STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondents most humbly submit that this Hon’ble High Court of India has the requisite

jurisdiction to hear all the matters of

1. Petition No. ABCD/2017 dated XX/YY/ZZZZ filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, 1950,

ALL OF WHICH IS URGED IN DETAIL IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND IS SUBMITTED

MOST RESPECTFULLY.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[ARGUMENT 1] THE DEMOLITION OF THE CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PRIOR

NOTICE/NOTIFICATION IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS IT VIOLATES PRINCIPLES OF
NATURAL JUSTICE.
The Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation in its attempt to regulate the municipality
violated Audi Alteram Partem. [A] The actions taken by the municipal are not under the
ambit of Reasonableness and Proportionality [B]

A. The Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation in its attempt to regulate the

municipality violated Audi Alteram Partem.
Natural justice is a concept of civil law, which means judgement which is given should be
fair and reasonable. Equity and equality should be there. In India, the principle of natural
justice can be traced from Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14
says about the equality before the law and Article 21 talks about the protection of life and
personal liberty. Article 21 was defined in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. The Union of
India. The rule of natural justice comes into power where no partiality is done with anybody
during any regulatory activity.
Rule of Audi Alteram Partem is the primary notion of the principle of natural justice. The
principle also says that no one should be condemned unheard. Both the parties will get an
opportunity of fair hearing and justice. This maxim also ensures that fair hearing and justice
will be done towards both the parties, both the parties have right to speak. No decision will be
taken by court without hearing both the parties. Both the parties have an opportunity to
protect themselves. In the case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, Section 76 of the
Metropolis Local Amendment Act, 1855, it was held that the power was subject to a
qualification repeatedly recognised that no man is to be deprived of his property without his
having an opportunity of being heard.
In the said case, the basic right to be heard was snatched from the petitioner, resulting in the
loss of his property and further right to life and liberty as given under article 21 of the
Constitution of India, 1950. His property was demolished without giving him a prior notice or
notification, which in turn took away his right to fight for his property and by reason justify
the delay in the required notice.

B. Actions of the municipal corporation are neither reasonable nor proportional to the
damages incurred by the petitioner.
Just, rational, appropriate, ordinary, or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to reasonable
care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities.
In the law of negligence, for example, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care
that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances.
Reason is an important element for which homo sapiens always look for as it enables them to
take decisions consciously for themselves and helps in assessing the reasonability of others’
decisions.
Doctrine of reasonableness in administrative law can be used as a substantive standard to
review the content and material of administrative action and this way provides guidelines to
public authority in administrative functions. Any decision by public authorities can be
deemed as unreasonable if they do not logically follow all the legally and reasonably relevant
dimensions. Conformity to reasonability is what makes people believe and rely on
administrative actions and
This state of need of acting with reason and how it helps in the creation and assessment of
laws has led to the creation of doctrine of reasonableness in administrative law.
Doctrine of proportionality in the Administrative Law assets that there must be a reasonable
nexus between the desired result and the measures taken to reach that goal. Hence, the action
taken must not be shockingly disproportionate to the consciousness of the court and the said
action can then be challenged by way of judicial review. It is submitted that the
reasonableness in administrative law means to distinguish between proper use or
improper use of power.

The adoption of a proportionality test for the validity of administrative action first emerged in
Germany in the 1870's. Three tests are applied, only one of which involves proportionality as
such. The three tests are: (i) The measure proposed must be suitable for the purpose; (ii) The
measure must be necessary; and (iii) The measure must not be disproportionate.
In the current case, Reasonableness was not attached to the actions taken by the municipal
corporation. There was no genuine reason to demolish the petitioner’s property, rather a less
damaging way could be taken. For example, a monetary fine could have been imposed.
Further, proportionality as a principle was not followed. Referring to the 3 tests above and
applying them here, (i) Demolition was not the most suited way to fulfil the purpose of a
notice requirement. The municipal corporation could’ve used a less drastic penalty which
would be proportional to the violation. (ii) This measure was not at all necessary and rather
seemed out of the way and over the top. (iii) The demolition of a 2 storey building in relation
to non-fulfilment of a mere notice is not proportional at all. Hence, it can be clearly
established that the principle of proportionality was not followed.
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,

the Respondents most humbly and respectfully request the Honourable High Court of India to

adjudge and:

1. Provide Compensation worth Rs. 90,00,000/-

2. Strike down the regulation as it violates the right to life, liberty, and property as given

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950

And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity and good

conscience

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted before this Court

Date: XX/YY/ZZZZ Counsel No. 1843P

Place: Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner