NAME-GUNJAN KHATRI

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CIHAR

IN THE MATTER OF:

PEOPLE’S LIBERTY……………….PETITIONER

V.

THE UNION OF INDIANA……………………...RESPONDENT NO. 1

M/S RPF INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD……………………..RESPONDENT NO. 2

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

WRIT PETITION NO. ___/2020

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CIHAR

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OFABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................3

INDEXOFAUTHORITIES........................................................................................................4

STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION............................................................................................6

STATEMENTS OF FACTS......................................................................................................7

ISSUES RAISED......................................................................................................................9

SUMMARY ARGUEMENTS.................................................................................................10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………..12

1. Whether a writ lies against a private party?..................................................................12

1.1 A writ shall lie against a private party where the fundamental rights are involved….12
1.2 Private party discharging public functions………………………………………….13
2. Whether Peoples’ Liberty has the locus standi and whether alternative remedy needs to
be exhausted to exercise writ jurisdiction? ……………………………………………..14
2.1. NGO has locus standi to file Public Interest Litigation……………………………..15

2.2 Alternative Remedy Not A Bar……………………………………………………..15

2.3 . Fundamental rights have been violated……………………...................................16

2.4 . Violation of rights of people of State of Cihar………………………………….16

3. Whether Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated?...................17

3.1. Violation of Article 14…………………………………………………………..17

3.2 Violation of rights under Article

21……………………………………………………………………………………….19

3.2.1 Violation of right to healthy environment under article

21…………………………………………………………………………..…………..19

2
 3.2.2 Non Application of Environment Impact Assessment………………………….21
3.2.3 Right to livelihood under article 21……………………………………..22

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………….23

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Para
AIR All India Report
NGO Non- Governmental Organization
PIL Public Interest Litigaton
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
SCC Supreme Court Reports
Ors. Others
Pvt. Private
Ltd. Limited
Hon’ble Honourable
Govt. Government
v. Versus
PDF Popular Democratic Front

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Roychan Abraham v. state of Uttar Pradesh,2019……………………………………………..15

Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Others (2003) 10 SCC 733……………………………..15
Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust
and Ors. v. V.R.Rudani and Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 691………………………………………………..15

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111………………….15

Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331………………………………………….16

Binny Ltd. & Anr V. V. Sadasivan & Ors [2005] Insc 401………………………………………….16
Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR2005SC2677……………….16
S.C. Sharma v. Union Of India and Othrs. 1969……………………………………………………..16
S. P. Gupta v. President of India &Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149 14-25 (per P. N. Bhagwati, J.);….17
Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 374………………………………………..17
Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298…………17
R. v. Inspector of Pollution exparte Greanpeace Ltd., (1994) All ER 329;…………………..17
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 2330………………..17
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380………………………………..17
Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661……………………………………….17
Purtabpur Co. v. Cane Commissoner, AIR 1971 SC 1896………………………………………17
Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331………………………………….18
Wazir Chand v. State of H.P.,AIR 1954 SC 415………………………………………………….18
Shantistar Builders v. Narayan KhimalaTotame, (1990) 1 SCC 520, PG Gupta v. State of
Gujarat, (1995) 2 SCC 182, ………………………………………………………………………..18
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121…..18
Olga Tellisv. Bombay Municipal Corp, AIR 1986 SC 180…………………………………….18
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board –II v. Prof. MV Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62…….18
Horizon Ltd. v. UOI (1995) 1 SCC 478 …………………………………………………………20
Union of India Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation & Anr. etc. (2001) 8 SCC 491. ……20
T.R.Desai Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts (Universal law Publication Co.
2nd Edition, 2009)…………………………………………………………………………………20

5
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489….20
Tata Cellular v. Union of India  (1994) 6 SCC 651……………………………………………….20
Bachan Singh V. State of PunjabAIR1982 SC 1325……………………………………………..20
M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)1 SCC 388…………………………………………………….21
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar  1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1)…………………………........21

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1996(7) S.C.375………......22.

Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India JT 1996 (2) 196…………………………………….22

M .C. Mehta v. Union of India 1988 SC 1037………………………………………………..22

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 5…………………………23

The Right To Fair Compensation And Trancparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Act, 2013……………………………………………………………………………23
Shantistar Builders v. Narayan KhimalaTotame, (1990) 1 SCC 520,…………………….23
PG Gupta v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 2 SCC 182, …………………………………………..23
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121..23
2 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp, AIR 1986 SC 180……………………………….23
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni 1983 AIR
109…………………………………………………………………………………………………….23
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180……………………………..23
D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress 1991 AIR 101……………………………………………23
Statutes

Land Acquisition act, 2013

Environment (protection) Act, 1986
The Constitution of India
The Right To Fair Compensation And Trancparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Act, 2013
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

6
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble High Court of
Cihar,Indiana under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
7
1. Union of Indiana (“Indiana”) is a federal republic country with rich cultural history and
heritage. Indiana is divided into 29 states and 7 Union Territories. The laws of Union of Indiana
are pari materia with laws of Republic of India. Indiana at the center is ruled by Popular
Democratic Front (“PDF”) who came with a thumping majority in the general election of 2014.
PDF also rules 16 states in Indiana majorly with regional coalition partners. PDF is generally
viewed as a political party with inclination and association with business conglomerates and
there had been media reports that certain tenders for public projects in PDF ruled states had been
awarded to business houses with close relations to the ruling PDF.

2. The economy of Indiana is a developing economy with the average growth rate varying from
6.5%-7.5% over the course of last four fiscal years. However, unemployment has been a big
problem in Indiana especially in the states of Cihar, Lyndia & Vimachal. The problem of
unemployment is also aided by the fact that the general population of youth is approximately
65% according to the last census.

3. The Prime Minister of Indiana tasked the Finance Minister to understand the problems of
unemployment and also come up with possible initiatives. Subsequently, a committee was
formed known as the Economic Panel which was headed by the Finance Minister and consisted
of two economic advisors, representatives from various Central Ministries and one representative
from each State Government. The Panel collected data about unemployment across all the states,
made a detailed analysis and took into consideration the problems faced by each state. It was
ultimately concluded that a proper policy/legislation for boosting industrial growth needs to be
framed by the government which shall act as a catalyst in reducing unemployment by creating
ample job opportunities.

4. PDF came out with ‘Make In Indiana’ Policy 2018 (“Policy”), the purpose and aim of which
was to encourage industrialization, development of self-sufficient industries and thereby reduce
unemployment and accelerate growth. The Policy was a detailed one and it contained the
guidelines regarding the tender procedure to be adopted for setting up the industries, the
rehabilitation package for the displaced people which was mainly along the lines as contained in
the Resettlement Policy as existing in Indiana and other ancillary provisions.

8
5. As a governmental initiative, it was decided that the Policy shall first be implemented in the
states of Cihar, Lyndia & Vimachal since these states had the maximum unemployment as per
governmental records.

6. Tenders were issued for various projects and large scale domestic industries were set up. M/s
RPF Industries Pvt Ltd, had won most of the tenders and they set up industries mainly in the
State of Cihar.

7. However, after about six months, reports started emerging that M/s RPF Industries Pvt Ltd
had flouted several tender rules and arm twisted the Government in issuing them the tenders.
People’s Liberty, a NGO, carried out the report and made these serious allegations. It was
pointed out in the report that certain ministers in the PDF Government, high level bureaucrats in
the State of Cihar and top officials of the M/s RPF Industries Pvt Ltd acted in connivance
wherein maximum tenders were issued to them. The Report stated that the Policy mandated that
tender could be issued for industries only where there are at least two bidders competing for it.

8. M/s RPF Industries Pvt Ltd had been awarded tenders for industrial projects in which they
were the sole bidder. Apart from these irregularities, it was also stated in the report that while
setting up the industries , several environmental rules were flouted in as much as no
Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted. Acquisition of land and subsequent payment
of compensation to the displaced people were not done properly by the Government under the
Acts. It also stated that the Rehabilitation Policy which was envisaged by the Government had
not yet been implemented. The report also stated that the industries so set up emitted hazardous
substances which had serious impact on the health of the people living in the areas.

9. With the support of People’s Liberty, several demonstrations were carried out and affected
people took to streets opposing the industries so set up.

10. People’s Liberty thereafter moved High Court of Cihar under the writ jurisdiction making
M/s RPF Industries Pvt Ltd & Govt of PDF as the Respondents. The main grievance is that M/s
RPF Industries Pvt Ltd & Government of PDF have violated Environmental norms and
Constitutional provisions and the projects should be put to an immediate closure. The matter has
been listed for hearing on maintainability and merits.

9
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether a writ lies against a private party?

2. Whether Peoples’ Liberty has the locus standi and whether alternative remedy needs to be
exhausted to exercise writ jurisdiction?

3. Whether Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated?

10
 SUMMARY ARGUEMENTS

1.Whether a writ lies against a private party?

It is humbly submitted before the court that to protect Fundamental Rights the Indian
Constitution, under Article 226, provides the right to approach the High Court, to any person
whose Fundamental Right has been violated. At the same time, the article gives the right to the
high courts of the country to issue writs in order to enforce Fundamental Rights. The expression
"any person or authority" used in Article 226 of the Constitution is not only to be confined to
statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State and would cover any other person or body
performing public duty. Hence, in the present case writ shall lie against the respondents i.e. M/s
RPF Industries Pvt. Ltd.,as it is covered under article 226 of the constitution.

2. Whether Peoples’ Liberty has the locus standi and whether alternative remedy needs to
be exhausted to exercise writ jurisdiction?

It is humbly submitted before the court that the NGO has locus standi to file this PIL as the NGO
has its presence in the state of Cihar and as PIL can be filed by the representative of people and
in the present case People’s Liberty i.e. a NGO is acting as representative. Where there is well-
founded allegation that fundamental right has been infringed alternative remedy is no bar for
entertaining writ petition and granting relief.

3. Whether Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated?

It is humbly submitted that, as the Policy mandated that tender could be issued for industries
only where there are at least two bidders competing for it. However, M/s RPF Industries had
been awarded tenders for industrial projects in which they were the sole bidder. The act of
government is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14.

That Acquisition of land and subsequent payment of compensation were not done properly and
there is non- implementation of Rehabilitation policy which in turn is adversely affecting the
lives of the people of Cihar and is a violation of right to livelihood under Article 21.

11
That Environment rules were flouted and the industries so set up emitted hazardous substances
which had series of impact on the health of the people. Hence there is a violation of right to
healthy environment under Article 21.

12
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether a writ lies against a private party?

1.The petitioner has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Cihar under Article 226 of
constitution of India which states that every High Court shall have power, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises 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, prohibition, 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.1

1.1 A writ shall lie against a private party where the fundamental rights infringed

2.Whenever the fundamental rights gets infringed the constitution of India grants the remedy
in two ways first, enforcement of right under article 32 and the second by invoking article
226 . the scope of article 226 is wider than the scope of article 32, hence in the present case
the petitioner has approached the hon’ble HC of Cihar.

3. In the present case as the government has not been abided by the rules and regulations of
the tender policy and acted arbitrarily by issuing tender to a sole bidder has infringed article
14 under Indian constitution.

4. The government has failed to award compensation to the displaced people and the
rehabilitation policy , envisaged by government has not yet been implemented resulting in
loss of livelihood of the people of that area is a violation of article 21.

5. The emission of hazardous substances has series of adverse effects on the health of the
people living in the areas has violated the right to live in healthy and pollution free
environment under article 21.

6. In a case it was held that the power and jurisdiction of the High Court is much wider. The
jurisdiction extends to enforcement against infringement of Part III rights, against 'State' and

1
Constitution of India.

13
 also against 'any person or authority' and 'for any other purpose'. The limitation of action
against the 'State' alone is not there under Article 226 of the Constitution.2

7.In another case the supreme court held that wherethere is a question of fundamental rights
a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i)
the State (Govt); (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the
State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run
substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive
obligation of public nature (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function
under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.3

8. The case states that the term "authority" used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a
liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts
to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights.
The words "Any person or authority" used in Article 226 are therefore, not to be confined
only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other
person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much
relevant.4

1.2 Private party discharging public functions

9.It is a well settled principle that when a private party discharges public function , a writ
under article 226 can be lied or issued against that party. And to decide whether a function is
a public function or not the supreme court has laid down certain principles in a case these
principles are as follows;

(1) the instrumentality must be funded by the appropriate government .

(2) the governmet is exercising the control over the management of the instrumentality.5

2
Roychan Abraham v. state of Uttar Pradesh,2019.
3
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Others (2003) 10 SCC 733.
4
Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v.
V.R.Rudani and Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 691.
5
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111

14
 10. In the present case the respondent i.e. M/s RPF Industries is a private entity which is
discharging public function, as it had been awarded tenders issued by the government which
exercises control over its functions and also provide funds.

11. In the case the Court held that even a purely private body where the State has no control
over its internal affairs would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution if it discharges a public function or public duty.6

12. the Supreme Court observed that private companies and corporation could come within
the sweep of judicial review provided are discharging public functions.7

13.The supreme court in a case clarified that when a private body exercises public function
even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law
but also under the Constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article 226.8

14.In this case the SC held that Writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against any
person and it is not necessary that the said person should be exercising sovereign public
functions or should be a governmental authority. Writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is maintainable for any purpose without any limitation or restriction.
Distinction between the private law and public law are not relevant.9

15. Hence, the Hon’ble HC should immediately issue a writ of mandamus against the
respondent.

6
Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331.

7
Binny Ltd. & Anr V. V. Sadasivan & Ors [2005] Insc 401.

8
Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR2005SC2677.

9
S.C. Sharma v. Union Of India and Othrs. 1969.

15
2. Whether Peoples’ Liberty has the locus standi and whether alternative remedy needs to
be exhausted to exercise writ jurisdiction?

16.The present petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution10 .Since M/s RPF
Industries Pvt. Ltd. comes under the definition of private party, and there is violation of
fundamental right, PIL filed by NGO is maintainable against Union of India.

2.1. NGO has locus standi to file Public Interest Litigation.

17.In public law, the rule that only the aggrieved person is entitled to seek judicial redress
has been liberalised to include any “public-spirited individual” or “association”11. In case a
class of people have a collective grievance, even an unrecognised association may initiate
writ proceedings12. In England, Greenpeace was granted standing on the basis that they are
acting in public interest, rather than for their own members13. In instances of public wrong or
injury, if an act or omission by the State runs contrary to the Constitution then any member
of the public has locus standi14. In case, it has been observed that in determining the
question of locus standi in „public interest litigation‟ the Court must look into: (i) the
credentials of the applicant; (ii) prima facie correctness of information; (iii) information
should show failure of public duty (iv) must not go into merits of the case.15

18. In the present case, People’s Liberty is an NGO which has a presence in state of Cihar.
The claim made by the People’s Liberty relates to widespread public grievance caused by
environmental harm and loss of livelihood. Furthermore, a writ petition is maintainable even
before the violation of a Constitutional or otherwise legal right has been committed16. Once a
law or order has been passed which potentially infringes a legal right, a writ petition may be
filed.17

2.2. Alternative Remedy Not A Bar

10
Constitution of India.
11
S. P. Gupta v. President of India &Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149 14-25 (per P. N. Bhagwati, J.); Banwasi Seva Ashram
v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 374.
12
Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298.
13
R. v. Inspector of Pollution exparte Greanpeace Ltd., (1994) All ER 329;
14
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 2330
15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380.
16
Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661
17
Purtabpur Co. v. Cane Commissoner, AIR 1971 SC 1896

16
 19 . Where there is well-founded allegation that fundamental right has been infringed
alternative remedy is no bar for entertaining writ petition and granting relief. The mere
existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot be per se be a good and sufficient
ground for throwing out a petition under Art. 32 if the existence of a fundamental right and a
breach, actual or threatened, of such right and is alleged is prima facie established on the
petition . In spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the court may exercise its writ
jurisdiction in at least petitions where the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights. 18Despite alternalte remedy available , a writ of mandamus may lie where
the petitioner’s fundamental right is infringed19. Thus, the petitioner humbly submits that writ
petition is maintainable as existence of alternative remedy is not a bar.

2.3. Fundamental rights have been violated.

20. A PIL can be filed against the private party and state for the violation of Fundamental
rights under Article 226 of the Constitution; therefore, the PIL is maintainable against the
respondents. The fundamental right to shelter20 and livelihood21 of the people have been as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution been violated on account of the arbitrary
action of the state.

2.4. Violation of rights of people of State of Cihar.

21. Also, there has been violation of right to Healthy Environment22 as guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution since the M/s RPF Industries Pvt. Ltd. is responsible for
pollution.Thus, it is humbly submitted that the present PIL is maintainable against M/s RPF
Industries Pvt. Ltd.

22. In the present case, the writ petition was filed based on the finding that the decision of
government was arbitrary by issuing tender to a sole bidder which would lead to the violation
of article 14. Furthermore the industries so set up has caused environmental pollution and

18
Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331
19
Wazir Chand v. State of H.P.,AIR 1954 SC 415
20
Shantistar Builders v. Narayan KhimalaTotame, (1990) 1 SCC 520, PG Gupta v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 2 SCC
182, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121
21
Olga Tellisv. Bombay Municipal Corp, AIR 1986 SC 180
22
3 Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board –II v. Prof. MV Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62

17
 had impact the health of the people living in the area along with non implementation of
rehabilitation policy violating the right to livelihood.

23. It is humbly submitted that there is a Constitutional obligation on industry and

government to protect the environment from damage and that the extraterritorial nature of the
potential damage should not be a deterrent as degradation of the environment is a global
concern and would have ramifications within and outside India.

24. Hence it is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble High court to issue writ of mandamus to
put the project to an immediate closure.

3. Whether Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated?

3.1. Violation of Article 14

25.It is humbly submitted that Article 14 states that the state must not act arbitrarily and
according to Rule of Law the action taken by the government must be based on Just, fair and
reasonable grounds so that the principle of equity does not infringes.

26. In the present case the PDF government has awarded tenders for industrial projects to the
M/s RPF Industries Pvt. Ltd. which was the sole bidder whereas it was against the guideline
of the tender policy which states that tenders could only be issued when there are at least two
bidders. This act of government is highly arbitrary, unfair and based on favouritism. As a
matter of fact there had been media reports that certain tenders for public projects in PDF
rules state had been awarded to business with close relations to the PDF government and
here, majority of the tenders had been awarded to RPF industry without adhering to the
norms of the policy.

27. Also, the report stated that the Rehabilitaion Policy which was envisaged by the
government had not yet been implemented which shows the arbitrariness of the government
towards the people of Cihar and is a clear violation of article 14. It is a responsibility of state
to provide rehabilitation to compensate them in lieu of the land acquisition which is yet not
been fulfilled.

18
 28. The SC in a case held that a tender process ignoring the terms of the tender and awarding
the contract on irrelevant consideration is violative of  article 14 of the Constitution of
India.23Therefore, the contract must be based on the principles of rule of law i.e. it must be
just, fair and reasonable.

29. The authorities do not have power to reject any bid offered by a party merely because it
has that power. It is not open to the authorities to rely upon this power to reject any or every
offer that may be made by the writ petitioner while responding to the tender.24

30. It is a settled law that public authority cannot act arbitrarily in the matter of awarding
contracts. There is a public element in all its activities and it must confirm to the mandate of
article 14 of constitution and observe the tenets of equality and principle of fair action.25

31. It is now a well settled principle of law that having regard to provision of Article 14 of
the constitution of India, a state within the meaning of Article 12 thereof cannot distribute its
largesse at its own sweet will.26The government in the present case is also comes within the
ambit of a state within the meaning of Article 12 hence the action of the state is arbitrary.

32. In a case it was held that it cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would
apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent
arbitrariness or favoritism.27

33. The new orientation being given to Article 14 by the courts have been established by
Bhagwati J. Rule of law which permeates the entire fabric of the Indian Constitution
excludes arbitrariness. “Whenever we find arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is denial of
rule of law”. Every state action should be non-arbitrary to rule of law otherwise the court
would strike it down.28

34. The rule is that single bid cannot be accepted in a first instance and if there is a single bid
even after a re-tendering there is need for detailed justification to accept the single tender or

23
Horizon Ltd. v. UOI (1995) 1 SCC 478
24
Union of India Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation & Anr. etc. (2001) 8 SCC 491.
25
T.R.Desai Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts (Universal law Publication Co. 2 nd Edition, 2009).
26
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489.
27
Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651.
28
7 Bachan Singh V. State of PunjabAIR1982 SC 1325

19
 government has awarded the tender in the first instance without even giving fair chance to
the other bidders.

35. Hence, it is humbly submitted that issuance of tender to a sole bidder is arbitrary and
unreasonable and there is violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which are
Fundamental right and this action of the state should be struck down on this ground.

3.2 Violation of rights under Article 21

36. The constitution of India under article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty.29 The article also includes the right to live in a healthy environment as well as
right to livelihood. These are the fundamental rights which cannot be violated. In the present
case both these rights have been infringed as a violation of Article 21.

3.2.1. Violation of right to healthy environment under article 21

37. It is humbly submitted that it is crystal clear that any disturbance of basic environmental
elements namely air, water and soil which are necessary for life would be hazardous to life and
can’t be polluted.30 But in present case the industry which had been set up has emitted hazardous
substances and chemicals which are eminent threat to the environment and has impacted
seriously, the health of the people living in the area, hence there is a gross violation of Article
21.

38. In the case, the SC noted that article 21 includes right to life and enjoyment of pollution-free
water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers the quality of life a citizen can file
a suit under Art. 32 and 226 for removing the pollution of water or air which may be dangerous
for life.31

39.As the SC held in the case The "Precautionary Principle" - in the context of the municipal
law - means:
(i) Environment measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities - must
anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.

29
Constitution of India
30
M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)1 SCC 388
31
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5. 

20
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should
not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
(iii) The "Onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that this action is
environmentally benign.32
Hence, it is humbly submitted that the precautionary principle is applied on the respondent
under article 21 and the onus of proof also lies upon it.
40.Along with the precautionary principle the polluter pays principle has also been evolved to
make the polluter bear the cost of damage caused to the environment. The Court ruled that "Once
the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity
is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact
whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity.33
41.The court developed the „polluter pays‟ principle in accordance with the 1992 Rio
Declaration which state that the party that is responsible for the pollution must have ultimate
responsibility, not only for the compensation of the victim but also for the restoration of the
environment.34 Hence, it is humbly contended that the RPF industries must bear the cost for the
damage it has caused by polluting environment and impacting the health of the general public.
3.2.2. Non Application of Environment Impact Assessment

42. The Ministry Of Environment and Forest, Government of India under the Environment (protection)
Act , 1986 promulgated a notification on January 27,1994 making environmental clearance mandatory
for expansion or modernization of any activity or for setting up new projects .

43. the 2019 guidelines of government clearly stated that environment impact assessment is
mandatory for all the works having their direct impact on the environment and the RPF Industry
so set up is one of them .Hence it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the
threat to environment is so real and overwhelming that it will violate Article 21 and the project
would lead to great disastrous consequences.

32
 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1996(7) S.C.375
33
Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India JT 1996 (2) 196
34
M .C. Mehta v. Union of India 1988 SC 1037

21
3.2.3 Right to livelihood under article 21

44. The concept of "right to life and personal freedom" guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution includes the "right to live with dignity" which, in turn, includes the right to
livelihood.35

45. In the present case the government has acquired the land of people for setting up of industries
and according to the rule the person whose land has been acquired has a right to compensation. 36But
land acquisition and subsequent payment of the compensation to the displaced people were not
done properly under the act. As a result large number of people have no place to live. Hence, the
right to livelihood has been infringed.

46.The fundamental right to shelter37 and livelihood38 of the people have been as guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution been violated on account of the arbitrary action of the state.

47. The court in a case came to hold that “the right to life” guaranteed by Article 21 includes “the
right to livelihood”39. A five judge bench of the Court now implied that „right to livelihood‟ is
borne out of the „right to life‟, as no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means
of Livelihood. That the court in this case observed that: “The sweep of right to life conferred by
Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean, merely that life cannot be extinguished or
taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of death sentence, except according to
procedure established by law. An equally important fact of the right to life is the right to livelihood
because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”40

48. In a case, court held that “The right to life Include right to livelihood. The right to livelihood
therefore cannot hang on the fancies of individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty
not there survival meet there mercy” the court held that Article 21 would include Right to
livelihood.41

49. Hence, it is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble High Court maybe pleased to order the
compensation and rehabilitate the displaced people to the Government as article 21 has been
violated.
35
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 5.

36
The Right To Fair Compensation And Trancparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act,
2013
37
Shantistar Builders v. Narayan KhimalaTotame, (1990) 1 SCC 520, PG Gupta v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 2 SCC
182, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121
38
2 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp, AIR 1986 SC 180
39
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni 1983 AIR 109
40
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180
41
D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress 1991 AIR 101

22
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the writ lies against a private party and the petition is maintainable.
2. That the petitioner NGO, Peoples’ Liberty has the locus standi and alternative remedy
is not a bar to exercise writ jurisdiction and the writ is maintainable in the court of
law.
3. Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution have been
violated
4. Issue writ of Mandamus to RPF industries pvt. ltd. and Union of Indiana and out an
immediate closure of ongoing projects.

The court may also be please to pass any other order, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit in
the light of justice, equity and good Conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

23