IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, KADIA

Original Writ Jurisdiction

Writ petition No. 105 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF

Mr. Rocky and Others …Petitioner

v.
TRISCO Corporation society Trust …….Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page | 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Table of Contents …………….2

 Index of Authorities …………….3
 Statement of Jurisdiction …………….4
 Statement of Facts …………….5
 Issues Raised …………….6
 Summary of Arguments …………….7
 Arguments Advanced …………….8
 Prayer …………….13

Page | 2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutory Authority:
1) Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1978
2) Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1955
3) The Constitution of India, 1950

Text Books Referred:

1) Pandey, J.N.,The Constitution of India
2) Jain, M.P, The Constitution of India

Cases Referred:
Mohd. Hanif Qureshi & ors v/s The State of Bihar, 1958 AIR 731

Hasmatullah v/s State of MP & ors, AIR 1996 SC 2076

Maneka Gandhi v/s UOI, AIR1978 SC 597

Saeed Ahmed v/s State of UP

K.S. Puttaswamy v/s UOI, AIR 2015 SC 3081

D.S. Nakara v/s UOI, AIR1983 SC 130

I.R Coelho (Dead) By Lrs. v/s State of Tamil Nadu & others AIR 2007 SC 861

Minerva Mills v/s Union AIR 1980 SC 1789

State of Gujarat v/s Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (1999) 3 GLR 2007

Websites Referred:
1. www.indiankanoon.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.google.com

Page | 3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

It is most respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble Court that this court has the jurisdiction to try
and adjudicate the present case.

The petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court under Article 32 of the
constitution. The petitioner approaches this Hon’ble Court for enforcement of right guaranteed
under writ petition Part III of the constitution.

Article 32 in The Constitution of India 1949

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1)  The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2)  The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3)  Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4)  The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution

Page | 4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

FACTUAL MATRIX

 Mr. Rocky and Mrs. Ruby both are engineers and they met in the marriage of common
friend named Mr. Roe.
 Both of them became fast friends, and in the end ended up getting married in 2016 and
settled in signore as they were working there in an IT company. After 2 years of
marriage Mrs. Ruby became pregnant but underwent severe miscarriage.
 After 3 years of marriage, Mrs. Ruby comes in contact with Mr. Shrestha and became
friends in no time.
 Mr. Gopi a divorcee and a good friend of rocky share a good bond with each other.
 After longtime, rocky and ruby throws a party for their friends and colleagues where
ruby found her husband and gopi in compromising positions. On that day only she
came to know that her husband was not able to reproduce. Medical reports confirmed
the same. Ruby was interested in adoption but her husband was not.
 Ruby was so much upset that she went to her maternal home and revealed about the
health problems of her husband to her parents.
 Ruby revealed that her husband is gay on her Face book status. After sometime, rocky
got to know that his wife is in a extra marital relationship with Mr. Shrestha and has a
healthy child from that relationship but he didn’t object.
 Rocky, ruby, Shrestha, Ruhi Shrestha and gopi all belongs to SONDHEIM religion and
they were members of TRISCO trust situated in KOBEE state.
 TRISCO established in 1901, managed by a govt. appointed trustee. The govt. of
KADIA in 1980 established the TRISCO corporation society trust and appointed the
committee to look after its day to day running.
 Shrestha confessed to his wife i.e. Ruhi Shrestha that he had illicit relationship with
ruby and ruhi straight away filed an application in the family court of SINGORE
District for divorce.

 TRISCO is a popular trust in KOBEE STATE which does not approve legally the
practices of adultery and homosexuality. TRISCO trust is a registered trust under
KADIA Trusts Act as public trust and it confers numerous reimbursements upon
the trustee for financial assistance. With this recognition TRISCO act in
accordance with strategy of non-discrimination, on grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex/sexual orientation, place of birth, age, disability, descent and residence. The
TRISCO has an option for extending membership to persons irrespective of their
status or belief.
 TRISCO is a renowned Trust of KOBEE funded by the governmental organization
and it has great followers throughout the country... TRISCO members are of the
opinion that homosexuality and adultery are incurable practice. It also believes
that homosexuals and persons who go for adultery have no right to practice any
religion. In Jan 2019, TRISCO CORPORATION SOCIETY clearly stated that
homosexuals and persons who go for adultery are not eligible to seek membership.
 TRISCO has cancelled the membership of Mr. Rocky, Ms. Ruby, Mr. Shrestha
and Mr. Gopi and rejected the membership of TRISCO trust and put the life time
ban on them to become member of trust and they are accordingly not allowed to
enter in the religious place made by the trust because they were in practice of the
homosexuality and adultery which is against the TRISCO membership.

PROCEDURAL MATRIX On refusal of membership by TRISCO as well as lifetime ban on

Shrestha, rocky & gopi they have decided to consult TAPI NGO. On the advice of TAPI NGO
these three have decided to move to the SC of KADIA for the violation of their FRs.

Page | 5
 ISSUES OF CONSIDERATION

Issues that are presented via this writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court
for discussion and adjudication are as follows:

1. Whether the Present writ petition is maintainable or not?

2. Whether the FRs of these three have been taken away by the TRISCO trust?
2.1. Whether their Right to Equality has been transgressed upon?
2.2. Whether their Right to Privacy has been compromised?
2.3. Whether their Right to Religion has been infringed?
3. Whether the cancellation of membership by TRISCO trust under the trust act is arbitrary and
ultra vires of the provisions of the constitution of KADIA?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Page | 6
 1) Whether the Present writ petition is maintainable or not?
The present writ petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble court as TRISCO trust had
been established in 1901, and managed by a Government appointed trustee. TRISCO
trust is a registered trust under KADIA Trusts Act as public trust and it confers numerous
reimbursements upon the trustee for financial assistance. TRISCO is a renowned Trust of
KOBEE funded by the governmental organization so all these aspects when taken
together forms the STATE U/A 12 of the constitution of KADIA.

2) Whether the section 5D and 9B of the Mehendinagar Animal Preservation

[Amendment] Act, 1995 is unconstitutional?
Section 5D of the amended act infringes the Right to life and personal liberty under
section 21 which includes Right to have food of one’s own choice.

Section 9B of the amended act imposes a negative duty upon a person who is found in
possession of the meat. It casts a negative obligation upon a person to prove that the
slaughter, transport, export outside the state was not in contravention of the provision of
this act as this provision is also applicable on those persons who doesn’t have any
knowledge i.e. ‘unconscious possession on the meat’.

3) Whether the minority community ‘X’ has been deprived of their fundamental rights
guaranteed to them under section 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25of the Constitution of
Republic of Indiana, 1950?
Minority community ‘X’ has been deprived of their fundamental rights as this act is
against the principles of equality under section 14 that talks about only on the concept of
‘reasonable classification’ but forbids ‘class legislation’. This act is enacted only in
respect of certain class in the country who doesn’t eat beef and treat cow as a ‘holy’.
There is no Rational nexus which this act sought to achieve.

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

Page | 7
 1) The Present writ petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble court.

The present writ petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble court as TRISCO trust had
been established in 1901, and managed by a Government appointed trustee. TRISCO trust is
a registered trust under KADIA Trusts Act as public trust and it confers numerous
reimbursements upon the trustee for financial assistance. TRISCO is a renowned Trust of
KOBEE funded by the governmental organization so all these aspects when taken together
forms the STATE U/A 12 of the constitution of KADIA.

It is contended before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of KADIA that the TRISCO Trust is a
Public trust maintained by the government itself. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble
court that this trust is of Public importance & hence, comes within the ambit of ‘OTHER
AUTHORITIES’ under article 12 of constitution i.e. State and the FRs of the citizens are
enforceable against the state. Hence, this present writ petition is maintainable before this
Hon’ble court.

Earlier, a Restrictive interpretation was given to this term and the principle of ejusdem
generis or things of like nature was applied and this meant that authorities exercising
governmental or sovereign function would only be covered under other authorities. 1
The liberal interpretation came when the Apex court rejected the interpretation on the basis
of ejusdem generis and held that no restriction can be assigned to the interpretation of the
term.2

In Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal,3 it was opined that it is not necessary for an authority to be
engaged in sovereign or governmental function to come under the definition and said that
State Electricity Board of Rajasthan would come under definition of “State”.

The breakthrough however, came with R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India 4which
gave us the 5 Point test as propounded by Justice P.N Bhagwati. This is a test to determine
whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the state and goes as follows-

a) Financial resources of the state are the Chief funding source i.e. entire share capital is
held by the government.
b) Deep and pervasive control of the state.
c) Functional character being Governmental in its essence, meaning thereby that its
functions have a public importance or are of a governmental character.
d) A department of Government is transferred to a corporation.
e) Enjoys Monopoly status which is state conferred or protected by it.

2) The FRs of these three have been taken away by the TRISCO trust.

1
University of Madras v. Santa Bai, AIR 1954 Mad. 67
2
Ujjambai v. State of U.P, AIR 1962 SC 1621
3
Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967SC 1857
4
R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India, 1979 SCR (3) 1014
Page | 8
 It is contended before this Hon’ble court that TRISCO has cancelled the membership of Mr.
Rocky, Mr. Shresth and Mr. Gopi and put the life time ban on them to become member of trust
and they are accordingly not allowed to enter in the religious place made by the trust because
they were in practice of the homosexuality and adultery which is against the TRISCO
membership.

2.1 Their Right to Equality has been transgressed upon.

It is contended before this Hon’ble court that cancellation of membership of our clients by the
TRISCO Trust just on the basis of being homosexuals and part of adulterous activities has no
reasonable classification which is there u/a 14 of the constitution of kadia

Page | 9
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited the
Counsel for the Petitioners most humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court to
adjudge and declare:

1. Thatthe MehndinagarAnimal Preservation Act, 1978 is not maintainable and should be

declared unconstitutional.

2.That the sections 5D and 9B of the MAPAA, 1995 should be declared unconstitutional

3. That this Hon’ble court should enforce the fundamental rights of the minority community ‘X’.

The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
light of justice, equity and good conscience.

Counsel for Appellant

Page | 10
Page | 11
Page | 12