NAME - KANIKA

ROLL
4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022NO- 61
SECTION-B
SEMESTER-9TH
4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SLOUCHER

IN THE MATTER OF:

(INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 102 OF 2022)

(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 126 OF 2022)

(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF Indiana)

PSB FARMERS ASSOCIATION ………………………………………......PETITIONER

v.
STATE OF SLOUCHER…………………………………………………...RESPONDENT

THE TRUST FOR WILFLIFE CONSERVATION (TWC)……………(INTERVENOR )

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

1 | Pa g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PG. NO.
TABLE OF
S. NO.
CONTENTS

1.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4

2.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 6

3.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 12

4.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 13-14

5.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 15

6.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 16-17

7.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 18-43

7(A). ISSUE 1: SHOULD THE TWC BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE

IN THE WRIT PETITION?
1.1 That the TWC has locus standi in the present matter
18
1.2 That the intervention application be allowed under PIL

7(B). ISSUE 2: IS THE CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN’S DECISION

AMENABLE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW? IF YES, DOES THE
SAID DECISION SUFFER FROM PROCEDURAL OR
SUBSTANTIVE ULTRA VIRES?

2.1 That the wildlife wardens decision is amenable to judicial 24

review

2.2 Does the decision suffers from illegality

2.3 Does the decision suffers from irrationality

2 | Pa g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

7(C). ISSUE 3. IS THE HIGH COURT EMPOWERED TO PASS AN

INTERIM ORDER IN THE NATURE OF THE ONE PASSED BY
IT?
3.1 Interim order of the final nature can be passed at interlocutory
stage
32
3.2 Interim order passed by the high court is proportionate with
the article 21 of the Constitution of Indiana
3.3 High court has passed the order while keeping in mind the
sustainable development

7(D). ISSUE 4. WHAT ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION COULD

BE ADOPTED IN THE INSTANT CASE TO BALANCE THE
INTERESTS OF ALL PARTIES?
4.1 Extension of Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Park

4.2 Fencing around the agricultural farmlands

4.3 Alternative income source

4.4 Tranquilizing the animal 40

4.5 Formation of specialized Committees to ensure the protection

4.6 Cultivation of Kadwa Santra

4.7 Rehabilitation of villager of the state of Sloucher

4.8 Creating Awareness programs

8.
PRAYER 44

LISTOFABBREVIATIONS

S. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

1. ¶ Paragraph

2. @ At

3. & And

3 | Pa g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

4. A.I.R. All Indiana Reporter

5. Anr. Another

6. Art. Article

7. Assoc. Association

8. Bom. Bombay

9. Cl. Clause

10. Const. Constitution

11. Del. Delhi

12. Ed. Edition

13. F.R. Fundamental Right

14. Govt. Government

15. HC High Court

16. Ors. Others

17. Pg. Page

18. Pvt. Private

19. r/w Read with

20. Sec. Section

21. u/a Under Article

22. Ors. Others

23. Pg. Page

24. Pvt. Private

25. r/w Read with

26. Retd. Retired

27. S.C. Supreme Court

4 | Pa g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

28. S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

29. S.C.R. Supreme Court

Reporter
30. Sec. Section

31. u/a Under Article

32. U.P. Uttar Pradesh

33. u/s Under section

34. UOI Union of Indiana

35. v. Versus

36. Vol. Volume

37. W.P. Writ Petition

38. WPA Wildlife Protection Act

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES

1........1. A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills, (1994) 2 SCC 647 ........................20
2........A.P.Pollution Control Board v. M.V.Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812 ..........................................38
3........Abdul Majeed v. Hammad Ahmed, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12662.........................................33
4........Administrative Agency and Statutory Interpretation : A Comparative Analysis, 1.1 CALQ
(2013) 32.....................................................................................................................................30
5........Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722...................................................27
6........Andra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills AIR 1994 SC
2151............................................................................................................................................25
7........Anisminic case [(1967) 3 WLR 382 : (1967) 2 All ER 986..................................................30
8........Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B (2004) 3 SCC 349.....................................................24
9........Asif Hameed v. State of J&K , 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364........................................................32
10......Asstt. Excise Commr. v. Issac Peter, (1994) 4 SCC 104........................................................33
11......Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465...........................23
12......Banwaslseva Ashram v. State of U.P, AIR 1987 SC 374......................................................38

5 | Pa g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

13......Bhusawal Municipal Council v. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak (2015) 14 SCC 327...............31

14......Bombay Environmental Action Group v. A.R. Bharati, Deputy Conservator of Forest, 2003
SCC OnLine Bom 898...............................................................................................................39
15......Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1038.....20
16......Champsey Bhimji & Co. v. Jamna Flour Mills Co, (1914) 16 Bom LR 566: 28 IC 121.......33
17......Consumer Education And Research Centre And Others v. Union Of Indiana And Others, Air
1995 SC 922...............................................................................................................................37
18......Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1985 AC 374: (1984) B All
ER 935: (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL)............................................................................................33
19......Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 WLR 1174 :
(1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL)..........................................................................................................27
20......Court On Its Own Motion v. Union of Indiana, 2012 (12) Scale 307.....................................38
21......Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590...................................20
22......Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 697................................................................36
23......Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117.....................................33
24......Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273; 1998 SCC (L&S)
1802.............................................................................................................................................20
25......E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3.......................................................................28
26......Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of Indiana AIR 1981 SC 344................................19
27......Food Corpn. of India v. Jagannath Dutto, AIR 1993 SC 1494................................................33
28...... Forest Dwellers' Rights Under the Forest Laws: Recent Developments, 1 RMLNLUJ (2008)
78.................................................................................................................................................41
29......Francis Coralie v. Union Territory Of Delhi, Air 1994 SC 1844............................................37
30......Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546.................23
31......Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281..............................20
32......Hospitality Assn. of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment & Animals, (2020) 10 SCC
589...............................................................................................................................................31
33......Indianan Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of Indiana , (1996) 5 SCC 281.............37
34......Ira Munn v. State of Illinois, 94 US 113: 24 L (1876).............................................................33
35......Israil v. Shamser Rahman, ILR (1914) 41 Cal 436: 18 CWN 176..........................................33
36...... Ivory Traders & Manufacturers Association v. Union of Indiana, 1997 SCC OnLine Del
323..............................................................................................................................................39
37......Jammula Chhoudaraiah v. Union of Indiana 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 3599.........................19

6 | Pa g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

38......Jamshid K. Dalal v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 12725...........................35

39......Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, 1993 SC 892.........................................................................24
40......Judicial Enigma [Part I], 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 51…….......................……………..35
41......K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620……………………..........………….20
42......K.V. Sebastian v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2863………………..........……..34
43......Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI 1994 SCC (Cri) 873……………………………….............…..20
44......L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of Indiana, (1997) 3 SCC 261………...........................…….....26
45......LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, (1995) 5 SCC 482: AIR 1995 SC
1811…………………………………………………………………………………............…33
46......Lord Denning in Rex v. Greater London Council, Ex parte Blackburn, (1976) 3 All ER 184
(CA)…………………………………………………………………………………............…29
47......M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, [1997] 1 SCC 388…………………….......................................37
48......M. Kandaswami Chetty v. P. Subramania Chetty, ILR (1918) 41 Mad 208: 1917 MWN 501:
41 IC 384 ……………………………………………………………………………...........…33
49......M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 592…………………....…..31
50......Maneka Gandhi v. Union of Indiana, (1978) 1 SCC 248…………………......................…..27
51......Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. [(2005) 6 SCC 138]...33
52......Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of Indiana, (1980) 3 SCC 625………………………...............29
53......Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405……………............…..28
54......Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commr., Ulhasnagar Municipal Corpn., (2000) 5 SCC
287…………………………………………………………………………………..............…33
55......Naga United v. State of Nagaland, 2011 SCC OnLine Gau 121……………………........…41
56......Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 899……………………….....…41
57......Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of Indiana (2000) 10 SCC 664…………………........38
58......National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66…...….31
59......National High Speed Rail Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom
6701……………………………………………………………………………....................…39
60......National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises, (2003) 7 SCC 410 Tata Cellular
v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651…………………………………………..........................33
61......O' Reilly v. Mackman [(1983) 2 AC 237 : (1982) 3 WLR 1096 (HL) : (1982) 3 All ER
1124]…………………………………………………………………………………..........….30
62......Page v. Hull University Visitor [(1993) 1 All ER 97 (HL)] …...........................................…30
63......Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Devendrappa, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 9537…............…39

7 | Pa g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

64......Protection of Forest Environment v. Union of Indiana, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 2073….........40
65......Punjab State Coop. Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Balbir Kumar Walia, (2021) 8 SCC
784 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 461 at page 808…………………………………………..............30
66......R & M. Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group (2005) 3 SCC 91……….......…25
67......R. (Abbasi) v. Secy. of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Secy of State for
the Home Deptt., 2002 EWCA Civ 6-11-2002………………………………………...........…33
68......R. v. Deptt. of Constitutional Affairs [2006 All ER (D) 101]…………………….................33
69......R. v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt., ex p Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696 : (1991) 2 WLR 588
(HL)……………………………………….............................................................................…29
70......Racal, re [1981 AC 374 : (1980) 3 WLR 181 (HL) : (1980) 2 All ER
634]…………………………………………………………………………….....................…30
71......Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi v. State of A.P., 2022 SCC OnLine AP 490……...31
72......Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 7………….............…27
73......Ramjas Foundation v. Union of Indiana, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20………………...............…20
74......Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 492]………...........…33
75......Re Delhi Laws Case, 1951 SCC 568 : AIR 1951 SC 332……………………...................…30
76......Reepak Kansal v. Union of Indiana, (2018) 9 SCC 744………………………….......…...…20
77......Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India , (2006) 10 SCC 1…...33
78......Research Foundation For Science Technology And Natural Resource Policy v. Union Of
Indiana And Others, AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 852…………………………………………..........38
79. ....S.C. Chandra v. state of jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279…………..............................….........31
80......S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 734……………………........22
81......S.P. Gupta v. Union of Indiana, 1981 Supp SCC 87…………………..............................…20
82......Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. (1987) 2 SCC 295………………......................……24
83......Sandhi Mamad Kala v. State of Gujarat, (1973) 14 GLR 384………………...............……30
84......State of Gujarat v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust, (1994) 3 SCC 552…...……...…31
85......State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, (1985) 3 SCC 169, SCC 530: 1996
SCC (Cri) 1038……………………………………………………......................................…25
86......State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541…………...……20
87......State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481: 1994 SCC (L&S) 676: (1994) 27 ATC
116……………………………………………………………………………………..........…20
88......State of Tamil Nadu v. Kaypee Industrial Chemicals (P) Ltd., 2005 SCC OnLine Mad
252……………………………………………………………………………………........…..36

8 | Pa g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

89......Subhash Kumar v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420…………………………................…38

90......Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003 SCC OnLine P&H 806……………….............…25
91. ...Suresh Seth V. Municipal Corp Indore (2005) 13 SCC 287…………..............................….31
92......Suvidha Seva Sansthan v. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 3196……………....……30
93......T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of Indiana (2006) 5 SCC 28…………………...…21
94......T.N. Godavarmanthirumalpad v. Union Of Indiana And Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606….......…38
95......T.N. Godavarmanthirumulkpad v. Union Of Indiana, AIR 1997 SC 1228.............................38
96......Tata Cellular v. Union of Indiana, (1994) 6 SCC 651.............................................................30
97...... The Dusk of Wildlife and the Dawn of Conflict in India: A Legal Monograph, (2021)........11
GJLDP (October) 73...................................................................................................................43
98......Thirumalpad v. Union of Indiana and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 606..............................................38
99......Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union Of Indiana, (1996) 5 SCC 647............................37
100....W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39.....................30
101......WB SEB v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 451..............................................................33

S. JOURNAL ARTICLES
NO.
1. Forest Dwellers' Rights Under the Forest Laws: Recent Developments, 1
RMLNLUJ (2008) 78

2. Brutland Commission Report, 1983; Principle 2 of Stockhom

Conference,1973; Principle 1 of Rio Declarartion,1992.

3. Judicial Review of Administrative Proceedings, 1 JILI (1958-1959) 65

4. Judicial Review of Administrative Action, (2001) 6 SCC J-1

5. C.K. Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law 282 (4th Edn. 2010)

(hereinafter “Takwani”), para 93.

6. Judicial Enigma [Part I], 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 51

7. The Dusk of Wildlife and the Dawn of Conflict in Indiana: A Legal

Monograph, (2021) 11 GJLDP (October) 73

9 | Pa g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

8. (2009) 10 SCC J-23 Judicial Review: Supremacy of the Courts or of The

Constitution

S. NO. BOOKS
1. H M SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDICA (4th ed. Universal
Law Publishing Co. 2012)
2. DD BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDICA (16th ed.

LexisNexis 2021).
3. ARVIND P DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDICA, (2nd ed. LexisNexis 2010).

4. CHAUDHARY, LAW OF WRITS (1st ed., Law Publishers Pvt. Ltd

1956).
5. M.P. JAIN, INDICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,(6TH ed, LexisNexis 2018).

6. D.S. CHOPRA, INDICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ( 3rd ed, Thomson Reuters,

2020)
7. NARENDER KUMAR, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDICA, , FARIDABAD,
(ED. 8, ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY, 2012).

8. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN A CHANGING CLIMATE BY JEDEDIAH F.

BRODIE

9. WILDLIFE ECOLOGY, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ANTHONY

R.E. SINCLAIR GRAEME CAUGHLEY
,
10. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW SEVENTH EDITION BY DR S C SHASTRI

S. NO. ONLINE ARTICLES PG. NO.

1. Section 153A IPC - Deliberate & Malicious Intent Necessary; 'Disturb 23
Public Tranquility' Does Not Mean Normal Law & Order Issues:
Supreme Court, LIVELAW (Mar 4, 2022),
https://www.livelaw.in/topstories/153a-ipc- intent-public-tranquility-
supreme-court-166979

10 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

S. NO. STATUTES

S. NO. STATUTES

1. The Wildlife Protection Act 1972

2. The Constitution of Indiana, (Universal Law Publishing, 2021)

3. The Environment Protection Act 1986

4. The Indianan Forest Act 1927

5. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960

S. NO. DICTIONARIES
1. BRYAN. A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. West Thompson

2004).
2. DR. A. R. LAKSHMANA J, WHARTON’S LAW LEXICON (15th ed. Universal
Law

Publishing Co., 2011)

3. P. RAMANATHAIYER, THE LAW LEXICON (2nd ed. LexisNexis 2002)

4. SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (5th ed. Oxford University Press

2002).
5. THE CHAMBERS DICTIONARY (15th ed. Reprint Allied Chambers (Indica) Pvt
Ltd. 2011).

6. STROUD’S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY , VOLUME 4 (IV EDITION)

7. WEX (LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE), JUNE 2020

S. NO. ONLINE DATABASE

1. AIR Online (All Indican Reporter)

2. EBC

3. Jstor

4. Live law

5. Manupatra

11 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

6. SCC Online

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 102 OF 2022

The Petitioner has endorsed their pleading before this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 1 of the

Constitution. The present memorandum filed on behalf the petitioner submits to the jurisdiction of

this Hon’ble Court in the above-mentioned matter. It sets forth the facts and laws on which the

claims are based.

1 Article 226, Constitution of Indiana 1949

12 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

STATEMENTOF FACTS

BACKDROP

The State of Sloucher is located in the heart of an Island country of Yolatengo, which is a

conglomeration of 26 small and big islands, some of which are populated with humans while some

are uninhabited. Sloucher is the most biologically diverse state of Yolatengo, with a variety of

endemic species of flora and fauna supporting a rich ecosystem. Thousands of tourists flock to

Sloucher every year to visit its reputed National Parks and Sanctuaries. Agriculture and tourism are

the primary sources of employment for most of the population in Sloucher.

BANE TOAD

There are innumerable native species of animals in Sloucher that are interconnected through the

intricate food chain. However, the faunal biodiversity is gravely threatened. In the past, the

introduction of hostile and invasive species, such as the Bane Toad to control insect pests, has led to

extinction of some native species, giving rise to a cascading effect, which is now negatively

impacting several other species. The Bane Toad, being unpalatable, due to the presence of poison

secreting glands, has no natural predators on the island. Consequently, it continues to spread across

Sloucher and has even started affecting agricultural crops and wild plants.

HORSEHEADBOAR

The Horsehead Boar, a native wild mammal, is one of the species whose natural habitat has been

damaged. In its natural habitat, the boar performs a key role, both as the prime prey of the Sloucher

Leopard and as an efficient herbivore that keeps a check on the spread of a poisonous shrub named

the Kadwaa Santra. The Horsehead Boar was also part of Schedule II of the WPA, 1972.

EFFECT OF THE EXPANSION

13 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

The expansion of the PSB Village area meant that the Horsehead Boar started encountering humans

on a regular basis. While the boar is intrinsically timid and generally avoids human beings, its diet

started shifting steadily from native tubers and plants to the most commonly grown crop - Nice Dal

The boar’s depredation of Nice Dal caused a dent to the livelihood of the PSB Villagers. They

appealed desperately to the Chief Wildlife Warden of Sloucher to allow temporary hunting of the

boars, to safeguard their livelihood.

WILDLIFE WARDENS DECISION

Chief Wildlife Warden, after consideration, issued a circular inter alia stating the following: “After

consideration of the representations by the farmers in the PSB Village, and given the importance of

the Horsehead Boar to the local ecosystem, the office of the Chief WildlifeWarden has decided to

not take any action in the matter.”

HIGH COURTS DECISION

The High Court, after hearing both parties, was pleased to pass an interim order, stating as follows:

“I deem it appropriate to pass an interim order directing the Chief Wildlife Warden to permit the

petitioners to hunt Horsehead Boars in the areas where the PSB’s agricultural lands are situated, as

provided for in Section 11(1)(b) of the WPA 1972”

INTERVENTION APPLICATION BY TWC

Aggrieved by this interim direction, the Trust of Wildlife Conservation (“TWC”) filed an

intervention application in the PSB Farmer’s Association’s writ petition, seeking vacation of the

interim order. The TWC contended that it has locus in the instant matter in citizen standing, to

represent the interests of the affected wildlife.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

14 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

ISSUE 1
WHETHER OR NOT THE TWC BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN WRIT
PETITION OR NOT?

ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE DDECISION OF CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDN IS AMENABLE TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW? IF YES, DOES THE SAID DECISION SUFFER FROM
PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE ULTRA VIRES?

ISSUE 3
WHETHER HIGH COURT IS EMPOWERED TO PASS AN INTERIM ORDER IN THE
NATURE OF ONE PASSED BY?

ISSUE 4
ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION WHICH COULD BE ADOPTED IN THE
INSTANT CASE TO BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE PARTIES?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE TWC BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN WRIT

PETITION OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble high court that the TWC should not be allowed to

intervene as it has no locus standi in the current matter. The stance they have taken by them on the

current matter of public interest is nothing but a mere oblique consideration as the orders passed by

honble high court are well in interest of public to permit the killing of horsehead boars as this

mammal has encountered the humans on a regular basis besides the mammal feeds on the most

commonly grown crop “nice dal” creating further threat to human population by creating a

depredation in food quantity on nice dal crop which severely affects their requirements of food.

15 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

Thus TWC must not be allowed as its locus standi of public interest is deterrent neither it is an

directly aggrieved party to the case.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DDECISION OF CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDN IS AMENABLE

TO JUDICIAL REVIEW? IF YES, DOES THE SAID DECISION SUFFER FROM

PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE ULTRA VIRES?

It is humbly submitted that the decision of chief wildlife warden is amenable to judicial review.

As the decision passed by the chief wild life is against the principle of natural justice. Warden has

decided not to take any action in the appeal filed by the farmers. The court under article 13(3) has

the authority to review any decision which are illegal, irrational or suffers from any procedural

flaws. The current decision passed by the warden suffers from illegality and irrationality. As it is

violative of the article 21 and no justification was given by the warden while delivering the

decision.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER HIGH COURT IS EMPOWERED TO PASS AN INTERIM ORDER

IN THE NATURE OF ONE PASSED BY?

It is humbly submitted the hon’ble High Court of Sloucher that the high court is empowered to pass

an interim order in the nature of the one passed by as per Article 226 (3) of Constitution of Indiana,

which empowers high court to pass any order as it may deem fit for establishing equity, justice and

in the interest of public at large. In the present matter the high court has directed the chief wild

warden to permit hunting of Horsehead Boars as per section 11(1)(b) of Wildlife (Protection) Act,

1972, through an interim order. Such order is justified whether it of final nature as it has been

passed after hearing both sides and as per the urgency of the matter.

16 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

ISSUE 4: ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION WHICH COULD BE ADOPTED IN THE

INSTANT CASE TO BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE PARTIES?

It is humbly submitted that there is an immediate need to take action to maintain the ecological

balance in the state of sloucher. There are various alternative action which the court can take like

extension of wildlife sanctuaries and national park could be adopted as it will increase tourism in

the state which is primary source of income, various modes of keeping the horsehead boar away

from the agricultural land could be chosen like tranquilizing, or fencing around the farmlands.

Government must initiate various awareness programme to aware villagers about the other modes

of income.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE TWC BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN WRIT

PETITION OR NOT?

1. ¶ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble high court that the TWC should not be allowed to

intervene as it has no locus standi in the present matter. The intervention plea sought by them on

the pretext of citizen standing is a mere oblique and bogus consideration.

1.1 Whether TWC Has Locus Standi In The Present Matter ?

2. ¶ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble high court that the TWC must not be allowed as

they have no locas standi in the present matter.they do not fulfil the credentials of a boan fide

applicant and filed this application for its publicity and vexing the precious time of the court.

3. ¶ In the case of Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of Indiana 2 it was observed: “If a

citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern
2 Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of Indiana AIR 1981 SC 344

17 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court

will not be ajar for him.”

4. ¶ In Jammula Chhoudaraiah v. Union of Indiana3, it was held “Before proceeding on merits,

Court observed that if the person filing a PIL is found not to be a bona-fide pro bono litigant,

Court has to decline its judicial scrutiny at the behest of that person.”

5. ¶ In the case of Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary4 Para 109 it has been observed “Be that as it

may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is

mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public

action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the

threshold.”

6. ¶ In the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra 5it was observed “A

person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest

litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of

fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or

private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.”

7. ¶ It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the

proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the

tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a

person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.

8. ¶ These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI 6. “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.

3 Jammula Chhoudaraiah v. Union of Indiana 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 3599

18 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

4
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary 1993 SCC (Cr) 36; Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116: 1994 SCC
(Cri) 873; Ramjas Foundation v. Union of Indiana, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20; K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994) 6
SCC 620; State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481: 1994 SCC (L&S) 676: (1994) 27 ATC 116; A.P. State
Financial Corpn. v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills, (1994) 2 SCC 647: Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5
SCC 530: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1038: Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273; 1998 SCC (L&S)
1802; S.P. Gupta v. Union of Indiana, 1981 Supp SCC 87: State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College,
(1985) 3 SCC 169, SCC 530: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1038: Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC
273; 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802; S.P. Gupta v. Union of Indiana, 1981 Supp SCC 87: State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student
of Medical College, (1985) 3 SCC 169 State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541
Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281 Reepak Kansal v. Union of Indiana, (2018) 9
SCC 744
5
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590
6
Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI 1994 SCC (Cri) 873
9. ¶ In the case of T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of Indiana 4 “no trust can be placed

by the court on a malafide applicant in public interest litigation, these are the basic issues

which are required to be satisfied by every public interest litigation.”

10. ¶ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court it can be observed from the case that In the

present matter the intervention application filed by TWC on the pretext of public interest

litigation has no locus standi as the contention on which they have filed the matter referring to

the welfare of public interest is a mere false oblique consideration as the interim order passed

by the hon’ble high court in para no.11 of the moot proposition:

11. ¶ “The High Court, after hearing both parties, was pleased to pass an interim order, stating as

follows: “I deem it appropriate to pass an interim order directing the Chief Wildlife Warden to

permit the petitioners to hunt Horsehead Boars in the areas where the PSB’s agricultural lands

are situated, as provided for in Section 11(1)(b) of the WPA5 1972”6

12. ¶ It is humbly submitted that the interim order passed by the high court is considerably well in

the interest of public as the horsehead boar mammal is a threat to lives of people of the PSB

village who has started encountering humans on a regular basis. Even so its diet has steadily

shifted from native tubers and plants to the most commonly grown crop nice dal. Due to the

boars’ consumption of the nice dal crop it has led to reduction in the quantities of nice dal crop

4 T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of Indiana (2006) 5 SCC 28

5 Wildlife Protection Act 1972
6 GLC Moot Proposition

19 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

which is a commonly consumed crop by the villagers and thus has severely affected the food

requirements of the villagers. It has not only affected the food requirements besides the farmers

who used to grow such crops would have to face great economic losses. By not permitting the

hunting of the boar would lead to endangering the lives of the people of PSB villagers.

13. ¶ Furthermore The interests of the public lie in hunting of these boars in order to safeguard their

livelihoods. And thus in the present matter the stance of TWC regarding public interest is of a

vexatious nature that would harm the lives of people instead of helping them thus there is no

locus standi of TWC in the present matter as it must not be allowed to intervene in the interest

of public.

14. ¶ In S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda,7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 18, held as

follows: “It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a

waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in

areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic

sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing

publicity.

15. ¶ It is humbly submitted that TWC has no locus standi and thus the intervention must not be
allowed.

1.2 Whether The TWC Can Seek Intervention Under PIL?

16 ¶ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the TWC cannot seek intervention under

PIL as an application to be filed under PIL it needs to fulfil the credentials of PIL and serve

public interest which in the present matter it fails to occupy a citizen standing in public interest

thus its intervention application must not be allowed.

7 S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 734

20 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

17 ¶ It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression ‘public interest litigation’. In

Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary8 ‘Public Interest’ is defined thus: “Public Interest (1) a matter of

public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a

love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary

interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”

18 ¶ In Black's Law Dictionary9 “public interest” is defined as follows: “Public Interest

something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are

affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the

matters in question. Interest shared by national government….”

10
19 ¶ In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held “that in public interest litigation, the Court must ensure that there is an element of genuine

public interest is involved.”

20 ¶ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that in the instant matter TWC does serve any

public interest as the hunting orders of the boar are not permitted it would become a threat to

the human population as the boar has started encountering the human population in the areas of

PSB village.

21 ¶ The Boar has created a fear in minds of people as it has affects the livelihood of native

villagers. Earlier the Boar used to consume native tubers and plants but now the mammal has

steadily shifted its diet to the most commonly grown crop of the village “nice dal” which would

have a devastating impact on the food requirements of the villagers and even so the farmers

who used to grow such crops would have to face huge economic losses and further due to

shorter supply of the crop it would also impact the economy of the village and the neighbouring

states who would be deprived of the nice dal crop.

8 Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary , Volume 4 (IV Edition),

9 Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition),
10 Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465

21 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

22 ¶ The interim order passed by the hon’ble high court has been passed by the court in view of the

public interest and the interests of the public lie in hunting of these boars in order to safeguard

their livelihoods. And thus in the present matter the stance of TWC regarding public interest is

of a vexatious nature that would harm the lives of people instead of helping them thus the

petition must not be allowed to be intervened under public interest litigation.

23 ¶ In Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan11, reported in the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed as follows: “61. Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and

hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the

hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in

extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court

are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed

restraint on public interest litigants.”

24 ¶ In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B12. the court said: “Today public-spirited litigants

rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire

confidence in courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion.

25 ¶ In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B 13, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering few

decisions, on the aspect of public interest litigation, observed as follows: “4. When there is

material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage

to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. There must be real and genuine

public interests involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke

ones into for a probe.

26 ¶ It is humbly submitted In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary14 case “this Court considered the

scope of public interest litigation. In para 52 of the said judgment, after considering what is

11 Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546

12 Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. (1987) 2 SCC 295
13 Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B (2004) 3 SCC 349
14 Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary 1993 SCC (Cr) 36; K.R. Srivivas v. R.M. Premchand (1994) 6 SCC 620; State of
Maharasthra v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481

22 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

public interest, has laid down as follows: “The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action

including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of right or

seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression “PIL” means the legal action initiated in

a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a

class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or

liabilities are affected.”

27 ¶ “The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie

correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and

indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. 15

16
28 ¶ In State of Maharastra v. Prabhu it was held that “Courts must maintain the social

balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is

against the social interest and public good17.”

29 ¶ In State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla 18 it has been said “that

public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and

circumspection.”

30 ¶ In R & M. Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance 19 Group reported in, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 23 and observed as follows: “23. This sacrosanct jurisdiction of

Public Interest Litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and

not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity or for the purpose of

serving their private ends.”

20
31 ¶ In Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana it was observed “Merely because a writ petition is

stated to be filed in Public Interest Litigation is not to be taken by the courts on its face value.

15 Ibid
16 State of Maharastra v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481
17 Andra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills AIR 1994 SC 2151
18 State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla (1985) 3 SCC 169)
19 R & M. Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group (2005) 3 SCC 91,
20 Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003 SCC OnLine P&H 806

23 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

The Courts have to examine as to whether the petition has been bona fide presented to protect

any of the Fundamental Rights or to root out any particular menace in the society.”

32 ¶ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the dictum laid by the the apex court

specifies that the PIL filed for the sake of publicity an attempt to gather public attention or fame

must not be entertained by the courts. In the present matter the TWC has does not serve public

interest the petition of this vexatious nature has been only filed for the sake of publicity and

fame and court must be ajar to such applications and thus must not allow TWC to intervene in

the present case.

ISSUE 2: IS THE CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN’S DECISION AMENABLE TO

JUDICIAL REVIEW? IF YES DOES THE SAID DECISION SUFFER FROM
PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE ULTRA VIRES?

33 ¶ The Counsel for the Petitioner would like to humbly submit that the decision of chief wildlife

warden is amenable to judicial review. The high court has the authority to review the decisions

of the Chief wild warden as it against the public interest.

2.1 Does the high Court have the authority to Review the Chief Wild Life Wardens

decision ?

34. ¶ “Judicial review”21 refers to the court's inherent power to review the action of other branches

or levels of Government, and in particular, the court's power to invalidate legislative and

executive action as being unconstitutional.25

35. ¶ Under article 226 of Constitution of India22, court has extraordinary power of passing writ of

mandamus, certiorari or quo warranto, etc. by which it can direct any state authority to take

21 Article 13, Constitution of India, 1949

25
Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn.
22 Article 226. Constitution of India, 1949

24 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

action in public interest.23 Perhaps, equitable remedies like declaratory relief or injunction are

also within the scope of judicial review24 of administrative proceedings.25 Supervision of

administrative action can arise for pubic welfare, administrative efficiency and thirdly for

public interest and individual rights, in which the judiciary can interfere. 26 Judicial review is

available to the superior courts in respect of matters falling within the realm of public

law.27And the current matter comes under the preview of public law as the matter is of public

concern and ecological balance which is a social matter.

36. ¶ Judicial review of administrative action may relate to either a

non-

statutory administrative action or a statutory administrative action. In both these cases violation

of constitutional or any statutory provision will invalidate

the administrative decision.28

37. ¶ Judicial review of administrative action, observed Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service

Union v. Minister for the Civil Service,29:

“one can conveniently clarify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action

is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call ‘illegality’, the second

‘irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. That is not to say that further

development on a case-by-case basis may not in course of time add further grounds.” The

decision of chief wild life warden suffers from various ultra vires, which are illegality as well

as irrationality as per the Wednesbury’s rule.

23 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261

24 Article 13(3), Constitution of India, 1949
25 Article 226, Constitution of India
26 Judicial Review of Administrative Proceedings, 1 JILI (1958-1959) 65
27 “Judicial Review of Administrative Action”, (2001) 6 SCC J-1
28 Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722; E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3; Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
29 Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 WLR 1174 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL);
Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 7

25 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

2.2 Does the decision passed by Chief Wild Life Wardens decision suffers from illegality?

38. ¶ As stated by the court in Tata Cellular case30, that “duty of the court is to confine itself to the

question of illegality. Its concern should be whether a decision making authority has: (1)

exceeded its powers; (2) committed an error of law; (3) committed a breach of the rules of

natural justice; (4) reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached; (5)

bused its powers.”

39. ¶ The decision is against the principle of natural justice as it violative of the fundamental rights

of the villagers of sloucher. Villagers have right to life and right to livelihood which is included

in “to sustain life with dignity”. 31 Article 21 of Constitution of India states that “No person

shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by

law.”32 The decision is not only depriving the farmers from their earning and but the encounter

by Horsehead has made survival difficult.

40. ¶ It may be noted that every administrative decision must be supported by valid reasons. A

decision without reasons is vulnerable to be struck down as being without

application of mind and arbitrary. Reasons once given cannot be altered and/or supplemented.

Validity of the decision stands or falls by the reasons given at the time of passing the order.

This principle is laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill case33.

41. ¶ There was no reasoning giving by the Chief Wildlife Warden upon the decision given by him

as stated in the Moot Proposition Para no. 9.34 Decision given by chief wildlife warden is

infringing the principle of natural justice of the villagers of Sloucher which shows the illegality

of the decision. It has been clearly mentioned in section 11 of WPA, 1972 35 that if any animal

30 Tata Cellular, (1994) 6 SCC 651, 676 (hereinafter “Tata Cellular”); See also C.K. Takwani, Lectures on
Administrative Law 282 (4th Edn. 2010) (hereinafter “Takwani”), para 93.
31 Article 21, Constitution of India, 1949
32 Article 21, Constitution of India, 1949
33 Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405
34 GLC Moot Proposition
35 Section 11 of WPA, 1972

26 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

has become dangerous to human life or to property(includes standing crop) then the chief wild

life warden or the authorized officer may grant permission to hunt.

42. ¶ “I regard it as a matter of high constitutional principle that, if there is good ground for

supposing that a government department or a public authority is transgressing the law, or is

about to transgress it, in a way which offends or injures thousands of His Majesty's subjects,

then anyone of those offended or injured can draw it to the attention of the courts of law and

seek to have the law enforced, and the courts in their discretion can grant whatever remedy is

appropriate”36. The decision passed by the chief wild life warden is ultra vires as it is against

the basic human right, that is right to livelihood. Agriculture is the sole source of income to the

villagers in the state of sloucher and not permitting hunt in that area would be against the

principle of natural justice. The diet of the Horsehead has shifted from the poisonous shrub

Kadwa Santra to their agricultural crop Nice Dal which is a threat to the villagers life as well it

will disturb the whole ecological balance.37

43. ¶ For determining whether the authority has taken into account extraneous considerations or

not, the court may interpret a statutory provision to find what are the relevant considerations.

Its role through the power of judicial review has made it possible for us to evolve into the

motley, boisterous and outspoken democracy that we are—in contradistinction with the quiet,

controlled, quasi-authoritarian regimes that we see around us.38

44. ¶ In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India39, the court followed that

“The developments made in the field of constitutional interpretation and expansion of judicial

review shall have to be kept in view while deciding the applicability of the basic structure

36 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87; Lord Denning in Rex v. Greater London Council, Ex parte
Blackburn, (1976) 3 All ER 184 (CA)
37 Moot proposition para no. 7
38 (2009) 10 SCC J-23 Judicial Review: Supremacy of the Courts or of The Constitution
39 Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625

27 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

doctrine—to find out whether there has been violation of any fundamental right, the extent of

violation, does it destroy the balance or it maintains the reasonable balance.”

2.3 Does the decision passed by Chief Wild Life Wardens decision suffers from irrationality?

45. ¶ The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from circumstances to circumstances. In the case
of R. v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt.,40

“the court has Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to

control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the

decisionmaker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and

must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural

impropriety.”41

In the current case chief wildlife warden was unreasonable in giving the decision and the

passed decision was against the principle of nature justice.

46. ¶ The dictum given by the court in the case of W.B. Central School Service Commission v.

Abdul Halim42 was “The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or

orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for

enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect

of duty by public authorities.”

47. ¶ In that sense, the fact that several judgments assert that the administrative body has to act

‘judicially’ merely refers to the application of the principles of natural justice or passing a

reasoned order in its executive capacities. The question of the ambiguity of a statute is also

40 R. v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt., ex p Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696 : (1991) 2 WLR 588 (HL) Anisminic case
[(1967) 3 WLR 382 : (1967) 2 All ER 986] O' Reilly v. Mackman [(1983) 2 AC 237 : (1982) 3 WLR 1096 (HL) :
(1982) 3 All ER 1124] and Page v. Hull University Visitor [(1993) 1 All ER 97 (HL)] . Racal, re [1981 AC 374 : (1980)
3 WLR 181 (HL) : (1980) 2 All ER 634]
41 Punjab State Coop. Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Balbir Kumar Walia, (2021) 8 SCC 784 : 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 461 at page 808; Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651
42 W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39

28 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

focused on the determination of the powers granted. 43 It is therefore apparent that the question

is not dedicated to statutory interpretation by administrative bodies, as much as it is focused on

the extent to which any power can be delegated to such an institution in the first place. 44

48. ¶ In Suvidha Seva Sansthan v. State of M.P., 45 the court stated that, “The protection for

substantive legitimate expectation was based on Wednesbury unreasonableness. In sum, this

means that the judgment whether public interest overrides the substantive legitimate

expectation of individuals will be for the decision-maker who has made the change in the

policy and the courts will intervene in that decision only if they are satisfied that

the decision is irrational or perverse.”46

49. ¶ The doctrine of legitimate expectation has a meaning that the statements of policy decision or

intention of the Government in administering its affairs should be without any abuse or

discretion. The policy statement could not be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively for the

reason that unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is akin of violation of natural justice.47

50. ¶ The boar is encountering humans on a regular basis which should be looked upon as it

restricting the human’s right to life and violative of the fundamental right under Article 21 of

Constitution of India.48

51. ¶ In Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi v. State of A.P.,49 Sri. Shyam Divan, stated that,

on account of proposed shifting of capital, in view of statement of objects and reasons of A.P.

Act No. 11 of 2021, the petitioners not only lost their livelihood of agriculture on account of

43 Administrative Agency and Statutory Interpretation : A Comparative Analysis, 1.1 CALQ (2013) 32 at page 39
44 Sandhi Mamad Kala v. State of Gujarat, (1973) 14 GLR 384; Re Delhi Laws Case, 1951 SCC 568 : AIR 1951 SC
332
45 Suvidha Seva Sansthan v. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine NGT 3196; S.C. Chandra v. state of jharkhand (2007) 8
SCC 279; Suresh Seth V. Municipal Corp Indore (2005) 13 SCC 287
46 Ibid
47 M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 592; National Buildings Construction
Corporation v. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66.
48 Hospitality Assn. of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment & Animals, (2020) 10 SCC 589
49 Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi v. State of A.P., 2022 SCC OnLine AP 490
54
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1949

29 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

land pooling, but also lost hope in future to restore their livelihood on account of proposed

shifting of capital.“The specific plea in the petitions is that, the petitioners' right to their

agricultural land is not a mere right to property under Article 300-A 54 of the Constitution of

India, but also the source of their livelihood. It is settled law that the fundamental right of a

farmer to cultivate his land is a part of right to livelihood50.

52. ¶ In Asif Hameed v. State of J&K56, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364.] the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed that “Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of

power by the legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in

its fold the concept of social and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature

and executive is subject to judicial restrain”

53. ¶ In Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India 51, before

entertaining a writ petition and passing any interim orders in such petitions, the court must

carefully weigh conflicting public interests. Only when it comes to a conclusion that there is an

overwhelming public interest in entertaining the petition, the court should intervene.”

“It is not every wandering from the precise paths of best practice that lends fuel to a claim for

judicial review.”52

50 Bhusawal Municipal Council v. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak (2015) 14 SCC 327

56
Asif Hameed v. State of J&K , 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364.
51 Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India , (2006) 10 SCC 1 Raunaq International Ltd. v.
I.V.R. Construction Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 492] Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.
[(2005) 6 SCC 138]
52 R. v. Deptt. of Constitutional Affairs [2006 All ER (D) 101]

30 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

54. ¶ In LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd 5354, “judicial review can reappreciate the findings of facts

depends on the ground judicial review. Therefore, to a limited extent of scrutinising the

decision-making process, it is always open to the court to review the evaluation of facts by the

decision- maker.”

ISSUE 3: WHETHER HIGH COURT IS EMPOWERED TO PASS AN INTERIM ORDER

IN THE NATURE OF ONE PASSED BY?

55. ¶ It is humbly submitted the hon’ble High Court of Sloucher that the high court is empowered

to pass an interim order in the nature of the one passed by. As interim order passed under

Article 22655 of which the High Court has the power under its subclause (3) to grant such order.

3.1 Interim order of the final nature can be passed at interlocutory stage.

56. ¶ As per the Wex (Legal Information Institute) dictionary56, Interim orders is defined as

provisional or temporary orders by judges or administrative agencies. It is an order that is put

into effect pending a hearing, trial, final judgement, or an act by one of the parties. It is usually

an order used to maintain the status quo pending the final decision of the case, i.e. an order that

asks parties to continue or stop doing an act until the final decision in the case is reached. 57

57. ¶ As per the Black law dictionary58, Interim order has been defined as “A term that means

applies to a temporary edict from a court such as a temporary injunction.”59

53 LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd ., (1986) 1 SCC 264 Food Corpn. of India v. Jagannath Dutto, AIR 1993 SC 1494; State
of Gujarat v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust, (1994) 3 SCC 552; Asstt. Excise Commr. v. Issac Peter, (1994) 4
SCC 104: National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises, (2003) 7 SCC 410 Tata Cellular v. Union of
India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commr., Ulhasnagar Municipal Corpn., (2000) 5 SCC 287;
WB SEB v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 451; LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, (1995)
54 SCC 482: AIR 1995 SC 1811; Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1985 AC 374:
(1984)
B All ER 935: (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL); R. (Abbasi) v. Secy. of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and
Secy of State for the Home Deptt., 2002 EWCA Civ 6-11-2002; Ira Munn v. State of Illinois, 94 US 113: 24 L (1876)
55 Article 226, of the Constitution of Indiana, 1949
56 Wex (Legal Information Institute), June 2020
57 Ibid
58 Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed
59 Ibid.

31 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

58. ¶ It is humbly submit that according to section 226(3) 60 the high court is empowered to pass an

interim order as it has been passed by it in the present case. As the decision has been given

after hearing both the parties as mentioned in Moot Proposition Para No.1161.

59. ¶ It is well settled general proposition of law that mandatory order at the interlocutory stage

should not normally be granted which has the effect of granting the final relief. The law has

been laid down in catena of cases. However, there is no such rule of law that in all

circumstances such a relief at an interlocutory stage had to be refused. Needless to say that it

depend upon the fact and circumstances of the case to which the court may rely for granting

such a relief at interlocutory stage.62

60. ¶ As also held in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden,63

“That, the courts in Indiana have powers to grant relief of interim order under exceptional

circumstances keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases and also generally to

preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status.64

The court generally stated these guidelines:

i. The Plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a

Prima facie case that is normally required for a Prohibitory injunction.

ii. It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be

compensated in terms of money. iii. The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking

such relief.”65

61. ¶ As Horsehead Boars have started encountering human on regular basis which is endangering

the human life as well destroying the food crop grown by the villagers. Human have to suffer a

60 Article 226 (3) of the Indianan constitution, 1949

61 Moot Proposition Para No.11
62 Champsey Bhimji & Co. v. Jamna Flour Mills Co, (1914) 16 Bom LR 566: 28 IC 121; M. Kandaswami Chetty v. P.
Subramania Chetty, ILR (1918) 41 Mad 208: 1917 MWN 501: 41 IC 384; Israil v. Shamser Rahman, ILR (1914) 41
Cal 436: 18 CWN 176
63 Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117
64 Abdul Majeed v. Hammad Ahmed, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12662
65 Ibid

32 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

lot due to these animals which even can’t be compensated in terms of money. Entire village is

suffering from Horsehead, as they have to confine themselves in order to survive, due to their

regular encounter with this species.

62. ¶ In 2001, in a similar incidence as mentioned in Moot Proposition Para No 366, the

government has declared the animal Bane Toad as “vermin” as per Section 62 of Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 197267. Bane toad species has been invaded from the area by the timely

decision of government , balancing the interest of both human as well as ecosystem.68

Section 62 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 197269 states that —

63. ¶ Sec 62- Declaration of certain wild animals to be vermin.—5 [The Central Government]

may, by notification, declare any wild animal other than those specified in Schedule I and Part

II of Schedule II to be vermin for any area and for such period as may be specified therein and

so long as such notification is in force, such wild animal shall be deemed to have been

included in Schedule V.

64. ¶ Once declared vermin under this section, that particular species can be hunted or culled

without restrictions70. Bane Toad as mentioned in Moot Proposition Para No. 271 has started

affecting the agricultural crops and wild plants. To prevent further damage to the ecosystem

and human life, government gave the hunting orders. Same should also be followed in this case

and human life and ecosystem should be saved from a dangerous species of Horsehead Boar.

65. ¶ In the recent case of K.V. Sebastian v. State of Kerala,72 it has been held that

“Insofar as it is seen that the properties of the petitioners are under threat of the attack of the

wild boars and insofar as the stand of the State Government is that the steps taken under

Section 11(1)(b) of the Act to avert the said menace did not yield any result and that the only
66 Moot Proposition Para No 3
67 Section 62 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
68 Jamshid K. Dalal v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 12725
69 Section 62 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
70 State of Tamil Nadu v. Kaypee Industrial Chemicals (P) Ltd., 2005 SCC OnLine Mad 252
71 Moot Proposition Para No 2
72 K.V. Sebastian v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2863

33 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

alternative to protect the interests of the farmers is to declare wild boars as vermin in specified

areas in the State, I deem it appropriate to pass an interim order directing the Chief Wildlife

Warden to permit the petitioners to hunt wild boars in the areas where their agricultural lands

are situated, as provided for in Section 11(1)(b) of the Act. Ordered accordingly.”

66. ¶ As interim order has been passed in the above stated judgement directing the Chief Wildlife

Warden to permit the hunting of wild boars, which has been accepted and not been challenged.

Horsehead boar is a native wild animal and is endangering the life of the villagers living

nearby. Not only this, it is malevolent to the economy of the country as Horsehead Boar is

destroying the commonly grown Nice Dal which is the only source of living for few villagers.

In the kerela’s latest judgement73 also the court has granted the permission to hunt the animal

though passed an interim order of final nature at interlocutory stage. The circumstances of the

current case are such that an instant action is required otherwise would affect the whole

ecosystem. The step taken by the high court to curb the menace is the only way to protect the

interest of villagers as per section 11(1)(b) of the wildlife (Protection) Act, 197274.

67. ¶ According to this section the chief wild life warden can give permission to hunt the wild

animals which are dangerous for the human life and their property (including agricultural

crops). The Horseboard has been found encountering humans.

68. ¶ There has to be an irreparable injury which could be injured if no such action is taken by the

court as was also stated by the court,

“The word “irreparable injury” on the other hand guides the court to be satisfied that the

refusal to grant the injunction would result in such injury which cannot be compensated in

terms of costs or otherwise and the person seeking injunction needs to be protected from the

consequences of apprehended injury.

73 Ibid
74 11(1)(b) of the wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

34 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

The Supreme Court has been consistently holding that interim orders cannot be granted on

mere asking or as a matter of force, but only on consideration governing them (as explained

above). There has to be an active display of judicial conscience and mental thinking in the

process of passing of interim order in favour of any party.”75

And in the present case if no quick action is taken then it could lead to destruction of the

livelihood of the Villagers living in the state of Sloucher, consequences of which could be

exodus as they have to leave their home due to lack of food and regular encounter with

Horsehead boar which is a threat to their life.

69. ¶ It is humbly submitted that in numerous cases the high court has granted the relief of final

nature at interlocutory stages depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case as it rest

in the sound judicial discretion of the court.76

In the case of Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra,77 the supreme court held that -

“In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case — of a standard much higher

than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury

forcefully tilting the balance of the case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the

court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course,

such would be rare and exceptional cases. The court would grant such an interim relief only if

satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the

sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end

the court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice.”

70. ¶ It is humbly submitted that the circumstances of the present case are exceptional and in these

situations an interim order of final nature could be passed at an interlocutory stage. The interim

order passed by the court is justified because further delaying of not permitting to hunt the

Horsehead boar would be a threat to human species as already the boar is consuming the native
75 Judicial Enigma [Part I], 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 51
76 Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117
77 Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 697

35 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

crop nice dal leading to reduce in quantity to such crop which is the basic requirement of

villagers. Perhaps the boar has also encountered humans further creating a fear in their minds

thus making it difficult for them to survive in the area. Thus in the interim order passed by

hon’ble court is well within its powers and has been passed in accordance with the grievances

faced by the PSB villagers in the light of public interest.

3.2 Interim order passed by the high court is proportionate with the article 21 of the

Constitution of Indiana

71. ¶ It is a duty of the State to provide people with accommodation and basic standard of living

guaranteed under Article 2178 of the Constitution. Since, Article 2179 envisages a right to life

and personal liberty of a person, which not merely guarantees the right to continuance of a

person’s existence but a quality of life 80, and therefore, State is casted upon a duty to protect

the rights of the citizen in discharge of its constitutional obligation in the larger public

interest81, guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 2187 of the Constitution.

72. ¶ It was held by the Hon’ble High court of Karnatka in Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v.

Devendrappa82, that, “The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution

of India to the petitioners is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that, life cannot be

extinguished or taken away and an equally important facet of that right is right to livelihood,

because no person can live without the means of livelihood, that is, the means of livelihood.”

73. ¶ It is humble submitted from the court that the farmers are acting in bona fide need of

livelihood so they must not be deprived of their right to life and livelihood under Article 2183.

78 Article 21, Constitution of India, 1949

79 Ibid
80 Francis Coralie v. Union Territory Of Delhi, Air 1994 SC 1844; Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union Of
Indiana, (1996) 5 SCC 647; Principle 2 of Stockhom Conference,1973 , Principle 1 of Rio Declarartion,1992
81 Consumer Education And Research Centre And Others v. Union Of Indiana And Others , Air 1995 SC 922
87
Article 21, Constitution of India, 1949
82 Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Devendrappa, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 9537
83 Article 21, Constitution of Indiana 1949

36 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

3.3 High court has passed the order while keeping in mind the sustainable development

74. ¶ It is humbly submitted from the Hon’ble court that it is the onerous duty of the State under

the concept of 'sustainable development'84 recognized as a fundamental right under Article

2185to keep in mind the "principle of proportionality" 86 so as to ensure protection of

environment on the one hand93 and to undertake necessary development measures on the other

hand94, 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

developments95, which includes public interest.96

75. It is humbly submitted that the high court is not empowered to pass an interim order in the

nature of the one passed by as this order is of final nature which has been granted at an

interlocutory stage without final hearing of the judgement. The passed order is also violative of

the fundamental rights of the farmers which if passed would lead to grave miscarriage of

justice.

ISSUE 4: WHAT ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION COULD BE ADOPTED IN THE

INSTANT CASE TO BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF OF BOTH PARTIES?

76. ¶ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble High Court of Sloucher that the there is an

immediate need to adopt an alternative course of action to balance the situation. There are

following ways which the court may adopt in the mutual benefit to eliminate the grievances

faced by the parties.

84 Brutland Commission Report, 1983; Principle 2 of Stockhom Conference,1973; Principle 1 of Rio

Declarartion,1992.
85 Indianan Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of Indiana , (1996) 5 SCC 281; Vellore Citizens' Welfare
Forum v. Union of Indiana, (1996) 5 SCC 647
86 Thirumalpad v. Union of Indiana and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 606; M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, [1997] 1 SCC 388
93
Court On Its Own Motion v. Union of Indiana, 2012 (12) Scale 307

37 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

4.1 Extension of Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Park

77. ¶ Is is humbly submitted that the wildlife would remain protected if it is surrounded by

ecological substances. Horse head boar is prone to hunting as it is disturbing the PSB’s villager

94
Thirumalpad v. Union of Indiana and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 606; Subhash Kumar v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC
420; M.C.Mehta v. Union Of Indiana, AIR 1988 SC 1037; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of Indiana (2000) 10
SCC 664; A.P.Pollution Control Board v. M.V.Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812; T.N.Godavarmanthirumulkpad v. Union Of
Indiana, AIR 1997 SC 1228
95
Banwaslseva Ashram v. State of U.P, AIR 1987 SC 374; T.N. Godavarmanthirumalpad v. Union Of Indiana And Ors.,
(2002) 10 SCC 606
96
Research Foundation For Science Technology And Natural Resource Policy v. Union Of Indiana And Others, AIR
2007 SC (Supp) 852
and their agricultural crops so setting up of wildlife sanctuary or national park would be best

way to protect the species.

78. ¶ A wildlife sanctuary is an area which is made in order to ensure the protection of the species

and to provide them a natural habitat for surviving without any threats from hunting, poaching

etc. It would also help in tourism which is the one of most preferred work for the natives.87

79. ¶ National Park and Sanctuaries is the highest priority of Wildlife Conservation. Realizing the

need to protect the flora and fauna, the legal provisions of National Park and Sanctuaries are

proposed to be extended.88 It would help in the replenishment of the hunted number of the

specifies and would protect the villagers from the attack of the Sloucher Leopard as it would

return to its original food .

4.2 Fencing around the agricultural farmlands

80. ¶ When it comes to protecting the wildlife and the natural habitat of the species in addition to

protection of the crops fencing becomes the most viable option. Fencing stands for arranging

87 National High Speed Rail Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6701
88 Ivory Traders & Manufacturers Association v. Union of Indiana, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 323

38 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

metallic wires around the farm perimeter to protect from the intrusion of wild animals and any

third party from trespassing.89

81. ¶ This would certainly stop the Horse head boar into entering the farm lands and it would stop

the Sloucher Leopard from entering the village premises. Moreover, fencing would be better

alternative than hunting because it is certainly more viable to stop the animal which is entering

into the area than to hunt them which would certainly be inhuman.

4.3 Alternative income source

82. ¶ This is a major reason why the expansion of the villages started in the first place. The heavy

dependence on the agricultural sector makes it difficult for farmers to meet the ends and the

needs of its citizens. That’s why an alternative source of income or development of newer jobs

in the area of Sloucher is extremely necessary. Sloucher has dense forest area and the forest

items can be used for various other purposes. Various local shrubs and herbs can be used for

medical purposes and pharmaceutical industry can benefit from them .

4.4 Tranquilizing the animal

83. ¶ As considered in standard English, Tranquilizing means to pacify or to make someone stable

or unconscious. It can be done with any sort of drugs.

84. ¶ Tranquilizing appears as good solution to the problem of trespassing done by the Horse Head

boar because instead of opting for lethal ways or instead of killing the Horse head boar directly

in resorts to pacify the animal. If it becomes necessary for the animal control department or the

police department to thwart an animal then he can do so with tranquilizer gun or other drugs to

bring an animal at large under control. Any trapping by a governmental unit to capture animals

89 Bombay Environmental Action Group v. A.R. Bharati, Deputy Conservator of Forest, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 898

39 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

which are creating a public nuisance or for the protection of public or property is an better

option then hunting.90

4.5 Formation of specialized Committees to ensure the protection

85. ¶ It is humbly submitted that A proper committee can be set up by the government to ensure the

safety of the boar as it comes to the fact that the intrusion has to be stopped and the above

mentioned steps cannot be done properly without the check and balances of the government

itself. A committee or personnel can be set up by the government which with help of farmers

work in coordination to protect the environment. In their services farmers can be provided

incentives. This would create a sense of awareness in the minds of villagers which in turn

would make them realize the importance of the wildlife for ecosystem and instead of killing

other solutions could be sought for the same.

4.6 Cultivation of Kadwa Santra

86. ¶ The main problem that is been persistent with the intrusion of the species is that the

availability of the indigenous shrub Kadwa santra has been declined. Farmers can grow Kadwa

Santra away from the agricultural land. This would ensure that Horse head boar does not enter

in the village boundaries which would help in keeping the Leopard within the forest range as it

does not have to come to the residential areas in order to search for food.

90 Protection of Forest Environment v. Union of Indiana, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 2073; Jerryl Avinash Banait v. State
of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10059

40 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

4.7 Rehabilitation of villager of the state of Sloucher

87. ¶ The process of rehabilitation is certainly a costly affair but when it comes toward the fact of

protection of the animal without making any compromises with the ecological cycle of flora

and fauna, the livelihood of farmers rehabilitation holds its ground. 91 As the country of

Yolatengo is made up of 26 island countries and many of the islands remain uninhibited, so

resettlement of the villagers.102

4.8 Creating Awareness programs

88. ¶ The farmers are engaged in the traditional activity of farming for a long time and in order to

ensure their traditional work they led to the village expansion. There is a lack of awareness

regarding the ecological balance and the role of nature. These projects would create awareness

the minds of farmers and the control on expansion activities must not encroach the areas of

wildlife.

89. ¶ To strike a balance between protecting wild animals and the human populated areas, it is

necessary that all the stakeholders (governmental bodies, non-governmental organizations,

research organizations, villagers near protected areas, and others) should collectively work

towards mitigation of this conflict. 92

91 Bombay Environmental Action Group v. A.R. Bharati, Deputy Conservator of Forest, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 898 102
Forest Dwellers' Rights Under the Forest Laws: Recent Developments, 1 RMLNLUJ (2008) 78; Narinder Singh v.
Divesh Bhutani, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 899; Naga United v. State of Nagaland, 2011 SCC OnLine Gau 121
92 The Dusk of Wildlife and the Dawn of Conflict in India: A Legal Monograph, (2021) 11 GJLDP (October) 73

41 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4th Wildlife Protection GLC National Moot Court Competition, 2022

PRAYER

Wherefore, may it please the Hon’ble High Court, in the light of facts and circumstances of the
case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to adjudge, rule upon, and determine the following:

1) That TWC should not be allowed to intervene in the writ petition,

2) That the decision of the chief wild life warden is amenable to judicial review

3) That the high court is empowered to pass an order in the nature of the one passed by, and
hunting of horsehead boars should be granted

4) That the alternative proposed could be adopted in the interest of both the parties

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.

All of which is most respectfully prayed and humbly submitted.

(Signed) Place:

Date:

Counsel for the Petitioner

42 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS