Srmnmcc020 Petitioners

TEAM CODE: SRMNMCC020
8th ANNUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2023
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA
THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF INDRAPRASTHA.
IN THE MATTER OF
BHIM AND ORS -------------------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF GOKTAL AND OTHERS ----------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE

PETITIONER
8TH ANUUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-5
STATEMENT OF FACT---------------------------------------------------------------------------------6-7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION--------------------------------------------------------------------8
ISSUES RAISED------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-----------------------------------------------------------------------10
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS--------------------------------------------------------------------------11-29
1.WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ABOLISH MANDIR BOARDS IN THE STATE OF

GOKTAL? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11-14
2. WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTION OF RS.10 CRORES TO GOKTAL CMDRF IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? --------------------------------------------------------------------15-19
3. WHETHER THE NEED FOR NOC FROM LEB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? -----------20-23
4. WHETHER THE GOKTAL LOCAZ TEACHERS WELFARE FUND ACT,2019 IS

VIOLATIVE OF ART.14 OF THE CONSTITUTION? -------------------------------------------24-29
PRAYER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30
2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES REFERRED
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950

2. THE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 2006
3. THE GURUVAAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD ACT,1978
4. THE LOCAZ ENDOWMENTS BOARD ACT,1995
5. THE KERALA MADARASA TEACHER’S WELFARE FUND ACT
6. THE REGISTRATION ACT,1908
BOOKS REFERRED
Sl.no AUTHOR NAME BOOK NAME EDITION YEAR
1. DURGA DAS BASU CONSTITUTION OF 14 2009

INDIA(VOLUME-I)
2. DURGA DAS BASU CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 14 2009

(VOLUME-II)
3. Prof. M.P.JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL 5 2008

LAW
3
CASES REFERRED
 Davis vs Benson, 133 U.S.333 (1890)

 The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar AIR 1954 SC 282
 S.P.Mittal v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 51
 Sri Sabanayagr Temple Vs State of Tamil nadu WP. No. 18248 of2006
 C.K Rajan case (AIR 1994 Kerala 179)
 Gopala Krishnan Case WP(C) No.20495/2019(J) S/O. Gopalakrishnan
 Kumari Srilekha Vidvarthi Vs. State of UP (1991) 1 SCC 212S.G. Jaisinhani vs. Union
Of India (1967) 2 SCR 703
 Renu vs District and Sessions Judge (2004) 14 SC 150; 2014 (2) SCALE 262; AIR 2014
SC 2175
 Chairman Rly. Board vs. Chandrima Das AIR 2000 SC 988,997 ;(2000) 2 SCC 455
 UOI vs Col.L.S.N Murthy (2012)1 SCC 71813.
 Daravo vs. State of U.P AIR 1961 SC 1457 at 1461,(1962) 1 SCR 574
 Umma salma beevi vs the district collector, W.P.No.5035 of 2015
 Fairose Ali Khan vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu And Others
CRP.NPD. No.4461 of 2015
 St. Jon's Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, Appeal (civil) 1068 of 2003
 Irwin Almeida v. Union of India [1992] 197 ITR 609
 P&T SC/ST Employees Welfare Association vs UOI 1989 AIR 139,1988 SCR supl (2)
623
 Triloki Nath Tiku vs State of Jammu & Kashmir 1969 AIR SC 1
 E.V.Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh Appeal Civil 6758 of 2000
 Ameer-un-Nissa Begum vs Mehboob 1953 AIR 91
 K.Thimmappa vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors SBI AIR 2001 SC 646
 AP Dairy Development Corona Civil Appeal 4588 of 2008
4
WEBSITES REFERRED
http://www.lawctopus.com/
http://www.ngalaw.co.uk/
http://www.indianlawyers.wordpress.com/
http://www.indiankanoon.com/
http://www.legalservice.com/
http://www.outsideonline.com/
http://www.indianlawjournal.com/
http://www.acedemia.com/
http://www.casemine.com/
http://www.icj-cij.com/
http://www.lawbulls.com/
http://www.indianlawyers.wordpress.com/
http://www.scconline.com/
http://www.vakilsearch.com/
http://www.advocatedekhoj.com/
5
STATEMENT OF FACT
1.Republic of Indraprastha: The Republic of Indraprastha is a country located in South Asia. As

one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, majority of the population followed the religion
of Zoro. The Republic is unique for each multi-cultural character. The Republic of Indraprastha
was ruled by colonial rulers and it got its independence in 1947 and become a republic with its
own return constitution which came into force in 1950.
2.Predominance of Zoro religion: throughout Indraprastha history sorrow religion has been part
and parcel of the country's tradition. the Zoro religion contributed to the betterment of the mandirs
and the multiple Gods they worship. Many properties were bestowed in the form of gift called
"danam" on the mandirs.In some states of Indraprastha, the Mandirs are managed by private trusts
and private persons while in others the State governments constitute Mandir Boards to manage the
affairs, including appointments and management of funds related to the Mandirs.
3.Goktal Mandir board Act-1978: This Act was enacted to provide better administration of
mandirs and eating fruits chairman vice-chairman and others appointed by State Government. it
mostly appoints priest, workers, managers of mandirs.
4.Locaz endowment board: Locaz are declared to be minorities. It is a charitable trust established
for every state including Goktal for the Locaz who are the declared minority in the Republic of
Indraprastha. the government constituted A committee for minorities Commission headed by Mr.
Jojo and the committee distributed reports pointing out the statistics about the land which were
contrary to the poor. Then the report recommended the government to investigate the corrupt
activities of LEB related with illegally sold properties.
5.Complaints about revenue authority: People were asked by the revenue authority to bring no
objection certificate from LeB for property transfer. A large amount of property was alienated in
dubious ways. this came to light only when Mr. Allen, a resident while for the purpose of housing
loan, when he was above to register the Mod the official set property is belongs to the LEB and
transaction can be carried out only after getting no objection certificate.
6
6.Writ petition filed before the High court of Goktal: Government order was passed not to
alienate property based on Noc. Mr. Alen then filed a writ petition before the high court of Goktal
contending that the act of Inspector-general of registration according to the government order is
arbitrary and unconstitutional.
7.Goktal Locaz Teachers Welfare Fund Act 2019: This law was passed in Goktal to provide
benefits for teachers who were appointed without any qualifications and taught only on the basis
of religious thoughts and ideologies. A petition was filed before the high court of Goktal seeking
to quash the act.
8.Occurrence of a great natural disaster: Meanwhile a great flood occurred in the state of Goktal
where hundreds of Dead report and large scale loss of the property were registered. By considering
this disaster into account, the Chief Minister's disaster relief fund which was constituted by the
state government decided to provide donations. Then there by Goktal Mandir board decided to
contribute Rs.10 crores to the CMDRF for the Zoro Mandir. Many allegations were rised against
the Goktal Mandir board citing about the violation of equality. A writ petition was filed, claiming
that the Mandir had no right to donate the money.
9.Writ petition challenging the discriminatory interference: Several debates where highlighted
about the treatment of Goktal government. A citizen Bhim from Goktal filed a writ petition before
the supreme court of Indraprastha challenging that discriminatory interference by the successive
state government in this affair. All writ petitions were clubbed together by the supreme court and
referred to the constitution bench.
7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted by the appellant counsel to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indraprastha has
the jurisdiction in this fact under ARTICLE 32 of the Constitution of Indraprastha which read as
follows:
Article 32:
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court 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, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution.
8
ISSUES RAISED
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of INDRAPRASTHA that following are the
issues raised in this matter,

GOKTAL?

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
3. WHETHER THE NEED FOR NOC FROM LEB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

VIOLATIVE OF ART.14 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

GOKTAL?
It is humbly submitted that it is necessary to abolish Mandir Board in the State of Goktal as it
violates the fundamental right article 26 and the freedom of temples gets violated. Under Art 25,
16 Every one has the freedom of religion, to profess and practice freely and art 16 holds the view
that the property can be owned freely. Therefore, mandir boards should be abolished.

It is submitted that the contribution done by the Goktal Mandir Board of Rs. 10 crores to the Chief
Minister Disaster Fund Relief is constitutionally invalid as under the act of 1978 it is mentioned
that the amount should be used for certain extent as to the interest of devotees of the temple and it
is clear that the board could not contribute funds.
3.WHETHER THE NEED FOR NOC FROM LEB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It is submitted that the need for NOC from LEB is constitutional because any government order is
a law under Art 13(3) but and the board is a statutory body vested with enormous rights therefore
the order which is not in conformity of law should be treated as arbitrary. And state should not
protect particular religious’ property which is against secularism. Therefore, the Government order
is unconstitutional and so the need of LEB is constitutional
4.WHETHER THE GOKTAL LOCAZ TEACHERS WELFARE FUND ACT,2019 IS

VIOLATIVE OF ART.14 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is submitted that the Goktal Locaz Teachers Welfare Fund Act,2019 is violative of Art 14
because art 14 prescribes equality before law and there should be no class legislation. The act
provides for the welfare of a particularly religious teachers. Therefore, it is in violation of Art 14.
10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

GOKTAL?
It is submitted that it necessary to abolish Mandir boards in the state of Goktal as there should be
no interference of the government in the religious institutions. There are no laws to govern other
religious institution this amounts to violation of Article 14.
1.1 MANDIR BOARD SHOULD BE ABOLISHED:
1. Mandirs are universal and inclusive, having a wider reach cutting across caste
networks. Mandir board institutions can create pseudo-market structure that can
dole out efficient outcomes.
2. It is to be noted that the Mandir boards is a statutory and independent body created
for managing the affairs of temples.
3. The government cannot take over the financial or the executive management of a
temple, except for a very short period to rectify well-proved and well attested
irregularities
4. The law of the land which is common and uniform throughout the country across
all for all states and union territories for the religious minorities is not so for the
Zoro Majority. This anomaly is clearly evident that the Zoro religious and
charitable act is not uniform across the country and different states have different
acts and boards to govern the temples. The religious freedom is guaranteed by the
Constitution so the intervention of the government in the administration of
religious institution through the statutory boards may be seen paradoxical.
5. In an American case Davis v. Benson,1, it has been said "that the term 'religion' has
reference to one's views of his relation to his Creator and to the obligations they
impose of reverence for His Being and character and of obedience to His will. It
1
133 U.S. 333
11
is often confounded with cults of form or worship of a particular sect, but is

distinguishable from the latter." We do not think that the above definition can be
regarded as either precise or adequate. Articles 25 and 26 of our Constitution are
based for the most part upon article 44 (2) of the Constitution of Eire and we have
great doubt whether a definition of "religion" as given above could have been in
the minds of our Constitution-makers when they framed the Constitution. Religion
is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not
necessarily theistic. There are well known religions in India like Buddhism and
Jainism which do not believe in God or in any Intelligent First Cause. A religion
undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by
those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual wellbeing, but it
would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine or belief. A
religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept,
it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship
which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances
might extend even to matters of food and dress."
6. Firstly, Zoro religious institutions and Charitable endowment act was introduced
as the single Governing for all the temples in the state. The network of temple is
now governed by the state and district level Dharmika and Parishats and each
temple is governed by temple level board of management formed largely but the
government administration.
7. It is to be noted that the board gets revenue from different temples under its
administration and as per Sec 27 of the Goktal Mandir Board Act, the amount
could not be used for any other purposes.
8. It is to be noted that According to the Constitution of Indraprastha the money
cannot be touched directly. Therefore, the board has been set up by the
government. Theses boards are unconstitutional as it violates Art 26. The language
of the two clauses (b) and (d) of Article 26 would at once bring out the difference
between the two. In regard to affairs in matters of religion, the right of the
management given to a religious body is a guaranteed fundamental right which no
12
legislation can take away. On the other hand, as regards administration of property
which a 'religious denomination' is entitled to own and acquire, it has undoubtedly
the right to administer such property but only in accordance with law. This means
that the State can regulate the administration of trust property by means of laws
validly enacted; but here again it should be remembered that under Article 26 (d),
it is the religious denomination itself which has been given the right to administer
its property in accordance with law. A law, which takes away the right of
administration altogether from the religious denomination and vests it in any other
or secular authority, would amount to violation of the right which is guaranteed by
Article 26 (d) of the Constitution. Commissioner Religious Endowments v.
Lakshmindra Swaminar2 & S.P.Mittal v. Union of India3. It is a well-known fact
that the party in power at any given time appoint their own persons or other third
party leaders to the boards and in temple. Such act is to misuse the money that
have being in the name of temple and the boards.
9. Hinduism lacks not only a caliphate but a Vatican as well. What agency was there,
then, with the power and the legitimacy to undertake the overhaul of religious
traditions? … In post-independence India, the answer turned out to be obvious:
Only the modern State, with institutions legitimized by universal suffrage, could
take up the work of reforming Hinduism.4
10. Its further contended that all the governments try to take over the funds of temple
so that they can use it for funding their own pockets, leaving no further funds for
the upkeep of temple. In many instances the they use donations of temple to fund
mosque and churches. So, this is clearly a communal move to fleece zoros.
11. Inside the board there is corruption Many officers have been caught for snatching
money. There are many irregularities noted in procurement bills. The government
is trying to curb the corruption and to make the board run efficiently
2
AIR 1954 SC 282
3
(1983) 1 SCC 51
4
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘Hinduism and Self-Rule’, in Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner and Philip J. Costoponlons
(ed.), World Religions and Democracy (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins Press, 2005), p. 64.
13
12. It is important to understand that why the law have been originated. In pre
independence time there was a need to remove mafias, regularize and ensure
people legacy. The objective of the law still remains that its funds are not
misappropriated or misused.
13. It is to be noted that each temple is governed under its own agama Shastra the
board have no say in it. Apart from their duties, the boards are only supposed to
intervene in situation such as disputes in hereditary trusteeship, where a non-
hereditary trustee needs to be appointed, where there are economic or management
discrepancies etc.
14. A per the constitution the governments duty is to ensure that the temples run
smoothly and that the money received by the temple is a used for it and its
devotees. Both the government has control over the board and using fund for the
purpose other than religious.
15. In the case of Chidambaram temple, “I do not know why government officers
should run the temple. In Tamil Nadu, there are many cases of theft of idols. What
are government officers doing? These idols, apart from the religious sentiments,
are priceless,” said Justice Bobde. There should be no state interference in
management of temples and said the issue has to be examined by the court on how
can a government take over the control of temples in a secular country. 5Hence
there is interference in the government and since other religions is a free governing
body there is a question why Zoro Mandirs have been under the control of
government. so it is necessary for the free running of temples the temple board
must be abolished.
5
Sri Sabanayagar Temple vs The state of Tamil Nadu, W.P No. 18248 of 2006
14

It is humbly submitted that the contribution of Rs.10 crores to Goktal CMDRF is constitutionally
invalid and violative of fundamental rights.
2.1 CONTRIBUTION BY THE BOARD IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID
1. The Goktal mandir board act,1978 was enacted to provide better management and
administration of the Mandirs in the state of Goktal.
2. Due the natural calamity that happened in the state of Goktal, State government
constituted a Chief Ministers Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF) as an emergency
assistance relief to provide relief and rehabilitation to the families that have lost
their lives and house and to the persons distressed by calamity, loss of life due to
accidents and chronic diseases.
3. The Goktal Mandir board decides to contribute Rs.10 Crore to the CMDRF from
the offerings made from the Zoro Mandirs. The donation made by the Goktal
Mandir Bard is unconstitutional and abuse of power by the Board.
4. Sec 27 of the Goktal Mandir Board Act,1978 prescribes the purposes for which the
board could incur expenditure.
Sec 27 deals as follows: Authority of committee to incur expenditure for
certain purposes
The Committee may, after making adequate provision for purposes referred to in
sub-section (2) of section 21, incur expenditure out of the funds of the Devaswom
for all or any of the following purposes, namely: -
(a) maintenance, management and administration of the Temple, its properties and
the temples subordinate thereto;
(b) training of archakas to perform the religious worship and ceremonies in the
Temple and the temples subordinate thereto;
15
(c) medical relief, water supply and other sanitary arrangements for the
worshippers and the pilgrims and construction of buildings for their
accommodation;
(d) culture and propagation of the tenets and philosophy associated with the
Temple,
(e) the establishment and maintenance of or the making of any grant or contribution
to, any poor home or other similar institution which is maintained for the benefit
mainly of the persons belonging to the Hindu Community;
(f) the establishment and maintenance of any educational institution which provides
for encouragement of education in the Sanskrit language or the maintenance of any
such educational institution owned or managed by the Devaswom or in which the
Devaswom has interested; and
(g) the making of any contribution to any religious institution
5. From the clauses (a) to (g) of the section 27 it is clear that the none of the provisions
of this act authorizes Goktal Mandir Board or the Administrator or the
Commissioner to contribute or part with or give away any in any manner any
amount from the funds belonging to Goktal Mandir Board either to CMDRF or to
any Government Agencies.
6. It is further submitted that the sec 27 of the act does not authorize Goktal Mandir
Board in donating money for the benefit of worshippers beyond the limit.
7. It is pointed from noticing the ratio in C.K rajan’s6case, is that the movables, the
immovable properties, the money dedicated or endowed in the name of the lord
shall vest in the idol of zoro religion conscreted in the zoro mandirs and the status
goktal mandir board is that of a trustee in management of mandir properties and as
such is bound to perform its duties and act as per the provisions of The Goktal
Mandir Board Act,1978.
8. According to the Sec 10(b) of the act, Mandir board has to provide facilities for the
performance of worships by the worshippers. And 10(g) is also unambiguous that
6
AIR 1994 Kerela 179
16
the committee is bound to do all such things as may be incidental and conductive
to the efficient management of the affairs of the Mandir board and the convenience
of the worshippers what is made clear by the order is that as a committee has been
constituted as per the act sec 3 of the committee can administer, control and manage
Mandir board in accordance with the provisions of the act and same has to be
applied strictly. The Goktal Mandir board has to act in accordance with provisions
of the act. But the Board has contributed a fund to CMDRF which will not come
under the purview of the act hence it is unconstitutional.
9. Sec 11 of the act deals with the alienation of mandir properties and the description
of movable properties does not include cash. On a close reading of sec 11 of the act
with special references to sub-sections (1), (2), (4) and (7).
10. It is humbly contended that according to the sections mentioned above, the
administrator and the commissioner to give out the funds of the board to CMDRF
is an act ultravires of the act of 1978. And the act done by the respondents is illegal
and also in violation of fundamental.
11. It is to be noted that the fund of Rs 10 crore given to CMDRF by Goktal Mandir
Board is in total violation of the provisions of the act 1978. It also violated the
fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article14,25and 26 of the
constitution of Indraprastha. The contribution made to CMDRF Constituted by the
state does not comes within the scope of Sec 27 of the Act.
12. C.K.Rajan's case7 was a public interest litigation initiated on a complaint addressed
to a learned Judge of this court who was then heading the Devaswom Bench.
Among so many allegations raised regarding the administration of the temple it was
also alleged that though the Managing committee was not authorized to donate
funds of the Devaswom for any purpose, donations were made without any
authority to the Federation Cup Football Tournament, Chief Minister's Relief Fund,
Matha Sauhardha Sammelan, Saksharatha etc. Regarding the said payments, the
Division Bench observed that thepayments will not come within the scope of
7
AIR 1994 Kerela 179
17
Section 27 of the Act,1978 and Section 27 does not authorize the managing
committee to make such payments.
13. In Gopala Krishnan case8, observations by the Division Bench made after referring
to the caption to Section 27, viz., "Authority of Committee to incur expenditure for
certain purposes". According to the Bench, it would prima facie indicate that the
Section dealt with the authority to incur expenditure not exhaustively and the word
"certain purposes" used in the heading to Section 27 could be taken as a clear
indication of the non-exhaustive nature of items wherein the Committee could have
authority to expend Mandir funds
14. According to the Sec 27(c)of the Act consists of 2 parts of which first clause deals
with medical relief, water supply and sanitary arrangements for the worshippers
and the pilgrimages and the second clause relates to the construction of the
buildings for their accommodation. The plain meaning of the provision is that to
provide convenience to accommodation for the worshippers when they visit the
temple to offer prayers.
15. None of the provisions in the Act of 1978, including Section 27, authorises the
board or the Administrator or the Commissioner to contribute or part with or give
away in any manner any amount from the funds belonging to Zoro Mandir, either
to C.M.D.R.F. or to any other Governmental agency, for any purpose specified
under the Act of 1978, including Section 27 of the Act, since it is the non-negotiable
obligation of the board., as a trustee, to perform the duties and obligations
enumerated therein all by itself or, in an exigency, directly under its supervision
and control through other means. Section 27(c) of the Act of 1978 relating to
medical relief, water supply and other sanitary arrangements for the worshippers
and pilgrims cannot be read and understood detached from that part in the clause
relating to the construction of buildings for the accommodation of worshippers and
pilgrims. Scope of Section 27(c) cannot be widened so as to provide medical relief,
8
Wp(C) No.20495/2019(J) vs S/0. Gopalakrishnan
18
water supply and other sanitary arrangements as contemplated under the impugned
decisions/orders.9
16. Therefore, the amount can only be used for the purpose of providing convenience
to the worshippers and pilgrimages and it should not be used for other purposes.
17. Secondly, it is to be noted that the only religious board to contribute fund to
CMDRF is Goktal Mandir board. The Goktal Mandir Board which is a government
body have contributed 10 crores to CMDRF this amounts to abuse of power.
According to A.V. Deicy rule of law,
 The law is supreme,
 Equality before the law: and
 The predominance of Legal Spirit.
18. Here the board has abused its power by not conforming with The Goktal Mandir
Board Act,1978. This amounts to the breach of law because the there is no authority
in the law to provide funds to CMDRF.
19. Secondly the funds are only contributed by Goktal Mandir Board board. The
amount contributed to CMDRF is from the offerings of the Zoro Mandir and it
should be exclusively used only for their religious purposes. Thus it violates Article
25.
20. Further, Article 26 of the Constitution of Indraprastha provides the freedom of
religion to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, to establish and maintain
institution for religious institution, to own and acquire property and to administer
such property in accordance with the law. From this it is clear that the property or
offerings can be used for the religious purposes. Hence, this violates Article 26.
21. Further it is contended that, there is a question as to why other religious institutions
were not compelled to contribute funds to CMDRF. From this it is clear that the
zoro religion has been discriminated from other religions this amounts to violation
of Art 14 of the Constitution of Indraprastha.
9
Wp(C) No.20495/2019(J) vs S/0. Gopalakrishnan
19
3. WHETHER THE NEED FOR NOC FROM LEB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It is humbly submitted that need for NOC from Locaz endowment board is constitutionally valid
because government is acting against the secularism by protecting the Locaz Endowment
properties
3.1 NOC FROM LEB IS CONSTITUTIONAL
1. Goverment order under Art 13(3) of the constitution of indraprastha comes under
the definition of law. Therefore, any law which takes away the fundamental rights
shall be void. No law can be enacted if it is contrary to Fundamental under the
Indus Constitution10. Because the purpose of enumerating Fundamental Rights in
the Constitution “is to safeguard the basic human rights from the vicissitudes of
political controversy and to place them beyond the reach of the political parties
who, by virtue of their majority, may come to form the government at the Centre
or in the State”11. It is further reiterated in UOI vs Col LSN Murthy12, the court
pointed any law made by the legislature which takes away or abridges the
Fundamental Rights is conferred by Part 3 of the Indus Constitution would be void.
Thus the SC acts as the “sentinel on the qui vive” in relation to the Fundamental
Rights13.
2. Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan vs F.N. Rana and Others, many orders issued by
Government have the authority of law behind them but all of them cannot invariably
be said to have the force of law, for in order that they may have the force of law
they must satisfy the basic concept of law, i.e., they must contain a rule or body of
rules regulating the course of conduct of a person or persons living in that
community enforceable through courts or other machinery provided therefor. Thus
if an order is issued under the authority of law but it does not prescribe a course of
conduct regulating the action of a person or persons living in the community, it
10
Renu vs. District and sessions judge, (2004) 14 SC 150; 2014(2) SCALE 262; AIR 2014 SC 2175
11
Chairman Rly. Board vs. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988,997; (2000) 2 SCC 465
12
2012)1 SCC 718
13
Darayo vs. state of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457, at 1461, (1962) 1 SCR 574
20
cannot be law, for such an order would not necessarily require enforcement by
courts or other machinery, for no question of its breach requiring enforcement arises
as it prescribes no course of conduct for the community to obey.
3. Government order should be based of law if even subordinate legislation, the law
says under the sec 51 it provides the permission of the board to produce NOC.
4. Ummu salma beevi vs the district collector14, the absence of no objection certificate
being produced from the tamil nadu Locaz Endowments board. Challenging the
same the petitioners have refuse to register the documents in view of their no record
to show that the properties in question belong to Locaz Endowment board pleader
has no objection. Therefore, it is clear the NOC is legally valid as the property does
not belong to the board it is necessary for the board to give Noc. Therefore, it is
valid.
5. The right to property has been removed from the fundamental right by the 44th
amendment act, at this stage if any issues or problem arising out regarding the
property does not affect the fundamental rights of the constitution. So, there is no
more relations exits regarding with the need for NOC from LEB and also there is
no more fundamental right has been influenced. Thus, need for NOC from LEB is
Constitutionally valid.
6. It is to be noted that the Locaz Endowment board act,1995 sec 51 provides that the
property could not be alienated without the sanction of the board therefore the board
7. Land or property transfer refers to changes in ownership, and anytime someone
buys a piece of land/immovable property, he or she must obtain authorization and
register the transaction with the appropriate authority in order to ensure that he or
she has legal ownership title. To transfer land or property, a NOC for the transfer
of immovable property must be obtained from the authority, as required by Section
21 of the Registration Act 1908.
8. Under the principle of Caveat Emptor, the buyer alone is responsible for checking
the overall title, the statute of pending dues to society, status of the flat structurally
14
W.P.No.5035 of 2015
21
lien on the flat, dispute raised by family members of deceased members etc. before
a purchase is made. The production of Noc from the board will reduce the burden
of legal objection in future.
9. Ali Khan vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu And Others,15 held that
the petitioner can apply before the Wakf Board to get NOC for registration of the
document.
10. In the case of St. Jon's Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director16,Even if
the NOC is not granted by the State Government or Union Territory concerned and
the same is refused, the entire matter will have to be considered and examined by
the Regional Committee, while dealing with the application for grant of
recognition. The grant or refusal of an NOC by the State Government/Union
Territory has not been held to be binding and conclusive and said views are subject
to further consideration by Regional Committee.
11. In the case of Irwin Almeida v. Union of India17, a Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court held that the appropriate authority may either decide that the property
should be purchased by the Central Government or issue a no objection certificate.
The Division Bench further held that, upon the failure to exercise jurisdiction under
Section 269UD(1), within the prescribed period, the jurisdiction of the appropriate
authority to direct purchase of the property by the Central Government stands
extinguished and the petitioners are entitled to secure a no objection certificate.
12. It is to be noted the Government order protects the interest of the board, it is against
the principles of secularism enshrined the constitution. The Government has, at
present, a limited role to play in Locaz Endowments matters which, by and large,
remains advisory in nature and is discharged through the Central Locaz
Endowments Council (CWC) constituted by the Central Government under the
Locaz Endowments Act, 1995. The Central Government has power only to regulate
the secular activities of the Locaz Endowments under section 96 of the Act. It has
15
CRP.NPD.No.4461 of 2015
16
Appeal (civil) 1068 of 2003
17
[1992] 197 ITR 609
22
the power to lay down general principles and policies of Locaz Endowment Board
administration insofar as they relate to the secular activities of the Locaz
Endowments. But, in this case the government intends to protect the property which
is not even the properties of The board by restraining the citizens to sale through
NOC. So therefore, it necessary to produce noc because the land belongs to the
people of the Dendran district. If the noc has not been granted their right to life will
be abrogated.
13. it is submitted that how locaz endowment Board can claim ownership of the normal
other religious people when the people have all the necessary land documents for
their respective lands, both residential and agricultural. but if the noc have been
provided it will easier for for the people of dendran district. this will protect the
right to life and liberty. As the NOC has legal validity there is no question that the
board could ask the property.
14. Renovating Locaz endowment board properties without approval will invite
punishment extending up to two years under Section 52-A of the local endowments
Act of 1995. this will restrain the citizen to alienate property but if noc's are granted
there is no such issue.
15. Therefore, it is humbly submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the need for NOC
from LEB is constitutional and the Government order is unconstitutional.
23

VIOLATIVE OF ART 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is submitted that the enactment is offending fundamental principles cherished under the
constitution namely secularism. That state itself cannot identify one religion and provide measures
expending from state exchequer to the religious teachers.
4.1 GOKTAL LOCAZ TEACHERS WELFARE FUND ACT, 2019 IS VIOLATIVE OF

ARTICLE OF ARTICLE 14 AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court of Indraprastha that the
locaz welfare fund Act,2019 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and
further inherits unclear and vague provisions and there are no proper methodologies
to provide pension and welfare fund and in what quantum it must be provided.
2. Article 14 of the constitution of Indraprastha states that all persons are equal and
all are equal. before law. Equality is the basic feature of the constitution. The
purpose of Article 14 is to treat all persons similarly in circumstances alike, both in
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
3. Legislative enactments must be based on discernible principles and the impugned
act must be reasonable in order to satisfy the “test of arbitrariness”18.
4. Locaz Teachers Welfare Fund Act is arbitrary and there is no such principle of
equality in it. The act is against the rule of law as it is against the principle of
equality “absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of rule of law19. The act is
arbitrary and that to manifest arbitrariness in such a way that it will affect the
fundamental right of equality.
5. Under Art 13 (2) of the Indraprastha Constitution, any law which abridges the
fundamental rights shall be void. No law can be enacted if it is contrary to
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Indraprastha Constitution.20 Because the
18
Kumari srilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212
19
S.G.Jaisinghani vs. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 703
20
Renu vs. District and sessions judge, (2004) 14 SC 150; 2014(2) SCALE 262; AIR 2014 SC 2175
24
purpose of enumerating Fundamental Rights in the Constitution “is to safeguard the

basic human rights from the vicissitudes of political controversy and to place them
beyond the reach of the political parties who, by virtue of their majority, may come
to form the government at the Centre or in the State”21. It is further reiterated in
UOI vs Col LSN Murthy22, the court pointed any law made by the legislature which
takes away or abridges the Fundamental Rights is conferred by Part 3 of the Indus
Constitution would be void. Thus the SC acts as the “sentinel on the qui vive” in
relation to the Fundamental Rights23.
6. In the case of P&T SC/ ST Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India24,
where the policy which is only enjoyed by SC’s and ST’s of some other department
and the employees of P&T department are deprived of it. It was held that this was
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 as who were similarly situated in other
departments were allowed to enjoyed it.
7. It is to be noted that the impugned act mentions that the welfare fund is to be
provided to the teachers who is inculcating the values of their particular religion.
There are other professional teachers of the particular religion who are not allowed
to get the pension and welfare funds provided by the government. Thus it is
violative of Article 14 and Art 15.
8. “It is the ability to assist learners in organizing, directing and maximizing the
stream of developing life experiences”-John Dewy. Firstly, there is discrimination
within the particular community itself by providing to the religious teachers and
not providing benefits to the teacher of other profession as teaching is similar in all
aspects.
9. Secondly, there has been discrimination based on the criteria of religion. In every
religion there are teachers who are propagating their views but this act only
provides welfare to the particular religion but religious teachers of other religions
21
Chairman Rly. Board vs. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988,997; (2000) 2 SCC 465
22
(2012)1 SCC 718
23
Darayo vs. state of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457, at 1461, (1962) 1 SCR 574
24
1989 AIR 139, 1998 SCR Supl (2) 623
25
rights has been left out. From this it can be understood that there is violation of Art
14.
10. The Kerala High Court recently quashed a government order allotting 80 percent
merit-cum-means scholarships to Muslims of the state, directing the government to
“provide merit-cum-means scholarship to members of the notified minority
communities within the state equally.”25
11. Petition alleging minority scholarship scheme as discriminatory to state’s
Christians
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by advocate Justine Pallivathukal, who
is a member of the Roman Catholic community, against the 80:20 ratio of minority
scholarships in favour of the Muslim community in Kerala. “The fixation of ratio
in Exhibit P4 (GO passed in 2015) is arbitrary, unjust and illegal and accordingly
violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India,” Pallivathukal had
argued in his petition.
The petitioner had said that the ratio was formulated without any study and that
the state is supporting a particular section under the cover of minority rights.
In defence, the state government had filed a counter-affidavit citing Justice Sachar
Committee report and Kerala Padana report for its affirmative action in granting
separate scholarship to the Muslim community. Yet, the Kerala High court
declared the 80:20 ratio as discriminatory in the spirit of the National Commission
for Minorities Act, 1992, and Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014.
It called the ratio unconstitutional.
“(We) hereby direct the Kerala State Government to pass requisite and
appropriate Government orders providing merit-cum-means scholarship to the
members of the notified minority communities within the State equally and in
accordance with the latest population census available with the State Minority
Commission,” the judgement said.
25
https://twocircles.net/2021jun08/442525.html
26
12. According to the doctrine of precedent or stare decisis-judicial decisions become

being precedents for the determination of like cases and contribute the material
content of the legal system. The above mentioned judgment could be viewed as
state decisis to this issue which states that the minorities could be recognized by the
latest census.
13. Para 1 of the moot proposition reads that the majority of population of the country
belongs to the zoro religion. Locaz, Jingas, Winz are the other religions followed
by the people of Republic of Indraprastha.26 Even though locaz are declared to be
minority, the state cannot identify one religion and provide welfare measures. There
are some other minority religions which needs welfare measures. Thus it violates
Art 14.
14. Triloki Nath Tiku v. State of Jammu & Kashmir27,observed that the resolution of
the Government carved out a sub-quota for the minorities. The very use of the
words belonging to minorities or minorities indicates that a sub-quota has been
carved out only on religious lines and not on any other intelligible basis. It was
observed that, absolutely no material is placed before us to demonstrate that
persons belonging to the religious groups mentioned above are more backward
than any other category of backward classes or that they need any preferential
treatment as compared to other OBCs. In the absence of any material before us
(and we must emphasize this), and on the plain language of the OMs, it seems to us
quite clear that the sub-quota has been created only on grounds of religion and
nothing else. This is clearly impermissible in view of the specific language of
Article 15(1) of the Constitution as well as Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
15. In the case of E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of A.P28,the supreme court held that sub-
classification is violation of Article 14 and liable to be struck down.
26
Para 1 moot proposition
27
AIR 1969 SC 1
28
Appeal Civil 6758 of 2000
27
16. In Ammeerunnisa Begum vs. Mehboob,29the supreme court held the act
unconstitutional on the ground that it did not furnish any reasonable basis for the
discrimination made by it.
17. Test for reasonableness:
Classification must not be “arbitrary, artificial, evasive” it must satisfy two
conditions,
 The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from things that
are grouped together from others left out of the group;
 The differentia must have a relation to the object sought to be achieved.30
18. The impugned act fails to provide safeguards against the high potential of
discretionary power. There is discrimination among the same community and
discrimination based on religion. This act is disproportionate and unreasonable.
A.P. Dairy Development Corpn31 reiterated the legal proposition as follows , It is a
settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness
because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality.
This doctrine of arbitrariness is not restricted only to executive actions, but also
applies to the legislature. Thus, a party has to satisfy that the action was
reasonable, not done in unreasonable manner or capriciously or at pleasure
without adequate determining principle, rational, and has been done according to
reason or judgment, and certainly does not depend on the will alone. However, the
action of the legislature, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, should
ordinarily be manifestly arbitrary. There must be a case of substantive
unreasonableness in the statute itself for declaring the act ultra vires Article 14 of
the Constitution.
19. It is said from the reading of the act that it is quite clear that these Locaz Community
Teachers are imparting knowledge only about their religion and other textbooks
29
1953 AIR 91
30
K.Thimmappa Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, SBI,AIR 2001 SC 467
31
Civil Appeal 4588 of 2008
28
pertaining to them. Therefore, pumping of huge amounts of money to for the said
purposes is unconstitutional and against the principles of secularism enshrined in
the constitution.
20. It is to be noted that a member of the welfare fund who has remitted contributions
for not less than five years is eligible for receiving a fixed amount and pension as
per the act and government funds are being used for such a purpose. It is also to be
noted that these are involved purely in religious activity and it does not impart
secular education. It purely involves only in religious education there is no point or
purpose of providing fund to such religious activity.
21. So if the purpose of the act is to provide welfare to minority community teachers
there is no point to discriminate among themselves as that only person who have
contributed not less than 5 years are eligible for pension. And the person who needs
welfare measures is that who are economically weaker. Thus it violates Art 14 and
the act is unconstitutional.
22. Art 30(2) says that the state should not make any discrimination. Against any
educational institution that is under the management of a minority, whether based
on religion or language. It not only discriminates among their community but also
other religious teachers have been left out as the republic of Indraprastha comprises
some other minority groups also, Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned act
is violative of Art 14 and Art 30(2) also and it is unconstitutional.
29
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS PRESENTED, ISSUES RAISED,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND THE AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE HON’BLE BENCH BE PLEASED
TO ADJUDJE AND DECLARE THAT:
1. The Mandir Boards is in the state of Goktal should be abolished;

2. The contribution of Rs.10 crores by the Goktal Mandri Board to CMDRF is
unconstitutional:
3. The need of NOC from LEB is constitutional;
4. The Goktal Locaz Teacher Welfare Fund Act,2019 is violative of Article 14 and hence,
unconstitutional.
AND PASS ANY OTHER RELIEF, THAT THE HO’NBLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDRAPRASTHA MAY DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL DUTY BOUND FOR
EVER PRAY.
SD/-
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
30

Srmnmcc020 Petitioners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Srmnmcc020 Petitioners

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

Srmnmcc020 Petitioners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: SRMNMCC020

8th ANNUAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA

THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED

THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF INDRAPRASTHA.

BHIM AND ORS -------------------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONERS

STATE OF GOKTAL AND OTHERS ----------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-5

1.WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ABOLISH MANDIR BOARDS IN THE STATE OF

2. WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTION OF RS.10 CRORES TO GOKTAL CMDRF IS

3. WHETHER THE NEED FOR NOC FROM LEB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? -----------20-23

4. WHETHER THE GOKTAL LOCAZ TEACHERS WELFARE FUND ACT,2019 IS

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950

Sl.no AUTHOR NAME BOOK NAME EDITION YEAR

1. DURGA DAS BASU CONSTITUTION OF 14 2009

2. DURGA DAS BASU CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 14 2009

3. Prof. M.P.JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL 5 2008

 Davis vs Benson, 133 U.S.333 (1890)

1.Republic of Indraprastha: The Republic of Indraprastha is a country located in South Asia. As

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part

1.WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ABOLISH MANDIR BOARDS IN THE STATE OF

2. WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTION OF RS.10 CRORES TO GOKTAL CMDRF IS

3. WHETHER THE NEED FOR NOC FROM LEB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

4. WHETHER THE GOKTAL LOCAZ TEACHERS WELFARE FUND ACT,2019 IS

1.WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ABOLISH MANDIR BOARDS IN THE STATE OF

2. WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTION OF RS.10 CRORES TO GOKTAL CMDRF IS

3.WHETHER THE NEED FOR NOC FROM LEB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

4.WHETHER THE GOKTAL LOCAZ TEACHERS WELFARE FUND ACT,2019 IS

1.WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ABOLISH MANDIR BOARDS IN THE STATE OF

1.1 MANDIR BOARD SHOULD BE ABOLISHED:

is often confounded with cults of form or worship of a particular sect, but is

2. WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTION OF RS.10 CRORES TO GOKTAL CMDRF IS

2.1 CONTRIBUTION BY THE BOARD IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID

3. WHETHER THE NEED FOR NOC FROM LEB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

3.1 NOC FROM LEB IS CONSTITUTIONAL

4. WHETHER THE GOKTAL LOCAZ TEACHERS WELFARE FUND ACT,2019 IS

4.1 GOKTAL LOCAZ TEACHERS WELFARE FUND ACT, 2019 IS VIOLATIVE OF

purpose of enumerating Fundamental Rights in the Constitution “is to safeguard the

12. According to the doctrine of precedent or stare decisis-judicial decisions become

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS PRESENTED, ISSUES RAISED,

1. The Mandir Boards is in the state of Goktal should be abolished;

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

You might also like