STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I
Whether the writ petitions filed by Consortium of Companies and Employee’s Forum are
maintainable?
ISSUE II
Whether the declaration that Cubango SEZ Ordinance is unconstitutional by Cubango High
Court is justifiable?
ISSUE III
Whether the state’s proposal to have Kigali Hydroelectric project is violative of rights of Kigali
Tribes?
ISSUE IV
Whether the issuance of writ of mandamus in the petition filed by Kali Raghavan justifiable?
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY CONSORTIUM OF

COMPANIES AND EMPLOYEE’S FORUM ARE MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in the Hon’ble Court of Talicana
under Article 226, as there is no patent violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural
justice. Further, a writ under Article 226 cannot be issued under circumstances where it is futile
or ineffective or for the interest of few. Since, the respondents are private parties it is not
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the alternative remedies
are sufficient and have not been exhausted. The respondent’s comment is fair and proportionate
and does not impede the administration of justice. Thus, no right of the petitioner is violated and
the writ petition is not maintainable.

II. WHETHER THE DECLARATION THAT CUBANGO SPECIAL ECONOMIC

ZONE (SEZ) ORDINANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY CUBANGO HIGH
COURT IS JUSTIFIABLE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Cubango Special Economic Zone
Ordinance is indeed constitutional and justifiable. The legislations made are valid and that they
do not intent to enact a law that is ultra vires to the Constitution. It is affirmative that the said
ordinance is passed for achieving the Constitutional Objectives of social and economic
development. Deference to the acts of coordinate branches of government is both appropriate and
necessary for the proper functioning of the system established by the constitution. Thus, it is
conceded that the declaration of the said ordinance is justifiable.

III. WHETHER THE STATE’S PROPOSAL TO HAVE KIGALI

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
KIGALI TRIBES?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the State’s proposal to have Kigali
Hydroelectric power project is not violative of the rights of the Kigali tribes. Since, as per the
guidelines of the Environmental Protection Act of 1986, the State had conducted the
Environmental Impact Assessment, which unequivocally approved the same with certain
precautions. Undoubtedly, this hydro electric power project is only to facilitate the social and
economic goals and developments as mentioned in the Constitution of Talicana. Hence the hydro
electric project is completely a viable option.

IV. WHETHER THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE

PETITION FILED BY KALI RAGHAVAN JUSTIFIABLE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the writ of Mandamus filed by Kali
Raghavan is not justifiable. No mandamus will lie against an Officer or Member of Parliament or
an Officer or Member of the Legislature of a State to whom powers are vested by or under
the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business or for maintaining order in
Parliament or the State legislature. Since, the State of Cubango is performing their Constitutional
duties and had acquired the land in dispute under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act of
1894; it is invalid to issue the writ of mandamus for redistributing the Lands under the Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013.
 PLEADINGS

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY THE CONSORTIUM OF

COMPANIES AND EMPLOYYEE’S FORUM ARE MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly contended that the petitions filed by the Consortium of Companies and the
Employee’s Forum are not maintainable as under Art. 2261.
The respondents have filed the writ petitions under those circumstances where the relief
cannot be sought under Art. 226-
 The exercise of powers for “other purposes” (i.e., purposes other than the
enforcement of fundamental rights2) is discretionary.3 (1.1)
 On the ground that the writ cannot lie against the exercise of legislative or
executive functions.4 (1.2)
 A writ cannot be issued under Art. 226 in circumstances where it would be futile
or ineffective, 5 or mere academic interest.6 (1.3)
 It catches the eye just for the sake of garnering the media attention and their one
minute of fame.7 (1.5)
1.1 The exercise of powers for “other purposes” (i.e., purposes other than the
enforcement of fundamental rights) is discretionary-
 Though the Constitution of Talicana (hereinafter referred to as CoT) provides
wider scope for issuance of writs for other purposes, in the instant case, the same
cannot be filed for by the Consortium of Companies and the Employees’ Forum
(hereinafter referred to as the respondents) because they do not fall under the
purview of ‘State' or an 'instrumentality' or an 'agency' of the Government.8
 The writ petition is not maintainable as the respondents are not under the direct
control of the Government and are not under the sweep of Art. 12 of the CoT. The

1
Constitution of Talicana in Pari Materia to the Constitution of India
2
Prem Narain v. State of UP., A. 1959 All. 205 (209)
3
Rashid v. Income-Tax Investigation Commn., (1954) S.C.R. 738
4
Honkong Banking Corp. v. Bhaidas, A. 1951 Bom. 158
5
S.K. Bose V. Krishna Nagar Municipality, A. 1956 Cal. 393 (396)
6
Prem Narain v. State of UP., A. 1959 All. 205 (209)
7
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (crl.) 199 of 2003
8
Unni krishnan J.P. & Ors. v. State of A.P & Ors., 1993 AIR 2178, 1993 SCR (1) 594
 Government does not exercise direct, deep and pervasive control over the
respondent.9
 The expression 'any person' and ‘other purpose’ cannot include private persons
who are not performing public functions and not any other purpose than
enforcement of fundamental rights.10
 One of the grounds against the exercise of that discretion would be that the right
claimed is not capable of being established under Art. 226.11
 A private body cannot enforce fundamental rights nor be enforced against it.12
 Therefore, it is humbly affirmed before the Hon’ble Court that the writ petitions
filed by the respondents U/A 226 is not maintainable on the grounds that a private
person, for any other reasons (i.e., other than the fundamental rights under Part
III) cannot file the same.13
1.2 The writ cannot lie against the exercise of legislative or executive functions-
 The powers and privileges of legislatures are prescribed and protected by the
Constitution of Talicana. Such a power can be exercised by the legislatures and it
cannot be challenged on the basis of fundamental rights or otherwise any other
rights.14
 Promissory estoppels cannot be invoked to estop legislature in exercise of its
legislative functions.15
 So, it is entirely a matter of executive branch of the government to decide whether
or not to introduce any particular legislation.16
 The courts must not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into
the areas reserved for executive and legislature by the Constitution.17
 The petitioner most humbly submits that the Supreme Court has long held that
interference into policy actions is not within its jurisdiction.18

9
S.C. Sharma v. UOI & Ors., on 10th October 2007
10
H.M Seervai Constitutional Law of India; 4th Ed.
11
Bibuthi V. Damodar Valley Corp., A. 1953 Cal. 581
12
Kochunni K.K. v. State of Mad., 1960 AIR 1080
13
State of Punj. & Ors. V. Raja Ram & Ors., 1981 AIR 1694, 1981 SCR (2) 712
14
MSM Sharma Vs. Sreekrishna Sinha., AIR 1959 SC 395
15
Kerala Vs. Gwalior Rayons Manufacturing Co., AIR 1973 SC 2734
16
State of H.P. v. Parent of a student, Medical College, Shimla., AIR 1985 SC910
17
S.P. Gupta & Ors. v. President of India., AIR 1982 SC 149
  Art. 32 or Art. 226 cannot be invoked to make the state to accept and enforce a
particular policy.19
 This, is therefore humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court the writ petition
filed by Consortium of Companies and Employee’s forum are not maintainable.
1.3 A writ cannot be issued under Art. 226 in circumstances where it would be futile or
ineffective, or mere academic interest-
 It is humbly contended that the Consortium of Companies and Employees Forum
have filed the writ for benefiting individual interest.20
 It is the duty of the court to carefully observe that the member of the public who
approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide, and not for private
profit or other oblique consideration.21
 Thus, it is asserted before the Hon’ble Court that the respondents have for
vindicating their personal interest.22
 Private writ is not maintainable.23
 They have had their personal interests and not for a common purpose.
1.4 It catches the eye just for the sake of garnering the media attention and their one
minute of fame-
 It is contended that the consortium of companies and employees forum has filed
the petitions on the grounds merely to gain publicity.
 While it is the duty of this court to ensure fundamental rights, it is also the duty of
this court to ensure that the weapon under Art. 226, should not be misused or
permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior Court preventing
other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the Court.24
 Thus, it is humbly affirmed before the Hon’ble Court that the respondents are
misusing the weapon of writ under Art. 226.

18
Directorate Of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors, Appeal (civil) 1892 of 2007
19
Shrikrishna Bhatt v. UOI., 1990 (1) SCALE 155
20
Malik Brothers v. Narendra Dadhich., AIR 1999 SC 3211
21
S.P. Gupta v. UOI., AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365
22
Subash Kumar v. State of BH., AIR 1991 SCW 121; 1991 SCR 5
23
Delhi Municipal Workers Union (Regd.) v. M.C. Delhi., AIR 2001 Delhi 68
24
Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Smiti v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 3060; 1990 (4) SCC 449
  The respondents have no locus standi in filing the writ because of which the
judicial process has now been broken,25 because the aim of writ should be for a
public gain and not for publicity.26
 The petitioner submits that the Court has held that only if there is a violation of
Fundamental Rights can it step in under the Jurisdiction of Article 226.27
 Unless there is prima facie evidence to prove that exercise of discretion has been
arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide, the Court cannot step into the shoes of the
Government to decide the validity of a policy or for the creation of a policy. 28
Therefore, it is contended that the Writ filed by the consortium of companies and employees
were to weed out the time of this Hon’ble Court.

II. WHETHER THE DECLARATION THAT CUBANGO SPECIAL ECONOMIC

ZONE (SEZ) ORDINANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY CUBANGO HIGH
COURT IS JUSTIFIABLE?

The judiciary is one of the pillars on which the edifice of the constitution is built. It is the
guiding pillar of democracy, what is happening inside it is a fascinating study. 29
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law providing for—
(a) The acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the
extinguishment or modification of any such rights, or
(b) The taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period
either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property,
or
(c) The amalgamation of two or more corporations either in the public interest or in
order to secure the proper management of any of the corporations, or
(d) The extinguishment or modification of any rights of managing agents, secretaries and
treasurers, managing directors, directors or managers of corporations, or of any voting
rights of shareholders thereof, or…….”30
25
Peoples’ Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI.,AIR 1982 SC 1473
26
Supra Note 8
27
Romesh Thapar v UOI., AIR 1950 SC 124
28
State of M.P. and Others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Other, (1986) 4 SCC 566
29
Speaking of the Supreme Court of United States of America, Jackson J
 Therefore, it is clearly adhered to here that the said ordinance is not violative of the
Constitution and the declaration that the special economic zone ordinance is
unconstitutional is simply ambiguous.
Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the
State towards securing[all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV] shall be deemed
to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the
rights conferred by article 14 or article 19; 31and no law containing a declaration that it
is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground
that it does not give effect to such policy.32
Therefore it is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the SEZ ordinance
brought by the State of Cubango is not violative of the Constitution, because the state was
achieving the basic objectives of overall social, economic and cultural development,
which as well includes the building of a Cricket Stadium, which leads to overall
development of the country.
The Court has laid down a two-fold test:33
a) Whether an amendment or a law is violative of any of the Fundamental Rights in
PartIII. (2.1)
b) Arguendo, if so, whether the violation found is destructive of the basic structure of
the Constitution. (2.2)
2.1 Whether an amendment or a law is violative of any of the fundament rights
enshrined in Part III of the Constitution-
 The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of clause (a) of Article 31A (1) on the
test of basic structure.34
 The Court held that the whole of Art. 31A is unassailable on the basis of stare decisis, a
quietus that should not allowed to be disturbed.35
 Therefore it is humbly affirmed that the SEZ ordinance which has been made in par with
Constitutional provisions are not violative and hence are constitutional.

30
Article 31A
31
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala., (1973) Supp. S.C.R. 1
32
Article 31C
33
I.R. Coelho v. the State of Tamil Nadu., (2007) 2 SCC1: AIR 2007 SC 861
34
Ambika Mishra v State of UP., 1980 AIR 1762, 1980 SCR (3)1159
35
Minerva Mills v UOI., AIR 1980 SC 1789
  The powers and privileges of legislatures are prescribed and protected by the Constitution
of Talicana. Such a power can be exercised by the legislatures and it cannot be
challenged on the basis of fundamental rights or otherwise any other rights.36
 So, it is entirely a matter of executive branch of the government to decide whether or not
to introduce any particular legislation.37
 The courts must not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into the areas
reserved for executive and legislature by the Constitution.38
 Therefore, it is clearly stated that the said ordinance is not violative of the Constitution
and the judgment stating the ordinance to be unconstitutional has no stake.
 If the court leaps into a new territory by enunciating the widest decision possible in a
particular case, even though the case could be decided on narrower grounds, then it is
said to be indulging in Judicial Activism. If the court becomes a principal legislator in the
governmental process and if its decisions pronounce it fit to assume this role then others
will call it judicial activism.39
 It is therefore, merely an act of judicial overreach, indulging into the activities of the
state. Thus, it is not an act of unconstitutionality, but clear judicial overreach of the High
Court of Cubango into the matters pertaining to legislative and executives of that State.
2.2 Arguendo, if so, whether the violation found is destructive of the basic structure of
the Constitution-
 Assuming that the said ordinance is unconstitutional, whether it infringes the basic
structure of the Constitution is thereupon verified.
 If the ordinance is unconstitutional, the following basic structure of the constitution
should be violated-
a) Supremacy of the Constitution
Republican and democratic form of government
Secular character of the Constitution

36
MSM Sharma Vs. Sreekrishna Sinha., AIR 1959 SC 395
37
State of H.P. v. Parent of a student, Medical College, Shimla., AIR 1985 SC910
38
S.P. Gupta & Ors. v. President of India., AIR 1982 SC 149
39
Prof.A Laximinath and Anuradha Namballa, Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint 2 Andhra University Law
Journal 125 (1996)
 Separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary
Federal character of the Constitution40
b) The mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive Principles of State
Policy
Unity and integrity of the nation
Sovereignty of the country41
c) Sovereignty of India
Democratic character of the polity
Unity of the country
Essential features of the individual freedoms secured to the citizens
Mandate to build a welfare state42
 Beyond these, there are other conditions which principally involve with the basic
structure doctrine of the Constitution.
 Therefore, the SEZ ordinance has not violated any of the aforesaid principles which
clearly mandates that the ordinance in no way violative of the Constitution.
 Thus, finally once again it is affirmed that the Ordinance being unconstitutional is merely
the judicial overreach and indulges into the working of legislature and executive of the
state of Cubango.

III. WHETHER THE STATE’S PROPOSAL TO HAVE KIGALI

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
KIGALI TRIBES?

The petitioner submits that the establishment and development of the hydroelectric
facility is based on strict scrutiny and utmost overall development as enshrined in the
Constitution.
There has been a heavy shortage and crisis faced by the country, due to which the said
alternative of setting up Hydroelectric Project has been brought.

40
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala., (1973) Supp. S.C.R. 1- Sikri, C.J
41
Ibid- Shelat, J. and Grover, J
42
Ibid- Unegde, J. and Mukherjea, J
 It is also submitted that the fundamental rights of the indigenous tribal community have
not been violated, because there will never be a situation of forced assimilation.
The fundamental rights of the indigenous people have not been violated by the order of
the government since there is no special right is guaranteed to them under the
Constitution; and there is no violation of Art. 19; and Art. 21 of the Constitution of
Talicana and; no violation of fundamental rights because of forced assimilation or
isolation, therefore, no rehabilitation is required.
Talicana's economically exploitable and viable hydroelectric potential is estimated to be
148,701 MW.43
Talicana is the 7th largest producer of hydroelectric power in the world and also ranks
3rd worldwide by its total number of dams.44
Thus, with these statistics in hand, it is clearly stated that the hydroelectric project is the
viable and the best alternative available when the non renewable energy sources are in its
depletion.
3.1 The Constitutional Rights of the Kigali Tribes have not been violated-
 There is no violation of Art. 19 of the Constitution (3.1.1)
a) Article 19(1)(e) provides the right to reside and settle in any part of the country;
but reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) can be imposed if it is in public
interest.45
b) Public interest means a subject matter in which the rights of the public or section
of public is interested46 to the means of concern which is advantageous to people
as whole.47
c) Therefore, the rights of the indigenous people to reside and settle in the forest area
is not an absolute right and can be restricted under Article 19(5) if it is in the
public interest.48

43
STATUS OF HYDRO ELECTRIC POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ( In terms of Installed capacity - Above 25 MW)
44
BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2015
45
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of 2001.
46
Kuttisankaran Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1965 Ker 161
47
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481
48
Court on its own motion v. Union of India, 2012 (12) SCALE 307; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC
 d) The petitioner submits that there has been no restraint imposed on the indigenous
people. 'Interest of general public' is a comprehensive expression intended to
achieve the socio- economic justice for people by the State.49
e) 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 favor of a party.50
f) It should also be noted, even if only for argument’s sake, that the right to freedom
as enshrined in Art. 19 of the Constitution, though fundamental, is not an absolute
right as such; it is always subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed
in the larger interest of the society. Freedom of profession, trade and business as
contemplated by Clause (1)(g) of the Article 19 of the Constitution is always
subject to the limits as may be imposed by the state in the interest of public
welfare.51
g) A Government policy in the public interest would override the business interests
of an individual person.52
h) Thus, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Hydro electric
project is not violative of Art. 19.
 Not violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution- (3.1.2)
a) To establish the violation Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality
test of Article 14 and test of reasonableness under Article 19.53
b) Article 14 ensures fairness54 and guarantees against arbitrariness.55 It provides
that every action of the government must be informed by reasons and guided by
public interest.56 Article 19 provides that a restriction can be characterized to be

49
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295
50
Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar, AIR 1984 SC 1471
51
Obbayya Pujary v. Member-Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore, AIR 1999 Kant 157
(165).
52
State of Orissa v. Radheyshyam Meher, AIR 1995 SC 855 (857)
53
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
54
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101
55
Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 3313.
56
LIC v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811.
 reasonable if it strikes a balance between the fundamental right and restriction
imposed thereon.57
c) Therefore, in the current appeal lying before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, stands
deem fit for the reason that the country was crippled with extreme power crisis
and this is the only alternative that is available to bring about development
millenniums as enshrined is the Constitution.
d) It is the duty of the government to provide the people of the country with
necessary conditions for leading a peaceful life as promised by the Constitution
under Art. 21.58
e) Hence, it is submitted that there has been no violation as such on the part of the
government.
f) Art. 21 envisage a right to life and personal liberty of a person, which not merely
guarantees the right to continuance of a person’s existence but a quality of life.59
g) Thus, the government had its say in providing quality life to one and all and
achieves the constitutional objectives.
h) State is casted upon a duty to protect the rights of the citizen in discharge of its
constitutional obligation in the larger public interest.60
i) The onerous duty lies upon the State under the concept of 'sustainable
development’61, recognized as a fundamental right under Art. 2162 to keep in mind
the "principle of proportionality"63 so as to ensure protection of environment on
the one hand and to undertake necessary development measures on the other
hand.
j) Yet again, it is humbly conceded before this Hon’ble Court that, the State had
done its legal, ethical, social, economical, political and dynamic developmental
steps required.

57
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689
58
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180
59
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory Of Delhi, Air 1994 SC 1844
60
Consumer Education and Research Centre and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1995 SC 922
61
Brutland Commission Report, 1983; Principle 2 of Stockhom Conference,1973; Principle 1 of Rio
Declaration,1992
62
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
63
M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, [1997] 1 SCC 388.
  Not violative of Arts. 29(1), 48A and 51 A (3.1.2)
a) In the instant matter, there is no violation of the assimilation of the Kigali Tribes
on the account of forced assimilation or isolation as such; rather it was the only
option which was left out.
b) It is considered that the gradual assimilation of the indigenous people in the
mainstream of the society will lead to their betterment and progress.64
c) Provisions of Art 48A of the Constitution are required to be construed as a part of
the principles contained in Art 21 of Constitution. A statute may not be ultra vires
of Art.48 itself if it not otherwise offensive of Arts.14 and 21of the Constitution.65
d) No person can live without the means of livelihood.66
e) Hence, the government having these policies as mentioned the CoT, has clearly
come up to the decision with the proper mechanisms intact.
3.2 Doctrine of Sustainable Development-
 The government acknowledges the importance of the actions and the consequences,
which have been kept in mind all through the policy making process.67
 It is further submitted that the government has taken clean, transparent and the best
quality decision keeping in mind the overall development without affecting the
environment.
 The Government, as the custodian of fundamental rights has taken into mind and is
guided by these Articles in its pursuance of development. The State has, in particular,
directed its policies toward ensuring that the ownership and control of the material
resources are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good.68
 The policies should be such that the environment and the ecology should not be disturbed
at the same that these should not hinder development;69 the government has taken the
stake here in ensuring that the standards and that the indigenous groups do not get
affected, rather benefitted out of the same.

64
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664
65
Bombay Dyeing and manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 SCC 434
66
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180
67
Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi and Ors., 2001 (92) RD 689 (SC)
68
Intellectuals v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549
69
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu., AIR 1999 SC 812
  The petitioners have clearly conceded by the fact that, beyond the apprehensions as to the
risks had made this proposition. Kigali Waterfalls is situated in Kigali National Park, one
of the largest national parks in State of Cubango. This national park is home to various
endangered species of animals, birds and other living organisms. The State of Cubango
appointed an Environment Impact Assessment Committee for further studies about the
project. The EIA committee identified certain environmental harms that may arise from
the said hydroelectric project. One of the notable findings of EIA Committee was the
submergence of forest area of 6000 sq. ft. However, the EIA committee approved the
project and suggested certain precautionary measures to avoid, other harms in their report
submitted in the month of February 2014.70
 By the very statement it is brought to the confidence of this Hon’ble Court that the
government is taking necessary steps to protect the people and the environment while
developing hydroelectric project for power.

IV. WHETHER THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE PETITION

FILED BY KALI RAGHAVAN JUSTIFIABLE?

"A writ issued by a court to compel performance of a particular act by lower court or a
governmental officer or body, to correct a prior action or failure to act."71
In the instant case, there was no necessity to issue the Writ of mandamus because the
government body, that is, the state of Cubango High Court had been performing the legal
duties in par with the Constitution.
Grounds on which Mandamus may be refused-
4.1 No legal right or Duty-
 The applicant must show that he72, has a legal right73 to the performance of legal duties
(as distinguished from a discretion74), by the party against whom the mandamus is sought
and such right should be subsisting on the date of petition.75

70
Para 8 of the Moot problem
71
Mandamus according to Black's law dictionary, Ninth Edition
72
State of Bom. v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha., AIR 1960 1 Llj 251 SC
73
Bihar eastern gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh AIR 1977 SC 2149
74
Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana., AIR 1977 UJSC 98 SC 276
75
Kalian Singh v. State of UP., AIR 1962SC 1183: 1962 Supp. (2) SCR 76
  A court cannot issue a declaration in lieu of mandamus76, to direct a government to
refrain from enforcing the provisions of a valid law,77 or to violate a law,78 or to act in the
violation of law.79
 Therefore, in the instant case, where the Respondent Kali Raghavan was not legally
bound nor did he have legal obligation, could not file the writ of Mandamus.
 The respondent must show that he himself had the right to insist on such performance.80
 It can be used only in the case of non performance of duty, to compel performance.81
 Whereby, it deems fit that the writ of mandamus is not valid in the instant matter.
4.2 Contravention of an existing statute-
 Mandamus will not issue to compel a person to institute legal proceedings, even in the
cases of contravention of statute.82
 Thus, it is humbly submitted that no Court can issue the writ of mandamus even if there
is a contravention in the said statute.
 Mandamus is not an appropriate proceeding to decide questions of title of property, 83 or
complicated questions of fact.84
 Therefore, questioning as to the title of property by the respondent Kali Raghavan is in no
way valid.
4.3 There has been no failure of Justice-
 It would not issue to correct a mere irregularity which has not affected the jurisdiction or
resulted in a failure of justice.85
 As a general rule the orders would not be granted unless the party complained of has
known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering
whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a

76
Narinder Chand Hemraj v. Lt. Governor., AIR 1971 SC 2399: 1971 (2) SCC 247
77
ibid
78
Santosh Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar., 1997 (2) SCC 713
79
Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Anand Prakash Mishra (Dr.)., (1977) 10 SCC 264
80
Chiranjit Lal Chowdary v. UOI., (1950) SCR 869: AIR 1951 SC 41
81
Jagannath v. D.M.A., 1951 All 710
82
Nagpur Glass Works v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 SC Nag. 32 (35)
83
Harnath v. State of Hyderabad., AIR 1958 A.P. 222 (226)
84
Sohan Lal v. UOI., AIR 1959 SC 529
85
Lilawati v. State of M.B., A. 1962 M.B. 105 (114)
 distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and
that the demand was met by a refusal.86
4.4 It is frivolous87-
 The courts, while exercising jurisdiction and deciding writ, has to take great care
primarily, for the reason that wide jurisdiction should not become a source of abuse of
process of law by disgruntled litigation.88
 In order preserve the purity and sanctity of the writ it has become imperative to issue
direction that the courts must encourage genuine and bona fide writ and effectively
discourage and curb the writ filed for extraneous consideration.89
 Genuine and bona fide writ should be admissible whereas the frivolous writ should be
discouraged and the Courts must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the
basis of monetary and non-monetary directions.90
 People must not rush to courts to file cases in profusion under the attractive name of
public interest. They must inspire confidence in courts and amongst the public. Time has
come to weed out petitions, which though titled as writs are in essence something else.91
 The most significant point to note in regard to writ is that it disregards the traditional
concept of locus standi which means that only the person whose legal rights are been
violated can approach the court for redress.92
Thus, with the same, the petitioners have brought much confidence to this Hon’ble Court.

86
S.I. Syndicate v. UOI., AIR 1975 SC 460
87
Imran Suleiman Querishi v. Mumbai repair & Reconstruction Board & Ors., 7 th May 2015
88
Kalyaneshwari v. UOI.,2011 3 SCC 287
89
State of Uttaranchal v. Bhalwant Singh Chaufal., Civil App. No. 1132., 1134 (2002)
90
Federation Of Indian Placer ... v. M/S.Bala Murugan Chemicals ... on 26 July, 2012
91
Ujwala J. Patil v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority ... on 9 August, 2016
92
Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. UOI., (2009) 7 SCC 561: (2009) 8 JT 339
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the Writ Petitions

2. In the alternative declare and adjudge
i. That the SEZ ordinance is not violative of the Constitution of Talicana.
ii. That the petitioner has not violated the fundamental rights of the Kigali Tribes.
iii. That the petitioner is not causing any environmental degradation.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good

Conscience.

And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

S/d

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER