IN THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(WRIT PETITION NO…………. /2012)

CHANDRA REDDY & OTHERS……………………………………. PETITIONERS

STATE OF KARNATAKA…………. ……………………………..RESPONDENTS

ON SUBMISSION TO

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….

BOOKS

DICTIONARIES

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

STATUTES

WEBSITES

TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………………………..

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………..

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………..

QUESTIONS PRESENTED………………………………………………………………

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….

ARGUMENTS OF ADVANCED…………………………………………………………

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF…………………………………………

_______________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL OF PETITIONERS
Introduction i

INTRODUCTION

THE PETITIONER CHANDRA REDDY AND OTHERS HAS THE HONOUR TO

SUBMIT TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THIS MEMORANDUM OF THE
PRESENT CASE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SUPREME COURT RULES. IT SETS FORTH
THE GROUNDS OF FACTS AND LAW ON WHICH THE CLAIMS ARE MADE.

_____________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
List of Abbreviations ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR - All Indian Reporter

All - Allahabad
ALR - Academy Law Reviw
A.P - Andhra Pradesh
Apv. - Approve
Art. - Assistant
Bom. - Bombay
Cl. - Clause
Co. - Company
Del. - Delhi
Ed. - Edition
Hon’ble - Honorable
ILR - Indian Law Journal
j. - Journal
JILI - Journal of Indian Law Institute
JT - Judgments Today
Kant - Karnataka
Ker. - Kerala
KLT - Kerala Law Times
Ltd. - Limited
Ori - Orissa
p. - Page
Punj. - Punjab
Pvt. - Private
SC - Supreme Court
SCC - Supreme Court Cases
________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
List of Abbreviations iii

Sub Cl. - Sub Clause

T.N - Tamil Nadu
Vol. - Volume
W.B - West Bengal
w.e.f - With effect from

____________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Index of Authorities iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS
1. D.D Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 13th Ed.,2001,
Wadhawa and Co., Nagpur ……………………………………………………..
2. Dr.J.N. Pandey, Constitution Law of India, 44 th Ed., 2007. Central Law Agency,
Allahabad………………………………………………………………………...
3. H.M Sreedevi, Constitutional Law of India, 4th Ed., 1993, N.M. Thripati Pvt. Ltd.
Bombay……………………………………………………………………………
4. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional law, 5th Ed., 2003 rep.2005, Wadhwa Nagpur….
5. P.M Bakshi , The Constitution of India, 4th Ed., 2000, Universal Law Publishing
Co. Pvt.Ltd., Delhi………………………………………………………………..
6. V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, 10th Ed., 2003 rep.2007, Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow………………………………………………………………
7. P.Leela Krishnan, Environmental Law in India, 1st Ed., 1999 Butterworths Group
of Companies, New Delhi…………………………………………………………
8. Dr. Kailash Rai, Principles of Administrative Law, 5th Ed., 2005, Allahabad Law
Agency, Haryana………………………………………………………………….
9. Gurudip Singh, Environmental Law in India,
1st Ed., 2005, Macmillan India Ltd……………………………………………….

DICTIONARIES
1. Black’s Law Dictionary (Brain A. Garner Ed., West Group 7th Ed. 1999)

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
1. World Charter For Nature, 1982………………………………………………….
________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Index of Authorities v

STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India
2. The Environment Protection Act, 1986
3. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

WEBSITES
1. www.legalpundits.com.........................................................................................
2. www.supremecourtonline.com.............................................................................
3. www.manupatra.com............................................................................................
4. www.google.com..................................................................................................

__________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Table of Cases vi

TABEL OF CASES

1. A.P Agarwal v Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2000 SC 205

2. Amarjeeth Singh v. Zonal Manager , Food Corporation of India & Others, AIR 2002
NOC 14 (P&H)
3. Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Collector, AIR 1980 SC 112
4. Bandhu Mukti Morcha v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 811
5. Bd.of Trustee of port of Bombay v. Nata Dilip Kumar AIR 1983 SC 109,
6. Board of Control for Cricket v.Netaji Cricket Club AIR 2008 SC 592
7. Bodhisattan v Subhra Chakrabarthy, AIR 1999 SC 922
8. Burra Bazar v.Comm. of Police Cal AIR 1998 Ca/121
9. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
10. Charanlal Shahu v Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480
11. DD.Vyas v Ghaziabad Development Authority AIR 1993 All 57;
12. Dr. Hariraj L.Chulani v Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (1996) 3SCC 345
13. E.P Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555
14. E.P Royappa v.State of Tamil nadu AIR 1974 SC 555
15. F.K Hussain v Union of India AIR 1990 Ker 321
16. Fedaration of Bar Association in Karnataka v.Union of India AIR 2000 SC 2544.
17. Food Corporation of India v.Kamadenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601
18. Francie Coralie v Union Territory Delhi Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746
19. Gopal Das Mohta v. Union of India AIR 1955 SC 1
20. Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Janat, AIR 2006 SC 212
21. Intellectual forum Tripathi v. State of Andra Pradesh AIR 2006 SC 1310
22. J N Chadurvedi v.Comm.All, Dist, AIR 2001 All 148
23. KC Malhotra (Dr) v State of MP AIR 1994 MD 48;

__________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Table of Cases vii

24. Knnubai Brahm Bhatt v State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159

25. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd v Girija Shankar
26. M C Metha V Union Of India AIR 1997 SC 734.
27. M.C Mehta v Union of India (1998) 2 scc 435
28. M.S Veena Serhi v State of Bihar, AIR1983 SC 339
29. Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Corporation, AIR 1990 SC
30. Mahesh Chandra v.Regional Manager, up Financial Corporation. AIR 1993 SC 935
31. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR SC 597
32. MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1997
33. MC. Mehta v.State of Orissa AIR 1992 Ori 225,
34. Mohammed Ishaq V Kazam Pasha, AIR 2009 SC Sapp 1610
35. Mohan Vanajaya Viniyog Pvt Ltd v. State of West Bengal AIR 2007 NOC 190(Cal)
36. Naraindas v State of MP AIR SC 1232
37. Narayana v.State of Kerala AIR 1974
38. Narmada Bachao Andolan v.State of MP AIR 2008 MP 142;
39. Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 Ker 13125
40. Olga Tellus v.Bombay Municipal Corp.AIR 1986 SC 180;
41. Prem Chang Garg v. Excise Comm.UP , AIR 1963 SC 996
42. Pwarakadas marfahia & Soni v. Board of trustees of Port of Bombay; AIR 1989 SC
1642
43. Ramachand v Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 44.
44. Ramasharan Auty v Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 339
45. Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v State of UP AIR 1987 SC 359;
46. Satyavani v. A.P Pollution Control Board AIR 1993 AP,
47. Sheela Basse v State of Maharashtra, (1983) 25CC 96 AIR 1983 SC 378
48. Sitaram Chhaparia v.State of Bihar AIR 2002 Pat 134;

__________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Table of cases viii

49. State of Maharashtra v Chandrabhan AIR 1983 SC 803

50. State of W.B v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights AIR 2010 SC 1476
51. Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420
52. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar , AIR 1991 SC 420
53. T.Ram Krishna Rao v. The Chairman Huda and Ors, ILR (2001) 2 AP 180
54. Vikram Dhillon v State of Haryana

________________________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Statement of Jurisdiction ix

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT THE MEMORIAL OF THE

PRESENT CASE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO
THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. IT SETS FORTH THE AROUNDS
OF FACTS AND LAW ON WHICH THE CLAIMS ARE MADE.

__________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Statement of Facts x

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Sitaram Diversion Scheme (‘SDS’ for short) is an inter-State irrigational project covering
lands in the States of Karnataka and Andra Pradesh. The project comprises of canal on the river
Tunghabadra (Inter-State River), tributary of river Krishna, near Village Sitapet in Raichur District
in the State of Karnataka. The canal is of the length of about 89 miles (143KM) having discharge
capacity of 850 cusecs of water. It was constructed by the then Nizam of Hydrabad before more than
fifty years.
SDS caters needs of drinking and irrigation water in Mehboobnagar District, which is a
drought-prone area of the State of Andra Pradesh. About 40,000 farmers, out of which 30,000 are
small and marginal farmers, are entirely dependent on the water from the said canal for drinking,
irrigation, sanitation and other domestic purposes.
State of Karnataka sanctioned and granted approval to a Mini Hydro Power Project at Sitaram
Diversion Scheme in favour of Sree Mahalekshmi Energy Limited (SMEL). Aggrieved by the state’s
action, a group of residents headed by one Chandra Reddy of Mehboobnagar District in the State of
Andra Pradesh approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for an
appropriate writ, direction or order, restraining State of Karnataka and Sree Mahalekshmi Energy Ltd.
From constructing a mini hydro power project at Sitaram Diversion Scheme and hence the matter is
pending before the Supreme Court of India.
The power channel is so designed that it will take away water from poundage of SDS which
would result in substantially curtailing the flow of water diverting water to Power Project. It would
adversely affect 40,000 farmers, their family members and residents who depend on RDS canal in the
State of Andra Pradesh.
It is stated by the Petitioners that they are citizens of India and are residence of
Mehaboobnagar District and that they depend on SDS for the irrigation of their agricultural lands.
Petitioners further contented that State of Karnataka has acted illegally and unlawfully in sanctioning
and approving the power project in favor of a private party. Due to the said project, sufficient water
for drinking purpose and for irrigation facility is not available to the residence and farmers of District
Mehaboobnagar of the State of Andhra Pradesh. They stated that the petitioners in the larger interest
of the public are, there for, constrained to approach Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution.
Petitioner have further stated that the power channel is so designed that it will take away water
from poundage of SDS which would result in substantially curtailing the flow of water to Power
Project. It would adversely affect 40000 farmers, their family members and the residence who depend
on RDS Canal in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The respondents inter alia, contented that writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article
32 of the Constitution is no maintainable. On merits, it was contented that the grievance raised by the
petitioners that the Mini Hydel Power Project would consume water is totally unfounded and ill
conceived. The scheme contemplated production of electricity on the “Run-off-the River
Technology” which involves no consumptive utilization of water at all. The respondents allege that
the writ petition is an abuse of process of Court and the Court is being used as a Political Platform to
achieve Political mileage by the opposition parties.
The matter is pending before the Supreme Court of India

_________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Questions Presented xi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

A. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS

MAINTAINABLE?

B. WHETHER THE ACT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA TO SET UP THE HYDRO

POWER PROJECT ARE ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

C. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

___________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Summary of Arguments xii

SUMMARY AND ARGUMENTS

A. THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE:

B. THE ACT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA TO SET UP THE HYDRO POWER

PROJECT ARE ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND UN CONSTITUTIONAL AND
VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :

C. THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:

C.1. Right to Livelihood of the Petitioners is violated under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India
C.2. Right to water Guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is
violated

________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

Arguments Advanced 1
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
__________________________________________________________

A. WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER Art 32 IS MAINTAINABLE

Article 321 of the Constitution of Indian states that when there is violation of
fundamental right any person can move to the court for an appropriate remedy 2. The
significant aspect of Indian Constitution is the jurisdiction it confers on the Supreme Court to
issue writs under Article 32 3. The sole object of Article 32 is enforcement of fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 4

Underlying the significance of Article 32 the Supreme Court has characterized the
jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 32 as an important and integral part of the basic structure
of the Constitution because it is meaningless to confer fundamental rights with out providing
an effective remedy for their enforcement, if and when they are violated. 5

In Vikram Dhillon v State of Haryana6

The fundamental Right to move this court can-therefore be appropriately described as

the cornerstone of the democratic edifice raised by the constitution. It is natural that this court
should regard itself as protector and guarantor of

Arguments Advanced 2
1
Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move the supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the constitution.
2
Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and others (2008) 9scc 685, Fedaration of Bar Association in Karnataka
v.Union of India AIR 2000 SC 2544.
3
Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Collector, AIR 1980 SC 112, See also Prem Chang Garg v. Excise Comm.UP , AIR 1963 SC
996
4
Gopal Das Mohta v. Union of India AIR 1955 SC 1, see also Dr.Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of Indian, (13th
Ed
2001)
5
Banti kanta Das & Another v. state of Assam & Ors JT (2009(7) SC 562, Fedaration of Bar Association in Karnataka
v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 2544.
6
AIR 2007 SC 1067, State of W.B.v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights AIR 2010 SC 1476.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
fundamental rights and refuse to entertain application seeking protection against
infringement of such rights. The court has to pray the role of a ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ and
it must always regard it us its solemnly duty to protect the Fundamental Right ‘Zealously and
Vigilantly’.

In the instant case the petitioner have got the innate right to enjoy the fundamental right
conferred to them by the constitution of India. The very fact that the said right has been
infringed by the respondent empower them to invoke the jurisdiction of the supreme court
under Article 32 for the redressal of their grievances.

The technique of Public Interest Litigation serves to provide an effective remedy to

enforce group rights and interest.7

Where a person or class of person to whom legal injury is caused by reason of violation
of a fundamental Right is unable to approach the court for judicial redress on account of
poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantage position any member of public
acting bonafide can move to the court for relief under Article 32. 8

Any member of public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial
redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some
provision of the constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and
observance of such constitutional or legal provision. 9

In the instant case the act of State of Karnataka in sanctioning mini hydro power project
affect the 40,000 farmers who where entirely dependant on the water from the said canal for
drinking, irrigation, sanitation and other domestic purposes. Aggrieved by state action a group
of residence headed by Chandra Reddy moved this Public Interest Litigation under Article 32
before this honorable court.

In Common Cause, a Registered society v Union of India 10. The Supreme Court opined
that ;

“ Aricle 32 provides a guaranteed , quick and summary remedy for enforcing the
fundamental Right because a person can go straight to the Supreme Court without having

Arguments Advanced 3

7
Sheela Basse v State of Maharashtra, (1983) 25CC 96 AIR 1983 SC 378: M C Metha V Union Of India AIR 1997 SC
734.
8
Bandhu Mukti Morcha v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 811
9
Villianus Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v Union of India (2009) 7 SCC561 : (2009) 8JT 339.
10
AIR 1999 SC 3020, Bodhisattan v Subhra Chakrabarthy, AIR 1999 SC 922

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
to under go dilatory process of proceeding from the lower court to the high court as he has to
do in after ordinary litigation”

The Supreme Court cannot refuse on application under Article 32 merely on the
following grounds:

➢ That such application has been made to the Supreme Court in the first instance without
resort to High Court under Article 226 11
➢ That there is some alternative remedy available 12

The existence of an adequate alternative relief is not a bar to the invocation of the
Supreme Courts jurisdiction under Article 32. When a relief a sort in case of a infringement
of a Fundamental Right 13

The respondent curtailed the fundamental rights of the petition guaranteed under the
constitution of Indian. Being aggrieved by the impugned Act the petitioner has the very right
to seek relief under Article 32 of the constitution ass there has been infringement of
fundamental rights; alternative remedy is in no way debarring from approaching the Supreme
Court.

In Janata Dal v H.S Chowdhary 14 . It was opined that:

“The Supreme Court has to innovate new methods and device new strategies for the
purpose of providing access to justice who are denied their basic human rights and to whom
freedom and liberty have no meaning. The only way this can be done is by entertaining writ
petitions.”

In the instant case, the very fact that the petitioner is in a grevious situation that the
said project curtails the right to water that is their basic fundamental right has been violated.
This empowers them to approach the Supreme Court and the court to grant relief through
allowing the petition. The Supreme Court is the greatest authority to

Arguments Advanced 4

11
Kumar P.N v Municipal Coprn Delhi (1987) 45CC 609; Knnubai Brahm Bhatt v State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC
1159
12
State of W.B v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights AIR 2010 SC 1476 : Mohammed Ishaq V Kazam
Pasha, AIR 2009 SC Supp 1610
13
Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261; Ramachand v Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 44.
14
AIR 1993 SC 892; see also M.S Veena Serhi v State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 339;
Ramasharan Auty v Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 339

________________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizen and also to see that justice being given to the
needy.

Hence, it is humbly submitted before this honorable Court that the writ petition filed
under Article 32 is maintainable.

B. THE ACT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA TO SET UP THE HYDRO POWER

PROJECT ARE ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND UN CONSTITUTIONAL AND
VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :

Article 14 outlaws arbitrary administrative action. When there is arbitrariness in state

action Art14 springs in to action and the court strikes down such action. Arbitrary state action
infringes Art 14 .15

Every action of the State must be informed by reasons and guided by public interest.
Actions uninformed by reason may questioned as arbitrary. 16

In case any right conferred on citizens which is sought to be interfered, such action is
subject to Art 14 of the Constitution, and must be reasonable and can be taken only upon
lawful and relevant grounds of public interest. 17 Every state action in order to survive must
not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Art 14 of the Constitution
and the basic to the rule of law.18

In Maneka Gandhi V Union of India 19 the Supreme Court held that:

“The new concept of arbitrariness was reinforced thus Art 14 strikes at arbitrariness in
state action. The principle of reasonableness which legally as well as philosophically, is an
essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness provides Art 14 as a brooding
omnipresence.”
The statutory body is bound to follow the doctrine of fairness and good faith in all its
activities having regard to the fact that it has to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of millions, it
has the duty to act reasonably. It cannot act arbitrary, whimsically or capriciously as the body
controls environmental issues its action are required to be judged and viewed by higher
standard.20

15
A.P Agarwal v Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2000 SC 205, H.M. Sreedevi , Constitutional law of India. [4th Ed, 1993]
16
E.P Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555 C also
17
Amarjeeth Singh v. Zonal Manager , Food Corporation of India & Others, AIR 2002 NOC 14 (P&H) Mahabir Auto
Stores v. Indian Corporation, AIR 1990 SCIDBI, Pwarakadas marfahia & Soni v. Board of trustees of Port of Bombay;
AIR 1989 SC 1642
18
Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Janat, AIR 2006 SC 212, Govt. Of AD V P.Laxmi Devi (2008) 4.
19
AIR 1978 SC 597
20
Board of Control for Cricket v.Netaji Cricket Club AIR 2008 SC 592

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

Arguments Adavanced 5

In the instant case the sanction of hydro power project by the State of Karnataka is not
made in a just, fair and reasonable manner, but according to the whims & fancies of the
Government. The respondent owes a duty towards the public not to act in a capricious manner
and to inpede the lawful exercise of fundamental right. The Act not only affects the Petitioner
but also to the greater public i.e. 40,000 farmers who will be sufferers of impugned act are
entirely dependant on the water from the said Canal for drinking, irrigation, sanitation and
other domestic purposes. It does not satisfy the requirement of public interest and hence
vitiated by the vice of arbitrariness which is antithetical to Article 14.

Further, to satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness in state action, it is necessary to

consider and give due weight to the reasonable and legitimate expectations of the persons
likely to be affected by the decision or else the unfairness in the exercise of the power may
amount to an abuse or excess of power .21 Any arbitrary action thus taken by the state would
be subject to scrutiny by the courts because arbitrariness is the very antithesis of rule of law. 22

In the instant case, the State of Karnataka’s proposal to set up the hydro power project
will cause an irreparable impact on the environment. The plan to set up the project has been
taken without considering the legitimate expectation of the people. If the project is given a
green signal by the Government it would no doubt result in arbitrariness in state action and
would lead to negation of equality as enshrined under Art 14 of the Constitution.

Once it is acknowledged that non-arbitrariness is an ingredient of Art 14 pervading the

entire realm of state action governed by Art 14 it has come to be established, as a further
corollary, that the ‘audi alteram partem’ fact of natural justice is also a requirement of Article
14, for natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. The right of ‘audi alteram partem’ is a
valuable right recognized under the Indian Constitution 23.

In the instant Case, State of Karnataka Sanctioned Mini Hydro Power Project without
following the procedure of natural justice and hence the act of State

Arguments Advanced 6

21
Food Corporation of India v.Kamadenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601, Mahesh Chandra v.Regional
Manager, up Financial Corporation. AIR 1993 SC 935
22
Naraindas v State of MP AIR SC 1232
23
E.P Royappa v.State of Tamil nadu AIR 1974 SC 555 c also Narayana v.State of Kerala AIR 1974, V.N Shukla,
Constitution of India [ 10th Ed, 2007] ;Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd v Girija Shankar
AIR 2001 SC 24)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution . So it can be state that the action made by the
State of Karnataka is purely arbitrary.

Hence it is humbly submitted before the Honorable Court that the act of state of
Karnataka to set up hydro power project is illegal, unlawful & unconstitutional and hence
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

C. THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIION:-

Right to life enshrined in Article 21 means something more than survival or animal
existence.24 It would include right to live with human dignity. 25 It would include all those
aspects of the life which goes to make mans life meaningful, complete and worth living 26.
That which alone can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component
of right to life.27

Every person enjoys the right to wholesome environment, which is a facet of the right
to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India. 28

In the instant case, the proposal of Mini hydro power project would deprive the
petitioners right to live with human dignity which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. As the inhabitants of Mehaboobnagar, which is a drought prone area of the
Andra Pradesh depend completely on this water from the canal for drinking, irrigation,
sanitation and other domestic purpose. The denial of this will lead to the gross violation of
the right as adumptrated in Article 21 of the Constitution.

C1. RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE PETITIONERS IS VIOLATED UNDER ARTICLE

21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Arguments Advanced 7

24
State of Maharashtra v Chandrabhan AIR 1983 SC 803; see also MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (5th Ed; 2005)
P.
25
Francie Coralie v Union Territory Delhi Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746; see also Olga Tellus v.Bombay Corp.AIR
1986 SC 180; D.T.C v. Mazdoor Congress Union Air 1991 SC 101; KC Malhotra (Dr) v State of MP AIR 1994 MD 48;
J N Chadurvedi v.Comm.All, Dist, AIR 2001 All 148
26
Maneka Gandhi v Unioon of India AIR SC 597 see also Bd.of Trustee of port of Bombay v. Nata Dilip Kumar AIR
1983 SC 109, Burra Bazar v.Comm. of Police Cal AIR 1998 Ca/121
27
Supra on 25 see also D.D Basu , Shorter Constitution of India [13th Ed 2001]
28
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar , AIR 1991 SC 420

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
 An important facet of Article 21 is the right to life which includes right to livelihood
because no person can live without the means of living ie, the means of livelihood.

Olga Tellis v Bombay Muncipal Corporation 29 the Supreme Court held that easiest
way of depriving a person’s right to life would be deprive his right to livelihood. Deprivation
of livelihood would not only denude the life but it also makes life impossible to live. That
which alone makes it possible to live must be an important component of right to life. Any
person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure
established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending to the right to life conferred
under Article 21.

In the instant case the State of Karnataka illegally and unlawfully sanctioned the mini
hydro power project. Thus this affects the right to livelihood of petitioners who are the
marginal farmers who solely depend on this canal for the irrigation

C2. RIGHT TO WATER GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS

VIOLATED

Sec 2 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 defines water
pollution as “pollution means such contamination of water or such alternation of physical,
chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent
or of any other liquid, gaseous or salt substance in to water (whether directly or indirectly) as
may, or is likely to create a nuisance or render such harmful or injurious to public health or
safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate use, or the life
and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms”

Right it life under Article 21 includes Right to enjoyment of pollution free water and
air for full enjoyment of life.30

Right to life includes right to potable water as it is one of the basic elements which
sustain life itself.31

In the instant case the construction of hydro power project by the State Government
would have an adverse affect on the quality of the river water. Water which

Arguments Advanced 8

29
[AIR 1986 SC 180] see also Dr. Hariraj L.Chulani v Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (1996) 3SCC 345
30
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420: see also; Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v State of UP
AIR 1987 SC 359; DD.Vyas v Ghaziabad Development Authority AIR 1993 All 57; Narmada Bachao Andolan v.State
of MP AIR 2008 MP 142; MC. Mehta v.State of Orissa AIR 1992 Ori 225,
31
F.K Hussain v Union of India AIR 1990 Ker 321: see also Charanlal Shahu v Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480 ;
M.C Mehta v Union of India (1998) 2 scc 435; P. Leela Krishnan, Environmental Law in India [1st Ed.1999]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
is essential for the very existence of human being is a gift of nature. The run-off-the-river-
technology used here will change the quality of water in the river, on which the petitioner
depends for drinking, irrigation, sanitation and other domestic purposes. Thus it is clear that
the State action would lead to degradation in the quality of water and there by preventing
people from enjoying the free flow of water.

➢ The State Government has Constitutional obligation to protect and preserve the
environment

Article 48-A and 51A (g) have to be considered in the light of Article 21 of the
Constitution. Article 48 A of the constitution of India mandates that State shall endeavor to
protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country.
Article 51A (g) enjoys that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect
and improve national environment including forest, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have
compassion for living creatures. 32

These two Articles are not only fundamental in governance of the country but also shall
be the duty of the State of apply these principles in making policies 33.

In MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath 34 the Supreme Court accepted the doctrine of public trust
which rest on the premise that certain natural resources like air, sea water are meant for general
use. These resources are gift of nature and the State as a trustee thereof, is duly to bound to
protect them.

The World Charter for Nature delineates the special protection to be accorded to unique
areas or the habitats of rare or endangered species and enjoins upon the States the duty to take
the account of the conservation of nature in the implementation of economic development
activities 35.

Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an
exhaustive examination; their proponents shall be required to demonstrate that

Arguments Advanced 9

32
MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1997; T.Ram Krishna Rao v. The Chairman Huda and Ors, ILR (2001) 2
AP 180
33
Intellectual forum Tripathi v. State of Andra Pradesh AIR 2006 SC 1310 see also: Sitaram Chhaparia v.State of
Bihar AIR 2002 Pat 134; Satyavani v. A.P Pollution Control Board AIR 1993 AP, Nature Lovers Movement v. State of
Kerala AIR 2000 Ker 13125
34
(1997) 1 SCC 388
35
Art 7 of the World Charter of Nature

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature and where potential adverse effects
are not fully understood the activities shall not proceed 36

In the instant case, the respondent failed to conduct an exhaustive examination of the
said project and therefore the project should not be preceded.

Environment impact Assessment (EIA) is a technique to ensure that the likely effects
of development activities on the environment will be taken in to consideration before the
activities authorized to proceed. EIA involves continuing assessment and evaluation of the
environment effects on the developmental project as long as the project is in operation and is
not confined to pre-project evaluation of possible environmental effects. 37

In the instant case, EIA was not undertaken by the State of Karnataka .The act of State
of Karnataka to set up the mini hydro power project has been taken without considering the
legitimate expectations of the people. So, green signal cannot be given to the hydro power
project without taking EIA.

Hence it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the act of State of
Karnataka to set up mini hydro power project is violative of Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.

Conclusion and Prayer Relief 10

36
Art II (b) id ; see also Mohan Vanajaya Viniyog Pvt Ltd v. State of West Bengal AIR 2007 NOC 190(Cal); Research
Foundation for Science and Technology & National Resources v Union of India 2005 (3) 193
37
Gurdip Singh, Environmental Law in India [1st Ed. 2005)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER RELIEF

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities cited
the Petitioners humbly that this Hon’ble Court may kindly adjudge and declare that:

A. THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE:

B. THE ACT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA TO SET UP THE HYDRO POWER PROJECT ARE
ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND UN CONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :

C. THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED

UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:

And may kindly pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit.
For the act of kindness the Appellant as in duty bound shall forever pray.

Respectfully submitted

Sd/-

(Counsel for the Petitioners)

________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETIOTIONERS