MOOT COURT

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

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 RESPONDENTS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1
 MOOT COURT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OFABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................4-5

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

STATEMENTS OF FACTS......................................................................................................7-8

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

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

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………..11

1. WHETHER A WRIT LIES AGAINST A PRIVATE PARTY?...........................11

1.1 Instrumentality of State…………………………………………11
1.2 Private party discharging Public
Function………………………………………………………………12
2. WHETHER PEOPLE’S LIBERTYHAS THE LOCUS STANDI AND WHETHER
ALTERNATIVE REMEDY NEEDS TO BE EXHAUSTED TO EXERCISE WRIT
JURISDICTION?.................................................................................................13
2.1 Whether alternative remedy needs to be exhausted………………………….15

2.2 Whether an alternative remedy existed………………………………………16

3. WHETHER ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION HAVE BEEN

VIOLATED?.......................................................................................................18
3.1 Article 14 of the constitution………………………………………………..18
3.2 Sole bidder……………………………………………………..19
3.3 Public Good………………………………………………………………..20
3.4 Acquisition of land and resettlement policy…………………………………21
3.5 Credibility of People’s Liberty……………………………………………….22
3.6 Whether there has been a violation of article 21……………………………..24
3.7 Right to Livelihood………………………………………………………….25

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………….26

2
 MOOT COURT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Expansion
& And

AIR All India Report

CVC Central Vigilance Commission

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

ILR Indian Law Reports

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union of India

vs Versus

Ltd. Limited

PDF Popular Democratic Front

pvt Private

3
 MOOT COURT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & others
(2015) 8 SCC 1……………………………………………………………………………11,13

Zee Telefilms Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors, 1999 IIAD Delhi 777….11

Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi&ors. 1981 AIR 487, 1981 SCR (2) 79…………11

Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of Chemical biology &ors. (2002) 5 SCC 11..11
M.K. Gandhi AndOrs. vs Director Of Education2005 (4) ESC 2265……………………..12

Vst Industries Ltd vs Vst Industries Workers Union &Anr (2001) 1 SCC 298 …………..12

General Manager KisanSahkariChini Mills Limited, Sultanpur, U.P.v.SatrughanNishad andOrs

(1979) 3 SCC 489…………………………………………………………………………..12

Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas and Ors (2003) 10 SCC 733………………………12
RadheyShyam&Anr vs ChhabiNath&Ors (2009) 5 SCC 616……………………………….12
Praga Tool Corporation v. C.A. Imanual 1969 AIR 1306…………………………………..12,14

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India1987 SCR (1) 819, AIR 1987 965……………………………13
Binny ltd. vs Sadasivan AIR 2005 SC 3202……………………………………………………13
S.D. Siddiqui vs University of Delhi (2006) 88 DRJ 504 (DB) ……………………………....13
Chander M Khanna vs National Counsel of Educational Research and Training (1991) 4 SCC
578,…………………………………………………………………………………………….13
TekrajVasandhi vs Union of India AIR 1988 SC 496…………………………………………13
Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar &Ors. A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 420………………………………14
Forum of SC and ST Legislators and Parliamentarians Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
and Ors…………………………………………………………………………………………15
DattarajNathujiThaware vs. State of Maharashtra And Ors1969 AIR 1306…………………..15
Titagurh Paper Mills Co., Ltd., and Another Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1983 SC, 603………….15
Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India (2011) 14 SCC 337…………….16

4
 MOOT COURT

K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission…………………………………16

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agrawal……………………………………….16
State of MP and ors. vs Bhailal Bhai AIR (1964) SC 1006…………………………………….16
Himanchal Pradesh vs Gujrat Ambuja Cement (2014) 1 SCC 603…………………………....16
N.T VeluswamiThevar vs G. Raja Ninar and ors. AIR 1959, SC 422…………………….......16
Municipal council Khurai and anr vs Kamal Kumar and anr AIR 1965 , SC 1321……………16

S.T. Muthuswami vs K. Natarajan and ors. AIR 1988 SC 616………………………………….16

United Bnak of India vs SatyawatiTondon&ors. AIR 2010 SC
3413……………………………………………………………………………………………..16
ChhetriyaPradushanMuktiSangharshSamiti v. State of U.P. AIR 1990 SC 2060……………….17
S.T.O. v. ShivratanAIR 1966 SC 142……………………………………………………………17
BSN Joshi Vs. Nari Coal Services Ltd 2006 Vol. XI SCC 548 Paras 56, 66 and 69)………….18
V S Murugan vs Indian Overseas Bank 2009 (1) L.W. 866…………………………………….19
Directorate of Education Vs. EducompDatamaticsLimited…………………………………….19
Harminder Singh Arora vs Union of India AIR 1986, 3 SCC 247………………………………20
Vellore citizen welfare forum v Union of India&anr 1996) 5 SCC 647………………………23
M.C.Mehta v Union of India1991 SCR (1) 866, 1991 SCC (2) 353…………………………..23
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545……………………………..25

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

5
 MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
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. The respondent has challenged the
jurisdiction.

6
 MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Union of Indiana (“Indiana”) is a federal republic country and is divided into 29 states
and 7 Union Territories. The laws of Union of Indiana are pariMateria with laws of
Republic of India. Indiana at the center is ruled by Popular Democratic Front (“PDF”).
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.
2. 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.
3. 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 and as a governmental initiative, it
was decided that the Policy shall first be implemented in the states of Cihar,
Lyndia&Vimachal.
4. 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. It lead to a lot employment opportunities in the region.
Additionally, they also set up schools and hospitals in the State as a part of their
Corporate Social Responsibility. To a certain extent, the initiatives of M/s RPF Industries
in the region helped in uplifting the life of the people.
5. 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 the
tenders. People’s Liberty, a NGO, carried out the report and made these serious
allegations that many tender and environmental rules have been flouted alleging
infringement of fundamental rights of people of cihar. The Government responded by
stating that the report had no veracity and accused People’s Liberty of acting hands in

7
 MOOT COURT

glove with the Opposition parties to topple the Government. They stated that no tender
rules were flouted and the Government reserved the right to issue tender to an entity in
case there was no bidder keeping in mind the larger public interest involved. The PDF
Government also came out with a report showing the economic progress made by the
State of Cihar pursuant to the setting up of industries. The report stated that the State of
Cihar had achieved a gradual economic development as compared to the previous
financial years
6. RPF pvt. Ltd. and Union of Indiana in their reply have sought for dismissal of the writ
petition on the grounds that petitioner NGO has no locus standi and no fundamental
rights have been violated.

8
 MOOT COURT

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?

9
 MOOT COURT

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS

1. Whether a writ lies against a private party?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India against a private party doesn’t lie if such private party doesn’t
fall under the definition of ‘state’ under article 12 of Constitution of India and isn’t
discharging any public functions or is not acting as an instrumentality of state. And no
fundamental right has been infringed.

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

It is humbly submitted that People’s Liberty doesn’t have the locus standi to file writ
petition as no fundamental rights have been infringed and they don’t have any interest
involved in the present case. More than one easily accessible alternative remedies also
existed which were not exhausted which needs to be exhausted to exercise writ
jurisdiction.The redressal mechanism has been provided under the statute which must be
followed in case a person is aggrieved. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is an
extraordinary jurisdiction and can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances which
is absent in the instant case.

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

It is humbly submitted that the act of the govt. was just,fair and reasonable and in
accordance with various provisions of law and in conformity with the rule of law and was
not arbitrary. Also, no environmental norms were flouted instead the additional measures
were taken to protect the environment and proper livelihood was given to the people
hence there was no violation of article 14 and 21 of the Constitution

10
 MOOT COURT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.WHETHER A WRIT LIES AGAINST A PRIVATE PARTY?

1. The remedy of writ has been given under the constitution of india under article 32
and 226. The concept of writs alongwith PIL has enlarged the scope of access to
judiciary in case of violation of rights, specially fundamental rights.
2. Article 226 of the constitution1 gives power to hon’ble high courts to issue writs
in cases of violation of fundamental and other rights as well. But the words ‘other
authority’ and ‘any other purpose’ had been deeply scrutinized by the hon’ble
courts which has established that writ against a private party is not maintainable
under article 226.2
1.1 Instrumentality of State
3. Writ lies against a private party under article 226 only if the party falls under the
ambit of state,or as an instrumentality of the state or as a voice and hands of the
state or the party is discharging any public function and none of the conditions
can be satisfied in the present case.
4. The criteria to determine whether any party is a state or instrumentality of state
has been discussed in various cases such asZee Telefilms Ltd. And Ors. vs Union
Of India (Uoi) And Ors3, Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi&ors.41981 AIR
487, 1981 SCR (2) 79 etc has been discussed in detail over the years. The recent
case which has put forth parameters to determine whether a party is ‘state’ or
‘instrumentality of state’ or not is Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of
Chemical biology &ors.5 In which the hon’ble SC held that there must be atleast 2
criteria fulfilled namely- a-that financial control is exercised by the state over that
1
Article 226 constitution of india
2
Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & others 2015) 8 SCC 1
3
1999 IIAD Delhi 777
4
981 AIR 487, 1981 SCR (2) 79
5
(2002) 5 SCC 11

11
 MOOT COURT

party, and b- the state has a role in management of the organization and body
which is financially, functionally, administratively dominated, by or under the
control of the Government on established facts alone would be 'State' and in the
present case,RPF industries pvt.ltd. is co. registered under the companies act 1956
and doesn’t fulfil any criteria to invoke article 226 as this co. doesn’t take any
financial aid from the govt and there is absolutely no interference of govt in the
administration or the decision making.
5. The private party against which writ is claimed has to fulfil certain criteria before
a writ can be maintained against them.The hon’ble SC has held that ,we are of the
view that no writ is maintainable against a private party as it is not a 'State' within
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India6.
1.2 Private party discharging Public Function
6. Another important point is that the party to fall under ‘any party’ under article 226
must perform a public duty but RPF industry pvt.ltd. is a private co. doing
business and no public element is involved. Mere commercial works do not
amount to involvement of public functions as held Vst Industries Ltd vs Vst
Industries Workers Union &Anr7,where the co. was the third largest tyre
manufacturer at that time but the court held that mere commercial activities do not
amount to public functions. This opinion of the hon’ble court was reiterated
in General Manager KisanSahkariChini Mills Limited, Sultanpur, U.P. v.
SatrughanNishad and Ors8. andFederal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas and Ors9.
The hon’ble court in RadheyShyam&Anr vs ChhabiNath&Ors10 held that writ of
mandamus doesn’t lie against a party not discharging public functions. In Praga
Tool Corporation v. C.A. Imanual11 the hon’ble Court construed Article 226 to
hold that the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus 'to secure the
performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of which the one
who applies for it has a sufficient legal interest' and in the present case there is no
6
M.K. Gandhi AndOrs. vs Director Of Education2005 (4) ESC 2265

7
(2001) 1 SCC 298
8
 (1979) 3 SCC 489
9
(2003) 10 SCC 733
10
(2009) 5 SCC 616
11
1969 AIR 1306

12
 MOOT COURT

statutory duty on RPF industry ltd. and People’s Liberty doesn’t have any legal
interest.
7. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India12 the Court had the opportunity to hold Shriram
Gas and Fertilizer Industry as ‘State Actor’ since it was performing a public
function which and the activities of it affected the lives of large number of people.
But Court declined to give such a verdict. In Binny ltd.vs Sadasivan13, SC held
that writ will lie against a private party only if it discharges a public function and
RPF pvt. ltd. doesn’t discharge any public function as it is a private co. and it’s
activities are purely commercial in nature and abided by law.
8. Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation
Limited & others14 the hon’ble court dismissed a writ petition against a private co.
as it was not performing any public duty, Further  a writ petition is not
maintainable against a private individual as held by the hon’ble High Court of
M.P in Laxmi Devi v. State of MP15, . In S.D. Siddiqui vs University of Delhi16, it
was held that literal meaning can’t be given to article 226 and a writ will lie only
against state or instrumentality of state or a private party discharging public
functions. This opinion was reiterated by the court in Chander M Khanna vs
National Counsel of Educational Research and Training 17 and TekrajVasandhi vs
Union of India.18
9. Hence, it is humbly submitted that RPF industries private ltd is a private co.
engaged in commercial activities,registered under companies act 1956 and doesn’t
fulfil the criteria to invoke article 226 as it is a private party not discharging any
public function. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable against RPF
industries pvt ltd.

12
. 1987 SCR (1) 819, AIR 1987 965
13
AIR 2005 SC 3202
14
(2015) 8 SCC 1
15
2019 SCC OnLine MP 3629
16
(2006) 88 DRJ 504 (DB)
17
(1991) 4 SCC 578,
18
AIR 1988 SC 496.

13
 MOOT COURT

2.WHETHER PEOPLE’S LIBERTYHAS THE LOCUS STANDI AND

WHETHER ALTERNATIVE REMEDY NEEDS TO BE EXHAUSTED TO
EXERCISE WRIT JURISDICTION?

10.It is observed that the Public Interest Litigation can only be espoused by a person who
is genuinely interested in the protection of the society on behalf of the society or
community. It is observed as follows:-Where it appears that this is only a cloak to "feed
fact ancient grudge" and enmity, this should not only be refused but strongly
discouraged19. Public Interest Litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of
persons to satisfy his or their personal grudge and enemity. If such petitions were
entertained, it would amount to abuse of the process of the court as held in Subhash
Kumar vs. State of Bihar &Ors.20

11.People’s Liberty NGO is not based in the state of cihar and do not represent the people
of cihar in any way. The moot problem is also silent on the nature of work carried on by
the NGO and assumption can be made that they had never worked for environment
protection in the past. The way they took to streets without talking to the authorities for a
possible solution of grievances also raises questions that they had political motives.
Altogether, it is evident that People’s Liberty didn’t have sufficient legal interest in the
matter and in Praga Tool Corporation v. C.A. Imanual21 it was held that High Court could
issue a writ of mandamus when the one who applies for it has a sufficient legal interest

12.Jurisdiction of court under article 226 can be invoked by an NGO only in case of
infringement of a fundamental or any other legal right which is not the case in the given
circumstances. The Delhi HC held that It is a person who has a locus standi who can
approach the Court and not someone else on his behalf, Since the petitioner is not a living
person and is only an NGO, rights of such an NGO are different from the rights of an
individual person.  Petitioner can only have locus standi if any personal rights of the

19
AIR 2060 1990 SCR (3) 739
20
 A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 420
21
1969,AIR 1306

14
 MOOT COURT

petitioner were involved as an NGO but not on account of petitioners pleadings to be

representing thousands and lakhs of employees of public sector banks’. 22

13. Also, people’s liberty have no background in the field of constitutional

activism or environmental protection and are also not based in the state of cihar hence the
contention that they represent the interests of people of cihar is highly vague and the motive of
people’s liberty is mala fide.

14.The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution in entertaining 'public interest litigation'
had been explained. The hon’ble Court observed that 'public interest litigations' were to
be admitted with great care and for redressal only of genuine public wrongs or injury and
not for the redressal of private, publicity- oriented or political disputes or other disputes
not genuinely concerned with public interest as held in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State
of Maharashtra And Ors23.

15.Not even one complain has been made to any local authority nor any suits have been
filed by any person living in cihar complaining about the developments going on there
but still the PIL filed by People’s liberty is prima facie evidence of the fact that their
motive is not to represent the interest of the people but to satisfy their own mala fide
interests.

2.1Whether alternative remedy needs to be exhausted

16. It is a well settled principle of law that under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is
now well recognized that where a right or liability is created by a statute which
gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only
must be availed of as held in, Titagurh Paper Mills Co., Ltd., and Another Vs. State
of Orissa24 and in another case which reiterated the above proposition and held that
where alternative remedy existed, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to
refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226 as held in K.S. Rashid & Son v.

22
Forum of SC and ST Legislators and Parliamentarians Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

23
(2005) 1 SCC 590
24
AIR 1983 SC, 603

15
 MOOT COURT

Income Tax Investigation Commission25. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner
must exhaust its alternative remedy before the State Commission and should not
directly come to High Court in case of Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators
Association of India26. The Apex Court further opined that non-entertainment of
petitions under the writ jurisdiction by the High Courts where efficacious or
alternative remedy is available, is a rule of self- imposed limitation Commissioner
of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agrawal.27

17.It was held in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh vs Gujrat Ambuja Cement
28
that normally the high court should not interfere if there is an equally efficacious
alternative remedy available. In state of MP and ors. vs Bhailal Bhai29, it was held
by the constitution bench of the Hon’ble SC that remedy provided under writ
jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining any
other remedy available and it is a discretionary power of court. Similar view was
reiterated by SC in N.T VeluswamiThevar vs G. Raja Ninar and ors.30, Municipal
council Khurai and anr vs Kamal Kumar and anr31,S.T. Muthuswami vs K.
Natarajan and ors.32 Etc. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will
ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self- imposed limitations. Resort that
jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be
obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not
entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has
an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally
efficacious remedy as held in United Bnak of India vs SatyawatiTondon&ors.33

25
1951 20 ITR 77 P H
26
(2011) 14 SCC 337

27
Commissioner of Income Tax v. ChhabilDass Agrawal

28
(2014) 1 SCC 603
29
AIR (1964) SC 1006
30
AIR 1959, SC 422
31
AIR 1965 , SC 1321
32
AIR 1988 SC 616
33
AIR 2010 SC 3413

16
 MOOT COURT

2.2 Whether an alternative remedy existed

18.The application for mandamus should be made in good faith; not with any
oblique motive or ulterior purpose as held in
ChhetriyaPradushanMuktiSangharshSamiti v. State of U.P.34and writ of Mandamus
will be refused, if there is an adequate alternate remedy available, held in S.T.O. v.
Shivratan35,. The make in Indiana policy implemented by the pdf govt has
prescribed easily accessible grievance redressal mechanisms36 at the grass root level
so that no person’s interest are harmed. According to the policy, if any person is
aggrieved by the activities going under this scheme,he can complain to the
collector and the collector will dispose off such grievance accordingly. Also, state
level authorities were also set up for grievance redressal mechanism under make in
Indiana policy of govt.

19.Grievance Redress Mechanism is part and parcel of the machinery of any

administration. No administration can claim to be accountable, responsive and user-
friendly unless it has established an efficient and effective grievance redress
mechanism. In fact, the grievance redress mechanism of an organization is the gauge
to measure its efficiency and effectiveness as it provides important feedback on
administration.

20. The grievances of public are received at various points in the Government of
India .There are primarily two designated nodal agencies in the Central
Government handling these grievances. These agencies are:-
(i) Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances ,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions(ii)Directorate of Public Grievances, Cabinet Secretariat37.
If the People’s liberty had any prima facie evidence of any corrupt
practices followed by RPF industries or thegovt, the central

34
AIR 1990 SC 2060
35
AIR 1966 SC 142
36
https://pgportal.gov.in/Home/RedressMechanism
37
https://pgportal.gov.in/Home/RedressMechanism

17
 MOOT COURT

vigilance commission is a very accessible remedy which weren’t

availed before coming to the court.
21.Therefore, it is evident that lot of alternative remedies were available which
needed to be exhausted in order to invoke article 226 in the present case and it wasn’t
done. Hence, it is humbly submitted that the petition should be dismissed by the
hon’ble court.

3 WHETHER ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION HAVE BEEN

VIOLATED?

3.1 Article 14 of the constitution

22.Article 14 of the constitution envisages principles of equality before law and equal
protection of law. It strictly rules out any chances of arbitrary action and is always
invoked in cases where fairness or reasonableness of a state action is questioned. It keeps
a strict check on the arbitrary actions of the state and ensures just fair and reasonable
treatment for all.
23.In the present case, the govt prepared make in Indiana policy to solve the problems of
people and in public interest. For expeditious and effective implementation and to avoid
unnecessary delay, govt under the policy reserved the right to issue a tender to a sole
bidder, in case no other bidders come forward, keeping in view the larger public interest.
where a decision has been taken by the Government in public interest, normally the
courts would not interfere as held in B.S.N. Joshi Vs. Nari Coal Services Ltd38.The state
and its instrumentalities must have a free hand setting in the terms of the tender and the
Court would not subject the terms of tender to judicial scrutiny as the same is in the realm
of a contractwhich was held in Directorate of Education Vs.
EducompDatamaticsLimited39. The benefit of public is clearly evident from the report of
the govt which shows that the state of cihar has received great economic growth and the

38
2006 Vol. XI SCC 548 Paras 56, 66 and 69).

39
2004) 4 SCC 19 at Paragraph 11 and 12).

18
 MOOT COURT

problem of unemployment has started to diminish which is benefitting the people of cihar
as they have livelihood and a better means of living.

3.2 Sole bidder

24. According to the guielines issued by central vigilance commission for public
procurements 40, the govt has been empowered to accept sole bidders though only
after recording its reasons and satisfying itself that the situation demands moving
forward with a sole bidder and it wont be arbitrary.In ordinary sense, sole bidders
wont be accepted but if after detailed justification to go on with a sole bidder is met
under given circumstances and if the situation allows re-tendering, after which,no
other bids come forward,govt can accept sole bidders.
25. If a sole bidder has fulfilled the terms of the tenders and that party alone is
eligible for the tender and has undertaken to pay the consideration, it would be
appropriate to conclude the tender with sole bidder. This was held in V S Murugan vs
Indian Overseas Bank41. It was again held in Project Construction Organisation
Workers’ Union, Bhubaneshwar vs State of Orissa 42 that if govt is satisfied that a
situation demands expeditious action and other terms of tender are fulfilled, there was
no wrong in concluding project with a single bidder.
26. The central vigilance commission which governs public procurements in India
vide its order dated 20.4.2018 issued a circular regarding public procurements
with reference to make in india scheme that “restrictive clauses cannot be
included in procurement by central govt agencies against domestic suppliers”43
and since the RPF industry ltd. Is a domestic supplier, it can take benefits under
this order.Also rule 166 of GFR Guidelines of ministry of finance 44 were adhered
to.

40
https://www.cvc.nic.in/guidelines/tender-guidelines
41
2009 (1) L.W. 866
42
101, 2006 CLT 537
43
https://cvc.gov.in/sites/default/files/Public%20Procurement%20%28Preference%20to%20Make%20in%20India
%29%2C%20Order%202017%20%28PPP-MII%20Order%29%20-%20regarding_0.pdf
44
https://doe.gov.in/sites/default/files/Manual%20for%20Procurement%20of%20works%202019.pdf

19
 MOOT COURT

27. As per the guidelines of the CVC45, govt authorities can resort to single tender
nomination process where the circumstances require them to do so, to one
supplier has been given the license in that particular field. The SC in case of
Harminder Singh Arora vs Union of India46 held that if a situation arises which
requires larger public good, the govt can invite single tenders as well and the
clear objective of public good was the only motive behind awarding tender to
RPF industry in the present case which is also evident from the report of the govt.
28. Assuming the fact ,since the moot problem is silent on the said fact,that the govt
invited tenders for which only RPF industries ltd. Were found eligible for the
same but they were sole bidders. Hence, re-tendering was called for but again no
bidders came forward and the tenders were allotted to RPF industries ltd. After
recording detailed justification and receiving consent from the govt, keeping in
mind the larger public good.

3.3 Public Good

29. The economic growth of the country is very important for development as it
affects all the other activities of the govt. In the state of cihar, the problem of
unemployment is prevailing at a very alarming level which not only deprived
people jobs, but also food, shelter and other basic needs as people didn’t have
money.
30. The govt under the make in Indiana policy decided to start developmental
projects from the state of cihar so as to address the situation seriously. Delay in
making a decision to solve such problem would have led to more socio-economic
problems, and to act swiftly to solve the crisis. Govt had kept the right to issue
tenders to sole bidders to satisfy larger public good, that too, the govt complied
with all the rules for procurement and guidelines issued by Hon’ble courts as
after multiple calls, only one bidder came forward and going for further re-
tendering would have amounted to unnecessary delay in start of these projects,
and where a decision has been taken by the Government in public interest,

45
https://cvc.nic.in/sites/default/files/3%20Tender%20Stage.pdf
46
AIR 1986, 3 SCC 247

20
 MOOT COURT

normally the courts would not interfere B.S.N. Joshi Vs. Nari Coal Services
Ltd.47
31. Keeping in mind this very fact, govt decided to set up industries in the state of
cihar and which have contributed immensely in solving the problems in that
region which is evident from reports of govt.Hence,it is humbly submitted that
the action of the govt was in public interest.
32. It is humbly submitted that in the combined reading of the foregoing 3.1,3.2 and
3.3 paras, it is clearly evident that there was no violation of article 14 and action
of govt was just fair and reasonable.

3.4 Acquisition of land and resettlement policy

33. It is humbly submitted that the act of the Union of Indiana is well within the
realm of the principles of equity and the govt has the rights to proceed in such
manner for public good. The govt has the right to issue tenders to a sole bidders
in exceptional circumstances which is exactly the case here.
34. The acquisition of land was conducted abiding the rules of THE RIGHT TO
FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 and the resettlement
policy of govt is going on in the state of cihar currently in accordance with the
provisions of the said act
35. Assuming that the moot problem is silent on the fact, the govt before issuing
tenders has conducted the social impact assessment under chapter 2 of THE
RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND
ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 and
had acquired consent of 80% families were obtained for establishment of
industries in that area. The collector and the administrator were duly appointed to
facilitate resettlement policy in accordance with chapter 5 of the said act and the
process prescribed under chapter 6 is adopted to proceed further.

47
2006 Vol. XI SCC 548 Paras 56, 66 and 69).

21
 MOOT COURT

36. Thegovt has also established authority under section 51 of the act for the purpose
of providing speedy disposal of disputes relating to land acquisition,
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement. The process is underway in
accordance with the provisions of chapter 7 of the said act. The process of data
collection of the people affected by our projects is underway so that proper
implementation of the provisions of the act can be ensured and compensation
shall be given to those who have a right and almost 30% people have received
due compensation and not a single complaint has been filed before the collector
or the administrator, who is competent authority under the act48 for grievance
redressal mechanism.
37. The guidelines of Ministry of Finance(Manual for procurement of public
works),49 are duly followed for acquiring procurement for the industries as it was
a condition precedent to the issue of tender. The laws which are involved in
procurement of public works according to the ministry of finance guidelines are
THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND
ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013,
COMPETITION ACT, INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA along with the guidelines issued by central vigilance commission and all
the provisions were strictly complied with and consent of the authorities
established were duly approved after the scrutiny stage before awarding the
contract to RPF industries ltd.
38. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the acquisition of land and the resettlement
policy adopted by the govt is in accordance with the rule of law.

3.5 Credibility of People’s Liberty

39. People’s Liberty are not based in the state of cihar and have no connection with
the people living there. They haven’t exhibited any evidence of their track record
or expertise in this field and the way they demonstrated on the street was highly

48
THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013
49
https://doe.gov.in/sites/default/files/Manual%20for%20Procurement%20of%20works%202019.pdfand the central
vigilance commissionhttps://www.cvc.nic.in/guidelines/tender-guidelines

22
 MOOT COURT

politically motivated as many other grievance redressal mechanisms were not

touched by the NGO which shows their mala fide intentions.
40. The NGO in itself has never worked in this field and has made allegations on the
govt just to disturb the developmental projects going on in the region in
collaboration with the opposition parties as an attempt to topple the govt. The
allegations which the NGO has put forth are based on a vague report prepared by
themselves only which is absolutely unworthy of credit even the burden of proof
is on them to prove the allegations.
41. The said report is not prepared or ratified by any independent experts and the
source of the same is highly doubtful as already many ulterior motives of
people’s liberty has been brought forth .on the contrary, the growth and
developments of people of cihar in consequence of developmental projects going
on is evident right from economic growth indicators as well as people starting to
posses a better quality of life as they have better resources. Hence, the report of
the NGO can in no case be relied upon as it is highly mala fide and unworthy of
credit.

3.5 Whether there has been a violation of article 21

42. Article 21 of the constitutiton of india has given the right to life and liberty which
is guaranteed to all the persons. It includes the right to live in a healthy
environment as a fundamental right Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs.
State,50.Further, many other principles regarding environmental protection were
being included within the ambit of article 21 such as precautionary principle
Vellore citizen welfare forum v Union of India&anr51, polluter pays principle
M.C.Mehta v Union of India52etc. Article 21 also says that the right to life and
liberty can only be deprived according to the procedure established by law.

50
AIR 1988 SC 2187
51
(1996) 5 SCC 647
52
1991 SCR (1) 866, 1991 SCC (2) 353

23
 MOOT COURT

43. It is humbly submitted that in the present case, RPF industries pvt. Ltd. were
awarded tenders to set up industries in the state of cihar in which all the laws
were duly abided by and proceeded further in public interest in accordance with
procedure established by law.
44. Assuming the fact that the moot problem is silent on this fact, tenders were issued
to set up bio fuels industries which is considered to be eco friendly53rather than
polluter of environment. Proper precautions were taken during the construction of
industries and special attention was given to the discharge of waste mechanism.
Rpf industries pvt.ltd. had the license in the field of bio fuels and are one of the
leading companies to work in this sector.
45. The practices used in a bio fuels industry not only diminish the harmful
emissions in the environment but also help to reduce global warming 54as well as
they use plantation method with the use of renewable energy to make bio fuels.
46. Assumption is made that(since the moot problem is silent) Rpf industries have
adopted for energy audit, use of renewable energy, been in. Conserve water and
discharge their waste in a recyclable manner and has been among the top 10
companies to work in eco friendly manner according to the Greenpeace guide to
greener electronic survey.
47. Also, the fact that the onus of conducting Environment Impact Assessment which
is necessary to be conducted before starting any project likely to affect the
environment as mandated by the Ministry of Forest and Climate Change is on the
state govt. and in the present case since the industries are being set up after
clearance of expert panel, it has fulfilled the criteria of environement protection
48. The State Pollution Control Board and other authorities under the Environment
Protection Act 1986 in cases of environment issues also haven’t raised any
objections yet regarding the working of the industries and the projects are under
continuous monitoring of the said bodies.
49. Hence, as mentioned under article 21, the activities of the respondents are well
within the ‘procedure established by law’.

53
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/biodiesel-environmental-friendly-alternative-to-petrodiesel-2157-
7463.1000e122.pdf
54
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-biofuels.php

24
 MOOT COURT

3.6 Right to Livelihood

50. Right to livelihood has been enshrined as a fundamental right under article 21 of
the constitution Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation55. Not only this,
the constitution also guarantees right to shelter also in the same case only.
51. The industries which are set up in the state of cihar has provided employment
opportunities and livelihood to a large no. or people who along with their families
have been benefitting from these developmental projects. The report of the govt.
clearly shows that economic growth has been achieved in that area and the
unemployment levels have gone low. Rpf industries not only gave employment
but has also provided homes to their employees and are involved in many other
activities as they have set up hospitals and schools in the state of cihar as a part if
their corporate social responsibility providing free treatment to needy and quality
education to children of cihar.
52. Hence, it is humbly submitted that there is no violation of article 21 of the
constitution of India.

55
(1985) 3 SCC 545

25
 MOOT COURT

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 petition is not maintainable against RPF industries pvt ltd and no writ lies
against a private party if the private partydoesn’t fall under ambit of state and is not
performing any public function.
2. That the petitioner NGO People’s Liberty has no locus standi to file the PIL and the
available alternative remedy was not exercised hence the writ petition should be
dismissed.
3. That there is no violation of article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

The Hon’ble 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 RESPONDENTS

26