IN THEHON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(
WRIT PETITION NO…………. /2012)CHANDRA REDDY &
OTHERS…………………………………….
PETITIONERSVSTATE OF KARNATAKA………….
……………………………..RESPONDENTSON SUBMISSION
TOTHE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M EMORIAL FOR THE ETITIONERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I NTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………..
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….
BOOKSDICTIONARIESINTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
STATUTES
WEBSITES
TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………………………..
STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION……………………………………………………..
STATEMENT OF
FACTS………………………………………………………………..
QUESTIONS
PRESENTED………………………………………………………………
SUMMARYOF
ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….
ARGUMENTS OF
ADVANCED…………………………………………………………
CONCLUSION AND
PRAYER FOR
RELIEF…………………………………………

THE WRIT PETITION UNDER

ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE:B . T H E A C T O F S T A T E O F K A R N A T A K A
T O S E T U P T H E H Y D R O P O W E R PROJECT ARE ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND
UN CONSTITUTIONAL ANDVIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA :C . T H E A C T O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T V I O L A T E S T H E F U N D A M E N T A
L R I G H T GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
C.1.Right to Livelihood of the Petitioners is violated under Article 21
o f t h e Constitution of IndiaC . 2 . R i g h t t o w a t e r G u a r a n t e e d u n d e r A r t i c l e 2 1
o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f I n d i a i s violated
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Arguments Advanced
1

ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED __________________________________________________________
A.
WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER Art 32 IS MAINTAINABLE

Article 32
1
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
. T h e significant aspect of Indian Constitution is the jurisdiction it confers on the Supreme Court toissue writs under
Article 32
3
.The sole object of Article 32 is enforcement of fundamentalrights 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 basicstructure 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 Haryana
6
The fundamental Right to move this court can-therefore be appropriately described asthe cornerstone of the democratic
edifice raised by the constitution. It is natural that this courtshould regard itself as protector and guarantor of
Arguments Advanced 2
fundamental rights and refuse to entertain application seeking protection againstinfringement o
f such rights. The court has to pray the role of a
‘sentinel on the qui vive’
and itmust always regard it us its solemnly duty to protect the Fundamental Right ‘Zealously andVigilantly’.
1

Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move the supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
thefundamental rights conferred by Part III of the constitution.
22

In the instant case the petitioner have got the innate right to enjoy the fundamentalright conferred to them by the
constitution of India. The very fact that the said right has beeninfringed by the respondent empower them to invoke
the jurisdiction of the supreme courtunder Article 32 for the redressal of their grievances.The technique of Public
Interest Litigation serves to provide an effective remedy toenforce 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 onaccount 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 judicialredress 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 andobservance 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 saidcanal for drinking, irrigation,
sanitation and other domestic purposes. Aggrieved by stateaction a group of residence headed by Chandra
Reddy moved this Public Interest Litigationunder Article 32 before this honorable court.In
Common Cause, a Registered society v Union of India
10
. The Supreme Court opinedthat ;“ Aricle 32 provides a guaranteed , quick and summary remedy for
enforcing thefundamental Right because a person can go straight to the Supreme Court without having
Arguments Advanced
3

to under go dilatory process of proceeding from the lower court to the high court as he has todo in after ordinary
litigation”The Supreme Court cannot refuse on application under Article 32 merely on thefollowing
grounds:
7

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

That such application has been made to the Supreme Court in the first instance withoutresort 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 theSupreme 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 theconstitution of Indian. Being
aggrieved by the impugned Act the petitioner has the very
rightto 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
SupremeCourt.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 whomfreedom 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 thesaid 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 throughallowing the petition. The Supreme Court is the greatest authority to
Arguments Advanced
4

safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizen and also to see that justice being given to theneedy.Hence, it is
humbly submitted before this honorable Court that the writ petition filedunder Article 32 is maintainable.
11

THE ACT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA TO SET UP THE HYDRO POWER PROJECT

ARE ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND UN CONSTITUTIONAL ANDVIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :
Article 14 outlaws arbitrary administrative action. When there is arbitrariness in stateaction Art14 springs in to action and
the court strikes down such action. Arbitrary state actioninfringes 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 issubject to Art 14 of the
Constitution, and must be reasonable and can be taken only uponlawful 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 instate
action. The principle of reasonableness which legally as well as philosophically, is
ane s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f e q u a l i t y o r n o n - a r b i t r a r i n e s s p r o v i d e s A r t 1 4 a s a
b r o o d i n g omnipresence.”The statutory body is bound to follow the doctrine of fairness and good faith in all
itsactivities having regard to the fact that it has to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of millions, ithas the duty to act
reasonably. It cannot act arbitrary, whimsically or capriciously as the bodycontrols environmental issues its action
are required to be judged and viewed by higher standard.
20
Arguments Adavanced
5

In the instant case the sanction of hydro power project by the State of Karnataka is notmade in a just, fair and
reasonable manner, but according to the whims & fancies of theGovernment. 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 areentirely dependant on the water from the said Canal for drinking, irrigation,
sanitation and
15

EMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERS

other domestic purposes. It does not satisfy the requirement of public interest and hencevitiated 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 toconsider and give due weight to the reasonable and legitimate expectations of the personslikely
to be affected by the decision or else the unfairness in the exercise of the power mayamount 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 projectwill cause an irreparable impact on
the environment. The plan to set up the project has beentaken without considering the legitimate expectation of the
people. If the project is given agreen signal by the Government it would no doubt result in arbitrariness in
state action andwould 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 theentire 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 Article14, for natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. The right of ‘audi alteram partem’ is avaluable right
recognized under the Indian Constitution
23
.In the instant Case, State of Karnataka Sanctioned Mini Hydro Power Project withoutfollowing the procedure of natural
justice and hence the act of State
Arguments Advanced
6

violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution . So it can be state that the action made by theState 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 henceviolative of Article
14 of the Constitution.
C.THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTGUARANTEE
D UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIION:-
21

Right to life enshrined in Article 21 means something more than survival or animalexistence.
24
It would include right to live with human dignity.
25
It would include all thoseaspects 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 integralcomponent of
right to life.
27
Every person enjoys the right to wholesome environment, which is a facet of the rightto 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 theConstitution. As
the inhabitants of Mehaboobnagar, which is a drought prone area of theAndra 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 theright as adumptrated in Article 21 of the Constitution.
RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE PETITIONERS IS VIOLATED UNDER ARTICLE21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA
Arguments Advanced
7

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 easiestway of depriving a person’s right to life would be deprive his right to livelihood.
Deprivationof livelihood would not only denude the life but it also makes life impossible to live. Thatwhich
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 procedureestablished by law can challenge the
deprivation as offending to the right to life conferredunder Article 21.
2

In the instant case the State of Karnataka illegally and unlawfully sanctioned the minihydro power project. Thus this
affects the right to livelihood of petitioners who are themarginal farmers who solely depend on this canal for
the irrigation
C2.
RIGHT TO WATER GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ISVIOLATED
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) asmay, 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 lifeand health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms”Right it life under Article 21
includes Right to enjoyment of pollution free water andair for full enjoyment of life.
30
Right to life includes right to potable water as it is one of the basic elements whichsustain life itself.
31
In the instant case the construction of hydro power project by the State Governmentwould have an adverse affect
on the quality of the river water. Water which
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 thatthe 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 theenvironmentArticle
48-A and 51A (g) have to be considered in the light of Article 21 of theConstitution. 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 andimprove national environment
including forest, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassionfor 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 trustwhich rest on the premise that certain natural resources like
air, sea water are meant for generaluse. 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 tounique areas or the habitats of rare or endangered species and enjoins upon the
States the
dutyt o t a ke the account of the conservation of nature in the implementation of e c o
nom i c development activities
35
.Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by anexhaustive
examination; their proponents shall be required to demonstrate that expected benefits outweigh potential damage to
nature and where potential adverse effects arenot fully understood the activities shall not proceed
36
In the instant case, the respondent failed to conduct an exhaustive examination of thesaid project and therefore
the project should not be preceded.Environment impact Assessment (EIA) is a technique to ensure that the likely effectsof
development activities on the environment will be taken in to consideration before theactivities 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 isnot 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 Stateof Karnataka to set up the mini
hydro power project has been taken without considering thelegitimate 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 IndianConstitution.
Conclusion and Prayer Relief
10

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
S T A T E O F K A R N A T A K A T O S E T U P T H E H Y D R O P O W E R P R O J E C T A R E ILLEGAL,
UNLAWFUL AND UN CONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA :
37

Gurdip Singh,
Environmental Law in India
[1
st

Ed.
2005) _________________________
______________________________
______________________________
________
M
EMORIAL FOR
THE PETITIONERS
C.THE ACT OF THE
RESPONDENT VIOLATES
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
GUARANTEEDUNDER
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)
*/87\]lM
EMORIAL FOR THE
PETIOTIONERS
Reward Your Curiosity
Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
Read free for 30 days
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options
 Share on Facebook, opens a new window
 Share on Twitter, opens a new window
 Share on LinkedIn, opens a new window
 Share with Email, opens mail client
 Copy Link

You might also like

 4th National Moot Court Competition IUU

Document28 pages

4th National Moot Court Competition IUU

Aditi Nandanwar
100% (1)

 Winners-A

Document28 pages

Winners-A

Sanni Kumar
No ratings yet

 Petitioner memorial sample

 Document25 pages

Petitioner memorial sample

LOLITA DELMA CRASTA 1950351

No ratings yet


 TC29 P

Document32 pages

TC29 P

kipkar
100% (1)

 Respondent memorial sample

 Document25 pages

Respondent memorial sample

LOLITA DELMA CRASTA 1950351

No ratings yet

 331293864-MEMO-APP-FINAL-DRAFT-1-1-doc.doc
 Document32 pages

331293864-MEMO-APP-FINAL-DRAFT-1-1-doc.doc

Khushboo Pareek
No ratings yet


 Winning Memo for the Respondents

Document31 pages

Winning Memo for the Respondents

Urvashi
100% (1)

 MOOT ESS
 Document60 pages

MOOT ESS

Sai Srija LAW

No ratings yet

 002 P
 Document27 pages

002 P

aryan pandey
No ratings yet


 Gnlu Petioner Memo
 Document41 pages

Gnlu Petioner Memo

Devesh Shukla
No ratings yet

 Appellant

Document40 pages

Appellant

sagar
No ratings yet

 332749339-4th-IMS-Unision-Moot-Memo.docx
 Document30 pages

332749339-4th-IMS-Unision-Moot-Memo.docx

kapil shrivastava
No ratings yet


 Group 7- Respondent- Moot 2016 Batch

Document42 pages

Group 7- Respondent- Moot 2016 Batch

Merline
No ratings yet

 IMS Unision 4th Nat. Moot Memo(Respondent)

Document30 pages

IMS Unision 4th Nat. Moot Memo(Respondent)

 Aman Uniyal
100% (2)

 petitioner memo-final

Document32 pages

petitioner memo-final

Michael Dissuosia
No ratings yet


 Petitoner Memorial

Document32 pages

Petitoner Memorial

Abhisek Dash
No ratings yet

 appellant format
 Document43 pages

appellant format

Riya Talreja
No ratings yet

 Petitioner TeamCodeH

Document39 pages

Petitioner TeamCodeH

Pallavi Supehia
100% (1)


 Untitled

Document27 pages

Untitled
 Anjitha Unnithan
No ratings yet

 JMNMCC04-A

Document35 pages

JMNMCC04-A

Kushagra Raj
No ratings yet

 4R (1)

Document48 pages

4R (1)

RIYA KUMAR 19213225

No ratings yet


 Project (Autosaved) - Copy.docx
 Document32 pages

Project (Autosaved) - Copy.docx

Mudit Gupta
No ratings yet

 cases petitioner

Document2 pages

cases petitioner

Rahul kumar
No ratings yet

 constitution article 16.docx

Document21 pages

constitution article 16.docx

Rachit
 No ratings yet


 264166789-Memorial-for-moot

Document24 pages

264166789-Memorial-for-moot

Parth Bindal
No ratings yet

 memo

Document25 pages

memo

Utkarsh Gupta
No ratings yet

 2nd moot Petitioner-converted

 Document26 pages

2nd moot Petitioner-converted

Akshay SS
No ratings yet


 06_content

Document13 pages

06_content

Shubham Tanwar
No ratings yet

 Memorial for moot

Document24 pages

Memorial for moot

Aman Das
100% (1)

 NMCC_2020_22R
 Document29 pages

NMCC_2020_22R

Krishna Singh
100% (1)


 332787794-Appellant-Memorial.docx

Document30 pages

332787794-Appellant-Memorial.docx

ayan lekhi
No ratings yet

 fINAL MEM0 Appelleant.docx

Document36 pages

fINAL MEM0 Appelleant.docx

 Satyam Singh Suryavanshi
No ratings yet

 Emailing P-21 Memo.pdf

Document36 pages

Emailing P-21 Memo.pdf

Asseem Gopal
No ratings yet


 SLCUNM Petitioner

Document32 pages

SLCUNM Petitioner

Ankit Tiwari
No ratings yet

 Lex Omnia 2015 Respondent.pdf

 Document27 pages

Lex Omnia 2015 Respondent.pdf

karti_am
No ratings yet

 Memorial of a moot court

Document23 pages

Memorial of a moot court

Prakhar Deep
25% (4)


 10 P

Document22 pages

10 P
 Abhishek Kumar
No ratings yet

 Team Penguin - Respondent Finalll

Document40 pages

Team Penguin - Respondent Finalll

Shiny Churchill
No ratings yet

 Memorial Respondent (3)

Document39 pages

Memorial Respondent (3)

androos achayan
100% (1)


 Civil Procedure Code & Limitation Act
 Document9 pages

Civil Procedure Code & Limitation Act

Ayush Kumar
No ratings yet

 Prosecution Memo

Document39 pages

Prosecution Memo

Krusha Bhatt
No ratings yet

 CNLU 1st PA Inamdar International Moot Court Competition 2016 (D)

Document31 pages

CNLU 1st PA Inamdar International Moot Court Competition 2016 (D)

Vidushi Trehan
 50% (2)


 project list

Document3 pages

project list

Sunil beniwal
No ratings yet

 Copy of TC - 22 - P

Document30 pages

Copy of TC - 22 - P

Hrishikesh Lakhotia
No ratings yet

 TC-A MEMORIAL PETITIONER

 Document30 pages

TC-A MEMORIAL PETITIONER

VANSHIKA GOEL
No ratings yet


 R21 moot memorial from respondent

Document31 pages

R21 moot memorial from respondent

Tanvi O
No ratings yet

 Memorial for Respondents (DL 066) (1).pdf

Document35 pages

Memorial for Respondents (DL 066) (1).pdf

Avantika Mahajan
No ratings yet

 table of cases_peti
 Document6 pages

table of cases_peti

Rahul kumar
No ratings yet


 TC-21 (R)

Document32 pages

TC-21 (R)

Yogesh Patel
No ratings yet

 Symbiosis Law School - Prosecution Memo

Document36 pages

Symbiosis Law School - Prosecution Memo

 Krusha Bhatt
67% (3)

 Hidayatullah National Moot Court Competition 2014

Document35 pages

Hidayatullah National Moot Court Competition 2014

akshi
100% (1)


 moot court two

Document25 pages

moot court two

Aashna Sharda
100% (1)

 Respondent Memo (1)

 Document34 pages

Respondent Memo (1)

tanmaya_purohit
No ratings yet

 CL Project

Document55 pages

CL Project

Anshul Singhal
No ratings yet


 Table of Cases

Document2 pages

Table of Cases
 Nitish Chopra
No ratings yet

 2nd moot Respondent-converted

Document27 pages

2nd moot Respondent-converted

Akshay SS
No ratings yet

 Punjabi Universitys 2nd Dhawani Manocha Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2016 (R)

Document38 pages

Punjabi Universitys 2nd Dhawani Manocha Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2016 (R)

Vidushi Trehan
No ratings yet


 Sustainable Development Law: The Law for the Future
 From Everand

Sustainable Development Law: The Law for the Future

Kartikey Hari Gupta

No ratings yet

 Judicial Activism in Post-Emergency Era

From Everand

Judicial Activism in Post-Emergency Era

Dr. Swapna Deka Mandrinath

No ratings yet

 India in a globalized world

From Everand

India in a globalized world

Sagarika Dutt
No ratings yet

 Production of Court Records and Documents and the Attendance of Court Officials & Employees.docx

Document3 pages

Production of Court Records and Documents and the Attendance of Court Officials & Employees.docx

Enrico Arceo
No ratings yet

 PAZ FORES V Miranda.pdf

Document3 pages

PAZ FORES V Miranda.pdf

Sean Galvez
No ratings yet

 Van Dorn vs Romillo

Document4 pages
 Van Dorn vs Romillo

rafaelturtle_ninja
No ratings yet


 Med Jurisprudence Report

Document14 pages

Med Jurisprudence Report

Vina Duatin Facinabao

No ratings yet

 CFC Household Leaders Training

Document63 pages

CFC Household Leaders Training

Vin Desilyo
100% (11)

 Sample of Answer-loc
 Document2 pages

Sample of Answer-loc

SHAHEERA
No ratings yet


 law on custody

Document32 pages

law on custody

welcome369
No ratings yet

 Federal Criminal Jury Instructions - Deprivation of Intangible Right of Honest Services - Mail Fraud - Scheme to Defraud 18 USC §§ 1341 and 1346 -
Sacramento County Superior Court Family Relations Courthouse - Judge Robert Hight - Judge James Mize - California Supreme Court - California State Bar
Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim - California State Auditor Elaine Howle Bureau of State Audits - California Attorney General - US Attorney Eastern District of
California

Document2 pages
 Federal Criminal Jury Instructions - Deprivation of Intangible Right of Honest Services - Mail Fraud - Scheme to Defraud 18 USC §§

1341 and 1346 - Sacramento County Superior Court Family Relations Courthouse - Judge Robert Hight - Judge James Mize -

California Supreme Court - California State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim - California State Auditor Elaine Howle Bureau of

State Audits - California Attorney General - US Attorney Eastern District of California

California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas
No ratings yet

 Hugh of St Victor, Disdacalicon

Document268 pages

Hugh of St Victor, Disdacalicon

macaesva
100% (5)


 Ang vs CA

Document2 pages

Ang vs CA

Pauline
100% (2)

 Pre Finals Notes CONSTI LAW 1

 Document33 pages

Pre Finals Notes CONSTI LAW 1

Adrian Jeremiah Vargas

No ratings yet

 Police Injury Pensions - Home Office Guidance to PMABs - Permanent Disablement

Document4 pages

Police Injury Pensions - Home Office Guidance to PMABs - Permanent Disablement

wdtk
No ratings yet


 Gonzales vs. CA

Document8 pages

Gonzales vs. CA
 Jay Cruz
No ratings yet

 Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon

Document2 pages

Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon

Maria Analyn
No ratings yet

 MCQ Remedial Law Review

Document24 pages

MCQ Remedial Law Review

Jonathan Goodwin
100% (2)


 Subic Bay vs. Comelec
 Document11 pages

Subic Bay vs. Comelec

JERepaldo
No ratings yet

 Group Reaction Paper 1

Document8 pages

Group Reaction Paper 1

Aya Wan Idris

50% (2)

 Cases 3

Document64 pages

Cases 3

John Wei
 No ratings yet


 Agdepa v Ombudsman Case 7
Document1 page

 Dandrea Ruhlman Determination 2009