Team Chambal Petitioner Final

Team Code:
CHAMBAL
6TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2022
Before
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALYANA
IN Writ Petition (C) NO. __ OF 2022
Chamber of Private Sector …PETITIONER
V.
STATE OF KALYANA …RESPONDENTS
Memorial Submitted to the Registry of the Hon’ble High Court of Kalyana
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................. 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................. 9
ISSUES RAISED ........................................................................................................... 12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................... 13
PLEADINGS .................................................................................................................. 15
I. That private sector concerns are not 'state' for the purpose of Part-III
of the Constitution................................................................................................. 15
A. Private sector concerns are not 'state' under Article 12 of the COI ..................... 9
II. The Act violates the fundamental right to carry on business................................ 19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 2

B. Act violates Article 19(1)(g) of Part III of the Constitution................................. 11
III. That government is estopped from superimposing the Act on the

private sector......................................................................................................... 26
C. The government is estopped from superimposing the act on the private

sector after attracting them to invest in the state with concessions......................
IV. The rule prohibiting the employees from joining political parties
including student wings of political parties is "ultravires" the act
and also the Constitution....................................................................................... 29
D. Act violates Article 19(1)(c) of Part III of the Constitution ................................
PRAYER .......................................................................................................................... 35

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SCC Supreme Court Cases
AIR All India Reporter
Hon'ble Honourable
UOI Union of India
S. Section
A. Article
COI Constitution of India
Edn. Edition
Vol. Volume
H.P Himachal Pradesh
A.P Andhra Pradesh
M.P Madhya Pradesh
ILR Indian Law Reports
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Mad Madras

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Zee Telefilms v. Union of India 2005 AIR SCW 2985
The University Of Madras v. Shantha Bai And Anr AIR 1954, Mad 67
Tekraj Vasandi Alias K.L. v. Union Of India & Others 1988 AIR 469, 1988 SCR
(2) 260
Ujjambai v. State of U P, AIR 1962 SC 1621
Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal AIR 1967 SC 1857
Rameshwarlal Haralka v. Union of India AIR 1970, Cal 520;
S.S and Ship Management Pvt. Ltd v. Board of Trustees AIR 1989 Cal 212 at
p.222;
P.A. Kannan v. State AIR 1989 Knt 285 at p.290
Chintaman Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradeshram 1951 AIR 118, 1950 SCR 759
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors
Director of Education v. Rawat Prakash Pandey 1971 ALJ 155:(1971) st of Lab I.C
975: AIR 1971 All 371
Narendra Kumar And Others vs The Union Of India And Others 1960 AIR 430,
1960 SCR (2) 375
Damayanti V. Union of India
State of Madras V. VG Rao
Sivani V State of Maharahtra

State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur
In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat (2005),
Vishaka V State of Rajasthan
Excel Wear v. Union of India (1978)10,
State of Kerala v. K. Somaselty
R.D.Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India
Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India
Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal
Union of India v. R.C. Jain
Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of U.P(2000) 3 SCC 40 para 15
Statutes
Constitution of India
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964
Constitutional Provisions
Article 12 of the Constitution of India
Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
102nd Constitutional Amendment Act 2018
105th Constitutional Amendment Act 2021
Article 46 of the Constitution of India (DPSP)

Books
Indian Constitutional Law, M P Jain, Eighth Edition, Lexis Nexis
Principles of Administrative Law, Justice G P Singh, Justice Alok Aradhe, Sixth
Edition, Lexis Nexis
Administrative Law, Kailash Rai, Allahabad Law Agency
The Court and the Constitution of India, Summit and Shallows, Oxford India Paper
Backs, Sixth Impression 2013

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner Ms. Chamber of Private Sector, in Writ Petition(C) __ of 2022 has
approached the High Court of Kalyana under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 2021, Kalyana State assembly passed Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of Employment in
Private Sector Act, 2021.
The state assembly also passed the Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of Employment in Private
Sector Rules, 2021, paving way for more employment opportunities for locals in the private
sector.
The act sought to reserve 50% of skilled and 80% of unskilled jobs for local candidates in
various private sector companies, societies, trusts and limited liability partnership firms situated
in the state of Kalyana, which employs more than 20 persons and who have taken any benefit
from the state in the form of land at subsidised price, free electricity, free water, exemption from
taxes, etc.
In a nutshell, the new reform reserves 50% of skilled and 80% of unskilled jobs for locals in the
private sector.
A candidate who lives in the state of Kalyana for a period of 15 years is a local candidate.
State Government is authorized to notify a list of skilled jobs to which the Act applies.

PROVISIONS
Preamble
• Preamble of the Act provides that it is an Act
(i) to secure the interests of the local people and
(ii) also to promote the interest of investors by providing for equal opportunities in
employment in private sector and
(iii) to insulate the private sector from political interference.
Applicability
• The act applies to
(i) all private sector companies, partnership firms, societies, trusts, limited liability
partnership firms etc.
(ii) any person employing 20 or more persons; and
(iii) who have taken any benefit from the state in the form of land at subsidised price,
free electricity, free water, exemption from taxes, etc.
• The Act has come into force and private sectors are required to comply the requirements of
the Act by 2025.
Reservations for Local Candidates
• All such employers must provide/reserve 50% of skilled jobs and 80% of unskilled jobs to
local candidates.

Benefits
• Benefits provided from the state in the form of land at subsidized price, free electricity, free
water, exemption from taxes, etc.
Compulsory for compliance
• Skilled jobs are defined to be those jobs that require the applicants to be technically qualified.
• Further the State Government is authorised to notify a list of skilled jobs to which the Act
applies.
Dispensation
• Employers may claim an exemption from providing reservation to locals if adequate number
of local candidates of desired skill, qualification or proficiency are not available.
Offences and Penalties
• In case of failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, the private sector concern has to
return the benefit it has received from the government of Kalyana.
Delegated Legislation
The State Government through the Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of Employment in
Private Sector Rules, 2021 provided that the employees cannot join political parties including
student’s wings of the political parties.

ISSUES RAISED
The private sector concerns formed a Chamber of Private Sector and challenged the
constitutional validity of the Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of Employment in Private Sector
Act, 2021 before the High Court of Kalyana, inter alia on the following grounds:
1. That private sector concerns are not 'state' for the purpose of Part-III of the Constitution.
2. The Act violates the fundamental right to carry on business.
3. The government is estopped from superimposing the Act on the private sector after
attracting them to invest in the state with concessions.
4. The rule prohibiting the employees from joining political parties including student’s wings
of the political parties is ultravires the Act and also the Constitution.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1.
That private sector concerns are not 'state' for the purpose of Part-III of the Constitution.
As per Article 12, private sector concerns do not fall under the definition of 'Other
Authority'. The Petitioners are challenging that Private Sector does not come under the definition
of state under Article 12.
ISSUE 2.
The Act violates the fundamental right to carry on business.
The Petitioners are challenging that the act violates their very fundamental right to carry
on business as guaranteed in Part III under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
ISSUE 3.
The government is estopped from superimposing the Act on the private sector after
The challenge to the state on not honoring the principle of estoppel, and superimposing
the act on the private sector can be sustained.

ISSUE 4.
The rule prohibiting the employees from joining political parties including student’s wings
of the political parties is ultravires the Act and also the Constitution
The rules formulated under Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of Employment in
Private Sector Rules, 2021 provided that the employees cannot join political parties including
students wings of the political parties.
The Petitioners are challenging the very nature of the rules under the delegated legislation
formulated under Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of Employment in
Private Sector Rules, 2021.
Further, they are challenging the very nature of the act itself as ultravires to the constitution.

PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1.
That private sector concerns are not 'state' for the purpose of Part-III of the Constitution.
Definition in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State includes the Government
and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all
local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of
India “
The petitioner contends that Private Sector Companies do not fall under the definition of
State under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. R.C. Jain1 laid down the test for
determining which bodies would be considered as a local authority under the definition of state
enshrined under Article 12 of the constitution.
• Has a separate legal existence
• Functions in a defined area
• Has the power to raise funds on its own
• Enjoys autonomy i.e., self-rule and
• Is entrusted by statute with functions which are usually entrusted to municipalities, then
such authorities would come under ‘local authorities’ and hence would be ‘state’ under
Article 12 of the Constitution.
1 Union Of India & Ors vs R. C. Jain & Ors on 17 February, 1981

The Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal2 laid down the
conclusive test for determining the bodies that would come under the ambit of ‘other authorities’.
The court held that if an authority
• has the power to issue directions and any offense against them is punishable by law
• has the power to make rules that would have statutory effect
• is an agency or instrumentality of state for carrying out trade or business which otherwise
would have been carried out by the state departments, such authorities would come
within the purview of ‘other authorities’ and hence would be considered ‘state’.
In Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India3
The question before the court, in this case, was whether the Council of Industrial and Scientific
Research(CISR), which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1898 would come
within the definition of ‘state’ under Article 12. The Supreme Court observed that a body would
be ‘state’ if:
• It is performing essential state function and
• It is under the pervasive control of the Government.
• The court held CISR not to be ‘state’ as per the above said requirement.
2 Mohan Lal vs State And Ors. on 14 May, 1965
3 Sabhajit Tewary vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 February, 1975

In the case of R.D.Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India4, a similar
question was raised before the court that whether International Airport Authority is a
state. The court through J.Bhagwati laid down the following test to determine whether a
body is included within ‘other authorities’ and comes within the definition of ‘state’ :
• The financial assistance given by the State and magnitude of such assistance;
• If any usual or extraordinary assistance is provided by the State’;
• Nature and extent of control of management and policies of the corporation by the state;
• The state conferred or state protected monopoly status;
• The function carried out by the corporation would ascertain whether the body is an
instrumentality or agency of the state or not;
• If one of the body is transferred to the government.
• The above-said parameters broadly determine whether an authority is ‘other authority’ as
per the definition of ‘state’ under Article 12. Considering these tests, International
Airport Authority was held to be ‘state’.
In Executive Engineer State of Kerala v. K. Somaselty5, it was held that the term industry does
not comes under the purview of article 12, unless it was declared to be an instrumentality or
agency of state.
4 Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport ... on 4 May, 1979 AIR 1628, 1979
SCR (3)1014
5 The Executive Engineer (State Of ... vs K. Somasetty & Ors on 2 May, 1997)

In BCCI v. Zee Telefilms Ltd6., the Supreme court of India ruled that the Indian cricket board
was not a 'State’ as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution and, hence, cannot be
sued for alleged violation of fundamental rights.
There is much controversy as to the meaning and import of the term "other authorities".
In the case of University of Madras v. Shanta Bai7, the Madras High Court held that the term
"other authorities" should be construed ejusdem generis with the Government or Legislature and
so construed can only mean authorities exercising governmental functions. This view of the
Madras High Court has not been accepted by the Supreme Court. (Ujjambai v. State of U P8,
AIR 1962 SC 1621)
The Supreme Court has made it clear that the doctrine of ejusdem generis cannot be
applied in the interpretation of the term "Other Authorities". The Supreme court has, thus it
rejected the view that the term "other authorities" includes only those authorities which exercise
governmental sovereign functions (Ujjambai case). The Supreme Court (Electricity Board v.
Mohanlal) has held that the term "other authorities" includes all the authorities created by the
Constitution or Statute and on whom powers are conferred by law, whether or not they are
performing governmental function. Thus it is almost settled that the constitutional or statutory
authorities on whom powers are conferred by law are included within the meaning of the term
"other authorities".
6 Zee Telefilms v. Union of India 2005 AIR SCW 2985

7 The University Of Madras v. Shantha Bai And Anr AIR 1954, Mad 67
8 Ujjambai v. State of U P, AIR 1962 SC 1621

In a case, Tekraj Vasandi v. Union of India9, the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary
Studies registered under the Societies Registration Act is neither an agency nor instrumentality
of the State and therefore, it is not a state for the purpose of Article 12.
The Petitioner company is not a creation of any statute, it is incorporated under the Companies
Act, as a private limited company. Further no share capital is held by govt. in such private
companies and they do not take a penny from the Govt. so the question of financial aid is laid to
rest then and there, In addition to this there is no monopoly of the company, the state has not
given any monopoly or the state doesn't protects any monopoly which does not exist, there is no
law barring any other company in running the same business hence there is no issue of
monopoly. Hence the private concerns are not state.
The Petitioner, Chamber of Private Sector is thus contending that, Private Sector
Companies do not fall under the definition of State.
It is humbly prayed before the Hon’ble court that the Private sector concerns is not a ‘state’ for
the purpose of part-III of the Constitution.
9 Tekraj Vasandi Alias K.L. v. Union Of India & Others 1988 AIR 469, 1988 SCR (2) 260

ISSUE 2.
The Act violates the fundamental right to carry on business.
Definition of Article 19(1)(g)
Freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees six fundamental freedoms to every citizen of
India, namely-
1. Freedom of speech and expression;
2. Freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms;
3. Freedom to form associations, unions or co-operative societies;
4. Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India;
5. Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, and
6. Freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
These six fundamental freedoms are the natural and basic freedoms inherent in the status of a
citizen. However, these freedoms are not absolute or uncontrolled but are subject to certain
reasonable restrictions.

Explanation:
Scope of Article 19(1)(g):
What’s included and what’s not
1. The right to carry on a business also includes the right to shut down the business.
In Excel Wear v. Union of India (1978)10, the Supreme Court declared Section 25-O of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which required an employer to take prior permission from
the government for closure of his industrial undertaking, as unconstitutional and invalid
on the ground that it violated Article 19(1)(g).
2. There is no right to hold a particular job of one’s choice. For example, in the case of
closure of an establishment, a man who has lost his job cannot say that his fundamental
right to carry on an occupation is violated.
3. There is no right to carry on any dangerous activity or any antisocial or criminal activity.
4. No one can claim a right to carry on business with the government.
5. The right to trade does not include the right of protection from competition in trade.
Thus, loss of income on account of competition does not violate the right to trade under
Article 19(1)(g).
10 Excel Wear v. Union of India (1978)10, 1979 AIR 25, 1979 SCR (1)1009

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)11 has observed that the
sexual harassment of working women in workplaces violates the fundamental right under Article
19(1)(g). In this case, comprehensive guidelines and binding directions were issued by the court
to prevent the incidents of sexual harassment of women at workplaces in both public and private
sectors.
Definition of Article 19(6) - which is a reasonable restriction to Article 19(1)(g)
Reasonable restrictions on freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business
Article 19(6) provides that the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) can be restricted in the
following ways:
1. By imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.
2. By state monopoly: Sub-clause (ii) of Article 19(6) enables the state to make laws for
creating state monopolies either partially or completely in respect of any trade or business
or industry or service. The right of a citizen to carry on trade is subordinated to the right
of the state to create a monopoly in its favor.
Also, Sub-clause (i) of Article 19(6) empowers the state to lay down, by law, “the
professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on
any occupation, trade or business”.
11 Vishaka V State of Rajasthan ,& Ors on 13 August, 1997

In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat (2005),12 the Supreme Court has
held that the expression ‘in the interest of general public’ in Article 19(6) is of wide import
comprehending public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the
community and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.
Test of Restrictions under Article 19(2) to 19(6)
The restrictions to be imposed on the fundamental freedoms under Article 19(2) to Article 19(6)
must satisfy the following tests:
1. The restriction must be imposed by or under the authority of a law duly enacted by the
appropriate legislature. The law authorizing the restriction must be reasonable.
2. The restriction imposed must be for the particular purpose or object envisaged in the
specific clauses, i.e., Article 19(2) to 19(6). There has to be a reasonable nexus between
the restriction imposed and the objects mentioned in the respective clause.
3. The restriction must be reasonable.
Connecting this with facts of our case with reference to Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of
Employment in Private Sector,
12 State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab ... on 26 October, 2005

The Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of Employment in Private Sector Act, 2021 is violating
Article 19(1)(g) on the following grounds:
1. Every person who is going to employ people and conduct business needs to have his own
freedom to appoint people of his choice. He should be his own master and decision making
power should lie within his scope to conduct his business or operations effectively and
profitably.
If the private sector concerns are going to follow the act, the following are the consequences
a. There is a feature which states that 50% of skilled jobs and 80% of the unskilled job
reservations are to be given for the locals, which seems to be highly unreasonable as 80% of
unskilled reservations would mean loss of freedom to recruit the staff of choice and compromise
with the employee's performance leading to economic losses. Also if the 50% skilled employees
are not available in the state of Kalyana, and that skill is not listed in the skilled jobs notification
of the state, the employer is not able to understand from where he needs to appoint the remaining
skilled employees.
b. No guidelines on what is to be done when there is a shortfall of 50%, whether can i employ
from other states and how many people i can employ etc. On these reasons, the act is once again
silent.
c. If the employer is not able to employ, skilled employees from the state of Kalyana then who is
going to compensate for the economic losses caused due to nonperformance of work, breach of
contracts arising out of shortage of employees which results, out of a feature in the act, which
restricts employer from hiring from other states and depend only upon the scare resource pool of

skilled employees from the State of Kalyana. Already the facts say, even though much of the
employment was generated, it was of no use for the people of Kalyana, as they were not used to
these types of new employments. The facts say that the locals were employed majorly only in
clerical, non-skilled and menial jobs.
d. If a meritorious candidate is honing multi skills and these skills are not in the authorised skill
list of the state, then there is a legal difficulty to recruit that employee simply because his skill is
not listed in the state skill to which the act applies, also if that employee is appointed, then he
will be performing both state listed skill jobs and state unlisted skill jobs. The Act is silent on
this.
e. Also the Act is silent on other aspect where Kalyana being a welfare state is not ready to take
up this responsibility of compensating employers whose businesses are prone to loses resulting
out of a unclear (like skilled job list) features in the act.
With these above mention problems and this kind of situation it becomes problem to continue
business in a state
Also some more questions like "What if I the employer is not able to fulfill the obligations, then
if is incurring losses, then when on returning the land, will the state compensate them is the
question which this Act fails to answer. Who will incur the costs?
Also how to return the benefits, and How will the employer return the benefit if loss caused due
to labor troubles arising out of direct consequences of the act. where also taken huge loan to start
the private sector.

Any restrictions imposed by law by the State on the right guaranteed under Article
19(1)(g) can be challenged on the ground either that the restriction is unreasonable, or that the
restriction is in excess of the right, or that even activities which are not pernicious have been
included within the sweep of restrictions, or that the procedure laid down for curbing any activity
is in just, arbitrary or unreasonable (Rameshwarlal Haralka v. Union of India13 AIR 1970, Cal
520; see also S.S and Ship Management Pvt. Ltd v. Board of Trustees14 AIR 1989 Cal 212 at
p.222; P.A. Kannan v. State15 AIR 1989 Knt 285 at p.290.) - Act doesn't satisfy the test of
reasonable restrictions under A.19(6).
Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the
standpoint of interest of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons
upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract considerations. A restriction
cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In
determining whether there is any unfairness involved, the nature of the right alleged to have been
infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil
sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at
the relevant time enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has
to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question.
Canalization of a particular business in favor of even a specified individual is reasonable where
the interest of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the
country.
13 Rameshwarlal Haralka v. Union of India AIR 1970, Cal 520;
14 S.S and Ship Management Pvt. Ltd v. Board of Trustees AIR 1989 Cal 212 at p.222;
15 P.A. Kannan v. State AIR 1989 Knt 285 at p.290

It is humbly prayed before the Hon’ble court that this Act violates the fundamental
right of the petitioner to carry on business.
ISSUE 3.
The government is estopped from superimposing the Act on the private sector after
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine. Like all equitable remedies,
it is discretionary, in contrast to the common law absolute right like right to damages for breach
of contract. The doctrine has been variously called 'promissory estoppel', 'equitable estoppel',
'quasi estoppel' and 'new estoppel'. It is a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and
though commonly named 'promissory estoppel', it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the
realm of estoppel.
The true principle of promissory estoppel is where one party has by his words or conduct
made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or
effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon
by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party,
the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back
upon it. It is not necessary, in order to attract the applicability of the doctrine of promissory
estoppel that the promisee acting in reliance of the promise, should suffer any detriment. The
only thing necessary is that the promisee should have altered his position in reliance of the
promise.

In M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh16, it was held that, Waiver as to a
person’s right can operate only when person granting it has full knowledge of his right and
intentionally abandons it, either expressly or impliedly.
The case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. is a trendsetter regarding
the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the Government. In this case the
Chief Secretary of the Government gave a categorical assurance that total exemption from sales
tax would be given for three years to all new industrial units in order them to establish
themselves firmly. Acting on this assurance the appellant sugar mills set up a hydrogenation
plant by raising a huge loan. Subsequently, the Government changed its policy and announced
that sales tax exemption will be given at varying rates over three years. The appellant contended
that they set up the plant and raised huge loans only due to the assurance given by the
Government. The Supreme Court held that the Government was bound by its promise and was
liable to exempt the appellants from sales tax for a period of three years commencing from the
date of production.
However, in present case, there was no such waiver of rights by plaintiff: he didn’t have any full
knowledge of his rights to exemption under the assurance given by the State. Firstly, the doctrine
of promissory estoppel is not so well defined in scope and ambit and so free from uncertainty
that plaintiff must have had full knowledge of his rights. Secondly, there is no presumption that
every person knows the law; there is the rule that ignorance of law is not an excuse which is
altogether different in its scope and application.
16 Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors, 1979 AIR 621, 1979
SCR (2) 641

Where the government makes a promise, even in sovereign, administrative or governmental
capacity, knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact,
promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government will be abstained to go
back on its promise if it will be inequitable to do so, notwithstanding that there is no
consideration for the promise and promise is in fact is not recorded in form of a formal
contract as required by Art.299 of Constitution. The defense of ‘executive necessity’ which
holds that Government can’t fetter its future executive action to be determined by needs of
community at relevant time do not release government from being bound by such promises for it
will be ultra-vires to rule of law and justice.
The Petitioner contends that in the year 2018 when the state government of Kalyana adopted a
major policy decision with anticipating the huge investments, it was not having any intention of
bringing this Act in place But the respondent has bought the Act without even
consulting/discussing with the Petitioners hence they estopped now from their promise.
The petitioner contends that the claim made by respondent saying the respondent is interested in
safeguarding the interests of Petitioner. But in reality there is absolutely zero intent as the fact of
the case shows that there were concessions offered 3 years before to attract the Investors but
now through this Act they are restricting us to comply under 3 more years if not complied
petitioner need to discard the benefits from the government.

It is humbly prayed before the Hon’ble court that government to be estopped from
superimposing the Act on the private sector after attracting them to invest in the state with
concessions.
ISSUE 4.
The rule prohibiting the employees from joining political parties including student’s wings
of the political parties is ultravires the Act and also the Constitution
Article 19(1)(c) - provides Freedom to form Associations or Unions (97th
amendment act 2011) or Co-operative societies.
The citizen's right of association with political parties is not suspended while he is under
government employment, though this right is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot be
abridged without hearing (Director of Education v. Rawat Prakash Pandey17
The Supreme Court held in Narendra Kumar v. Union of India18 that a law affecting
fundamental right may be held bad on the ground of uncertainty and vagueness
The right to form associations is considered as the life-blood of democracy, as without
such a right, the political parties critical to the functioning of a democracy cannot be formed.
The right to form associations and unions includes the right to form companies, societies, trade
unions, partnership firms and clubs, etc. The right is not confined to the mere formation of an
association but includes its establishment, administration and functioning as well.
17 Director of Education v. Rawat Prakash Pandey 1971 ALJ 155:(1971) st of Lab I.C 975:
AIR 1971 All 371
18 Narendra Kumar And Others vs The Union Of India And Others 1960 AIR 430, 1960
SCR (2) 375

Some of the facets of the right to form associations are as follows:
• The right to form associations means the right to be a member of an association
voluntarily. It also includes the right to continue to be or not to continue to be a member
of the association.
In Damyanti v. Union of India(1971)19, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the
members of an association to continue the association with its composition as voluntarily agreed
upon by the persons forming the association.
• The right to form an association includes the right not to be a member of an association.
• The right under Article 19(1)(c) does not prohibit the state from making reservations or
nominating weaker sections into the cooperative societies and their managing
committees.
• No prior restraint can be imposed on the right to form an association.
• There is no fundamental right of recognition of the association or union by the
government.
• The right to form an association includes no right to achieve the objects of the association.
19 "Damyanti Naranga vs The Union Of India And Others on 23 February, 1971 Equivalent citations:
1971 AIR 966, 1971 SCR (3) 840

Reasonable restrictions on right to form association
According to Article 19(4), reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the right to form
associations, unions and co-operative societies, etc. on the following grounds:
1. In the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, or
2. In the interests of public order or morality.
Rules of Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of Employment in Private Sector Rules, 2021
(a) Ultravires to the Act
(b) Ultravires to the Constitution
Rules framed by the government is in excess of the legislative powers delegated to it under the
Act. So the rules are unconstitutional
Rules framed by the government is in excess of legislative power delegated to it under the Act
The reasonable restrictions provided in Article 19(4) which can be imposed on violation of
public order or morality in an act, where there is no disturbance on public order, restrictions held
by the act renders the act unconstitutional.
The fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(c) which grants the freedom to join any union
association but the entire Act does not speak anything about the student wings but the (Rules)
speaks about student wings which is excessive use of delegation and making the rules ultravires
to the Act and thereby rendering the act unconstitutional.
Advantages of politics
It provides leaders to societies

These leaders govern society one way or other.
More successful leaders often formulate governments and legislate policies for the people.
Socializing people with similar point of view in one place.
Negotiation skills (wherein two parties can conclude any subject with a favorable outcome).
What are political parties?
A political party is an organisation that co-ordinates candidates to compete in a particular
country's elections. It is common for the members of a party to hold similar ideas about politics,
and parties may promote specific ideological or policy goals.
What are student wings?
A student wing is a subsidiary, autonomous or independently allied front of a larger organization
that is formed in order to rally support from students and focus on student specific issues
typically of those attending college / university.
Student wings may also be discussion forums for student members and supporters of the
organization to debate policy and ideology
How student wings are different from political parties?
Even though the ideologies are aligned from political parties, student wings will not be
competing in any elections where political parties compete.
The primary intention / purpose of student wings is to safeguard or protect the concerns of the
students in college or university.

The S.C has struck down the proviso inserted in Rule 3 of the H.P Ceiling on Land Holings
Rules.20 1973 the notification by Registrar, District Kangra declared them Invalid, they being
Ultra Vires the Powers of The H.P Ceiling of land Holdings Act, 1973 as they were outcome
of unguided general delegation and did not subserve any purpose sought to be achieved by
the parent Act.
It is humbly prayed before the Hon’ble court that rule prohibiting the employees from
joining political parties including student’s wings of the political parties is ultravires the
Act and also the Constitution.
20. Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of U.P(2000) 3 SCC 40 para 15

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble High Court of Kalyana that it
may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:
I. Private Sector Concerns, does not fall under the definition of State under Article 12 of the
II. The Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of Employment in Private Sector Act, 2021
violates the fundamental right to carry on business as guaranteed under Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
III. The government should be estopped from superimposing the act on the private sector.
IV. The Kalyana State Equal Opportunity of Employment in Private Sector Rules, 2021
violates the fundamental right to form unions as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the
For this act of Kindness, the PETITIONER shall be duty bound forever pray.
Place: Kalyana sd /-
Dated: 28th April 2022 Counsel for Petitioner

Team Chambal Petitioner Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Chambal Petitioner Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code:

6TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2022

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALYANA

IN Writ Petition (C) NO. __ OF 2022

Chamber of Private Sector …PETITIONER

STATE OF KALYANA …RESPONDENTS

Memorial Submitted to the Registry of the Hon’ble High Court of Kalyana

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

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

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................. 9

ISSUES RAISED ........................................................................................................... 12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................... 13

II. The Act violates the fundamental right to carry on business................................ 19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 2

III. That government is estopped from superimposing the Act on the

C. The government is estopped from superimposing the act on the private

D. Act violates Article 19(1)(c) of Part III of the Constitution ................................

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 3

SCC Supreme Court Cases

AIR All India Reporter

UOI Union of India

COI Constitution of India

H.P Himachal Pradesh

A.P Andhra Pradesh

M.P Madhya Pradesh

ILR Indian Law Reports

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 4

Zee Telefilms v. Union of India 2005 AIR SCW 2985

Ujjambai v. State of U P, AIR 1962 SC 1621

Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal AIR 1967 SC 1857

Rameshwarlal Haralka v. Union of India AIR 1970, Cal 520;

P.A. Kannan v. State AIR 1989 Knt 285 at p.290

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors

975: AIR 1971 All 371

1960 SCR (2) 375

Damayanti V. Union of India

State of Madras V. VG Rao

Sivani V State of Maharahtra

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 5

In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat (2005),

Vishaka V State of Rajasthan

Excel Wear v. Union of India (1978)10,

State of Kerala v. K. Somaselty

R.D.Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India

Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India

Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal

Union of India v. R.C. Jain

Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of U.P(2000) 3 SCC 40 para 15

Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964

Article 12 of the Constitution of India

Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India

102nd Constitutional Amendment Act 2018

105th Constitutional Amendment Act 2021

Article 46 of the Constitution of India (DPSP)

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Article 299 of the Constitution of India

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 6

Indian Constitutional Law, M P Jain, Eighth Edition, Lexis Nexis

Principles of Administrative Law, Justice G P Singh, Justice Alok Aradhe, Sixth

Edition, Lexis Nexis