TEAM CODE;- R03

‘CNLU GENERAL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Before,

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

CIVIL APPEAL NO-*****/2020

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA

In the matters of:

SAVE BLUE ..................................................................................................... PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDIA………………………………………………………. RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL FILED AND APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITY ..................................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. viii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................................... x

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................................ xi

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................ 13

I. That The Pil “Save Blue” Seeking Interference Of Supreme Court Is Not Maintainable
13

1.1. THAT THE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE A LOCUS STANDI ................. 13

1.2. THAT THERE EXISTES ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AND THE PETITIONER

IS REQUIRED TO EXHAUST THE LOCAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE ................... 15

1.3. THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ALTERNATE REMEDIES IS NO

ABUSE TO ART. 32. ....................................................................................................... 16

II. THAT THE PROJECT UNDER CRZ DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT
ENDANGERING ECOSYSTEM. ....................................................................................... 19

2.1. NO ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF ENDANGERING OF ECOLOGICAL

SYSTEM OF THE ISLAND ............................................................................................ 19

2.2. THE COMPONENTS OF ECOSYSTEM OF THAT ISLAND NOT BEING

DESTROYED IT IS BEING ARRANGED AND MANAGED IN THIS WAY THAT,
WITHOUT HARMING THE WHOLE SYSTEM PUBLIC INTEREST GET
FULFILLED BY THE HELP OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT......................... 20

III. WHETHER THE CRZ IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL PEOPLE’S

RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD. ................................................................................................. 24

3.1. CRZ SERVE FOR THE LARGER INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE. .................... 24

i
 3.2. NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 ..................................................................... 25

3.3. NO VIOLATION ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION .............................. 25

IV. THAT THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UNION OF

SINDIA IS ULTRAVIRES OF THE PARENT LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION? ...... 27

4.1. NO VIOLATION OF ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: ..................................... 27

4.2. THE DISCRETIONARY POWER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986: ............................................................... 28

4.3. DISCRETION GIVEN TO THE UNION OF SINDIA IS NOT EXCESSIVE. ... 29

4.4. DISCRETION IS FOR PROMOTION OF WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE AND

STATE. ............................................................................................................................. 30

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 32

ii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

PIL Public interest litigation

Govt. Government

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

v. Versus

UOI Union of India

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

UNSC United Nations Security Council

STM Sindian Tourism Ministry

CRZ Coastal Regulation Zone

CCR Coast Curtailment Rgulation

UPP Union People Party

NDP National Democratic Party

iii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITY
STATUTES

 The Constitution of India, 1950

 Environmental protection act 1986
 Coastal regulation zone notification 2011
 Wildlife protection act 1972

Cases
1. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu 1999 (2) SCC 718;............................ 16
2. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu II 2001 (2) SCC 62 ........................... 16
3. Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector Of Excise, Govt. Of Tripura, 1973 1 S.C.R.
533................................................................................................................................ 26
4. Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector Of Excise, Govt. Of Tripura, 1973 1 S.C.R.
533................................................................................................................................ 26
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR1980 SC 898 .................................................... 24
6. Banwaslseva Ashram v. State of U.P, AIR 1987 SC 374 ............................................ 25
7. Chairman, JSsK State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmad Malik, (2000) 3 sec 59.. 28
8. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1996 2 SSC 549 .......................................... 23
9. Chintaman supra note 20 ............................................................................................. 27
10. Chitamanrao v. State of MP( 1952) SCR759............................................................... 26
11. Court On Its Own Motion v. Union of India, 2012 (12) Scale 307 ............................. 25
12. Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457 ....................................... 15
13. Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 ............. 24
14. Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101;............ 24
15. Dwarka Prasad vs. State of UP,( 1954)SCR803 .......................................................... 26
16. Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872; .................................. 24
17. Francis Coralie v. union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1994 SC 1844. ............................... 27
18. Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1335. .............................................. 29
19. Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996)5 SCC 261 ....... 15
20. K. L. Gupta v. The Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1968) 1 SCR 274 at 297 ......... 28
21. Katra Education Society v. State of U.P. , AIR 1966 SC1307 .................................... 27
22. Katra Education Society v. State of U.P. , AIR 1966 SC1307 (para. 14): (1966) 3SCR
328................................................................................................................................ 27

iv
23. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC ............................................................... 24
24. Kuttisankaran Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1965 Ker 161 .......................................... 24
25. LIC v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811...................... 24
26. M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, [1997] 1 SCC 388 ........................................................... 25
27. M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 Guj 160 .......................... 24
28. M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 Guj 160; ......................... 24
29. M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 4564 SSC 1995 ........................................ 24
30. M.C.Mehta v. Union Of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037 ..................................................... 25
31. M.C.Mehta v. Union Of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037; .................................................... 25
32. M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. and Ors, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 188........................ 26
33. M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. and Ors, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 188. ....................... 26
34. Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn, AIR 1993 SC 935. .... 24
35. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.AIR 1978 SC597................................................... 24
36. Mattajog v. H. C. Bhari, (1955) SCR 925 at 932......................................................... 29
37. N .D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362 ...................................................... 15
38. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of India (2000) 10 SCC 664 ............................. 25
39. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of India (2000) 10 SCC 664; ............................ 25
40. Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 3313 .............................................. 24
41. Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689 ...................................................... 25
42. PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732 ................................. 14, 15
43. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 ............................................. 15
44. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 996 .. 26
45. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 996. . 26
46. R.K. Garg v Union of India ,(1985) 1 S.C.C. 641 ....................................................... 26
47. R.K. Garg v Union of India ,(1985) 1 S.C.C. 641; ...................................................... 26
48. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. SR Tendulakar, (1958) AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279 ............ xi, 26
49. SC 996 17 Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 .................................... 15
50. Shamrao v. D.M., 1952 SCR 683(691);....................................................................... 27
51. State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of
2001.............................................................................................................................. 24
52. State of Madras v. Shri Vanamamalai Math ................................................................ 29
53. Subhash Kumar v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC ........................................................ 25
54. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 .............................. 24
55. Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 606...................................... 25

v
56. Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 606; .................................... 25
57. Union of India v Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 724 26
58. Union of India v Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 724 .
...................................................................................................................................... 26
59. Union of India v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622............................................. 14
60. V.S. Rice and Oil Mills v. State of A.P., 1964 SC 1781:(1964) 7 SCR 456 ............... 27
61. Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362; ..................................................... 24

vi
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme court under Art. 32 of the Constitution
for the violation of fundamental rights of the tribal people upon which the respondents have
appeared with the contention that there has been no a violation of fundamental rights and that
the PIL filed by the petitioner is no maintainable in this Hon’ble court.

vii
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Union of Sindia which has gained independence in the last century is one the fastest
growing economy in the world. Being the member of various international organisation
working for various sustainable programmes it has various obligations toward nation. Despite
of all this Sindia has its own issues to tackle with like excessive energy shortage. Also, the
relation of Sindia with its neighbouring state Swamabhumi is not so well.

Sindia has a total coastline of 7300 km majority of that consisting of mainland coastline which
touches nine states and four union territory. Aram state of North has the longest sea coastline
in India of 1600 km wherein one Ocean power project was launched under Sustainable
Development Goals. Most of the part of the coastline is covered by fertile soils. Fishing is one
of the important occupations of the people living in these coastal areas consisting of the tribal
people living by the side. The coastal area comprises of wide range of ecosystem and also is a
home to rare species and flora and founa.

Hamantha is a small group of islands located in Bay of Engal in east Sindia which is a union
territory compromising 8 islands. This island is often a matter of concern due to illegal
migration and unstable neighbour and natural hazard,the 2004 tsunami being the major. The
island has a population of 4 lakhs and is home to 6 indigenous tribe in world which makes 2000
in population. The Sakura Island, the smallest of all is the home of Saakuria tribe one of the
most indigenous in the world with no outside touch with having fishing one of the main
occupations. The island is backward in terms of communication and internet facility with
having some other problems such as power cuts and remoteness one of the challenges.

The island has a 30% increase in tourist footfalls ever since 2015 and also the connectivity is
improving with 4 other cities. There has been a excessive crocodile movement which has later
caused attack on some American tourist on April 2 2018. After this several steps were taken.
Also, since 2010 the island has witnessed large no. of plastic deposit and several aquatic
creatures were found dead.

After the elections in 2018 the National Democratic Party came into power in center and also
in the island and many developments have been brought like Optic Fiber Connection Cable for
internat and also 4 collages have been inaugurated. Also, some change in the coastal Regulation
has been brought which came into force in January 2019. In the press release the Govt. said

viii
that the new regulation has come into force to conserve and protect the unique environment of
coastal stretches and marine areas. After which the Govt. launched huge ocean projects in the
Sabath Island which required the native to move to other 2 native villages. Under the ocean
power plant sea turbines generate powers, the acquisition has started, and it is under middle
stage. Also, there is a bidding for resort and a bridge to connect the island were to be initiated.

On January 2020, the students of Hamantha collage made a protest against the regulation of
the CRZ which grew as a nationwide protest stating the regulation as ‘Coast Curtailment
Regulation’.

SAVE BLUE is an organisation which work for marine ecosystem opposed this regulation.
SAVE BLUE regulation having top native people and former MP as its key member files an
PIL in Supreme Court questioning the validity of special regulations 2.5 and 5.4.1 of CRZ 2019
stating that the special provision of CRZ as discriminatory to the interest of its indigenous tribal
people, environment and its floura & fauna.

ix
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

-I-

WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY “SAVE BLUE” SEEKING INTERFERENCE OF

SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.

-II-

WHETHER THE PROJECT UNDER CRZ AFFECTS THE ENVIRONMENT

ENDANGERING ECOSYSTEM.

-III-

WHETHER THE CRZ IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO

LIVELIHOOD.

-IV-

WHETHER THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UNION OF SINDIA

IS ULTRAVIRES OF THE PARENT LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.

x
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY “SAVE BLUE” SEEKING INTERFERENCE OF

SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the present PIL
filled by the NGO ‘SAVE BLUE’ before this court stands not maintainable as the
petitioner has no locus standi in this case. This “Legal standing” has a quintessential
connotation and it is a condition precedent for the maintainability of a Writ Petition
before the Court. Therefore, it becomes imperative to establish that the interest of the
People which the petitioner is espousing, have legally enforceable rights, recognized
under the Constitution of Sindia. The interest of the nation is placed on a higher pedestal
vis-à-vis international obligation. Therefore, the Writ Petition was not maintainable
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

II. WHETHER THE PROJECT UNDER CRZ AFFECTS THE ENVIRONMENT

ENDANGERING ECOSYSTEM.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the project under CRZ does not affects
the environment and endangering the ecosystem as the steps which were taken were
necessary for the development and even there is any trivial environment degradation that
is restricted to the minimum extent and will be made good with the course of time. The
steps which were taken were necessary for the development of island as well as the whole
nation. And therefore, there has been no any effect of the environment and endangering
ecosystem.

III. WHETHER THE CRZ IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL PEOPLE’S

RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the CRZ is not
contrary to the native people’s right to livelihood. It serves for the larger interest of the
people, if a person is deprived of such a right according to procedure established by law
which must be fair, just and reasonable and which is in the larger interest of people, the
plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Art. 21 is unsustainable. Here in

xi
 this present case 10 coastal village were taken up and given for rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation means process of returning to healthy and good way of life. 1From this we
infer that those tribal people are not refrained from the right to livelihood.

IV. WHETHER THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UNION OF

SINDIA IS ULTRAVIRES OF THE PARENT LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.

The notification of CRZ which was originally issued in the year 1991 under Environment
Protection Act 1986, and the current notification is not ultravires of the parent law and the
constitution. In The case leading case2, It was held that prima facie the legality of any
legiaslation cannot be questioned and it is the obligation on the petitioner to disprove its
legality or it is ultravirus to the parent law and the constitution. Also, Discretion given to
the Union of Sindia is not excessive.

1
Moot proposition para no 16
2
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. SR Tendulakar, (1958) AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279

xii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT THE PIL “SAVE BLUE” SEEKING INTERFERENCE OF

SUPREME COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, the present petition filed by the
petitioner to this hon’ble court is not maintainable which is filed under article 32 of
constitution of India and the allegation that “special provisions of CRZ as not
discriminatory and prejudiced to the interest of its indigenous tribal people,
environment especially the exclusive flora and fauna and citizens for the sake of
development and tourism” as not bonafide . Because the Petitioner should have a locus
standi first. This “Legal standing” has a quintessential connotation and it is a condition
precedent for the maintainability of a Writ Petition before the Court. Therefore, it
becomes imperative to establish that the interest of the People which the petitioner is
espousing, have legally enforceable rights, recognized under the Constitution of India.
The interest of the nation is placed on a higher pedestal vis-à-vis international
obligations. The instant case involves issues having international and national aspects,
which renders it a policy decision. In such matters with no legal standing interference
in the policy decision is not warranted. Therefore, the PIL is not maintainable before
the Hon’ble Court.
1.1.THAT THE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE A LOCUS STANDI

It is humbly submitted that, the petitioner in the present does not a have locus standi.
The principle of equity enunciates that, “A writ petitioner who comes to the Court
for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ
petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective.”

In the case of Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed
that “….The strict of rule of locus standi to private litigation is relaxed and a broad
rule is evolved which gives the right of locus standi to any member of the public
acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in instating an action for redressal of
public wrong or public injury, but who is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome
interloper; since the dominant object of PIL is to ensure observance of the

3
AIR 1993 sc 892

11
 provisions of the constitution or the law which can be best achieved to advance the
cause of community or disadvantage groups and individuals or public interest by
permitting any person, having no personal gain or private motivation or any other
oblique consideration but acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in
maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial
machinery in motion like action popularis of Roman law whereby any citizen could
bring such an action in respect of a public delict”

In the present matter the Govt. is highly suspicious about what appears to be a bona
fide act by NGO and Mr. Saarkar, i.e. filing of the present petition is mere on the
basis of protest which was initiated by college students and later by some group of
public alleging CRZ V is against the interest of the tribal people4. Weather this
policy is against or the marked region on which the the policy will be implemented
or the purpose of the change in regulation is never criticized by any external or
internal environmental watchdog agency, so if hon’ble court to do any prelimimary
inquiry regarding this issue it would be very satisfactory for the tribal people, as
well as petitioner.

This PIL is political motivated and have no material evidence regarding contention.
In Para 2 of page 4 of Moot Proposition it is clearly mentioned that the former
Member of Parliament who is petitioner in this case belongs to opposition
party.4former Member of Parliament including Mr. Saarkar of opposition party
Union People Party (UPP) as members filed a PIL in the Supreme Court questioning
the validity of the special regulations 2.5 & 5.4.1 of the CRZ 2019.5

PIL Should not be “Publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or

"politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation" as the PIL
is one of the most bonafine, sacred and people oriented innovation of the judiciary
which can never let to use by some frivolous and spectical minded people for their
own sake and personal vendata and grudge.

As well The Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that public interest litigation is
a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and that the
judiciary has to be careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance

4
Moot Proposition
5
Moot Proposition

14
 it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the constitution to the executive
and the legislature6

Also in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot7, this very court
observed that, “Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of
meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives,
and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are
actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such
busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate
cases with exemplary costs.”

It was held in the case Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India8 that when two
or more views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a
policy decision, it is then not the function of the court to go into the matter afresh.
Similarly in the present matter, the union govt. has decided to go ahead with the
amendment in CRZ with a view “to conserve and protect the the unique
environment of coastal stretches and marine areas, besides livelihood security to the
fisher communities and other local community in the coastal areas and to promote
scientific principles taking into account the dangers of natural hazards, sea level rise
due to global warming” 9.. Therefore, it is a policy decision hence, the Hon’ble court
must not go into the afresh.
1.2.THAT THERE EXISTES ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AND THE PETITIONER
IS REQUIRED TO EXHAUST THE LOCAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE
LOCAL REMEDIES.

It is humbly submitted that Art. 32 is not an absolute right and are subject to the self-
imposed restraints evolved by the judiciary. It has been held that since Art. 32
confers “extraordinary” jurisdiction, the same must be used sparingly and in
circumstances where no alternate efficacious remedy is available10. The reason for
this is two-fold: first, to reduce the increasing pendency of cases11 and second, to

6
State of Himachal Pradesh v Student’s Parent, Medical College, Shimla, AIR 1985SC
7
AIR 2006 SC 2007
8
(2000) 10 SCC 664
9
Moot Proposition
10
Secretary, Govt. of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia, 1990 SCR, Supl. (3) 583; Avinash Chand Gupta v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 726; Union of India v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622
11
PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732

15
 inspire faith in the hierarchy of Courts and the institution as a whole12. Therefore,
the Petitioner is required to approach the High Court or the National Green Tribunal
before approaching the Supreme Court.
1.3.THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ALTERNATE REMEDIES IS NO
ABUSE TO ART. 32.

The Petitioner may contend that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies is
unconstitutional and violative of the guarantee in Art. 32(1). However, it is submitted
that the right under Art. 32(1) is not so absolute that no rules of procedure apply to it.
Art. 32(1) confers a right to move the SC by "appropriate proceedings". “Appropriate
proceedings” interpreted to mean “procedure relating to form, conditions of lodgment
of petitions, and compliance with a reasonable directions”13. Indeed, procedural factors
such as res judicata,14 delay in filing the petition and parallel proceedings15 in another
Court are considered before entertaining the appropriateness of a particular proceeding.
It is submitted that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies is another such procedural
guideline and does not violate the right under Art. 32.
It is further submitted that there are two alternative efficacious remedies that are
available before the Petitioner in the instant case. First, to approach the High Court
under Art. 226 and second, to approach the National Green Tribunal.
1.3.1. THE PETITIONER MAY APPROACH THE HIGH COURT UNDER ART. 226

The power of High Court under Art. 226 is wider than the powers of this Court under Art. 32
of the constitution16. Further, the reliefs prayed for can be granted by High Court. This Hon’ble
Court in ICELO held that in cases concerning environment, specifically, the High Courts would
be in a better position to ascertain local conditions and facts and therefore, for proper
monitoring, they must be preferred.17 Further, in another case, concerning the safety of
development project,18 this Hon'ble Court transferred the matter to the High Court of

12
SC 996 17 Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961
13
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963
14
Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457
15
M.P Jain Indian Constitutional Law

16
PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732

17
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996)5 SCC 261
18
N .D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362

16
 Uttaranchal as it was expedient. The issues in the instant case are similar and require knowledge
and ability to assess local conditions. Therefore, it is submitted that remedy available under Art.
226 is not just an alternative but also, a preferable remedy.

1.3.2. THE PETITIONER MAY APPROACH THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

Alternatively, the Petitioner also has the option of approaching the National Green
Tribunal. It is submitted that the NGT has been expressly established to deal with
questions related to “enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving
relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.”19 Therefore, any submission that the NGT cannot enforce
rights or protect them adequately is erroneous. Moreover, the NGT is specially equipped to
evaluate scientific claims apart from regular civil claims due to the presence of scientific experts
on the bench. With due respect to this Hon’ble Court, it is therefore submitted that the NGT is
better situated than the SC to evaluate concerns about the health and environmental
consequences of the Mining Project.20

In fact, the Supreme Court when faced with similar cases, in the past has lamented the lack of
separate, multi-faceted environmental courts equipped with both judicial and scientific
inputs.21 Thus, the Supreme Court itself has recognized the value of the NGT to deal with
such cases. Further, in various cases in the past, the SC has had to refer scientific questions to
special committees and expert bodies, thus, delaying the resolution of dispute. It is submitted
that an expeditious resolution of the dispute is in the best interests of both parties. While the
petitioners would like to seek certainty with regard to their homes, livelihood and
environment, the Respondents would like to seek certainty about their investment at the
earliest. Mining being a capital intensive process, the Respondents submit that they will face
enormous financial hardship if the case is not resolved quickly as they have to make interest
payments on loans. The Act provides that the NGT shall endeavor to adjudicate upon the
dispute within six months from the date of filing of application or appeal.22 Therefore, for

19
Preamble, National Green Tribunal Act (2010)

20
SAIRAM BHAT, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION LAW 63 (2010)
21
Mehta v. Union of India 1986 (2) SCC 176; Indian Council for Environmental-Legal Action v. Union of India,
1996 (3) SCC 212; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu 1999 (2) SCC 718; A.P. Pollution Control Board
v. M.V. Nayudu II 2001 (2) SCC 62
22
National Green Tribunal Act § 18(3) (2010)

17
 expeditious disposal of this case, NGT must be preferred.
Assuming arguendo, this petition is admitted by the Hon’ble Court, it will defeat the
object of the NGT Act to create a specialized tribunal for environmental cases. The
instant case will be used as a precedent to bypass the jurisdiction of the NGT to directly
approach the Supreme Court. This should be avoided. In any case, the NGT Act
reserves the right of the Petitioner to challenge an order passed by the NGT in the
Supreme Court.23

23
26National Green Tribunal Act § 22 (2010)
18
II. THAT THE PROJECT UNDER CRZ DOES NOT AFFECT THE
ENVIRONMENT ENDANGERING ECOSYSTEM.

Environment equilibrium and ecological system of any region is said to be get disturbed
or being imbalanced if there is negative consequents on the components (weather biotic
or abiotic)of that particular ecosystem . And this thing can be happen if human
interference weather deliberately or non-deliberately try to harm or harm these
components by different ways. e.g- directly destroying, destroying or harming the
supporting system, reducing the quantity of other component etc. Or influx of hostile
element which is not viable for the particular ecosystem, influx of pollutants in of any
form which is not tolerable for the componenet of that ecosystem. That is there must be
certain substaintial human intervene which is responsible for keeping the environment
in danger.
The respondent in current case not endangering ecosystem i) no any substantial
evidence of endangering of ecological system of the island ii). The components of
ecosystem of that island not being destroyed it is being arranged and managed in this
way that, without harming the whole system public interest get fulfilled by the help of
sustainable development.

2.1.NO ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF ENDANGERING OF

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF THE ISLAND
The pil is filed by the petitioner in a great hue and cry and in the aura of spread misinformation
which are never existed in current case. By the fact itself it cannot be say that there is any
huge destruction of the environment. Government has been alleged that provision of CRZ as
discriminatory and prejudiced to the interest of its indigenous tribal people 24. But here the
petitioner itself seems that they are prejudiced. Without any evidence and preliminiary
enquiry or report they are blamming government. Besides this the government already taken
NO POLLUTION CERTIFICATE.

24
Last para moot prop page 4

19
 2.2.THE COMPONENTS OF ECOSYSTEM OF THAT ISLAND NOT BEING
DESTROYED IT IS BEING ARRANGED AND MANAGED IN THIS WAY
THAT, WITHOUT HARMING THE WHOLE SYSTEM PUBLIC INTEREST
GET FULFILLED BY THE HELP OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
With the ever growing economies and the need and for more, the doctrine of
Sustainable Development becomes the most relevant principle in today's times. The
doctrine of Sustainable Development has most commonly been defined as development
that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. It contains two key concepts:

 the concept of needs, in particular, the essential needs of the world's poor, to which
overriding priority should be given; and
 the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on
the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.

India being a growing economy has seen rampant industrialisation and development in
recent past, which resulted in adverse impact on the environment. Witnessing such
degradation, the Supreme Court of India in a bid to protect the environment, played a
significant role in shaping and adopting the doctrine of Sustainable Development. This
crusade for safeguarding the environment was led by Justice Kuldip Singh, who
famously came to be known as the 'Green Judge'.

The doctrine of Sustainable Development was implemented by the Supreme Court in

the case of Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum vs. Union of India25. The Petitioners therein
had filed a petition in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against
the pollution caused by discharge of untreated effluent by the tanneries and other
industries in the river Palar in the State of Tamil Nadu. In the instant case, the Supreme
Court held that the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle are a part of the
environmental law of India. The court also held that: "Remediation of the damaged
environment is part of the process of 'Sustainable Development' and as such polluter is
liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the
damaged ecology."

25
AIR 1996 SC 2715

20
 Thereafter in a number of judgments, the Apex Court explained and implemented the
doctrine of Sustainable Development. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Narmada
Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India26observed that "Sustainable Development means
what type or extent of development can take place, which can be sustained by nature or
ecology with or without mitigation". In T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad vs. Union of
27
India the Hon'ble Supreme Court said "as a matter of preface, we may state that
adherence to the principle of Sustainable Development is now a constitutional
requirement. How much damage to the environment and ecology has got to be decided
on the facts of each case"? In Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of
India 28, the Apex Court held: "while economic development should not be allowed to
take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and
violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should
not hamper economic and other developments". Hence, importance has been given both
to development and environment and the quest is to maintain a fine balance between
environment and economic development.

The Supreme Court of India emphasised on the need to set up specialised environment
courts for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases involving environmental
issues, since the right to healthy environment has been construed as a part of right to
life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In furtherance of its duties, the NGT has furthered the crusade of environment
protection basis the doctrine of Sustainable Development. The NGT in the case
of Prafulla Samantray vs. Union of India29 (POSCO Case), ordered suspension of the
establishment of the POSCO steel plant in Odisha, as in the opinion of the NGT, though
there is a need for industrial development, and employment opportunities created by
projects such as Posco's steel plant, but at the very same time such development should
be within the parameters of environmental concerns and should satisfy the principles of
sustainable development. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Sarang Yadhwakar and
others vs. The Commissioner30, held, "the principle of sustainable development takes

26
(2000) 10 SCC 664
27
(2008) 2 SCC 222
28
1996 (5) SCC 281
29
APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2011, NGT
30
APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2013,NGT

21
 within its ambit the application of the 'principle of proportionality' and the
'precautionary principle'. In other words, one must, while permitting development, not
only ensure that no substantial damage is caused to the environment but also take such
preventive measures, which would ensure no irretrievable damage to the environment
even in future on the premise on intergenerational equity".

Even though the Tribunal has time and again stoutly applied the doctrine of Sustainable
Development and valued the local population over economic benefits from a project,
the NGT has also passed judgments in favour of industries when the economic
development surpasses the environmental costs. The NGT in various cases has held in
favour of project/ industries where an industry/project has taken adequate preventive
steps, mitigatory measures and are armed with detailed Environment Management Plan
backed by scientific studies. In Sterlite Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board and ors,31 the NGT while giving certain directions held in
favour of the industry and stated, "The environmental restrictions must operate with all
their rigour but no action should be suspicion-based which itself is not well-founded.
Precautionary principle should be invoked when the reasonable scientific data suggests
that without taking appropriate preventive measures there is a plausible indication of
some environmental injury or health hazard."

The respondent in the present case after bringing certain regulations in January 2019
following things has done –
i) In October 2019 the government launched a huge ocean power project in Sabath
Island underwhich sea turbines was setup for the generation of powers32.
ii) In November2019 launched Emerald island project wherein the central government
declares two island namely Gala and Hatten island’s no development zone as 10
meters limit from HTL and bidding were invited for setting resort in the islands33.
iii) The government also sanctioned a huge bridge to connect the Tara island one of the
entry restricted island (due to its rare flora and fauna) which is closest to the mannar
island34.

31
APPEAL NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2013,NGT
32
Last para moot prop page 3.
33
Ibid
34
Ibid

22
According the cited above case and the stapes taken by government in order to
achieve sustainable development goal and to cope up with the problem which is
faced by island people like illegal migration, unstable neighbours, excessive
powercuts, backward communication it is necessary to develop this region. And
besides this Sindia is also the 2nd largest growing economy, and youngest nation
which require development at the large scale hence all the stapes taken by the
government is dire need in order to solve the problems of the people and also
introduction of resorts and other development work reindeer the revenue generation
as Hamantha has a huge potential of tourism.

23
III. WHETHER THE CRZ IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL
PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD.
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the CRZ is not
contrary to the native people’s right to livelihood. It serve for the larger interest of the
people. , if a person is deprived of such a right according to procedure established by
law which must be fair, just and reasonable and which is in the larger interest of people,
the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Art. 21 is unsustainable. Also,
here in this aforesaid matter there is no violation of article 19. Here in this present case
10 coastal village were taken up and given for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation means
35
process of returning to healthy and good way of life. From this we infer that those
tribal people are not refrained from the right to livelihood.

3.1. CRZ SERVE FOR THE LARGER INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE.

Art. 21 do not place an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty
and for that matter on right to livelihood. What Art. 21 insist is that such deprivation
ought to be according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and
reasonable. Therefore anyone who is deprived of the right to livelihood without a just
and fair procedure established by law can challenge such deprivation as being against
Art. 21 and get it declared void36

However, if a person is deprived of such a right according to procedure established by

law which must be fair, just and reasonable and which is in the larger interest of people,
the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Art. 21 is unsustainable. In, it
was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the land of a landowner was acquired
by state in accordance with the procedure laid down in the relevant law of acquisition
the right to livelihood of such a landowner even though adversely affected, his right to
livelihood is not violated.37

The Court opined that the state acquires land in exercise of its power of eminent domain
for a public purpose. The landowner is paid compensation in lieu of land, and therefore,
the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Art. 21 is unsustainable.

35
Moot proposition para no 16
36
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, 5th Ed. (2003), p. 1315
37
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1996 2 SSC 549

24
 In the Supreme Court held that right to life under Article 21 does protect livelihood but
added a rider that its deprivation cannot be extended too far or projected or stretched to
the avocation, business or trade injurious to public interest or has insidious effect on
public moral or public order. It was, therefore, held that regulation of video games or
prohibition of some video games of pure chance or mixed chance and skill are not
violative of Article 21 nor is the procedure unreasonable, unfair, or
unjust.38 Restoration especially by therapeutic means to an improved condition of
physical function.

3.2. NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19

Article 19(1) (e) provides the right to reside and settle in any part of the country; but
reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) can be imposed if it is in public interest39.
Public interest means a subject matter in which the rights of the public or section of
public is interested40 to the means of concern which is advantageous to people as
whole41. Therefore, the rights of the indigenous people to reside and settle in the forest
area is not an absolute right and can be restricted under Article 19(5) if it is in the public
interest.42 'Interest of general public' is a comprehensive expression intended to achieve
the socio- economic justice for people by the State.43

3.3. NO VIOLATION ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

In the present case, there has been no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. To
establish of the violation Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of
Article 14 and test of reasonableness under Article 19.44 Article 14 ensures fairness45
and guarantees against arbitrariness.46 It provides that every action of the government
must be informed by reasons and guided by public interest. 47 Article 19 provides that

38
M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 4564 SSC 1995
39
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of 2001
40
Kuttisankaran Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1965 Ker 161
41
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481
42
Court on its own motion v. Union of India, 2012 (12) SCALE 307; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC
1295; Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR1980 SC 898
43
See Id.
44
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.AIR 1978 SC597
45
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101; Mahesh Chandra v. Regional
Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn, AIR 1993 SC 935.
46
Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872; Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000
SC 3313
47
M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 Guj 160; LIC v. Consumer Education and Research
Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811

25
 a restriction can be characterized to be reasonable if it strikes a balance between the
fundamental right and restriction imposed thereon.48
Here in this present case 10 coastal village were taken up and given for rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation means process of returning to healthy and good way of life. 49From this
we infer that those tribal people are not refrained from the right to livelihood.
The onerous duty lies upon the State under the concept of 'sustainable development50
recognized as a fundamental right under Article 2133 to keep in mind the "principle of
proportionality"51 so as to ensure protection of environment on the one hand52 and to
undertake necessary development measures on the other hand53, since, the economic
development cannot be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology but the necessity to
preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other
developments54, which includes generation of revenue and public interest.

48
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689
49
Moot proposition para no 16
50
Brutland Commission Report, 1983; Principle 2 of Stockhom Conference,1973; Principle 1 of Rio
Declarartion,1992
51
Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 606; M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, [1997] 1 SCC 388
52
Court On Its Own Motion v. Union of India, 2012 (12) Scale 307
53
Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 606; Subhash Kumar v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC
420; M.C.Mehta v. Union Of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of India (2000) 10
SCC 664;
54
Banwaslseva Ashram v. State of U.P, AIR 1987 SC 374

26
IV. THAT THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UNION
OF SINDIA IS ULTRAVIRES OF THE PARENT LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION?
The notification of CRZ which was originally issued in the year 1991 under
Environment Protection Act 1986, and the current notification is not ultravires of the
parent law and the constitution. In The case leading case55, It was held that prima facie
the legality of any legiaslation cannot be questioned and it is the obligation on the
petitioner to disprove its legality or it is ultravirus to the parent law and the constitution.
Also, Discretion given to the Union of Sindia is not excessive.

4.1.NO VIOLATION OF ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT:

It is held in the case of Menka Gandhi vs. Union of India that to prove the violation of
article 21 it has to pass through the test of equality under article 14 and test of
reasonableness under article 19. The honorable Supreme Court, about restriction has
stated that it it can be considered if it strikes a balance between rights of individuals
and society.56

4.1.1. REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER ARTICLE 19 (2).

The Hon’ble Court may strike down any provision provided.57These provisions are
either unreasonable or they fall outside the scope of the reasonable restrictions as
provided in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, or does not enjoy any direct or
reasonable nexus to the object of the provision. Hence the direct nexus between the
object and the provisions is of security and economic development of the state. As
far as the sec
Fundamental rights are not absolute.58 Liberty has to be limited in order to be
effectively possessed.59 Article 19 (1) guarantees certain fundamental rights to the
citizens however the subsequent sub-clause provides for certain restrictions. These
restrictions are meant to prevent the expression of a thought which is intrinsically
dangerous to public interest60 and would not include anything else.61 Hence, they
are tested against the scale of reasonableness. The phrase "reasonable restriction"

55
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. SR Tendulakar, (1958) AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279
56
Dwarka Prasad vs. State of UP,( 1954)SCR803, Chitamanrao v. State of MP( 1952) SCR759
57
R.K. Garg v Union of India ,(1985) 1 S.C.C. 641; Union of India v Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd,
A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 724 .
58
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 996.
59
M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. and Ors, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 188.
60
Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector Of Excise, Govt. Of Tripura, 1973 1 S.C.R. 533.
61
Subramanian, supra note 2.

27
 connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment of the right
should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the
interests of the public.62Hence the fundamental rights are subject to the power of
the state to impose reasonable restrictions.63Hence the power enjoy by the union is
not of the arbitary nature as above mentioned it was done for the security purposes
and econmic development. Also right to life (Article 21) includes right to have a
standard and a quality life.64 The people of Hamnatha were deprived of basic
necessity like electricity, transportation, communications, etc.

4.1.2. TEST OF EQUALITY

The doctrine of equal protection does not prohibit a reasonable classification of
persons and objects. Having regard to the natural difference between them and the
circumstances in which they are placed with reference to the object of the
legislation. The law forbids unreasonable or arbitrary differentiation.65
As far as the test of equality is concerned it has been helds in Shyam Rao’s case66:
The court must be satisfied on two points. It must be satisfied (1) that the law in
fact discrimination, and (2) that such discrimination is not permissible on the
principles of a rational classification made for the purposes of the legislation." Both
the points must be urged in the petition, with necessary averments.67

4.2.THE DISCRETIONARY POWER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986:
As far as environment protection act, 1986 is concerned, It is relevant to mention that
the provisions of section 3 (Power of Central Government to take measures to protect
and improve environment.) is not of an obligatory nature or duty bound but the act
empowers the government to make rules with regards to environment environment
protection.68

62
Chintaman, supra note 20.
63
BASU D.D., COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Page 2101(Butterworths Wadhwa Lexis
Nexis) 8th Edition, Vol 2.
64
Francis Coralie v. union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1994 SC 1844.
65
DK Basu,Commentary on the Constitution of India (Vol. II), Page no. 234
66
Shamrao v. D.M., 1952 SCR 683(691); V.S. Rice and Oil Mills v. State of A.P., 1964 SC 1781:(1964) 7 SCR
456
67
Katra Education Society v. State of U.P. , AIR 1966 SC1307 (para. 14): (1966) 3SCR 328
68
Quoted in H. W. R. Wade, Administrative Law, op.cit., p. 171

28
 The environment protection here refers to a balance between sustainable development,
environment protection, economic development. The interaction between economic, social
and environment are enhanced and its coordination made more effective if their respective
goals are translated into quantitative terms within a defined time scale. What is needed is
to realize economic growth within the constraints of social and environmental
sustainability.69
The right to development is an inalienable human right.70 Before the basic requirements
such as the basic necessities of human life have been resolved, it is meaningless to talk
about environmental rights in isolation, especially for developing countries. The
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at the
United Nations Conference on Human Environment in 1972, recognizes that, "economic
and social development is essential for ensuring a favourable living and working
environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for the
improvement of the quality of life.”71 The Beijing Declaration of the Ministerial
Conference on Environment and Development in Developing Countries adopted by the
Ministerial Conference of Developing Countries on the Environment and Development in
1991 also points out that "in this connection, the right to development of the developing
countries must be fully recognized, and the adoption of measures for the protection of the
global environment should support their economic growth and development”72 and "the
developing countries have the sovereign right to use their own natural resources in keeping
with their developmental and environmental objectives and priorities."73

4.3.DISCRETION GIVEN TO THE UNION OF SINDIA IS NOT EXCESSIVE.

It is a recognized fact that today no administration can function without discretion.74
The judiciary has given recognition to the fact that the conferment of the discretionary
power nowhere transgresses the domain of rule of law.75 The repository is expected to
act as a trustee and exercises discretionary powers for the purposes to serve the interest
of the people.76 There is no denying the fact that discretion is always a rule free area

69
P. C. Jain, Administration Adjudication, op. cit., p. 16
70
Ibid.
71
Beijing Declaration of the Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Developing Countries,
1991, para. 3.
72
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972, principle 8.
73
Ibid.
74
K. L. Gupta v. The Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1968) 1 SCR 274 at 297
75
Chairman, JSsK State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmad Malik, (2000) 3 sec 59.
76
Journal of Indian Law Institute, 1990, Vol. XXXII, p. 7.

29
 where power is exercised by the administrative authorities on subjective satisfaction.77
It is observed that where there was no standard to guide discretion, the officer’s courts
say it was justified by the law which gave him discretion.78 It is submitted before the
hon’ble court that every discretionary power is not necessarily discriminatory violative
of the rule of law. Equality is not violated by mere conferment of discretionary power.
Discretionary powers must be exercised keeping in view the purpose for which it is
conferred and the objects sought to be achieved.
Here in this present case people as per the CRZ several developments took place. In
October 2019 the government launched a huge ocean power project in Sabath Island. It
has started because Since 2015, Power shortage is a major trouble and cause of
dissatisfaction of people. The govt. also sanctioned a huge bridge to connect the Tara
Island because its issue of national security and also it is highly uncertain. Thus it is
humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that discretionary power is used for public
benefit at large and to serve the nation.

4.4.DISCRETION IS FOR PROMOTION OF WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE AND

STATE.
A careful examination of the Constitution of India shows that the wise founding fathers
have intended to establish a welfare society securing a social order for the promotion
of the welfare of its people. Article 38 of the Constitution of India envisages that the
State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as
effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall
inform all the institutions of national life.79
The basic philosophy of article 14 is that for the good of the greater number, interest of
individuals or smaller groups should be subordinated and sacrificed to the extent
necessary is deeply embedded in constitution and form of the formulation of our
National Charter80. This aspect is evident from various provisions of the law of the
land.81

77
Mattajog v. H. C. Bhari, (1955) SCR 925 at 932.
78
State of Madras v. Shri Vanamamalai Math
79
Hauriou, La Jurisprudence Administrative De 1892, at 1929, 47 (1929), cited by Schwartz, op. cit., p. 113.
80
Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1335.
81
Rama Joes, Seeds of Modem Public Law in Ancient Indian Jurisprudence, (2000), p.3.

30
Here in this case discretionary power is used for the welfare of union territory. Many
developments have been brought up like Optic Fibre Connection Cable under Connect
Sindia Project to enhance speed of internet being the major project.

31
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the arguments advanced and authorities citied, the Respondents
humbly submit that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The PIL filed by save blue is not maintainable before the hon’ble supreme court.

2. The project under CRZ doesn’t affect environment endangering ecosystem.

3. The CRZ is not contrary to the native people’s right to livelihood.

4. The CRZ giving excessive discretion to the union of Sindia is not ultra vires to the parent
law and the constitution of Sindia.

AND

That the court may issue any other order as the court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondents shall be duty bound forever.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

32