Siddhayog law college khed dist.

ratnagiri

WRIT PETITION
TEAM CODE:

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MALIVA

Writ Petition No. /2022

[ Appeal filed under Article 226 of constitution of INDIVIA ]

In The Matters Of:

1. Fight For Maliva,

Maliva Road, Maliva …………….. PETITIONERS

Vs

1. State of Maliva …………….. RESPONDENTS

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Hon’ble

Judge & other Companion Judges of the

High Court of Maliva

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 1

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

Sr. No Name Roll No.

1 Shamika Chandrashekar Dabke 09
2 Prajakta Ramdas Devre 12
3 Rajendra Shivaji Gujar 19
4 Shamshad Mustafa Khan 32
5 Abdul Qadir Ali Khanche 33
6 Suresh Pandurang Khedekar 35
7 Adarsh Suresh Kokankar 38
8 Swapnil Premanand Mahakal 41
9 Dhanashri Arun Sutar 56
10 Nandkumar Vishnu Zadekar 60

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 2

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr.no CONTENT PAGE NO.

1) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3-4
a) BOOKS REFERRED
b) WEBSITES REFERRED
c) STATUTES REFERRED
d) CASELAWS CITED

2) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5-6

3) STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7

4) STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-12

5) ISSUES RAISED 13

6) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 14-15

7) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 16-36

8) PRAYER 37

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 3

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIVIA

2. THE LAND ACQUISATION ACT, 1894

3. REHABILATION ACT, 1973

BOOKS REFERRED

1) Ratanlal & Dhirajlal,The Code of Criminal Procedure, 20th Edition (2012) Wardha
Nagpur.
2) Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s, The INDIVIAn Penal code, 29th Edition (2002) Wardha
Nagpur.
3) Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s, Law of Crimes, 25th Edition (2002) New Delhi
4) Criminal Defense, Malik’s
5) Durga Das Basu, Constitutional Remedies and WRITS, 3rd Edition (2009), Kolkata

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. www.Indiankanoon.com

2. www.advocatekhoj.com

3. www.livelaw.com

4. www.google.com

5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 4

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

CASE LAWS CITED

1. Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union Of India And Others on 18th October, 2000
2. Raghunath Abajirao Shinde(lt. …v State Maharashtra And Ors. On 17 January 2003
3. R.Prakash vs The Govt.Of Tamil Nadu on 16 March, 2016 (indiankanoon.org)
4. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Registered) Sindri and others v. Union of
India and others, AIR 1981 SC 344
5. Col. A.S. Sangwan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 March,

1980
6. Ugar Sugar Wroks Ltd. vs. Delhi Administrative and others, (2001) 3 SCC 635

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 5

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. SCC - Supreme Court Cases

2. SC - Supreme Court

3. Sec - Section

4. MH - Maharashtra

5. v - versus

6. PIL – Public Interest Litigation

7. DPSP – Directive Principals of Public Policy Law Journal

8. Fr – Fundamental Rights

9. Art - Article

10. Btw - Between

11. Anr - Another

12. Ors - Other

13. &- And

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 6

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE PIL & HUMBLY APPROACHED THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT UNDER THE ART. 21, 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIVIA, 1949.
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS, AND
ARGUMENTS.

in which the followings are:

Art. 21: protection of life & personal liberty. It states that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to a procedure established by law." thus, art.21 secures two rights:
1) right to life, &
2) right to personal liberty.

Art. 226: empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the govt. (in appropriate
cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
quo warranto, certiorari.

Art. 227:
Power of superintendence over all courts by the HC

(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts & tribunals throughout the territories
in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may-

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 7

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The village TERA is situated in Maliva State and its Population is five thousand- and
eighty-eight percent population is dependent on Agriculture and Farming. Agriculture is
their traditional occupation (primary) for livelihood.
2. The State of Maliva is continuously facing drought from past three years & it is seen that
the state of Maliva experiences severe droughts frequently. The state of Malvia is a drought
prone state.

3. Government of Maliva has decided to construct the Dam in the village of TERA. Due to
which their Only source of livelihood (i.e. agriculture) will be hampered. Due to this
reasons, ‘Fight for Malvia’- Organisation has filed petition in the court under Article 226
of the constitution of INDIVA.

4. The Construction of the Dam will Directly affect the Livestock and feed and fodder of the
livestocks.

5. The Notification to the villagers was not as per the law and was incomplete, as per the
proper law and regulations the notice should have been issued.

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 8

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

ISSUES RAISED

1) Whether public interest litigation filed under Article 226 of the constitution of
INDIVIA is Maintainable?

2) Whether "fight for maliva" organization has Locus standi to file public interest
litigation Before this hon'ble high court?

3) Whether proposed dam construction amounts to Violation of fundamental rights of

people in the Village tera which are guaranteed by constitution of INDIVIA?

4) Whether the high court of maliva can interfere in Any policy decision taken by the
state of maliva?

5) Whether due procedure of law has been followed While acquiring land for public
purpose?

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 9

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I :

1) Whether public interest litigation filed under Article 226 of the constitution of
INDIVIA is Maintainable?

The PIL filed under article 226 of the constitution of INDIVIA is NOT maintainable.

A PIL is maintainable only if there is violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed

under Part III of the constitution.
In this case there is no violation of any fundamental rights , the government of
maliva state is only rehabilitating the villagers of Tera to another suitable location and will
be providing them their basic means of livelihood ( Agriculture ). This will also raise their
standard of living.

ISSUE II :

Whether "fight for maliva" organization has Locus standi to file public interest
litigation Before this hon'ble high court?

"Fight for Maliva" organization has no Locus standi to file public interest litigation
Before this hon'ble high court of Maliva.

The State of Maliva is drought prone and there is drought from last 3 years so it is very
necessary to Construct a Dam in the area so that the water in that village would be maintained and
stored so that the water will be utilized for Agricultural purposes. So Fight for Maliva is not
thinking about the benefit of the public at large.

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 10

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

ISSUE III :

Whether proposed dam construction amounts to Violation of fundamental rights of

people in the Village tera which are guaranteed by constitution of INDIVIA?

The Proposed Construction of the Dam will not violate any fundamental rights in
the village of Tera which are guaranteed by The Constitution Of Indiva.

In this case there is no violation of any fundamental rights , the government of

maliva state is only rehabilitating the villagers of Tera to another suitable location and
will be providing them their basic means of livelihood ( Agriculture ). This will also raise
their standard of living.

ISSUE IV :

Whether the high court of maliva can interfere in Any policy decision taken by the
state of maliva?

The Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with
the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala
fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness,
irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However,
if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt
business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy.

In this case no violation of any fundamental right of the villagers of Tera and
construction of the dam is beneficial for the village of Tera and the entire state of
maliva. That is why High court of maliva cannot interfere in policy decision taken by
the state of maliva.

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 11

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

ISSUE V:

Whether due procedure of law has been followed While acquiring land for public
purpose?

All Due procedure of law were followed While acquiring land for public purpose.

As per the land acquisition act, 1894 it is mandatory to publish the notification in the local
newspaper and in the official gazette. This procedure was duly followed by the proposing
committee .

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 12

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I :

1) Whether public interest litigation filed under Article 226 of the constitution of
INDIVIA is Maintainable?

The Counsel Humbly Submits before this Hon'ble Court that the present petition has been filed in
public interest for the people of Tera as due to the environment imbalance has also taken place and
livelihood of the people of these villages is in danger. It is affecting majority of the agriculturally
based families. Building of a dam is a very difficult process and it is going to be done in a very sensitive
area where the agricultural fields would either be submerged or get water logged which would
deprive them of their right to livelihood. Rather Govt. is not thinking of the poor famers and people
of villages that what will happen to them even after govt. allot them the land in a new place but what's
the benefit of that if they can't make their livelihood.

Council like to mention about a case 3 [3] in which it is clearly mentioned by justice S. MANIKUMAR
"No doubt. Public Interest Litigations have come to occupy an important field in the administration
of Law. Public Interest Litigations are very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people.
But, unfortunately, lately, it has been abused by interested persons. Administration of justice should
not be for any publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation or political litigation. There
must be real and genuine public interest. Courts of Justice should not be allowed to be used by
unscrupulous litigants under this extraordinary jurisdiction." By this council like to mention that the
issue of farmers is under the interest of public and the livelihood of them.

ISSUE II :

Whether "fight for maliva" organization has Locus standi to file public interest
litigation Before this hon'ble high court?
Answer- Issue2Whether the writ petition filed under art.226 and art.227 of
the constitution of Indiva is maintainable? Council humbly like to mention that it
completely maintainable under Art.226 and 227 i.e. “The power of the HC to issue
writes under article 226 is wider than that of the SC. It is not confined to fundamental
rights , but extends to all cases where a breach of right is alleged’ 2. And here the right
of personal liberty is breached. Art.226 also states about its maintainability i.e. ‘If the
respondents are not employees of Govt. the writ would not be maintainable’3. And
according to a case4 which says ‘that HC have the power to issue writ of Mandamus
or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner
during pendency, During the pendency and final disposal of this petition the

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 13

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

respondents may be direct not to take the possession till the suit is decided finally’.
This also makes the Petition maintainable
ISSUE III :

Whether proposed dam construction amounts to Violation of fundamental rights of

people in the Village tera which are guaranteed by constitution of INDIVIA?

Answer
Directions given by the HC under 226 cannot be altered by the state Govt. Policy
Decisions of the State are not to be disturbed/interfered with unless they are found to
be grossly arbitrary or irrational this is a statement by SC, and it is also mentioned
in the judgement of case5 that while infringement of fundamental right HC can pass
a order to state for a stay or shutting down or just adjust it and read just it according
to the compulsions of circumstances and the imperatives of national consideration.

ISSUE IV :

Whether the high court of maliva can interfere in Any policy decision taken by the
state of maliva?

Directions given by the HC under 226 can not be altered by the state Govt. Policy
Decisions of the State are not to be disturbed/interfered with unless they are found to be
grossly arbitrary or irrational this is a statement by SC, and it is also mentioned in the
judgement of case5 that while infringement of fundamental right HC can pass a order to
state for a stay or shutting down or just adjust it and readjust it according to the
compulsions of circumstances and the imperatives of national considerations.

Case study

Col. A.S. Sangwan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 March, 1980
Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 SC 1545, 1981 LablC 831, 1980 Supp (1) SCC 559, 1980 (12) UJ
519 SC
Author: V K Iyer
Bench: O C Reddy, V K Iyer

JUDGMENT V.R. Krishna Iyer J.

1. The subject matter of the Writ Petition and Civil Appeal is the same and relates to the
competing claims of the petitioner (Co Sangwan) and the third respondent (Col. A.S. Sekhon)

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 14

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

to be promoted as Brigadiers in the Directorate of Military Farms. Either of them, if promoted

as Brigadier, automatically expects to become Director of Military Farms, and that is the bone
of contention between them. Currently, the post is being held by an acting hand because of this
litigation.

2. Way back in 1971, pursuant to a policy statement of 1964, a select list was made in which
the third respondent found the third place and the petitioner was left out. The first and second
positions in the 1971 selection went in favour of one Col, R.C. Datta and Acting Col. Dahiya.
They had their turn as Directors of the Military Farms and when Col. Dahiya retired on 31st
July, 1979 the post fell vacant and an appointment had to be made. Meanwhile, a writ petition
under Article 226 was moved before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to interdict the
Central Government from proceeding to make any fresh selection in departure from the
selection list of 1971 overlooking the claim of the third respondent before us. His contention
was that since he was already in the select list which was made pursuant to the policy statement
of 1964, any further selection cannot supersede his claim. The core of the contention was that
once a policy had been made in exercise of the general executive power of the Union of India
and made known and acted upon, it would be arbitrary to depart from it overnight by making
a fresh selection and without an antecedent reformulation of policy and making that policy
known to the concerned sector in the army. The High Court issued a writ forbidding any fresh
selection in variance of the 1971 selection and so the aggrieved party, the present petitioner,
has come to this Court by an appeal by special leave. He has also challenged the immutability
of the 1964 policy statement as arbitrary under Art, 14 of the Constitution and filed the above
writ petition in that behalf.

3. The long course of history which traces the career of these two competing hands may not
have direct relevance to the decision of the only issue with which we are contended. Without
injury to a correct decision, we may by pass the various stages in the career of either. It may.
perhaps, be true that both of them have had a good career and may have a good record of
service. It may even be that both of them may serve well if appointed as Directors of Military
Farms. We are concerned only with one principle which is at issue, and on that we have heard
the learned Attorney-Genera! appearing for the Union of India.

4. The policy statement of 1964 was, as we have earlier stated, not issued under any rules or
regulations or statute. The executive power of the Union of India, when it is not trammelled
by any statute or rule, is wide and pursuant to its power it can make executive policy. Indeed,
in the strategic and sensitive area of defence, Courts should be cautious although Courts are
not powerless. The Union of India having framed a policy relieved itself of the charge of acting
capriciously or arbitrarily or in response to any ulterior considerations so long as it pursued a
consistent policy. Probably, the principle of equality which interdicts arbitrariness promoted
the Central Government to formulate its policy in 1964. A policy once formulated is not good
for ever, it is perfectly within the competence of the Union of India to change it, rechange it,
MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 15
 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

adjust it and re-adjust it according to the compulsions of circumstances and the imperatives of
national considertions. We cannot, as Court give directives as to how the Defence Ministry
should function except to state that the obligation not to act arbitrarily and to treat employees
equally is binding on the Union of India because it functions under the Constitution and not
over it. In this view, we agree with the submission of the Union of India that there is no bar to
its changing the policy formulated in 1964 if there are good and weightly reasons for doing so.
We are far from suggesting that a new policy should be made merely because of the lapse of
time, nor are we inclined to suggest the manner in which such a policy should be shaped. It is
entirely within the reasonable discretion of the Union of India. It may stick to the earlier policy
or I give it up. But one imperative of the Constitution implicit in Article 14 is that if it does
change its policy, it must do so fairly and should not give the impression that it is acting by
any ulterior criteria or arbitrarily. This object is achieved if the new policy, assuming
Government wants to frame a new policy, is made the same way in which the 1964 policy was
made and not only made but made known. After all, what is done in secret is often suspected
of being capricious or mala fide. So, whatever policy is made should be done fairly and made
known to those concerned. So, we make it clear that while the Central Government is beyond
the forbiddance of the Court from making or changing its policy in regard to the Directorate
of Military Farms or in the choice or promotion of Brigadiers, it has to act fairly as every
administrative act must be done.

5. The learned Attorney-General made it clear that the Union of India is willing to abide by
the above directions of this Court and quickly consider the need, if any, for a new policy, and
if it considers that there is such need, to frame it quickly. Of course, DOW that there are
contestants and rival points of view, it may not be improper for the Central Government to
take into consideration any legitimite representation regarding the formulation of policy that
affected persons like the petitioner and the third respondent may make. We do not mean that
the Central Government should wait listlessly for representations to pour in. Either party,
namely, petitioner and respondent No. 3 or for that matter any other, is free to make
representations to the Central Government provided they do so within one week from now.
The Central Government will proceed to take a quick decision but a wise decision, and
thereafter make it available to the concerned circle in the army. If it chooses to re-frame policy
which necessitates a fresh selection, then it will be open the Central Government to make such
a selection in such fair manner as it decides. But we further impose a time bound restriction
upon the Central Government, since rights of parties are involved. We direct the Central
Government, having heard the learned Attorney-General on this point, that the new policy, if
any, shall be made within one month from now. The learned Attorney-General says that this
is quite feasible. We should not be misunder stood to lay down the proposition that it is not
open to the Central Government to make any policy, regarding any matter including the
selection to the Directorate of Military Farms, at any time it likes, provided its acts justly and
fairly.

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 16

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

6. We make it further clear that the Central Government will be free to act subject to the
directions we have given above the untrammelled by the reasoning of the direction given above
High Court. We dispose of the Writ Petition and the Civil Appeal on the above basis.

ISSUE V :

Whether due procedure of law has been followed While acquiring land for public
purpose?

Due procedure of law has not been followed While acquiring land for public purpose.

As per the land acquisition act, 1894 it is mandatory to publish the notification in the local
newspaper and in the official gazette. But this procedure was not duly followed by the
proposing committee.

PRAYER

In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited the
counsel for the appelent most humbly and respectfully pray before this Hon’ble
Court, that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

a) That the Present Petition is maintainable as Public Interest Litigation and the Writ
Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of Indiva is Maintainable.

b) The High Court can interfere in any policy decision taken by the state of Maliva

c) The Construction of the Dam amounts to violation of Art.21 of the Constitution of

Indiva.

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 17

 Siddhayog law college khed dist. ratnagiri

The Petitioner additionally prays that the Court may make any such order as it may
deem fit in terms of equity, justice and due conscience. And for this act of kindness
the Petitioner shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

(Respectfully Submitted)

- Counsel on behalf of the Appelant.

MEMORANDOM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 18