ROLL NO.

: 282/15

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Writ, Original and Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

No.___ of 2014

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Arvind kumar ….Petitioner

v.

Muncipal council, sohana & PPCB ….Respondents

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... 5

TABLE OF CASES .................................................................................................................... 5

BOOKS ....................................................................................................................................... 5

IMPORTANT DEFINATIONS .................................................................................................. 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................ 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................... 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 10

Issue One ................................................................................................................................... 10

Issue Two .................................................................................................................................. 12

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 14

2
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
 ABBREVIATIONS

¶ : Paragraph

ACLU : Aressian Civil Liberties Union

AIR : All India Reporter

ALR : Authority for Linking of Rivers

Art. : Article

CERA : Centre for Environment Rights and Advocacy

DPA : Democratic Progressive Alliance

EC : Environmental Clearance

EIA : Environmental Impact Assessment

EPA : Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Factsheet : Statement of Facts, 7th HNMCC, 2014 Problem

FC : Forest Clearance

FCA : Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

FER : Forum for Environmental Right

HLEC : High Level Expert Committee

Hon'ble : Honourable

ICCPR : International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

MoEF : Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India

NGT : National Green Tribunal

PIL : Public Interest Litigation

3
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

UDHR : Universal Declaration of Human Rights

4
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1992)

2. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar
3. Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana
4. M.C Mehta v. Union of India (2000)
5. Ishwar Singh v. State

BOOKS

1. Environmental law By P.S jaswal

2. Constitution of india

IMPORTANT DEFINATIONS

‘Petitioners’ for the purposes of this memorandum stand for Arvind Kumar.

‘Respondent’ for the purposes of this memorandum stands for Muncipal council, sohana &
PPCB

5
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon‟ble Punjab and haryana high Court has the jurisdiction in this matter under:-

Article 226 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose

6
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

PART-I

That the solid waste management plant was set up by the Municipal Council in the village of
Sohana. Hundreds of tons of garbage waste which was collected from the site was dumped near
the village. That waste become misery for the villagers.

PART-II

That such waste has caused the life of the people to hell. The garbage dumped at the site presents
not only the ugly site but also emits foul odour but the villagers also complain about
contamination of ground water and the villagers also attract a host of disease causing the insects
and pathogens

PART-III

The residents of the area have the written complaints to the Muncipal Council as well as the
PPCB regarding incinerator installed at the site which emits huge quantity of smoke and soot but
no one bothered to take any action.

PART –IV

The sarpanch and the various residents have personally met the officers of the council but they
got the reply the if the waste plant is shifted from this place then some other village has to bear
the menace.

The petitioner Arvind Kumar has filed the writ Petition in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court to shift the solid waste treatment plant from village sohana.

7
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1:

Whether or not there has been a strict violation of the fundamental rights of the

villagers of Sohana by the official authorities?

ISSUE 2:

Whether the writ petition filed against Municipal Council and PPCB is
maintainable?

8
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE ONE

Whether or not there has been a strict violation of the fundamental rights of the
villagers of Sohana by the official authorities?

It is submitted before the hon'ble court that according to facts there has been gross violation of
the fundamental rights of the villagers. There are to fundamental rights are being violated that
are Article 21 of Indian constitution. Article 21 states right to live in the clean and healthy
environment.

ISSUE TWO

Whether the writ petition filed against Municipal Council and PPCB is
maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that writ petition is maintainable against
Municipal Authorities and also against PPCB u/a 226 of the Constitution. It is further submitted
that since there has been gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
fundamental duties, the Writ Petition is maintainable, and on account of the same relief is

sought.

9
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE ONE

Whether or not there has been a strict violation of the fundamental rights of the
villagers of Sohana by the official authorities?

Article 21 of the constitution of india guarantees all persons a fundamental right to "life and
personal liberty". Article 21 states that : "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law".

Article 21 is the heart of fundamental rights and has received expanded meaning from time to
time and there is no justification as to why right to live in healthy environment, cannot be
interpreted in it. for healthy existence and preservation of the essential ingredients of life, stable
ecological balance is required. Article 21 guarantees a fundamental right to life - a life of dignity,
to be lived in a proper environment, free of danger of disease and infection. It is an established
fact that there exist a close link between life and environment. The talk of fundamental rights
and, in particular, right to life would become meaningless if there is no healthy environment.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India1 the Supreme Court took note of environmental pollution due
to stone crushing activities in and around Delhi. The Court was conscious that environmental
changes are the inevitable consequences of industrial development in our country, but at the
same time the quality of environment cannot be permitted to be damaged by polluting the air,
water and land to such an extent that it becomes a health hazard for the residents of the area.
Showing deep concern with the environment, the court reiterated that "every citizen has a right to
fresh air and to live in pollution free environment". Thus, the Supreme Court once again treated
it as violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. As in this case their is the violation of the
fundamental rights of people the same problems been occurred in our village of Sohana and that
is being ignorance of the fundamental rights of the people of the village. So the waste plant has
to be shifted from the the village

1
1992 3 SCC 256

10
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar2, the supreme court observed that right to live is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of
pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. if anything endangers or impairs that
quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to article 32 of the
constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of
life.

In Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana3 the supreme court in this case held that enjoyment of
life and its attainment including their right to live with human dignity encompasses within its
ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of
air and water, sanitation without which the life cannot be enjoyed....Environment, ecological, air,
water pollution, etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of article 21. Therefore,
hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to right to healthy life and it would be
impossible to live with human dignity without a human and healthy environment.

In M.C Mehta v. Union of India 4, consequent upon the direction of the supreme court to shift
to hazardous industries from Delhi, a company decided to shift to Himachal Pradesh and
acquiescing to supreme court order directed workers wishing to join at new location to report
there. But the company did not make adequate arrangements for accommodation as it had put up
only the tents. The husband of the applicant reported for duty in January, 1999 but died to
exposure to cold. The court held that the respondent company was liable to pay compensation,
which was quantified in this case as Rs. 2 lakhs.

If we compare all the above cases with our case the municipal council has done unfair with the
villagers and they had totally ignored their complaints and established the solid waste
management and dumped the garbage there which creates no. of diseases and creates foul smell
over there. that environment is not healthy to live as well as totally violates the basic principle of
living the life with human dignity.

2
(1991) 1 SCC 598
3
1995 SCC 577
4
2000 SCC 535

11
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
 ISSUE TWO

Whether the writ petition filed against Municipal Council and PPCB is
maintainable?

It is true that a declaration of any fundamental right is meaningless unless there is effective machinery for
the enforcement of the rights

One of the most innovative part of the constitution is that right to enforce the fundamental right
by moving to the high court as well to the supreme court u/a 226 and 32 respectively. Under
these provisions they both have the power to issue a direction to order or writs, including writes
in nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, whichever is
appropriate.

Now the present petition is filled in front of hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court under
Article 226 of indian constitution.

Article 226 defines Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose

In this case writ of mandamus must lie before the hon'ble high court.

Mandamus is a Latin word, which means "We Command"

. Mandamus is an order from the Supreme Court or High Court to a lower court or tribunal or
public authority to perform a public or statutory duty. This writ of command is issued by the
Supreme Court or High court when any government, court, corporation or any public authority
has to do a public duty but fails to do so.

12
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
The supreme court expressed the view that in the context of emerging jurisprudence relating to
environmental matters, as is the case in matters relating to human rights, it is the duty of the
court to render justice by taking all aspects into consideration. Therefore, with a view to ensure
that there is neither danger to the environment nor to the ecology and, at the same time ensuring
sustainable development. Such a procedure, in the opinion of court, was perfectly within the
bounds of law and and could be adopted in matters arising before the high court under Article
226 of the constitution of india.

From here if we have to file writ petition in front of the hon'ble high court there must be
violation of fundamental right. Here in this case there is violation of Article 21 is established by
the council in the above contention.

In Ishwar Singh v. State 5of Haryana, 60 the Punjab and Haryana High Court awarded
compensation to the victims of pollution hazards, as violation of Article 21 of Indian
Constitution, caused due to stone-crushers activities in violation of the directions of Supreme
Court.

5
A.I.R. 1996 P & H 30.

13
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners
 PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare that:-

1.That there has been a strict violation of the fundamental rights of the villagers of Sohana by the
official authorities

2. That the writ petition filed against Municipal Council and PPCB is maintainable

The Hon’ble Court may also be pleaded to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit in light of justice, equity and good conscience.

sd/-

Counsel for Petitioner

14
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners