TEAM CODE – L

29th M. C. CHAGLA MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF DHAURASHTRA

W. P. NO. ___ OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF

X, Y, Z, and Ors. ……PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIANA and Ors. ……RESPONDENT

CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF PROVISO TO SUB-RULE (5) OF RULE 3

INSERTED BY THE NOISE POLLUTION (MANAGEMENT & CONTROL)
AMENDMENT RULES, 2015

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATI FULL FORM

ON

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

Anr Another

Bom Bombay High Court

HC High Court

Ors Others

SC Supreme Court

SCALE Supreme Court Almanac

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

UOI Union of India

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.NO LIST OF
CASES

1. GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF & ANR. V. Subhash

Chandra Yadav & Anr 1988 AIR 876.

2. Neelakandan Namboodiri vs State Of Kerala (2001) IILLJ 520 KER

3. State of Tamilnadu and another v P Krishnamoorthy and others (2006) 4 SCC

517

4. Forum, Prevention of Envn. & Sound Pollution vs. Union of India & Anr 2003
SCC OnLine 543

5. State of U.P v Renusagar Power Co. 1985 ALL LJ 250

6. Hindu National School Management Trust Society v Deputy Director of

Education 1980, All LJ 736

7. Chandrika Prasad Yadav v State of Bihar 004 6 SCC 331

8. State of Tamil Nadu and another v P. Krishnamurthy and other (2006) 4 SCC
5017

STATUTES

1. The Noise Pollution (Management & Control) Amendment Rules, 1999.

2. The Environmental Protection Act, 1977.

 3. Noise Pollution (Management & Control) Amendment Rules 2015.

ONLINE DATABASES:

1. Manupatra

2. SCC Online

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS, THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF

DHAURASHTRA, HEREBY HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THIS HON’BLE COURT’S
JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA.

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,

throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any
person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any

Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in
part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay
or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under
clause ( 1 ), without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the
plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High
Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party
in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court
shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is
received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished,
whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before
the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the
application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or,
as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The State Government of Dhaurashtra organizes processions for idols (gods) during the
festivals. They issue license to various mandals to carry out such activities (processions,
erecting pandals, announcement, etc).
 Silent foundation, an NGO aims and works towards curbing noise pollution and works
for the benefit of natural resources by safeguarding them. During the procession in the
2012, it was identified that there is violation of the noise Pollution (Management &
Control) Rules, 1999. The data collected depicted the use of noise emanating instruments
which was played near the St. Berth Hospital & Medical Institute of cancer.
 Despite submitting the records of noise readings to the concerned authority, no actions
were taken. In furtherance, a letter was forwarded to the Ministry of Environment &
Forest on request of immediate actions. On being aggrieved by the inaction by the
concerned authorities, a PIL was filed before the High Court seeking implementation of
Noise Pollution Rules (Management & Control) Rules, 1999.
 The State Government, in its affidavit furnished the detailed action plan prepared in 2002
and argued to have not received any complaint from the Silent Foundation. On
recommendation of various measures by the Silent Foundation, the High Court issued
notice to the State Government to issue public notices/ advertisement & call upon the
citizen/ interested parties to provide solutions.
 There were 15 intervention application which sought for identical relief. On the direction
of High Court, a committee was set up comprising the Environmentalist, activities and
other experts to formulate the steps to be undertaken by the State Government. On taking
cognizance of the report prepared by the committee after extensive research, the matter
was set for final hearing by listing the issues in concern.
 In the interregnum, the Noise Pollution (Management & Control) Rules, 1999 was
amended and one of the significant amendments was inserting a proviso to sub-rule (5)
of Rule 3 of the Rules, which reads thus: “Provided that, an area shall not fall under
silence area or zone category, unless notified by the State Government in accordance
with sub-rule (2)”.
 Being aggrieved by the amendment, the Silent Foundations & other interveners filed an
Writ petition challenging the amendment.