BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITON FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA

W. P. No . _______OF 2015

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

MODERN SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ……. PETITONER

Versus

STATE OF DELHI……………………………………... RESPONDENT

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS-……………………………….2

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES -………………………………3

I. BOOKS………………………………………….4

II. CASE LAWS……...........................................5

III. ONLINE RESOURCES………………………..6

IV. STATUTES………………………………………6

3. STATEMENTS OF FACTS-…………………...................9

4. STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION-…………………….10

5. QUESTION PRESENTED-………………………………..11

6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS-……………………………..12

7. PLEADINGS…………………………………………………18

8. PRAYER……………………..............................................19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

COI CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

& And

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Del. Delhi

ed. Edition

ER English Reporter

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

L.J Law Journal

No. Number

Ors. Others

p. Page Number

pp. Page Numbers

r/w. Read With

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P

 SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

U.S.C United States Code

v. Versus

BOOKS

1. Vol.2, 2nd Edition, ARVIND P DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LexisNexis,2010

2. Vol.2,2nd Edition,DR.N.MAHESHWARA SWAMY,ENVIRONMENTAL

LAW,S.P.GOGIA(H.U.F),2008
3. JUSTICE B. P. BANERJEE, WRIT REMEDIES, 6th Edition.2013, LexisNexis

4. Vol.1 & Vol.2, 6th Edition ,M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WITH
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS, LexisNexis,2013
5. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUITIONAL LAW, 7th Edition.2014, LexisNexis
Butterworth’

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 CASES LAWS
1. A.P. Pollution Board v. Prof M V Nayudu(Rtd) and others ;AIR 1999 SC 812

2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,1984 S

3. Chittiprolu Venkateswarlu v. Minister of Environment for forests, Govt of India;

ILR 2001 AP 468

4. D.S. Rana and others etc v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corp. ; AIR 2000 Guj.45

5. Dr.Saurabh Choudhary and Ors.vs Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2212,2 R

2004 SC 2212

6. E.P. Royappa v.State of Tamil Nadu(1974)4 SCC 3

7. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 844

8. Janata Dal v. H S Chaudhary; AIR 1993 SC 892

9. Kharak Singh state of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295

10. M/s Abhilash Textile and Others v. The Rajhot Municipal Corporation, AIR

1988,Guj 57

11. MC Mehta v. Union of India,1992,41Del. LJ .421 SC

12. P.V.Surender Babu v. Prohibition And Excise ,1998(5)ALD549,

13. Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras ,AIR 1950 SC 124.

14. Smt.Ujjam Bai v. Sate of Uttar Pradesh,(1963) 1 SCR 778.

15. T. Ramakrishna Rao v. The Chairman HUDA, ILR 2202, 2 AP 186,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P

 ONLINE RESOURCES
1. “Lex ology” URL www.lexology.com Accessed 26-10-2021 18:03UTC

2. “ Equal Rights Advocates” ,URL www.equalrights.com Accessed 25-10-2021

16:50 UTC

3. “Down to Earth” URL www.downtoearth.org.in Accessed 25-10-2021 17:45

UTC

STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India,1950

2. Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

3. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act ,1981

4. The Environment Protection Act ,1986

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The environment problems in Delhi ,India are a threat to the well-being of the

cities and area inhabitants as well as the flora and fauna . Delhi, the sixth most

populated metropolis in the world ,is one of the most heavily polluted cities in

India, having for instance one of the country’s highest volumes of particulate

matter pollution.

2. That in May 2014 the World Health Organisation announced that Delhi the

National capital of India is one of the most polluted cities in the world.

3. Overpopulation and the ensuring overuse of scarce resources such as water

have put pressure on the environment

4. The city suffers from air pollution cause by road dust and industry, with

comparatively smaller contributions from unclean engines in transportation,

especially diesel-powered city buses and trucks ,and two wheelers and three-

wheelers with two -stroke engines .Besides human and environment damage,

pollution has caused economic damage as well.

5. On April 8,2015, picking up several points brought out in the ‘Death by Breath’

series, an ongoing investigation on the quality of air in Delhi, the Delhi Green

Tribunal(DGT) issued a fresh ban on all diesel buses and trucks more than5

years old from plying in the National Capital Region.

6. Delhi government came up with a unique order of the era whereby the vehicles

with odd and even registration numbers will be allowed on alternat days from

January 01,2016.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P

 7. It also passed an order to requisition school buses to ply as commercial ,public

buses after school had ended in order to encourage the commuters of Delhi to

take public transport rather than rely solely on their private vehicles.

8. The Modern School of Environmental Studies (Petitioner),Delhi was plying

school buses running on diesel purchased in 2005 for school purposes

,and coincidently, all the buses were of the odd number series. This order of

the Delhi government proved to be the nail in the coffin for the petitioner.

9. That petitioner was not the solve victim of the ban and thus got the support of

all the private schools of Delhi .And so, aggrieved by the orders of DGT and the

Delhi government , the Action Committee for Unaided Recognized Private

Schools ,Delhi has filed a Writ petition in the Supreme Court against the DGT

ban and the Odd-Even formula order of Delhi government.

10. And the ground of writ petition are as follows:

a. That taking the schools’ own buses is in violation of Education

Act which stipulates that school’s assets cannot be put to

commercial use. The school buses are the assets of the

schools and allowing them for use as commercial vehicles

shall amount to violation of basic principles and provisions of

DSEAR (Delhi School Education Act and Rules) 1973.

b. That the insurance of school buses stipules uses of buses

for students only. The school buses are not permitted used

for general public nor should the school buses be used for

hire.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 c. That the road tax exemption also stipules the buses shall not

be used for any commercial purposes.

d. That Motor Vehicles Act prescribed a fitness test, and not the

vehicles age , to ascertain whether it should be allowed on

road or not.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITONER HEREBY SUBMITS THE MEMORANDUM BEFORE

THEHON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DELHI INVOKING THE WRIT
JURISTION OF THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER ART.32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article 32 of COI state that

1) The right to move the Supreme Com 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,prohibiton,quo warranto& certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate , for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this Part.
3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred 3) Without prejudice
to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by
clauses(1)&(2) ,Parliament Supreme Court by clauses
(1)&(2),Parliament may by law nt may by law empower any
other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill
or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under
clause (2).The right guaranteed by this Article shall not be
suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.1

1 ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 QUESTION PRESENTED

1. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA?

2. WHETHER THE DGT BAN IS VIOLATIVE OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
a) WHETHER THE DGT BAN IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14?
b) WHETHER THE ORDER OF DGT IS VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 21?
c) WHETHER THE DGT BAN IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE
19(1) (D) AND 19 (1) (G) ?

3. WHETHER THE DGT HAS POWER TO IMPOSE BAN ON

VEHICLES ?
a) WHETHER THE DGT HAS IS ULTRA VIRES THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P

 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1. Whether the petition filed by petitioner is maintainable in the
hon’ble Supreme Court of India?

It is most humbly that the present public interest litigation (PIL)is

maintainable under Art.32 of the constitution on the grounds that
the fundamental rights of freedom liberty ,equality and livelihood
have been violated.Further,it is contended that there is no need to
exhaust the alternate remedies. Such disregard to the
Constitutional rights accord the petitioner locus standi to lifeline the
PIL before the Hon’ble Court.

2. Whether the ban is violative of the Constitution of India ?

It is most humbly submitted that the Delhi Govt decision is violative

of the fundamental rights as it violates fundamental rights such as
Art.21 of the constitution which is right to life to life and personal
liberty. Art.19(1)g is also violated as the scheme restraints the
practice of profession of commercial vehicle drivers . It somehow
violates Art.14 of the Constitution because the middle class and
lower-class people are affected much more than the upper-class
people though both of them contribute in polluting the air equally.

3. Whether the DGT has the power to impose ban on vehicles ?

i) Yes, DGT has the power.

ii) In this modern era, the level of pollution worldwide has been
increasingly consistently which in turn has brought harm to
human via many different ways . Constituently the government
must have a solution to solve the problem. Banning the vehicles
is definitely not the option to decrease pollution.

PLEADINGS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. Whether this petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court ?
The petitioner most humbly submits that then the PIL filed by the Modern
School of Environmental Studies (hereinafter called as "petitioner ') is
maintainable. Ordinarily, the PIL may be entertained on any subject of
vital public importance including when in a case of Petitioners
complaining violation of human rights2, under Art. under Art. 32 of the
Constitution. The petition is maintainable on the grounds that; Firstly, the
right to equality under Art. 14, right to freedom of movement and trade.
and profession under Art. 19 and the right to livelihood and personal
liberty under Art.21 has been grossly violated by the odd even Policy
(hereafter referred to as the 'policy "), and lastly, the alternate remedies
need not be exhausted.
Firstly, the policy by allowing the use of vehicles odd no vehicle one day
and even no vehicle another day, restricts the freedom to trade without
any proper cause or reasonableness. Restriction placed by any act on
free movement is a writ on its face3. It further infringes upon their
freedom to trade and profession as the profession as the restriction
affects restriction affects their day to their day-to-day work and business.
Secondly, the policy has also led to deprivation of livelihood for a lot of
businessmen and commoners by restraining. their mode of
transportation.
Lastly, any law which does not pass the Test of Reasonable
Classification4 is said to be breaching the equality principle under Art.14.
The emancipatory doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness, tests unreasonable
State action on the anvil on being palpably on manifestly arbitrary so as
to violate Article 145. The policy 'fails the twin test as well as the test of
manifest arbitrariness by exempting only certain sections of the
population from the policy.

. Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.

2

3.Seervai, HM "The Freedom of Trade and Commerce in the Indian Constitution: The Atiabari Case and After. The Cambridge
Law Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, 1963, pp. 54 1963, pp. 54-84. JSTOR, www. .jstor.org / stable / 4504845.
4
. "Dr.Saurabh Choudhary And Ors. vs Union Of India, AIR 2004 SC 2212, 2 R 2004 SC 2212, 2004 (3) AWC 2637 SC.004 (3)
AWC 2637 SC

. 5 E.P. Royappa v. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Na State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC

It is to be noted that a petitioner has sufficient standing to file a writ

petition, if his fundamental right is infringed.6 Justice P. N. Bhagwati in

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P

S. P. Gupta v. Union of India7. articulated the concept of PIL as follows.
"Any member of the public can maintain an application for an
appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226
and in case any breach of fundamental rights of such persons or
determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32 seeking
judicial redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such person
or determinate class of persons. "Therefore, since any member of the
public or organization may bring it for judicial scrutiny8, the petitioner has
the standing to file the petition.
It was made clear. in Janata Dal v HS Chaudhary 9 that only a person"
acting bona fide10 and having sufficient public interest 'in the proceeding
of public interest litigation will have alone the locus standi but not a
person for personal gain or political motive or any oblique consideration.
It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has no personal interest.
individual gain, private motive or oblique reasons in filing this writ
petition. It is not guided for gain of any other individual person,
institution or body.
In the present case, there is no alternative efficacious remedy available
in terms of the prayers sought in this writ petition and thus, there is no
requirement approach any government authority for the reliefs sought
herein. Moreover, this Hon'ble Court has on multiple occasions
expressly rejected an argument that called for exhaustion of local
remedies11.It has been held that availability of an alternative remedy is
one of such considerations which the Supreme Court may take into
account to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction, but this principle does not
apply to the enforcement Fundamental Rights either under Article 32 or
Article 226 of the Constitution.12

6. Smit.Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) 1 SCR 778.

7. AIR 1982 SC 149

.8. Bandhun Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 SC

9. AIR 1993 SC 892 64.

10. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v Union of India ,, AIR 1981 SC 844

11.
kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,AIR1963 SC 1295 ; Romesh Thappar vs. The State of Madras,AIR 1950 SC 124.
12.
P.V Surender Babu vs. Prohibition and Excise 1998(5)ALD 549,1998 (5) ALT 640

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2. Whether the ban is violative of the Constitution of India?
A study of writ remedies in the context of environmental
protection gains signifance in the light of certain fundamental rights,
directive principles of state policy and right and duties of imposed upon
the citizen or the state under the Constitution of India.
Pollution free environment has been recognized today as a fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution by the intervention of the
highest courts of the country.13 In case of SC, the writ jurisdiction vested
under Article 32 can only be involved in case of a fundamental right
infringement and hence, it can safely be said that the extent of the HC’s
jurisdiction is just than that of the SC.
Pollution free Environment – A fundamental right
As per Article 48-A of the Constitution , the state shall protect
and improve the environment and safeguards the forest and wild life of
the country.
The State has responsibility to protect the Environment for the future
generations also14 .
In A. P Pollution Control Board v. Prof M.V Nayudu(Rtd) and others et;
AIR 1999 SC 812 (819 to 825) four appeals along with certain others
civil appeals were filed against the judgements of Andhra Pradesh HC
dated 01.05.1998. All appeal were filed by the Andhra Pradesh pollution
board .The Pollution control Board alleged that the respondent company
had environment civil works in the contribution of its factory without
obtaining from it.14
Further the qualities of the interest in Articles 21 are possible only in an
environment of quality .In Lakamipathy and others v. State of Karnataka
four others,15. The petitioner alleged to have been aggrieved by the
location and operation of industries and industrial enterprises in a
residential area in gross violation of the provisions of Karnataka Town
and Country Planning Act .16
A Pollution free environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India .

13.Dr.N.Maheshwara Swamy, Environmental Law, 61, S P GOGIA(H.U.F)2008

14.Ibid.

15. AIR1992,Kar.57 (70),

16. ibid.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P

A Healthy environment enables quality of life being the view of the right
guaranteed under Article 21.Fresh Air is a right of a Citizen. In MC
Mehta v. Union of India.(1992) 41 LJ 421 SC , the Supreme Court
directed for the closure of a factory which was creating a pollution by
holding that every citizen has a right to fresh air. The Court passed this
order by invoking section 31A of the Act.
Spoilage of atmosphere is violative of Article 21. In T Ramakrishna Rao
v. The Chairman, HUDA and 4 others,17 a learned division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh HC held ,inter alia, as follows;-
“ Protection of the Environment is not only the duty of the citizens but
also the obligation of the state and other organs including the Courts.
The enjoyment of life and its attainment and fulfilment guaranteed by
Art.21 of the Constitution embraces the protection and preservation of
nature’s gift without which life cannot be enjoyed fruitfully. The low
poisoning of the atmosphere caused by the environment pollution and
spoliation should be regarded as amounting to violation of article 21 of
the Constitution.
Restriction to Freedom of Trade
Rights Under Art.19(1)(g)
In M/s Abhilash Textile and Others etc v. The Rajhot Municipal
Corporation18 a learned single judge of the Gujarat HC held,inter alia,as
follows:
1) “ No one has a right carry on a business to cause nuisance to the
society.One cannot carry nuisance to the society.One cannot carry on
business in the manner by which the business activity becomes a health
and to the entire society”.
The Right to Freedom of Trade is subject to reasonable restrictions .
In D.S Rana and others etc v. Ahmaestated Municipal Corporation and
others19
The facts and circumstances of the case, which dismissing the petition,
a learned division bench of the Gujarat HC held intra alis, as follows:

17..ILR (2002)2 AP 186,205,206,208,209 to 211,215,216

18. AIR 1988 Guj.57 (58,60,62)
19. AIR 2000 Guj.45(57 to 60)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

“ The ambit of fundamental right of citizen to practice any profession on
to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed by exercise
imposed by law in the interest of general public. The expression “
reasonable restriction” signifies that the limitation imposed on a person
in enjoyment of the sight should not be arbitrary or of an exertive nature.

Therefore, in the digest of the above arguments, it can be concluded that

the issue has been thoroughly analysed
No, this ban is not violative of the Constitution ( and in the contrary
propagates the rights given under Art.21 of the Constitution) because
the Constitution provides remedies against fund its infringement.

2. Whether the DGT has the power to impose ban on vehicles?

Imposing ban on private vehicles in this modern-day society is
unnecessary because pollution can also be caused by many other
factors such as bad lifestyle choices on humanity part, lack of strict or
enforcement of environmental laws by government as well as the fact
that vehicles are an essential part of modern city life.
As per the govt planning department ,Delhi has a population of
about 2 crores people, excluding those who enter or cross the city on a
daily basis from the neighbouring cities. Out of 1.12 crore registered
vehicles in delhi,1.04 alone are private cars and motorcycles. If the ban
is imposed almost all of them will have to fall back on. a public transport
system comprising only 5, 443 buses, a metro only network spacing 314
km, and a taxi fleet of about 1.5 lakh vehicles.20
“ Even on a normal day. Delhi's public transport system failed to make
daily commute easy for people. Even today, one has to wait anywhere
between15 minutes to an hour for a bus. Even for the police and other
enforcing agencies implementing this ban will be impossible.
More importantly the banning of private vehicles will make the public
transport much more crowded and as we are going through this
pandemic situation, we all know that the virus will get spread within a
less time and it will affect people's health.21
What will happen if any of the members get sick or need to go to the
hospital in critical condition, their only way is to depend on the private
vehicles for their transportation.
20. Lexology,www.lexology.com,26-10-2021,06:04pm

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P

If we are thinking in a practiced way, people will only get isolated and will
become lazy after banning of the private vehicles because they will not
take the public transportation way time because of the time-consuming
factor and will sit helplessly. If we are taking the cases of real regions,
the people living there will be highly depended on the private vehicles. If
they need to by householdesitems they need to travel to the more and if
the DGT is planning to ban the private vehicles ,their only way is to just
sit helpless and may no longer know to manage their lives.22
The findings claim that 56%of the particulate matter of up to 10
micrometre(PM 10) and about 38% of PM 2.5 comes from road dust and
only 9% comes from all categories of vehicles combined(not just private
vehicles).Instead of banning cars expects suggests getting water
sprinkles and clean the dust on the roads. Government bodies have
failed to deal with roadside construction or dealing with farmers around
the Haryana ,Punjab and Uttar Pradesh around the tradition of burning
corps which is the bigger reason of the poor air quality in Delhi.23
Whether it was the ban of diesel-powered vehicles in
Delhi/NCR or the Odd-Even rule or now the threat to ban private cars, it
has always been easy for the government owned institution to put the
blame on private vehicles and not really any more initiatives are taken
against the powers lobby of construction or is terms of infrastructure to
reduce air pollution.
Delhi CNG Cas:- The Supreme Court had directed that he buses plying
in Delhi must be converted into CNG fuel by 31st March 2001,falling
which the defaulting bus owners would invite an action under the
Contempt of Court Act 1971.Despite this warning ,the bus operates did
not switch over to CNG within the stipulated date. The court ,however
relaxed the period in view of the hardship which commutes were likely to
face.

21. Down to Earth,www.downearth.org.in,25-10-2021,05:56pm

22. Ibid.

23. Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules,2010

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully pray that
this Hon’ble Supreme Court may kindly adjudge and declare that ;

A. THE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE.
B. DECLARE THE DELHI GREEN TRIBUNAL (DGT) BAN IS
VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
C. DECLARE ODD-EVEN SCHEME AS VOID AND NULL.

AND PASS ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , FAIRNESS, EQUALITY
AND GOOD CONSCIENCE ,ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY
SUBIMITTED.

And for this act of kindness and justice the Petitioner shall in duty bound
for ever pray.

Date:

Place:

Counsel for Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER