CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

CODE:
R25

CNLU GENERAL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2020

ON SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HON’ABLE SUPREME COURT OF

SINDIA

UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1986

IN THE MATTER OF

SAVE BLUE …PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF SINDIA … RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT SIDE

1
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………. 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………7

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………..8

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………

1. THAT THE PIL FILED IN SUPREME COURT IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE……………………………………………………………. 12
1.1. THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE
REMEDIES………………………………………………………………. 12
1.2. THE PIL IS NOT MAINATABLE ON THE GROUNDS THAT STATE IS
COMPETENT TO FRAME PUBLIC POLICIES…………………….......13
1.3. THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAIBLE ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL
INTERST OF PETITIONER………………………………………………13
2. THAT THE PROJECT UNDER CRZ DOES NOT AFFECT THE
ENVIRONMENT AND ECOSYSTEM………………………………………..14
2.1. THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT..14.
2.2. THAT THE GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE IS NECESSARY FOR
FULFILLING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS…..................15
2.3. THAT THERE IS NO DAMAGE TO THE BIODIVERSITY…………....16
3. THE CRZ IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO
LIVELIHOOD……………………………………………………………….....16
3.1. REHABILITATION OF THE NATIVE PEOPLE………………………..16
3.2. EXCEPTIONS TO RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD…………………………...17
4. THAT THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UNION OF
SINDIA IS INTRAVIRES…………………………………………………......17

2
CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

4.1. THE DISCRETIONARY POWER IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY UNDER

ART.14……………………………………………………………….......17
4.2. PRESUMPTION THAT PUBLIC OFFICIAL WILL DISCHARGE THEIR
DUTIES HONESTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF
LAW……………………………………………………………………..18
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………..19

3
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ : Paragraph
AIR : ALL INDIA REPORT
ALL : ALLAHABAD
ANR. : ANOTHER
ART. : ARTICLE
BOM : BOMBAY
CRPC : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
FIR : FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
GOVT. : GOVERNMENT
HC : HIGH COURT
SEC. : SECTION
SC : SUPREME COURT
SCC : SUPREME COURT CASES
UOS: UNION OF SINDIA
ADM: ADMINISTRATION
GOV: GOVERNMENT
SDG: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL
UT: UNION TERRITORY
HON’BLE: HONORABLE

4
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES:
1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
2. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1986

CASES:

1. SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA V. ALKA SHUBHASH GADIA, 1990 SCR,

SUPL. (3) 583

2. AVINASH CHAND GUPTA V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2004) 2 SCC 726

3. UNION OF INDIA V. PAUL MANICKAM, AIR 2003 SC 4622.
4. PN KUMAR V. MUNICIPAL CORP OF DELHI, 1988 SCR (1) 732.
5. K.D. SHARMA V. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481
6. DILIP SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2010) 2 SCC 114
7. SUNIL PODDAR V. UNION BANK OF INDIA, (2008) 2 SCC 326
8. R. V. KENSINGTON IT COMMISSIONER, (1917) 1 KB 486;

9. ABHUDHYA SANSTHA V. UNION OF INDIA, (2011) 6 SCC 145.

10. RASHID AHMED V. MUNICIPAL BOARD, KAIRANA, AIR 1950 SC 163.
11. CONFEDERATION OF ALL NAGALAND STATE SERVICES EMPLOYEES'
ASSN. V. STATE OF NAGALAND, (2006) SCC 496
12. AK ANTIBAN VIJAY V.UOI (2018)
13. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL V. BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL (2010)3 SCC 402.

14. PANNALAL BINJRAJ VS UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1957 SC 397.

15. OLGA TELLIS & ORS V BOMBAY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (1985) 3 SCC 545.
16. NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER (2000) 10
SCC 664.

17. FRANCIS CORALIE V UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI (1981) SCC 608.

18. CHAMELI SINGH V STATE OF UP (1996) SCC 549.

5
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

BOOKS:

1. DURGA DAS BASU’S COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,

8TH EDITION 2008
2. V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 12TH EDITION
3. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
4. I.P. MASSEY’S ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 9TH EDITION
5. S.C. SHASTRI’S ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, 2ND EDITION
6. P. LEELAKKRISHNAN’S ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN INDIA, 3RD EDITION

6
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon'ble Court has Jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Art.32 of the Constitution
of Sindia, 1950.

Art. 32 of the Constitution of Sindia reads as:

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part: -

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

7
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Union of Sindia is the second largest populated country in the world and the
second largest growing economy and the youngest nation in the world. Recently the
country hosted world sustainable development summit in April 2019 where it decided
to aim at rural development and renewable source of energy. In collaboration with
IRENA the country decided to increase renewable source of energy by 2percent
annually in its total energy source.
2. Sindian coastline touches 9 states and 4 UT. Aram state in the north has the longest
coastline where ocean power project was launched under SDG. Large parts of coastal
plains of India consists of fertile soils where fishing has been primary occupation of
the native tribals. The coastline is also home to rare species of flora and fauna.
Deriving from the facts, it can be said that the coastal line of Sindia is of utmost
importance as one fifth of the population lives there and is a great place for tourism
which indeed comprises almost 9% of Sindia’s GDP.
3. A small group of island is located in the east of Sindia named Hamantha . The island
has one MP in Lok Sabha and one MP in Raya Sabha with Lieutenant Governor being
chief adm. The island is often a matter of concern due to natural disaster, unstable
neighbours and illegal migrations. The island has observed drastic increase in its
population over the years with definite decrease in the population of tribal people. Its
primary occupation is tourism and fishing with little agriculture. Power shortage was
a matter of concern there which was enhanced with the help of 4 major cities via air
and sea. It then received a lot of tourist since then. Recently, people claimed of
crocodile movements in human habitation areas causing much disruption to tourists as
well.
4. In 2018 NDP came into centre in the country and in the island which brought up
several facilities to boost tourism and education such as optic fibre connection. Since
the area is a coastal zone, changes in CRZ were anticipated and UOS made a press
release that new CRZ’s aim will be to conserve and protect the environment. Along
with the livelihood security to various communities.
5. As per the amendments as on 18th January 2019, 2.5- the Hamantha group of islands
have been brought under the purview of the CRZ V which shall be 50 meters from the
HTL. Further, as per amendment 5.4.1- the restrictions provided in the CRZ I shall

8
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

apply to the CRZ V such that nothing contained in any law, rule and the CRZ
regulation 2019 shall effect the exclusive power of UOS to limit or impose
prohibition to the CRZ V, including power to modify the CRZ limit and No
Development Zone limit in advancement of the development and public interest of the
nation for the except Sakura Islands which happens to be ecological sensitive.
6. Govt. launched an ocean power project in Sabath Island wherein 10 costal villages
were to be taken up and given rehabilitation.
7. It also launched an emerald island project where the central govt. declared 2 islands as
no development zone and so biddings were invited for setting up the resort.
8. It decided to construct a Bridge connecting Tara island and Main island.
9. Opposing to this law save blue an organization along with Mr. Saarkar filed a PIL
questioning the validity of the special regulations 2.5 and 5.4.1 of the CRZ 2019.

The laws of Sindia are in pari material with the laws of India.

9
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

Whether the Public Interest Litigation is Maintainable against

Union of Sindia.

ISSUE II:

Whether the project under CRZ affect the environment endangering

ecosystem.
.
ISSUE III:

Whether the CRZ is contrary to the native tribal people’s Right to

Livelihood.

ISSUE IV:

Whether the CRZ giving excessive discretion to the Union of Sindia is

ultravires of the parent law and the constitution.

10
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Public Interest Litigation is Maintainable against Union of Sindia.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that interest of public is not harmed and the
petition is filed to serve the personal political interest of the opposition political party .In this
particular case and the petitioners have failed to exhaust other remedies available to them.
Further, the state is competent to make public policies for the betterment of the people of
UOS and people through a PIL cannot restrict the government form making policies if found
against their personal interest.

2. Whether the project under CRZ affect the environment endangering ecosystem.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the CRZ does not endanger ecosystem of
the country. The projects undertaken by the govt. do not pose threat on the environment and
they are taken up to fulfil the SDG’s. Further, there is no damage to biodiversity of the
environment.

3. Whether the CRZ is contrary to the native tribal people’s Right to Livelihood.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that CRZ is not contrary to the native tribal
people and is not violating the right to livelihood as proper resettlement for people will be
done for the people who are to be displaced. Further, projects undertaken for economic
development come within the ambit of exception to right to livelihood.

4. Whether the CRZ giving excessive discretion to the Union of Sindia is ultravires of
the parent law and the constitution.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that CRZ giving excessive jurisdiction to
the Union of Sindia is not ultra vires of the parent law and the constitution as in article 14
of the constitution of India it is stated that if the power is vested within the top ranking
institutions and not in any minority, it is not said to be abuse of such power.

11
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed before the
bench is not maintainable. In the present case, the petition is not maintainable on the grounds
that the Petitioner has not exhausted Alternative Remedies [1.1] State is competent to make
public policies [1.2]

[1.1] THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

Art. 32 confers “extraordinary” jurisdiction, the same must be used wisely, sparingly and
shall be brought into use under circumstances where there is no alternative efficacious
remedy available.1 The reason for this is: first, to reduce the increasing pendency of cases2
and second, to inspire faith in the hierarchy of Courts and the institution as a whole.3
Therefore, the Petitioner is required to approach the High Court before approaching the
Supreme Court.

The power to grant writs under Article 32 is a discretionary power vested in the hands on this
Hon'ble Court.4 It is a well settled proposition of law that existence of an alternative adequate
remedy is a factor taken into consideration in a writ petition.5 The same has been upheld in a
plethora of judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court. In the instant case, the Petitioner has
approached the Honourable Apex Court directly under an Article 32 petition in spite of
having an alternative remedy available in Article 226 of the Constitution.

Article 226 gives the High Court to entertain Writ petition. It is pertinent to point out that
Article 226 has a non-obstante clause with respect to Article 32. Furthermore, the Article 226
empowers the High Courts of relevant jurisdictions to entertain writs as and when requires.

1
Secretary, Govt. of India v. Alka Shubhash Gadia, 1990 SCR, Supl. (3) 583; Avinash Chand Gupta v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 726; Union of India v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622.
2
PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732.
3
Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159.
4
K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114; Sunil
Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326; R. v. Kensington IT Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486;
Abhudhya Sanstha v. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145.
5
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163.
12
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

It was held by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Confederation of A1l Nagaland State Services
Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland6, that the writ petitions should be agitated at the first
instance before the High Court of Judicature exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution. In the instant case, SAVE BLUE, an NGO has approached the Supreme Court
directly under article 32 whereas the petitioner should have moved to the High Court under
Article 226. This Hon'ble Court, must therefore, exercise its discretion to quash the instant
writ on grounds of non-maintainability.

Alternatively, the Petitioner could also have approached the National Green Tribunal. It is to
be observed that the NGT has been expressly established to deal with questions related to
“enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation
for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.” Therefore, any submission that the NGT cannot enforce rights or protect them
adequately is erroneous.7

Also under NGT it is required to make endeavour to dispose of the application or the appeal
finally within six months from the date of filling such an appeal or application .Also before
giving final judgment, it is required to give an opportunity to the parties concerned.8 In such a
case it would have been much more convenient for the aggrieved people raise their voice
against the mining activities in case they suffered any loss ,rather than waiting for years to
access the damage if caused to then and appeal in SC.

[1.2] THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS STATE IS COMPETENT TO MAKE

PUBLIC POLICIES

“A public policy cannot be challenged through PIL where the state government is competent
to frame the policy and there is no need for anyone to raise any grievance even if the policy is
changed”.9 The court cannot strike down a policy merely because it feels that another
decision would have been fairer. In this case the petitioner has failed to understand the
government endeavours for development of all and merely filing a PIL to satisfy the needs of
a few.

[1.3] THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THE GROUNDS OF PERSONAL

INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER

6
Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland, (2006) 1 SCC 496
7
National Green Tribunal Act Preamble (2010).
8
Sec.18(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act Preamble (2010)
9
AK Antiban Vijay v.UOI (2018)
13
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

The PIL is not maintainable as it is being filed not for the interest of the general pubic rather
to meet the personal needs of the petitioner.

In the present case the PIL is filed by an NGO, SAVE BLUE on the direction of the member
of opposition political party to lead the people of Hamantha against the present government
which is contrary to what is being claimed by the petitioner, the reason of filing the PIL.

It is held in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.Bengal10 “the court must be
careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public who approaches the court is
acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other
oblique consideration”.11

Further it has been held by the Supreme court that bona fide PIL must be encorraged whereas
frivolous PIL should be discouraged as the court observed: “In our considered opinion, we
have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of
this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of
monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts”12

2. THAT THE PROJECT UNDER CRZ DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT
ENDANGERING ECOSYSTEM
It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the project under CRZ do not affect
the environment endangering ecosystem.

[2.1] THERE IS NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, RATHER

THERE IS BALANCED DEVELOPMENT.

It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that from the facts it is not clear that the
project under CRZ is doing any harm to the environment or is putting any adverse effect on
to the environment, rather it is crystal clear from the fact that the project under the CRZ is
doing balanced development in the group of Hamantha islands. The government in 2019
launched a huge ocean power project in Sabath island13, an ocean power project uses water to
generate electricity and water is a renewable resource which means the project will be
producing green energy, which further means the project is doing no harm to the environment
but on the other hand helping the environment sustain. Also, bidding was invited for setting

10
(2004) 3 SCC 349 (on p. 357)
12
State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010)3 SCC 402.
13
Paragraph 12 of the moot proposition
14
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

resorts in the islands14. As per the notification reviewed and issued in 2011 “such temporary
tourism facilities are also now permissible in the “no development zone” however a
minimum distance of 10m should be maintained from the high tide line should be maintained
for setting up such facilities15. The government has declared Gala and Hatten island as no
development zone and for those islands only biddings were invited keeping the fact that a
minimum distance of 10m should be maintained. Also a bridge is constructed between the
Tara island and the main island, construction of bridges ensure connectivity. Also, according
to the Ministry of environment, forest and climate change notification,2019 construction of
bridges is permissible16. Therefore, from all facts above mentioned it is very clear that there
is no harm to environment endangering ecosystem rather there is a balanced development.

[2.2] MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SDGS

It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the projects under the CRZ are not
harming the endangering ecosystem but on the other hand is fulfilling the requirements of the
SDGs . SDGs stands for sustainable development goals. There are 17 SDGs which were
passed by the UNDP. Though the SDGs are not binding but there is a moral responsibility to
perform the same also Sindia is a signatory to the UNDP proposals. So it is a moral
responsibility on the part of Sindia to fulfill the requirements of SDGs. The government
through the projects under the CRZ has fulfilled two SDGs as:

 Affordable & clean energy: as after the construction of the ocean power plant there
would be production of clean and green energy, also the cost of producing energy
through ocean power plant is cheap if one compare it to other power producing
methods, Thus the government under the CRZ project is fulfilling the requirement of
this very sustainable goal of UNDP
 Economic growth: if the plan of making ocean power project is executed then through
the production of energy there would be growth in the economy, also if resorts are
made for which the government asked for bidding then through that tourism industry
will be boosted and that further will boost the economy. Also if we take the
construction of bridges into consideration then that will enhance the connectivity and
with the enhancement of connectivity will enhance business transaction taking place

14
Paragraph 12 of the moot proposition
15
CRZ notification 2011
16
Ministry of environment, forest and climate change notification,2019
15
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

there. Thus the government under the CRZ project is fulfilling the requirement of this
very sustainable growth.

Therefore from all of the facts above cited it is very clear that the government though the
projects under the CRZ is fulfilling the requirement of sustainable development goals.

[2.3] NO DAMAGE TO BIODIVERSITY:

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble supreme court of Sindia that as per the facts
there has been no damage to the biodiversity of the country. As the three projects launched by
the government of Sindia is environment friendly. In the first project the country aims at
launching an ocean power project in Hamantha island. Ocean power project will lead to
generation of energy which will lead to an additional source of energy in the country. The
construction of bridges between the two islands will ensure better connectivity, flexibility and
communication which is no loss to the biodiversity of the country. As rehabilitation will be
also provided, more and more trees will also be planted to another place to ensure better state
of biodiversity. This project in turn is a complete ecological and ecofriendly project taken by
the government of Sindia. Therefore from all the facts above cited it is very clear that there is
no damage to the biodiversity.

[3]. THE CRZ IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO
LIVELIHOOD.

The CRZ is not contrary the fundamental right of Right to livelihood as proper rehabilitation will be
provided to the native people on their displacement from the islands and economic development
initiative taken up by the government is an exception to the fundamental right of livelihood that
constitutes its validity from article 21 of the constitution of Sindia.

[3.1]. PROPER REHABILITATION OF THE NATIVE PEOPLE.

The native people of Hamantha that are to be evicted from their lands will be provided rehabilitation
by the Government of Sindia, thereby, suspending the Right to livelihood by the procedure
established by law.

It was held by the Supreme Court that on the condition of proper resettlement provided by the
government the dwellers of that area can be evicted such that the eviction shall be directly related to
the development of the public at large.

In the facts provided it is explicitly mentioned that the ocean power project, 10 coastal villages are to
be taken up rehabilitation will be provided to the people displaced in the process. Hence, right to

16
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

livelihood as held in the case decided by the Supreme Court, is not being violated17. The principle laid
was further carried on in another case in which the Supreme Court ordered eviction of people for the
creation of a dam as it was in the interest of development general public’s livelihood18.

[3.2] ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS AN EXCEPTION OF RIGHT TO

LIVELIHOOD

It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that economic development is an
exception of right to livelihood. As in the case of Francis Coralie v union of territory of
Delhi19the considered that the magnitude and content of the component of this right would
depend upon the extent of the economic development of the country but emphasize that it
must in any view of mater include the right to basic necessities of life and also the right to
carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human
self. So as in our case the projects launched under the CRZ by the government is entirely
aimed at economic development and aims to provide a dignified life to the native people with
better facilities and opportunities such as communication, better means of transport, proper
accommodation and better infrastructure.20Therefore, from all the facts above cited it is very
clear that economic plan of the government falls within the ambit of exception to right to
livelihood.

[4]. CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE JURISDICTION TO THE UNION OF SINDIA IS

NOT ULTRAVIRES OF THE PARENT LAW AND CONSTITUTION

It is most humbly stated before the Hon’ble supreme court of Sindia that the CRZ giving
excessive jurisdiction to the Union of Sindia is not ultra vires.

[4.1] THE DISCRETIONARY POWER IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY UNDER ART.14

It is most humbly stated before the hon’ble supreme court of Sindia that a discretionary
power under art.14 is not necessarily discriminatory. While testing the validity of
discriminatory due regard should be given to check in whom the power is vested. If it is
vested in the state govt. or top ranking authorities and not in minor officials, abuse of power
cannot be readily inferred.21

17
Olga Tellis and Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors (1985) SCC (3) 545.
18
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. UOI and Others (2000) 10 SCC 644.
19
Francis Coralie v Union Territory of Delhi (1981) SCC 608.
20
Chameli Singh v State of UP (1996) SCC 549.
21
Pannalal binjraj vs union of india, AIR 1957 SC 397.
17
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

[4.2] PRESUMPTION THAT PUBLIC OFFICIAL WILL DISCHARGE THEIR

DUTIES HONESTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF LAW

It is most humbly stated before the hon’ble supreme court of Sindia that there is a
presumption that public officials will discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with
the rules of law.22 He presumption however, cannot be stretched too far and cannot be carried
to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for
subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile and discriminatory treatment.

22
Pannalal binjraj vs union of india, AIR 1957 SC 397.

18
 CNLU GENERL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondents
humbly submit that the hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. PIL filed by “SAVE BLUE “is not maintainable.

2. Projects under CRZ won’t affects the environment endangering ecosystem.

3. CRZ is not contrary to the native tribal people’s right to livelihood.

4. CRZ giving excessive discretion to the Union of Sindia is not ultravires of the parent
law and the constitution.

AND

That the court may issue any other order as the court deems fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondents shall be duty bound forever.

All of which is most humbly submitted.

19