Team Code

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
TEAM CODE: IM 18
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
MERALA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO____ OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
PAKALA KARSHAKA SAMRAKSHA SAMITHI………PETITIONER
VERSUS
GRANITE INDUSTRIES LTD AND STATE OF MERALA………RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Petitioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SL NO. CONTENTS PG NO:
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
i. Whether to Issue a writ or order in direction commanding
to take immediate action to stop mining?
ii. Whether there has been negligence on the state's part in
reducing the distance between a quarry and a residential
area to 50 meters?
iii. Whether the licence of granite industries can be cancelled?
iv. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the compensation?
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
9. PRAYER
2
LIST OF ABBREIVATIONS
A.I.R All India Report

Anr. Another
Art Article
& And
cl Clause
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
INSC Indian Supreme Court
JT Judgement Today
KLT Kerala Law Times
No. Number
Ors. Others
Para/¶ Paragraph
Pg(s) Pages
S.C Supreme Court
S.C.C Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R Supreme Court Report
§ Section
u/s Under section
UOI Union of India
v. versus
WPC Writ Petition Orders
3
Index of Authorities
1. CASE LAWS
INDIAN CASES
SL NO CASES LAWS CITATIONS
1. Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner WP(C) NO.

11249 OF 2010(E)
2. R.L.E. Kendra in Dehradun v. the State of Uttar 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR
Pradesh (3) 169, AIR 1985
SUPREME COURT 652,
1985 UJ (SC) 594, (1985) 2
CURCC 70, 1985 (2) SCC
431
3. The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya v. The WP(C). NO. 10694 OF

State of Kerala 2015 (S)
4. Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 416
5. Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar vs Union Of India And (1993) INSC 209
Others
6. Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) SCC 647
7. Ambica Quarry Works & Anr vs State of Gujarat & 1987 AIR 1073 1987
Ors. 1987 SCR (1) 562
1987 SCC (1) 213 JT 1986
1036
1986 SCALE (2)1037
8. Seenath Beevi v. State of Kerala 2003(3) KLT788
9. The Registrar (Judicial) v. District collector W.P(MD)No.20903 of 2016

K. Rajasekar vs The Chief Secretary to Government,
W.P.(MD)No.4251 of 2017
4
10. K. Rajasekar vs The Chief Secretary to Government, W.P.(MD)No.4251 of 2017
11. The Environment Protection Forum v. State of Kerala WP(C) NO. 10617 OF
2021
12. M.C Mehta v. Union of India 1987 SCR (1) 819; AIR
1987 965
FOREIGN CASES
SL.NO CASE LAW CITATIONS

1. Standsbie v.Troman 1948 2KB 48 1948 2KB 48
2. STATUTES
1. Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Act, 2015

2. The Constitution of India, 1950
3. The Mines Act, 1952
3. BOOKS REFERRED
1. DD Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (Lexis Nexis,

24thed.)
2. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th ed.)
3. Dr S R Myneni, Environmental Law Pg no: 647 (Asia Law
House,2016)
4. V N Shukla, Constitution of India (12th ed.)
4. JOURNALS AND WEBSITES
1. All India Reports

2. Kerala Law times
5
3. Indian Law Reports

4. Supreme Court Cases
5. www.bareacts.com
6. www.indiankanoon.org/
7. www.legalserviceindia.com
8. www.thehindu.com
1.
6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HEREBY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM BEFORE THE

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MERALA IN LIEU OF THE RESPONDENT
INVOKING THE WRIT JURISDICTION OF THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER
ART.226 RESPECTIVELY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The state of Merala decided to build its second port near the capital city in 2008, and
ever since the private contractors have been granted licenses for quarrying activity in
the northern part of Merala and the work has been in full force since 2014.
2. Originally, quarry operators were bound by a rule that they had to maintain a distance
of 100 meters from the boundary of a quarry to the nearest residential area. The
Government of Merala diluted the rule in 2017 when it cut the minimum distance to
50 meters.
3. Granite Industries Ltd. Is one of the private companies operating quarries in an area
called Pakala in the northern district of Halibed.
4. In order to quarry the maximum amount of land licensed to Granite Industries Ltd.,
the company has been operating its quarry beyond working hours. It has also used
certain chemicals for the softening of stone where the use of explosives was not
feasible. In the course of the operation of the quarries, the company noticed on
various occasions that natural cracks were forming in certain parts of the quarry land.
They however continued with the quarrying of the land without raising the concerns
with the competent authorities in the state.
5. The adjacent landowners were engaged in preparing terraced land for cash crop
cultivation. They noticed the changes to the land including loose nature of the top soil
but addressed this by reinforcing terraced agriculture practices.
6. In July 2023, the unprecedented rains fell in Merala. Within few days of the onset of
the rains, heavy landslides washed out the large areas of land in the northern districts,
situated close to the quarries causing loss of life and property. The land owners filed a
writ petition in Merala High Court against Granite Industries and the State of Merala,
claiming that these entities caused the loss and the harm that they experienced as a
result of these landslides.
8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN DIRECTION OF

COMMANDING TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO STOP MINING?
2. WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN NEGLIGENCE ON THE STATE’S PART IN
REDUCING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN A QUARRY AND A RESIDENTIAL
AREA TO 50 METERS?
3. WHETHER THE LICENCE OF GRANITE INDUSTRIES CAN BE
CANCELLED?
4. WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAS BEEN LIABLE TO PAY THE
COMPENSATION?
9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1) THE ISSUE OF WRIT OR ORDER IN DIRECTION OF COMANDING TO
TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO STOP MINING.
a) The petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable as it violates the fundamental rights
of the citizens under Article 21 and Article 19(1)(e).
b) They also remit the royalties under Section 7 of Kerala Minor Minerals Concession
Rules 2015.
c) The state has the obligation to protect the environment under Article 48A.
2) THERE HAS BEEN NEGLIGENCE ON THE STATE’S PART IN REDUCING

THE DISTANCE BETWEEN A QUARRY AND RESIDENTIAL AREA TO 50
METERS.
a) There has been negligence on the state’s part due to highly inadequate
existing safety distance of 50m from the boundary of quarries
prescribed by the government.
3) THE LICENCE OF GRANITE INDUSTRIES CAN BE CANCELLED.

a) The defendant has operated quarry beyond working hours hence violating the
rights given to the Minor workers under section 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the
Mines Act 1952.
b) Section 10(o) of Kerala Minor concession Rules, 2015 according to which the
license given for mining granite.
c) Section 16 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Act mentioned about the
notice given about the cancellation of quarrying permit.
4) THE DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION.

a) Under Section 17 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Act, 2015 i.e.,
compensation for damages.
10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1) WHETHER TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN DIRECTION OF

COMMANDING TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO STOP
MINING?
a) The petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable as it violates the
fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 21 and Article
19(1)(e).
i. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court is that the petition filed
by Pakala Karshaka Samraksha Samithi is maintainable as it clearly
violates the fundamental rights of the citizens under article 21 and article
19(1)(e) of the constitution. The petitioner has submitted that due to
irresponsible mining in the surrounding areas, residents are living in fear
for their lives following a recent landslide. Illicit mining has resulted in
the destruction of the ecosystem and poses a significant danger to human
lives.
ii. In the case Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner 1 the judgment
given was that no quarrying activities are permitted on the land assigned
for cultivation as it threatens the lives of the public to protect the right to
life guaranteed under the constitution of India. The area became prone to
landslides and the lives of the residents are in danger which is
violation of article 21(Right to life and personal liberty).
iii. In the case of R.L.E 2. Kendra in Dehradun v. the State of Uttar Pradesh3,
the R.L.E. Kendra (presumably an environmental organization or group)
wrote a letter to the Supreme Court. In the letter, they raised concerns
about unauthorized mining happening in the Missouri and Dehradun belt.
This illegal mining was causing harm to the environment in the
surrounding area, leading to ecological imbalances and environmental
disorder. The Supreme Court, upon receiving this letter, treated it as a
1
Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner, WP(C) NO. 11249 OF 2010(E)
2
Rural Litigation and Entitlement
3
R.L.E . Kendra in Dehradun v. the State of Uttar Pradesh, 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169, AIR 1985
SUPREME COURT 652, 1985 UJ (SC) 594, (1985) 2 CURCC 70, 1985 (2) SCC 431
11
writ petition. In simple terms, a writ petition is a formal request for legal
action, often used to address violations of rights or legal issues. In
response to the concerns raised in the letter, the Supreme Court issued a
directive to immediately stop the illegal mining activities. This means
they ordered the authorities to take prompt action to prevent further harm
to the environment and restore order in the affected area. The Court also
directed the Central and State Governments to take steps to prevent
illegal mining which would result in ecological imbalance. The Supreme
court observed that the natural resources have to be tapped for the
purposes of social development. However, it is important to remember
that resource extraction must be done with the utmost care and attention
to ensure that the ecology and ecosystem are not seriously impacted.
iv. In the case The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya v. The
State of Kerala4 In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench as
above, no mining operations by mining permit is permissible without
obtaining environmental clearance as required by notification with the
order of the central government. Statutory authorities are under statutory
obligation to ensure that no mining operation is carried out in disregard to
the statutory provisions and requirement of law. Under Article 48A, the
State is obliged to protect and improve the environment. The State,
mandated to safeguard individual rights and create an environment for
Article 21-protected rights, must not shirk its duty or turn a blind eye to
illicit mining activities. It is imperative to prevent individuals driven
solely by profit from exploiting natural resources. Upholding the
principles of Article 21, the State must actively counter illegal mining
operations, ensuring the preservation of environmental integrity and
protecting citizens from the adverse consequences of such exploitative
practices. Neglecting this responsibility undermines the fundamental
rights guaranteed to citizens, emphasizing the State's obligation to
proactively curb unlawful resource exploitation.
v. In conclusion, the writ petition in question is justified and well-founded,
as it targets entities that possess legal duties toward the public. The State
Government's obligations include safeguarding fundamental rights, while
4
The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya v. The State of Kerala WP(C). NO. 10694 OF 2015 (S)
12
Granite Industries, having been granted the privilege of mining by the

government, must actively contribute to environmental preservation and
the safety of the mining-affected areas. The legal framework surrounding
these obligations provides a solid foundation for the issuance of a writ
petition seeking redress and enforcement of these duties.
b) They also remit the royalties under Section 7 of Kerala Minor
Minerals Concession Rules 2015.
vi. Payment of Royalty5 - Every applicant for a quarrying permit shall pay
royalty in advance to Government at the rates specified in Schedule I or
IV, as the case may be. In the case of payment of royalty under
consolidated royalty payment system (CRP System) for granite (building
stones) and laterite (building stones) the competent authority may permit
an applicant to opt for making payment under this system.
c) The state has the obligation to protect the environment under

Article 48A.
vii. Article 48A. Protection and improvement of environment and

safeguarding of forests and wild life.6 This Article comes under the
Directive principle of the State policy. This article implies that the State
shall endeavour to protect the environment. It also emphasizes
safeguarding the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 48A imposes
a duty on the State to protect the environment from pollution by adopting
various measures.
viii. In Almitra H.Patel v. Union of India7, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the
observations expressed in Wadehra's case—The historic city of Delhi,
India's capital, is among the most polluted in the world. The agencies in
charge of pollution management and environmental protection have
failed to offer a clean and healthy environment for Delhi inhabitants. The
ambient air is so filthy that breathing is difficult. More and more Delhi
residents are suffering from respiratory and throat ailments. The River
Yamuna, the primary source of drinking water, is a free dump for
5
Kerala Minor Concession Act, 2015, § 7, No. 67 Acts of Kerala State Legislature, 2015 (India).
6
INDIA CONST. art 48, amended by the constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976
7
Almitra H.Patel v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 416
13
untreated sewage and industrial trash. Aside from air and water pollution,
the city is essentially an open trash can. Garbage is commonly found in
Delhi. The Court instructed the authorities to take immediate action to
reduce pollution and protect the environment.
ix. Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar vs Union of India And Others 8 on 8 April,
1993, The court, addressing illegal mining in a Tiger Reserve in
Rajasthan, ruled that the State Government's grant of mining licenses
without central government approval was against the law. It emphasized
the need to uphold environmental protection laws, concluding that the
mining activity within protected forest areas was illegal and must cease
immediately. Mines outside the protected forest areas within the Tiger
Reserve were allowed to continue for four months, pending central
government permission; otherwise, all mining activity in the reserve had
to halt. The court prioritized the enforcement of environmental legislation
over economic considerations.
2) Whether there has been negligence on the state's part in reducing the
distance between a quarry and a residential area to 50 meters?
a) There has been negligence on the state’s part due to highly
inadequate existing safety distance of 50m from the boundary of
quarries prescribed by the government.
x. The Government of Merala made a decision in 2017 to reduce the

minimum distance between quarries and residential areas from 100
meters to 50 meters. This change in regulation may have contributed to
the increased risk of harm to nearby residents and their properties.
Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed to maintain longer
distances for siting stone quarries as per the order dated 21st July, 2020;
relying on the report submitted by Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB), following precautionary principle considering the right of the
inhabitants, who are affected by air and noise pollution generated in the
8
Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar vs Union of India And Others (1993) INSC 209
14
course of mining. As per the order, it was mandated to have 100 and
200m distance for stone quarry operations without and with blasting
respectively.
xi. Mining activities fall under the Union List in India 9, Regulation of mines
and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and
development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by
law to be expedient in the public intere st, which means that the authority
to regulate and control such operations primarily resides with the central
government. Consequently, states lack the power to dissolve these
activities arbitrarily, even in cases where negligence is evident. However,
it is important to note that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has
established specific guidelines, such as maintaining a minimum distance
of 200 meters between a stone quarry and residential areas.
xii. In the Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum v. Union of India 10, commonly
known as the T.N. Tanneries Case, a public interest litigation highlighted
severe environmental pollution in Tamil Nadu caused by untreated
effluent discharge from tanneries and industries. The Supreme Court
emphasized that while the leather industry is crucial for foreign exchange
and employment, it cannot compromise the environment. Acknowledging
the importance of sustainable development, the court endorsed the
"Precautionary Principle" and "Polluter Pays Principle" as integral
components of the country's legal framework, asserting that development
and ecology should coexist.
xiii. Ambica Quarry Works & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors 11 The State
Government's rejection of a mining lease renewal application under the
Forest (Conservation) Act, which mandates Central Government
permission for non-forest use, sparked a Supreme Court appeal. The
Court, emphasizing the Act's intent to combat deforestation's ecological
repercussions, dismissed the appeals. It highlighted the imperative to
balance mineral resource exploitation with ecological preservation,
9
INDIA CONST. art 246 cl. 54
10
Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
11
Ambica Quarry Works & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors ,1987 AIR 1073 1987
1987 SCR (1) 562
1987 SCC (1) 213 JT 1986 1036
1986 SCALE (2)1037
15
stressing that renewing mining leases in forest areas would exacerbate

deforestation. The Court asserted that societal well-being supersedes
individual interests, prioritizing the duty to the community in
environmental matters.
16
3) Whether the Licence of granite industries can be cancelled?

a) The defendant has operated quarry beyond working hours
hence violating the rights given to the Minor workers under
section 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the Mines Act 1952.
xiv. In the case of Seenath Beevi v. State of Kerala, 12 the court emphasized the
necessity of rationalizing working hours while considering the unique
circumstances and relevant factors specific to each industry or
establishment. It stressed that blindly adopting practices from one
industry or establishment without regard to these realities would be
inappropriate. Furthermore, the court underscored that under the
Constitutional mandate of Article 2113, no employer, whether private,
governmental, or quasi-governmental, has the unrestricted freedom to set
working conditions that impose duty hours exceeding certain limits.
xv. In this specific instance, a private company engaged in mining
operations failed to adhere to the regulations outlined in The Mines Act
of 1952. The defendant unlawfully extended quarry operations beyond
the stipulated working hours, thereby infringing upon the rights
safeguarded for mine workers under sections 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the
Mines Act, 195214.
xvi. The defendants have also violated section 23 of the mines act 1952
15
which says that in case of any accidents premature collapse of any part
of working area (s23.f) or any other accidents which may be prescribed
(s.23.g) the same shall be reported to the competent authority. However
even though cracks were seen in the quarry land it was not deliberately
not notified to any authority.
b) Rule 10(o) of Kerala Minor concession Rules, 2015 according to

which the license given for mining granite.
12
Seenath Beevi v. State of Kerala, 2003(3) KLT788
13
INDIA CONST; art 21
14
Mines Act 1952, § 28, 29, 30 ,31, & 32, No. 35, Acts of Parliament,1952(India)
15
Mines Act 1952, § 23(f)(g), No. 35. Acts of Parliament, 1952(India)
17
xvii. The Registrar (Judicial) vs The District Collector 16it appears that savudu
quarries are permitted without any lease agreement, without any mining
plan and without any environmental clearance. The Department did not
take any steps to identify by subjecting the mineral for examination with
any lab to ascertain the contents/components of the mineral. Therefore,
these savudu quarries are permitted without following the relevant Acts
and Rules and therefore, all these permits were granted for Savudu
without any lease agreement, without ascertaining the composition of the
mineral, without mining plan and without environmental clearance, are
against relevant provisions of law.
xviii. K. Rajasekar vs The Chief Secretary To Government 17 the inspection at
Sinthalaivaadi's illegal quarry revealed an extensive network of
motorable roads inside the river, leading to massive unauthorized sand
mining. These roads connecting the abandoned and illegal quarries
remain untouched, lacking any dismantling efforts. Furthermore, the
permitted quarry at Sinthalaivaadi showed evidence of artificially altering
the natural course of the river to facilitate sand extraction. The report
highlighted irregularities in the Public Works Department's contracting
procedures for sand lifting, contributing to excess and illegal mining.
Despite the adverse environmental impact, no action has been taken
against the lifting contractors. In response, the Court restrained the Public
Works Department from further quarrying along the River Cauvery and
Coleroon due to unscientific and illegal practices. The scarcity of
affordable sand poses a significant challenge for the State, impacting the
government's commitment to providing housing for the poor. Despite the
demand of 9000 lorry loads per day, the State can only supply 2500 to
3000 loads, resulting in a steep price increase to Rs.20,000 per unit. This
exacerbates the pressing issue of non-availability of river sand, hindering
the government's housing initiatives.
16
The Registrar (Judicial) v. District collector, W.P(MD)No.20903 of 2016
17
K. Rajasekar vs The Chief Secretary to Government, W.P.(MD)No.4251 of 2017
18
xix. According to rule 10 (o) of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015
18
according to which license is given for mining granite states that the
permit holders shall comply to all rules and regulations relating to
working of quarries, matters affecting safety, health and convenience of
permit holders or workers under the mines act 1952.
c) Section 16 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Act,2015 mentioned about

the notice given about the cancellation of quarrying permit.
xx. In the case of The Environmental Protection Forum v. State of Kerala 19,
has petitioned against M/s. Chooramudi Granites for illegal quarrying
exceeding permitted limits in Ernakulam. The petitioner alleges
violations of quarrying permits and environmental clearances, causing
adverse effects on water reservoirs and nearby residents' lives.
Respondents refute claims, citing the petitioner's lack of proximity to the
quarry site and argue compliance with government orders for permit
extensions. Inspection reveals excessive mining beyond permitted limits,
prompting penalties. The quarry's unscientific practices and
environmental impact are highlighted. The learned Senior Government
Pleader contends that proceedings have commenced as per Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, addressing violations in
licenses/permits/environmental clearance. Also under Section 16 of the
Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules20, 2015 which talks about
cancelation of quarrying permit its given that if the permit holder violates
any condition stipulated under this rule his/her permit can be cancelled.
xxi. Since Defendants has violated the conditions as stipulated under rule 16 it
is to be noted that the licence of quarrying permit should be cancelled.
4. Whether the defendant has been liable to pay the compensation?
a) Under Section 17 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Act, 2015 i.e.,
compensation for damages.
xxii. According to Section 17 of Kerala Minor Concession Act, 2015 21 deals
with the compensation of damages, The permit holder shall pay
18
Kerala Minor Concession Act, 2015, § 10(o), No. f Acts of Kerala State Legislature, 2015 (India).
19
The Environment Protection Forum v. State of Kerala, WP(C) NO. 10617 OF 2021
20
Kerala Minor Concession Act, 2015, § 16, No. f Acts of Kerala State Legislature, 2015 (India).
21
Kerala Minor Concession Act, 2015, § 17, No. f Acts of Kerala State Legislature, 2015 (India).
19
reasonable compensation as may be assessed by any lawful authority in

accordance with the law in force on the subject for all damage, injury or
disturbance which may be done by him in exercise of the rights granted
to him by the permit and shall indemnify and be kept indemnified the
State Government against all claims which may be made by any person
or persons in respect of any such damage, injury or disturbance and all
costs and expenses in connection therewith.
xxiii. The principle of absolute liability, established in India through MC Mehta
v. UOI (1987)22, commonly known as the Oleum Gas Leakage case,
ensures accountability in hazardous activities. Upheld by the Supreme
Court, it prioritizes public rights and environmental protection,
considering social, legal, and economic factors. Every individual
deserves a secure environment, and it's imperative to enforce stringent
conditions for enterprises engaged in inherently risky endeavours.
Absolute liability holds such entities responsible for any harm caused,
advancing societal well-being by safeguarding lives and surroundings.
xxiv. As said in Stansbie v. Troman23 a person shall pay damages if he/ she
violate/breaches a duty to care. This act of negligence lead to wide spread
death and destruction and they should be made liable to pay damages.
xxv. There is a Latin maxim which is SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM
NON-LAEDAS which translates to use your property in such a way that
you do not injure that of another. When Granite Industries Ltd used
chemicals that softened the earth they put these residents in danger as
well. Here Granite Industry Ltd should be held absolutely liable as their
actions have caused death and destruction. The company came to know
that their mining and use of chemicals have deteriorated the earth and
natural cracks forming in the quarry land but still chose to ignore which
shows their negligence in reporting the matter to the concerned
department.
22
M.C Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819; AIR 1987 965
23
Stansbie v Troman 1948 2KB 48
20
PRAYER
In the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the counsel on behalf of the petitioners humbly pray before this honourable
court to kindly adjudge and declare that
1. The honourable court is requested to issue a writ of mandamus to take
immediate action and halt mining activities, as they pose a significant
threat to public lives.
2. The state has exhibited negligence by failing to reduce the distance
between the quarry and the residential area. The court is urged to hold
the state absolutely liable and revert the distance requirement back to
200 meters.
3. The honourable court is requested to declare that license of to be
cancelled at the earliest.
4. The honourable court has ruled that landowners are entitled to claim
compensation for the loss of both life and livelihood due to
mining activities.
AND/OR
Pass any writ, order, or direction which the court may deem fit in the
best interest of justice equity and good conscience and for this act of
kindness the counsel on behalf of the petitioners/respondents shall
forever remain obliged. It was a pleasure arguing before this Court.
21

Team Code

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Team Code

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO____ OF 2024

PAKALA KARSHAKA SAMRAKSHA SAMITHI………PETITIONER

GRANITE INDUSTRIES LTD AND STATE OF MERALA………RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Memorandum On the Behalf of the Petitioner

SL NO. CONTENTS PG NO:

A.I.R All India Report

SL NO CASES LAWS CITATIONS

1. Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner WP(C) NO.

3. The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya v. The WP(C). NO. 10694 OF

4. Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 416

6. Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) SCC 647

8. Seenath Beevi v. State of Kerala 2003(3) KLT788

9. The Registrar (Judicial) v. District collector W.P(MD)No.20903 of 2016

10. K. Rajasekar vs The Chief Secretary to Government, W.P.(MD)No.4251 of 2017

SL.NO CASE LAW CITATIONS

1. Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Act, 2015

1. DD Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (Lexis Nexis,

4. JOURNALS AND WEBSITES

1. All India Reports

3. Indian Law Reports

THE PETITIONER HEREBY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM BEFORE THE

1. WHETHER TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN DIRECTION OF

2) THERE HAS BEEN NEGLIGENCE ON THE STATE’S PART IN REDUCING

3) THE LICENCE OF GRANITE INDUSTRIES CAN BE CANCELLED.

4) THE DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION.

1) WHETHER TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN DIRECTION OF

Granite Industries, having been granted the privilege of mining by the

c) The state has the obligation to protect the environment under

vii. Article 48A. Protection and improvement of environment and

x. The Government of Merala made a decision in 2017 to reduce the

stressing that renewing mining leases in forest areas would exacerbate

3) Whether the Licence of granite industries can be cancelled?

b) Rule 10(o) of Kerala Minor concession Rules, 2015 according to

c) Section 16 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Act,2015 mentioned about

reasonable compensation as may be assessed by any lawful authority in

You might also like