS ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER
LEGAL DATABASES

1. MANUPATRA

2. SCC ONLINE

WEBSITES REFERRED

 http://www.manupatra.com

 http://www.cdjlawjournal.com

 http://www.lawteacher.net

 http://www.legalserviceindia.com

 http://www.thehindu.com

 http:/www.timesofindia.com

 http://www.casemine.com

 http://www.Lawyerservices.com

Page | 5
MEMORIALS ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER
 TABLE OF CASES

SL NO. NAME OF THE CASE CITATIONS

Page | 6
MEMORIALS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble HC Court of Kalyana
invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Indian constitution “Notwithstanding anything in
Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any
Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose”

Under Article 227 of Indian Constitution “Power of superintendence over all courts by the High
Court: Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction”.

Page | 7
PETITIONER
MEMORIALS ON BEHALF OF THE
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the State of KALYANA, severe water scarcity due to natural factors has prompted the
government to construct dams to address the water shortage crisis. This initiative aims to
accumulate rainwater for various essential purposes such as drinking, agriculture, and industrial
use, as well as to replenish underground water levels. However, the construction of one of these
dams in a severely affected district would impact ten adjacent villages, primarily reliant on
agriculture for their livelihoods. Their agricultural fields are at risk of being submerged or
waterlogged as a result of the dam construction, which would jeopardize their means of living.

To carry out the dam construction, the government of KALYANA issued global tenders, and the
contract was awarded to Regal Constructions Limited. The company applied for environmental
clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, which was granted on the grounds of
larger public interest, despite objections from the affected villagers and the environmental
advocacy organization "Jago Bharath."

"Jago Bharath," an NGO dedicated to environmental protection in the Indus region, has urged the
government not to proceed with the dam construction, citing concerns about environmental
imbalance. They have filed a petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of
Indus, challenging the validity of the Environment Clearance Certificate, asserting that it goes
against the spirit of the Constitution and national interests. Additionally, "Jago Bharath" has taken
up the cause of the displaced agricultural communities, contending that the dam's construction
violates Article 21 of the Constitution of Indus, which guarantees the right to life and personal
liberty.

In this complex situation, "Jago Bharath" is acting as a human rights advocate, seeking to protect
both the environment and the livelihoods of the affected agriculturists, while the State of
KALYANA is determined to proceed with the dam construction in the interest of the larger public
good. The case will likely involve legal and ethical considerations as it unfolds.

Page | 8
MEMORIALS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE – I

WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION FILED UNDER ART.226 AND ART.227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDUS HAS BEEN FIELD IN PUBLIC INTEREST AND
THEREFORE MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION?

ISSUE – II

WHETHER THE HIGH COURT OF KALYANA CAN INTERFERE IN ANY POLICY

DECISION TAKEN BY THE STATE OF KALYANA?

ISSUE - III

WHETHER THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURISTS FROM THE AREA

WHERE THE PROPOSED DAM IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AMOUNTS TO
VIOLATION OF ART. 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS?

ISSUE – IV

WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY THE

STATE IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION OF INDUS AND
DECISION TAKEN BY THE STATE OF KALYANA TO CONSTRUCT THE DAM
DESERVES TO BE MAINTAINED OR SHOULD BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE?

Page | 9
MEMORIALS ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION FILED UNDER ART.226 AND ART.227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS HAS BEEN FIELD IN PUBLIC INTEREST AND
THEREFORE MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION?

The petitioner's case is admissible in a court of law. The Hon'ble Judge of the High Court
in Kalyana possesses the inherent authority to handle this case, given their writ jurisdiction.
The petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Hon'ble High Court of
Kalyana, invoking the provisions of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

II. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT OF KALYANA CAN INTERFERE IN ANY POLICY
DECISION TAKEN BY THE STATE OF KALYANA?

In general, when it comes to Judicial Review, courts tend not to intervene in the policy
decisions made by the executive branch of the government. However, there are exceptions.
Courts may step in if they find that a policy decision was made with malicious intent or if it
appears to be unreasonable. We'll delve into these aspects further in the discussion.

III. WHETHER THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURISTS FROM THE AREA

WHERE THE PROPOSED DAM IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AMOUNTS TO
VIOLATION OF ART. 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS?

Yes, the displacement of the agriculturists from the area where the proposed dam is to be built
raises concerns about a potential violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 is a
fundamental provision that safeguards an individual's right to life and personal liberty. It explicitly
states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law."

Page |
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
The construction of the dam is poised to impact ten villages adjacent to its location. These villagers
depend primarily on agriculture for their livelihoods. As a consequence of the dam's construction,
their agricultural fields may either be submerged or become waterlogged, jeopardizing their means
of earning a living. This situation indeed raises questions about the violation of the right to life and
personal liberty of the agriculturists in the affected land area.

IV. WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY

THE STATE IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION OF INDUS
AND DECISION TAKEN BY THE STATE OF KALYANA TO CONSTRUCT THE DAM
DESERVES TO BE MAINTAINED OR SHOULD BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE?

It is humbly submitted that ECC granted to the state for the construction of dam is bad in letter as it
violated the provisions under land Acquisition Act 2013, environmental impact assessment
notification, 2006.

Page |
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION FILED UNDER ART.226 AND ART.227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS HAS BEEN FIELD IN PUBLIC INTEREST AND
THEREFORE MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble High court of Kalyana that the present PIL is
maintainable against the state of Kalyana under article 226 and 227 of the Indus Constitution. It is
further submitted that there is a violation of Article 21 of the Indus constitution.

1.1 Public interest litigation:

Black’s Law Dictionary defines Public Interest as: “Something in which the public, the community
at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular
localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in
affairs of local, state or national Government.” 1 The word ‘litigation’ means a legal action,
including all legal proceedings initiated in a Court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or
seeking a remedy.

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others 2, the Hon’ble
court defined Public Interest Litigation and observed that “Public interest litigation is a cooperative
or collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State of public authority and the judiciary to secure
observance of constitutional or basic human rights, benefits and privileges upon poor,
downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society.”

It is respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the current case is in the public interest
for the people of Kalyana because environmental damage has occurred and the livelihood of the
inhabitants of these villages is in jeopardy. It affects the vast majority of agricultural-based
families. Building a dam is a complex procedure that will take place in a sensitive environment
where agricultural areas would either be inundated or become waterlogged, depriving people of
their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Indus constitution. Rather, the administration seems
unconcerned with what will happen to impoverished farmers and village residents once the

1
Black’s Law Dictionary.
2
People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others

PAGE | 09
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
government allots funds to them.
In the case, R. Prakash Vs Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others 3, it is clearly mentioned by justice S.
MANIKUMAR “No doubt, Public Interest Litigations have come to occupy an important field in
the administration of Law. Public Interest Litigations are very useful handle for redressing the
grievances of the people. But, unfortunately, lately, it has been abused by interested persons.”

The administration of justice should always prioritize genuine public interest over publicity,
private interests, or political motives. Courts of justice must not become a platform for
unscrupulous litigants to exploit their own agendas through extraordinary jurisdiction. In light of
this, it's important to recognize that the issue concerning farmers is undeniably a matter of public
interest. Their livelihoods and well-being are at stake, affecting not only the farmers themselves
but also the larger community they serve. Therefore, the justice system should be open to
addressing and resolving these concerns in a fair and impartial manner, ensuring that the genuine
public interest is served and protected.

Agricultural lands will be flooded or submerged as a result of the dam construction, robbing the
impacted people of their right to subsistence. The advantages of the dam are outweighed by the
eviction of the farmers and the potential interruption of their livelihoods. To alleviate water
scarcity without adversely affecting the villagers' lives and livelihoods, other alternatives should be
investigated.

II. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT OF KALYANA CAN INTERFERE IN

ANY POLICY DECISION TAKEN BY THE STATE OF KALYANA?
It is humbly submitted that the directions given by the HC under Article 226 cannot be altered by
the state Government. Policy Decisions of the State are not to be disturbed/interfered with unless
they are found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational. this is a statement by SC, and it is also
mentioned in the judgement of case that while infringement of fundamental right, HC can pass an
order to state for a stay or shutting down or just adjust it and readjust it according to the
compulsions of circumstances and the imperatives of national considerations.4

3
R. Prakash Vs Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others
4
Col. A.S. Sangwan v. Union of India

Page |
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
III. WHETHER THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURISTS FROM THE AREA
WHERE THE PROPOSED DAM IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AMOUNTS TO
VIOLATION OF ART. 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS?

I humbly submit this matter before the Hon'ble High Court, expressing concerns about a potential
violation of Article 21 of our Constitution. This article safeguards our right to life and personal
liberty, emphasizing that these rights cannot be taken away except through established legal
procedures. The issue at hand involves the government's plan to relocate villagers in order to
construct a dam, and it raises important questions about the consequences for these villagers. They
have the fundamental right to choose where they live and how they lead their lives. Moving them
to a new location would require them to find new resources for farming, build new homes, and
adapt to a different way of life. These villagers primarily rely on agriculture for their livelihoods,
and such a move could severely affect their ability to make a living, especially if the soil in the
new area is less fertile. They may not be familiar with the new environment and its suitability for
their crops. In light of these concerns, it may be in the best interest of both the villagers and society
to consider providing them with an alternative piece of land or appropriate compensation. This
way, their right to a peaceful and self-determined life can be preserved, while still allowing for
necessary development.

The construction of the dam appears to be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
which guarantees the right to live with dignity as a member of a civilized society. I would like to
humbly bring to your attention that a constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated
this principle in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration. In that case, the court affirmed
that the right to life encompasses a person's traditions, culture, heritage, and all that gives meaning
to their life. It includes the right to live in peace, to sleep peacefully, and the right to enjoy good
health5. In the current situation, the construction of the earth-fill dam could potentially violate the
right to life of the villagers. It is essential to consider the impact on their way of life, traditions, and
overall well-being. The construction might disrupt their peace and harmony, affecting their ability
to live with dignity as valued members of society.

It is humbly submitted that in the case of Narendra Kumar Chandla V. State of Haryana6, the
Hon’ble SC held that the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. It is humbly

5
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
6
Narendra Kumar Chandla V. State of Haryana
Page |
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
submitted that right to shelter has been held to be fundamental right which from the right to
residence secured under Article 19 (1)(e) and right to life guaranteed under Article 21.

It is humbly submitted that under Article 25(1) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and
of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and
the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.7

IV. WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY

THE STATE IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION OF INDUS
AND DECISION TAKEN BY THE STATE OF KALYANA TO CONSTRUCT THE DAM
DESERVES TO BE MAINTAINED OR SHOULD BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE?

It is humbly submitted that the preamble of Land Acquisition Act, 2013 provides” An Act to
ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and Gram Sabhas established
under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land
acquisition for industrialization, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanization
with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and
fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired
or are affected by such acquisition”.8

It is humbly submitted that the object & purpose of the act is to ensure the least disturbance to
owners of the land and affected families but in the instant case the construction of the dam would
affect ten villages which are adjoining to the location of the dam.

The Section 4 of land acquisition act, 2013 provides “preliminary investigation for determination
of social impact and public purpose” where an appropriate government who acquires land has to
concern the local panchayat or Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, at
village level or ward level, in the affected area and carry out a Social Impact Assessment study in

7
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
8
Land Acquisition Act, 2013
consultation with them. It is humbly submitted that the government of Kalyana has failed to
consult the local public who is likely to get effected by the construction of the dam.

It is submitted that under section 2 (2) of the said Act, provides “Application of the Act. - (1) The
provisions of this Act shall apply when the State Government acquires land for its own use, hold or
control or for use, hold and control of a local authority or a corporation owned and controlled by
the State, for public purposes.

(2) The provisions of this Act shall also apply, when the State Government acquires land for the
following purposes, namely: -
(a) for public private partnership projects, where the ownership of the land continues to vest with
the State Government.
(b) for private companies for public purpose: Provided that in the case of acquisition for
(i) private companies, the prior consent of at least eighty percent of persons interested; and
(ii) public private partnership projects excluding infrastructure projects, the prior consent of at least
sixty percent of the persons interested, shall be obtained in the prescribed manner.”

It is humbly submitted that the government failed to take consent of the local people which is
again in violation of provisions of the land acquisition Act.

Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006: It is humbly submitted that under

Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 , for the grant of environmental clearance
certificate , the Central Government hereby directs that on and from the date of its publication the
required construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing
projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification entailing capacity addition with
change in process and or technology shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior
environmental clearance from the Central Government or as the case may be, by the State Level
Environment Impact Assessment Authority, duly constituted by the Central Government under
sub-section (3) of section 3 of the said Act, in accordance with the procedure specified hereinafter
in this notification.9

The clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests is not legal and proper hence
construction of dam shall not be taken place and even if takes place it shall be constructed where

9
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
there is no harm to public at large. The agriculturalists are also not in favor of the construction of
the dam since they will be displaced from the land where the dam is to be constructed and would
be deprived of livelihood.
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for
the petitioners most humbly and respectfully pray before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that it may
be pleased to adjudge and declare that,

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favor of the petitioners to meet the ends of equity,
justice, and good conscience. For this act of Kindness, the petitioners shall duty-bound forever
pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS

Page | 27

MEMORIALS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER