INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TEAM CODE: IM 18

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
MERALA
(CIVIL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO____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 RESPONDENT

1
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SL NO: CONTENTS PG NO

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

2. LIST OF ABBREIVATIONS

3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS

6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
i. whether the decision of state government of Merala to
cut the minimum distance of a quarry from a residential
area from 100m to 50m is in breach of the right to life
of people under article 21?
ii. Whether to issue a writ, order is maintainable?
iii. Whether the defendant is liable to pay compensation
and to cancel their license?
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

9. PRAYER

2
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF ABBREIVATIONS
1.
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
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. CASE LAWS
INDIAN CASES

SL. NO CASE LAWS CITATION

1. State of Kerala v. Shefy Joseph WP(C) NO. 13221

OF 2022(C)

2. Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v. District Collector, WP(C) NO. 11400

OF 2020.

3. Calcutta Youth Front v. State of West Bengal 1988 AIR 43 1987

SCR (3) 987 1987
SCC Supl. 57
JT1987(3)348
1987 SCALE (2)38
3

4. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3751

5. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others (2010) 3 SCC 402

6. New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt Usha Devi and 2008ACJ845,
ors, 2007(2)SHIMLC39
7

7. R.R.N Ramalinga Nadar v. V. Narayana Reddiar AIR 1971 AIR 1971 Kerala
197
Kerala 197

8. Mineral Development Authority Ltd v State of Bihar & Anr 1960 AIR 468,

FOREIGN CASES
SL.NO CASE LAWS CITATION

1. Nugent v. Smith,1876-1 CPD 423 1876-1 CPD 423

2. Commissioner of Railways v. Stewart [1936] HCA 51; 56

CLR 520

4
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

II. BOOKS REFERED

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

24thed.)

2. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, Eastern book company (4th edition )

3. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th ed.)

III. JOURNALS AND TREATIES

1. All India Reports

2. Kerala Law times
3. Indian Law Reports
4. Supreme Court Cases
5. www.bareacts.com
6. www.indiankanoon.org/
7. www.legalserviceindia.com
8. www.thehindu.com

5
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION THE RESPONDENT HEREBY SUBMITS THIS

MEMORANDUM BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MERALA IN LIEU
OF THE PETITIONER INVOKING THE WRIT JURISDICTION OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT UNDER ART.226 RESPECTIVELY OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA.

6
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

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.

7
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE DECISION OF STATE GOVERNMENT OF MERALA TO

CUT THE MINIMUM DISTANCE OF A QUARRY OF A RESIDENTIAL
AREA FROM 100M TO 50M IS IN BREACH OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF
PEOPLE UNDER ARTICLE 21?
2. WHETHER TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IS MAINTAINABLE?
3. WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE TO PAY THE
COMPENSATION AND TO CANCEL THEIR LICENCE IS VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 19(1)(g)?

8
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) THE DECISION OF STATE GOVERNMENT OF MERALA TO CUT

THE MINIMUM DISTANCE OF A QUARRY OF A RESIDENTIAL
AREA FROM 100M TO 50M DOESNOT BREACH OF THE RIGHT TO
LIFE OF PEOPLE UNDER ARTICLE 21.
a) The decision of state government to cut the minimum distance of a quarry
from residential area does not violates Article 21 of the constitution as they
have certain guidelines set by the state.

2) THE ISSUE OF WRIT OR ORDER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

a) The writ petition is not maintainable under article 226 as it does not
violate any fundamental rights and since there is no breach of duty on
the part of the government authorities hence the writ petition is not
maintainable.

3) THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT LIABLE TO PAY THE

COMPENSATION AND THE LICENCE CANNOT BE CANCELLED
AS IT HAS BEEEN ACCORDING TO THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
a) The act has been subjected to the ‘Act of God’ due to the unforeseen heavy
rainfall.
b) The Defendant has obtained the licence under Section 3 and Section 10 of
Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Act, 2015

9
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) WHETHER THE DECISION OF STATE GOVERNMENT OF

MERALA TO CUT THE MINIMUM DISTANCE OF A QUARRY
FROM A RESIDENTIAL AREA FROM 100M TO 50M IS IN BREACH
OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF PEOPLE UNDER ARTICLE 21?
a) The decision of state government to cut the minimum distance of a
quarry from residential area does not violates Article 21 of the
constitution as they have followed certain guidelines set by the
state.
i. In the case State of Kerala v. Shefy Joseph1, in this case involves a
dispute over mining operations conducted by M/s. Cochin Granites
without proper authorization in a disputed area. The National Green
Tribunal (NGT) declared these operations illegal and ordered the
respondent to pay environmental compensation for the mined articles. It
was contended that the petitioner, a partnership firm conducting a granite
quarry, argued that their lease for an area less than 5 hectares did not
require environmental clearance, citing relevant notifications and judicial
precedents. The High Court has quashed the order of National Green
Tribunal which increased the minimum distance of quarries from
residential areas to 200 metres from 50 meters. The HC issued the order
upholding the argument of the quarry owners. The increase in minimum
distance will affect the business badly. The private respondents have the
right to operate for their livelihood, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) 2
and Article 213 of the Constitution of India.
ii. In the case Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v. District Collector, 4 It is
stated that the Department of Mining and Geology verified the scientific
report and found out that there is no link of quarrying operations which
act as a triggering mechanism for landslides. The Managing Director of
Blue Chip Mines & Industries, Palakkad, refutes allegations of excessive
mining. It denies engaging in activities beyond permitted limits, asserting
1
State of Kerala v. Shefy Joseph, WP(C) NO. 13221 OF 2022(C)
2
INDIA CONST; art 19 cl. 2 sub cl. g
3
INDIA CONST; art 21
4
Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v. District Collector, WP(C) NO. 11400 OF 2020.

10
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

there's no threat to public safety. They dispute claims of fear among

locals, stating no complaints have been lodged. The contention asserts
that quarrying occurs on lands owned by the 9th respondent, not
designated as forest land or for agricultural use, with no nearby tribal
settlements. It's claimed the respondent hasn't breached imposed
conditions or caused pollution.
iii. As the respondent has not caused any form of pollution to the area where
explosives were not feasible, they utilized certain chemicals to soften the
rocks. Given that mining activities inherently involve the use of
chemicals for rock softening purposes, this demonstrates that they have
not posed any threat to public safety.
iv. In Calcutta Youth Front v. State of West Bengal 5 the Supreme Court
contended that there must be a balance between the ecology and
development. Development is necessary for human beings by
constructing a two storeyed building in the subsoil of the park and
maintaining the park on the surface as it would be a welcome measure
and development work. By the view of respondents there was no
possibility of ecological imbalance in view of conditions of licence. On
the other hand the present condition of the park would improve thus
adding greenery to the thickly populated area.
v. The construction of the port is integral to state development, with the
respondent implementing necessary safety measures to mitigate
environmental impact. By prioritizing precautions, the respondent
ensures that the project aligns with sustainable practices, safeguarding
local ecosystems. The endeavour not only fosters economic growth but
also underscores a responsible approach to development, mindful of
ecological balance. Through proactive measures, the respondent
demonstrates a dedication to balancing progress with environmental
preservation, fostering a harmonious coexistence between development
initiatives and the natural world.

5
Calcutta Youth Front v. State of West Bengal, 1988 AIR 43 1987 SCR (3) 987
1987 SCC Supl. 57 JT 1987 (3)348
1987 SCALE (2)383

11
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

vi. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India6, AIR 2000 SC 3751 A

public interest litigation was filed against the Sardar Sarovar Project
which included the construction of a large dam on the Narmada. The
petition alleged that the project would lead to ecological destruction. In
this case, the Supreme Court balanced the developmental imperatives and
introduced a new dimension in the 'precautionary principle' by way of
interpretation. The Court stated that sustainable development means what
type or extent of development can take place which can be sustained by
nature or ecology with or without mitigation. It was held that the
construction of a dam is neither a nuclear establishment nor a polluting
industry. Even though the construction of dam results in a change of
environment but will not be an ecological disaster as contended.
Therefore, construction of dam results in a change of environment but
will not be an ecological disaster as contended. Therefore, the
construction of a dam was allowed.

2) WHETHER TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IS MAINTAINABLE?

a) The writ petition is not maintainable under article 226 as it does
not violate any fundamental rights and since there is no breach of
duty on the part of the government authorities hence the writ
petition is not maintainable.
vii. The Hon’ble Court it is to be noted that the present writ petition is not
maintainable under Article 226 as it does not violate any fundamental
rights as it is a procedure established by law. Landslides can occur due to
various natural factors such heavy rainfall, soil composition and
geological conditions, which may not necessarily solely attributable to
quarrying activities. Formation of natural cracks in the quarry land was
beyond their control and not indicative of any negligent activity on their
part. They may assert that such common cracks are common in
geological formations.

6
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751

12
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

viii. In light of the ruling in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and
Ors.7, which established guidelines for admitting public interest writ
petitions, the respondent argues against the maintainability of the writ
petition. The respondent asserts that the petition fails to adhere to the
outlined criteria, thus questioning its validity.
ix. In the current scenario, the loss of property and lives has been attributed
to an unprecedented natural disaster, namely heavy rainfall.
Consequently, there exists no evidence of negligence or breach of duty on
the part of the government authorities. Therefore, the writ petition is not
maintainable.

7
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others (2010) 3 SCC 402

13
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

3) WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE TO PAY THE

COMPENSATION AND TO CANCEL THEIR LICENCE IS
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19(1)(g)?
a) The act has been subjected to the ‘Act of God’ due to unforeseen
rainfall has occurred.
x. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt Usha Devi and
ors8. In response to the claim, M/s. ANS Earthmovers contend that the
deceased did not sustain injuries during employment but due to an act of
God, absolving them of liability. They assert that compensation falls
under M/s. New India Assurance. However, they admit the deceased was
employed as the truck's driver. The accident, caused by a landslide
triggered by rains, does not warrant compensation. Furthermore, they
argue misjoinder of necessary parties in the petition. M/s. ANS
Earthmovers denies any liability, stating the insurer isn't obligated to
cover the claim. They argue no employer-employee relationship existed
with the deceased and deem the accident an act of God, outside
employment scope. Consequently, they assert the insurer bears no
responsibility for compensation.
xi. In the Kerala High Court decision in the case R.R.N Ramalinga Nadar v.
V. Narayana Reddiar9,AIR 1971 Kerala 197 it has been stated an "act of
God" or the Latin term ‘Vis major’ typically refers to events arising from
natural causes beyond human control, such as storms, tides, and volcanic
eruptions. However, the determination of what constitutes an act of God
isn't solely based on inevitability. Accidents can result from natural
forces, human intervention, or a combination of both. It's only those
accidents directly attributable to natural forces, independent of human
agency, that are considered acts of God.
xii. In the case of Nugent v. Smith (1876-1 CPD 423) 10, Cockburn C.J. noted
that inevitable accidents could be divided into two classes: those
originating wholly or partially from human agency and those purely from
8
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt Usha Devi and ors, 2008ACJ845, 2007(2)SHIMLC397
9
R.R.N Ramalinga Nadar v. V. Narayana Reddiar AIR 1971 Kerala 197

10
Nugent v. Smith,1876-1 CPD 423

14
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

natural forces. It would be inappropriate to classify accidents stemming

from human action as acts of God. Storms and tempests, on the other
hand, belong to the category where the term "act of God" is properly
applied, as they are typically devoid of human intervention.
xiii. The defendants have continued quarrying for nearly six years without any
objections raised. The petitioners observed alterations in the land,
particularly in the topsoil due to reinforced terraced farming practices.
Although the petitioners did not formally notify the competent authority
about the loosening of the topsoil, they exercised reasonable care. This
indicates that the occurrence is primarily governed by the concept of "Act
of God," with no definitive evidence directly linking the quarrying
activity to the landslides. The disaster appears to have arisen from 'vis
major', absolving the defendants of any obligation to compensate.
xiv. In the 1936 case of Commissioner of Railways v Stewart 11,1936 HCA
51;56 CLR 520 plaintiffs sued the Western Australian Commissioner of
Railways for negligence damages, alleging property damage due to
flooding. They contended that inadequate culverts beneath the railway
embankment caused water to breach, harming their properties. The
Commissioner argued the culverts were sufficient for expected rainfall,
labelling the incident an "act of God." However, the court deemed the
rainfall not of such magnitude to qualify as an act of God. It ruled for the
plaintiffs, holding the Commissioner liable for breaching its duty in
construction. The decision underscored the obligation for infrastructure to
withstand foreseeable natural events.

b) The Defendant has obtained the licence under Section 3 and

Section 10 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Act, 2015.
xv. According to Section 3 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Act, 2015 12
it has been mentioned about the Grant of quarrying permit
(1)On application made to it the competent authority under these rules
may grant a quarrying permit to any Indian National to extract any minor
mineral, other than dimension stone, from any specified land within the
limits of its jurisdiction and authority as notified by the Government in
11
Commissioner of Railways v. Stewart, [1936] HCA 51; 56 CLR 520
12
Kerala Minor Concession Act, 2015, § 3, No. f Acts of Kerala State Legislature, 2015 (India).

15
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

the official Gazette from time to time on payment of royalty as the

competent authority may fix on the basis of the rates specified in
schedule I or IV, as the case may be and also on payment of such surface
rent and cess as may be assessable on the lands.
(2) The competent authority may grant a permit for a lower quantity than
applied for or refuse to grant such permit for reasons to be recorded in
writing.
(3) The area under a quarrying permit shall be a contiguous unit and shall
not exceed one hectare.
(4) The competent authority under these rules shall send a copy of the
quarrying permit granted by it to the District Collector and the Secretary
of the Local Self Government Institution concerned.
xvi. According to the Section 10 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession
Act,201513 provided the conditions on which quarrying shall be granted.
By following the rules, the Granite Industries has obtained the license and
also got an environmental clearance certificate without which the licence
could not be obtained. Hence there is no valid reason to cancel the license
of the defendant.
xvii. In the case Mineral Development Authority Ltd v State of Bihar & Anr 14,
the apex court held that the if the license of a person is cancelled without
any particular reason, then it will be in violation of Article 19(1)(g) 15 i.e.,
all citizen have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business, which is a fundamental right.
xviii. Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution grants quarry owners the
fundamental right to freely practice any profession or engage in any
occupation, trade, or business without interference. This right is extended
to all citizens of India without hindrance. The Granite company in
question holds a valid license and has diligently adhered to all pertinent
rules and regulations governing mining activities.

13
Kerala Minor Concession Act, 2015, § 10, No. f Acts of Kerala State Legislature, 2015 (India).
14
Mineral Development Authority Ltd v State of Bihar & Anr 1960 AIR 468,
15
INDIA CONST. art 19 cl.1 sub cl.(g)

16
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent
INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

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 decision by the State Government of Merala to reduce the minimum distance of a
quarry from residential areas from 100 meters to 50 meters does not infringe upon the
right to life of individuals as guaranteed under Article 21.
2. The issue of writ or order is not maintainable.
3. The respondents bear no liability to provide compensation, and the quarrying permit
cannot be revoked as it has been granted in accordance with due process of law.

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.

17
Memorandum On the Behalf of the Respondent