MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Roll no. 83

FACULTY OF LAW

MOOT ASSIGNMENT

SEM II

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UCCHAL PRADESH

NGO DREAMWORLD AND ORS...............................................PETITIONER

V.

INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. ......................................RESPONDENT

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ART. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HIGH COURT OF UCCHAL PRADESH

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

0
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ..............................................................................................2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................................3
I. List of Books… ........................................................................................................ 3
II. List of Articles… ..................................................................................................... 3
III. List of websites or online resources… .................................................................... 3
IV. List of Case Laws… ................................................................................................ 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION… .............................................................................. 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 6-7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES .............................................................................................. 8
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT PIL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE
HIGH COURT ?
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. CAN BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR NEGLIGENCE IN DISPOSAL PRACTICES AND
CROSSING THE PERMISSIBLE EMISSION LIMITS WHICH AS A RESULT
CAUSED AIR POLLUTION AND WATER POLLUTION ?
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH THE
POLLUTION CREATE BY IT , INFRINGE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
LOCAL RESIDENTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA ?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................... 10-11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED… ....................................................................................... 12-18

PRAYER… ...................................................................................................................... 19

1
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Expansion

SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
Art. Article

U/A Under Article

U/S Under Section
Hon'ble Honorable

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Stats. Statistics

Ors. Others
AIR All India Reporter
DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy
& And

Govt. Government
NGO Non-Governmental Organization

W.P Writ Petition

2
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

ACTS & STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act ,1974

3. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act ,1981

BOOKS REFERRED
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon, 8th edn. 2021).

2. JN Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central law agency, Allahabad, 59th edn. 2020).

3. Basu, D.D., Commentary on the Constitution of India (Lexis Nexis, Nagpur, 8th edn.2018)

4. H.M Seervai , Constitutional Law of India ,9th edition , vol. 1, 2, &3 , 2013

5. M.R Garg , V.K Bansal & N.S Tiwana , Environment Pollution & Protection ,2006

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. https://www.manupatrafast.com/

2. https://www.scconline.com/

3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/

4. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/

3
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

LISTS OF CASES

Appear on
Sr. No. Title Citation
page(s)
1 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 SC 965 11
2 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India 2006 (5) SCC 28 12
3 Almitra Patel v. Indore Municipal Corporation AIR ONLINE 12
1999 SC 415
4 Tarun Bharat Sangh V.Union of India 1993 SCR (3) 21 12
5 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath AIR ONLINE 12
1996 SC 711
6 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India 1996 (5) SCC 647 14
7 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of 1996 AIR 1446 14
India 1996 SCC (3) 212
8 M.C Mehta v. Union of India 1988 AIR 1115, 15
1988 SCR (2) 530
9 V. Lakshmipathy v. State of Karnataka 1991(2)KARLJ453 15
10 Ram Baj Singh V. Babulal AIR1982ALL285 15
11 Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of 1985 AIR SC 652 17
U.P
12 Virendar Gaur V . State of Haryana 1995 (2) SCC 577 18

4
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including
in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any
of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the scat of such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories.

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1),
without--(a)furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the
plea for such interim order; and(b)giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an
application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such
application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party,
the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on
which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished,
whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the
expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so
disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry
of the said next day, stand vacated.

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power
conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.

5
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Parties : a. Industrial Corporation Ltd , Respondent

b. Dream world (NGO) , Petitioner
2. Nirvana is a city offering a discovery of the beautiful era. Nirvana has a rich history,
reflected in its numerous monuments dotted in and around the city. The earliest citation for
Nirvana comes from the mythological era, where the epic Mahabharata refers to
Nirvana as ‘Aanandavana,’ meaning paradise in Sanskrit. ‘Navigator,’ the famous
secondcentury A.D. geographer, was the first person who referred to Nirvana with its
modern name. The Modern Nirvana was founded by 'Ruler Lodi,' leader of Lodi dynasty
in the 16th century. It was when 'Shah Jahar' descended the throne that Nirvana reached
the zenith of architectural beauty.
3. The city lies in the Western part of Uchhal Pradesh on the bank of River Yamunapur.
Though the wonderful allure of Rajasthan attracts people from around the world to Nirvana,
it is not a standalone attraction. The city offers a trail of fascinating tombs and mausoleums
to explore. Acclaimed for its lavish crafts like ‘Ratna Sankalp’ (gemstone pledge) work,
rugs, and leather goods, and the luscious 'Petha,' Nirvana equally caters well to shopaholics
and foodies.
4. Industrial Corporation Ltd. is a major industrial entity operating in the chemical
manufacturing sector. Founded in 1980, the corporation has established itself as a key
player in the chemical industry with a significant footprint in the national industrial
landscape. Known for its contributions to economic development, Industrial Corporation
Ltd. specializes in the production of chemicals and allied products and has, over the years,
demonstrated a commitment to technological innovation and corporate growth. The
corporation emphasizes adhering to regulatory standards, corporate social responsibility,
and sustainable business practices to balance industrial progress with environmental
stewardship.
5. Industrial Corporation Ltd. is alleged to have discharged unauthorized pollutants into
nearby water bodies, resulting in severe water contamination. This contamination is
reported to be adversely affecting aquatic ecosystems, endangering aquatic life, and

6
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

potentially impacting the availability of clean water for local communities. Local residents
claim that the water contamination has led to health issues and economic losses for those
dependent on water-related activities.
6. Industrial Corporation Ltd is implicated in exceeding permissible emission limits during
its manufacturing processes, contributing significantly to air pollution in the surrounding
areas. The emissions are reported to have negative consequences on air quality, raising
concerns about the health and well-being of residents in the vicinity. The affected
communities argue that the air pollution is causing respiratory problems, exacerbating pre-
existing health conditions, and impacting the overall quality of life.
7. Concerns have been raised regarding the Company’s compliance with environmental
regulations and standards. Local environmental agencies have issued warnings and notices
to the company, urging the corporation to rectify its practices and adhere to permissible
limits. The company on the other hand, contends that it is operating within the legal
framework and disputes the severity of the allegations.
8. In response to this Dreamworld, An NGO working on the protection and preservation of
Environment, have complied all the complaints received by the inhabitants of nearby areas,
and on Behalf have filed a Public Interest Litigation against the Industrial corporation
Limited for Violating Various Provisions of Environmental Law in the High Court of
Uchhal Pradesh
9. The case is Pending in the High Court of Ucchal Pradesh for Final Hearing.

7
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT PIL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HIGH COURT ?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER OR NOT THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. CAN BE HELD

ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR NEGLIGENCE IN DISPOSAL PRACTICES AND
CROSSING THE PERMISSIBLE EMISSION LIMITS
WHICH AS A RESULT CAUSED AIR POLLUTION AND WATER
POLLUTION ?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER OR NOT THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH

THE POLLUTION CREATED BY IT , INFRINGE THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDICA ?

8
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether or not the present PIL is maintainable before the High Court ?

The council on behalf of the petitioner humbly submits before the High Court that the present
petition has locus standi to entertain the public interest litigation under Art 226 1 of Indica
Constitution on the grounds that to have discharged unauthorized pollutants into nearby water
bodies, resulting in severe water contamination. This contamination is reported to be adversely
affecting aquatic ecosystems, endangering aquatic life, and potentially impacting the availability
of clean water for local communities. Local residents claim that the water contamination has led
to health issues and economic losses for those dependent on water-related activities.

2. Whether or not the industrial corporation ltd. can be held accountable for their
negligence in disposal practices and crossing the permissible emission limits which as
a result caused air pollution and water pollution ?

It is humbly submitted that the Industrial Corporation Ltd . should be held accountable for its
negligence in disposal practices and the environmental damage caused, including, crossing the
permissible emission limits storage which as a result caused air and water pollution.(1.) Defendant
was under a duty to take reasonable care to avoid the damages complained. (2. )There was breach
of this duty .(3.) The breach of duty caused the damage .(4.) Defendant has caused public nuisance
. Hence the company is absolutely liable for the environmental and public health damages caused.

3. Whether or not the industrial corporation ltd. through the pollution created by it ,
infringe the fundamental rights of local residents under the constitution of indica ?

It is humbly submitted that the Industrial Corporation Ltd. violates the fundamental rights of the
people living in the area as stated in Articles 21 2and 14, which address the right to equality and a

1
Article 226 (1) clearly states that every High Court shall have the powers throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercised jurisdiction to issue writ or orders to any person or authority.
2
Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a
procedure established by law.” Thus, article 21 secures two rights: 1) Right to life, and 2) Right to
personal liberty.

9
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

healthy environment. The corporation seriously contaminated the water by uninvitedly discharging
contaminants into adjacent bodies of water. According to reports, this contamination is having a
negative influence on aquatic ecosystems, putting aquatic life in danger, and possibly
compromising the accessibility of clean water for nearby towns. Locals assert that individuals who
depend on water-related activities have suffered financial losses and health problems as a result of
the water poisoning.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India reads as under: “The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

10
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether or not the present PIL is maintainable before the High Court ?

The council on behalf of the petitioner humbly submits before the High Court that the present
petition has locus standi to entertain the public interest litigation under Art. 226 of Indica
Constitution on the grounds that to have discharged unauthorized pollutants into nearby water
bodies, resulting in severe water contamination. This contamination is reported to be adversely
affecting aquatic ecosystems, endangering aquatic life, and potentially impacting the availability
of clean water for local communities. Local residents claim that the water contamination has led to
health issues and economic losses for those dependent on water-related activities.

1. Dreamworld, as an NGO dedicated to environmental protection, has the necessary locus standi to
represent the affected communities and raise concerns about environmental damage.
2. The pollution harms not just individual residents but has wider repercussions on the entire
community's health, livelihood, and well-being. This constitutes a matter of public interest.
3. While local agencies may have issued warnings, their effectiveness might be limited. Seeking
judicial intervention through PIL becomes crucial to ensure effective enforcement of
environmental laws.
4. The potential long-term consequences of water and air pollution on the environment and human
health justify immediate judicial intervention.
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ( Oleum gas leakage) (1987) 3: The case establishing locus standi
for environmental issues, allowing to represent public interest .The M.C. Mehta case is a landmark
judgment in India as it recognized the right to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental
right under the Constitution. The case also established the principle of strict liability, which means
that a person or organization can be held liable for harm caused even if they were not negligent.
This case paved the way for several other environmental PILs in India and emphasized the need
for environmental protection and conservation.

3
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SC 965

11
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

6. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2002)4: Reiterated the principle of locus
standi in environmental PILs where public interest is significantly impacted. The Hon’ble Supreme
court issued interim directions that all the on-going activities within any forest in any state
throughout the country, without the permission of the central government must be stopped forth
with. Running of saw mills including plywood mills within the forest was also stopped.
7. Almitra Patel v. Indore Municipal Corporation (2011)5: Upheld the maintainability of a PIL
regarding air pollution caused by stone crushers, acknowledging the wider public interest involved.
8. Vikrant Rai v. State of U.P. (2013)6: Highlighted the court's obligation to intervene in matters of
environmental degradation despite alternative remedies, emphasizing the gravity of the issue.
9. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1996)7: In this case the state government had granted riparian forest
land for lease for commercial purpose to a private company having a hotel located at the bank of
river Bias, which blocked the natural flow of river by blocking natural relief/spill channel of the
river. The court held that the state has committed breach of public trust. The Supreme Court issued
various directions including the cancelation of the lease in favour of the Hotel .It applied polluter
pay principle and thus directed that the Hotel shall pay compensation by way of cost for the
restitution of the environment and ecology of the area.

10. Tarun Bharat Sangh V. Union of India ( 1992) 8: The petitioner through a PIL brought to the
notice of the court that the state government of Rajasthan itself permitted the degradation of the
environment by authorizing mining operation in the area declared as “Reserve Forest”. The
supreme court issue directions that no mining operation of whatever nature shall be carried on
within protected area.

4
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2006 (5) SCC 28
5
Almitra Patel v. Indore Municipal Corporation, AIRONLINE 1999 SC 415
6
Vikrant Rai v. State Of U.P., CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34994 of 2019
7
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, AIRONLINE 1996 SC 711
8
Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India, 1993 SCR (3) 21

12
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 2: . Whether or not the industrial corporation ltd. can be held accountable for their
negligence in disposal practices and crossing the permissible emission limits which as a
result caused air pollution and water pollution ?

It is humbly submitted that the Industrial Corporation Ltd . should be held accountable for its
negligence in disposal practices and the environmental damage caused, including crossing the
permissible emission limits storage which as a result caused air and water pollution.(1.) Defendant
was under a duty to take reasonable care to avoid the damages complained. (2. )There was breach
of this duty .(3.) The breach of duty caused the damage .(4.) Defendant has caused public nuisance
. Hence the company is absolutely liable for the environmental and public health damages caused
.

1. If the company failed to adhere to proper disposal, storage, and emission standards, it could
be considered negligent and liable for the resulting environmental damage.
2. Depending on the specific laws in Uchhal Pradesh, the company might be held strictly liable
for environmental damage caused by its activities, regardless of negligence.
3. The evidence supporting the alleged violations, such as:
• Environmental data: Confirming water and air pollution exceeding permissible
levels.
• Witness testimonies: Corroborating the environmental damage and its impact.

4. Public Nuisance: The alleged pollution could constitute a public nuisance if it:
• Unreasonably interferes with public rights: Use and enjoyment of clean air and
water are fundamental rights.
• Substantially harms the public health: The pollution must have significant negative
impacts on the health of residents.
• Affects a significant number of people: The harm should not be limited to a few
individuals.
5. Article 51-A(g) in Constitution of India "to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures"

13
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

5. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)9: The court was dealing with
emissive damage caused by untreated effluent discharged by tanneries in Tamil Nadu .Not only
this, the company in under constitutional duty in Art 51-A(g), it is the duty of every citizen to
protect and preserve the natural environment .In this case court imposed strict liability on
industries using hazardous substances, causing environmental damage.

6. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 10:

• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, the petitioner, filed this case to stop and clean up
the pollution that multiple chemical industrial units in Rajasthan's Udaipur District's
Bichhri hamlet were causing. There, the respondents ran heavy industry facilities that
produced chemicals like single super phosphate, oleum (a concentrated form of sulfuric
acid), and the extremely hazardous "H" acid, whose production is prohibited in western
nations.
• Respondents seriously contaminated the environment by operating these plants without
permits. Untreated toxic waste water was allowed to seep into the ground, contaminating
underground water supplies and aquafiers. Additionally, the land grew contaminated and
unusable for farming. It was claimed that the pollution had caused illnesses in a number of
people living in the surrounding villages, some of whom had passed away.
• The damage they had caused by discharging highly toxic untreated waters into the
environment was indescribable. It had adversely affected nearby villagers, the soil and
water, and the environment in general.
• The court held that the Central Government should consider treating chemical industries
separately from other industries, and closely monitoring them to ensure they did not pollute
the environment. Establishing environmental courts was a good suggestion and would
ensure that environmental matters were given the constant and proper consideration they
deserved.

9
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996 (5) SCC 647
10
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212

14
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

7. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)11: Landmark case establishing polluter pays principle
and holding industries liable for air and water pollution exceeding permissible limits due to
noncompliance with regulations. Article 51(g) was enforced by the supreme court and authorities
were held liable for breach of this constitutional duty . Hence , legally ethically and morally , the
company was under a duty to take reasonable care to avoid damages complained of.

8.In IPC has a chapter on "Offences affecting the public health , safety , convenience "(Chapter
XIV ). Section 268 " public nuisance " as,

A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which
causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who
dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction,
danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

9.In the case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India (1988)12 : This case established that river ganga
pollution is a widespread public nuisance , requiring kanpur city to maintain water quality .

10. The Karnataka High Court in V. Lakshmipathy v. State of Karnataka 13 emphasized the
hazardous nature of air , water , land and noise nuisances and the industries cannot be permitted to
operate while causing air and noise pollution affecting the quality of the environment .

11. Ram Baj Singh V. Babulal (1982)14 : A person built a brick grinding machine in front of the
consulting chamber of a medical practitioner. The machine was generating lot dust and noise which
polluted the atmosphere and entered the consulting chamber of the medical practitioner and caused
physical in convenience to him and his patients.

11
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SC 965
12
M.C Mehta v. Union of India, 1988 AIR 1115, 1988 SCR (2) 530
13
V. Lakshmipathy v. State of Karnataka, 1991(2)KARLJ453
14
Ram Baj Singh V. Babulal, AIR1982ALL285

15
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

The Allahabad High court held that such thing amounts to private nuisance which can reasonably
be said to cause injury, discomfort or annoyance to a person.

12. The company held liable under Section 47 of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act , 1974 :-
(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the
time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the
conduct of, the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of
the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any
punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge
or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where, an offence under this Act has
been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent
or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary
or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly.

13. The company held liable under Section 22 of The Air ( Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act ,1981 :-
Persons carrying on industry, etc., not to allow emission of air pollutants in excess of the standard
laid down by State Board.

16
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 3: Whether or not the industrial corporation ltd. through the pollution created by it
, infringe the fundamental rights of local residents under the constitution of indica ?

Its is humbly submitted that the Industrial Corporation Ltd. violates the fundamental rights of the

people living in the area as stated in Articles 21 and 14, which address the right to equality and a

healthy environment. The corporation seriously contaminated the water by uninvitedly discharging

contaminants into adjacent bodies of water. According to reports, this contamination is having a

negative influence on aquatic ecosystems, putting aquatic life in danger, and possibly

compromising the accessibility of clean water for nearby towns. Locals assert that individuals who

depend on water-related activities have suffered financial losses and health problems as a result of

the water poisoning.

1. Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21 ):

• Direct Impact on Health: The pollution might cause respiratory illnesses, skin irritation,
and waterborne diseases, directly jeopardizing the right to life and well-being enshrined in
Article 21.
• Limited Access to Clean Water: Contaminated water restricts access to a basic necessity
for survival and hygiene, impacting personal liberty and dignity.
• Long-Term Consequences: Chronic health issues and reduced life expectancy due to the
pollution further strengthen the infringement claim.
• Vulnerable Populations: Children, pregnant women, and the elderly are often more
susceptible to the health impacts, highlighting the severity of the violation.

2. Right to Clean water access:

• Implicit right under Article 21 (Right to Life): Access to clean water is essential for life
and dignity.

17
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

3. Right to Equality (Article 14 ): The state shall not deny to any person right to equality before
the law or equal protection of the laws with in the territory of India. Unequal burden of
pollution on specific communities could violate equal treatment before the law.

• Unequal Distribution of Harm: If the pollution primarily impacts certain communities

based on factors like location, caste, or class, it could violate the principle of equal
treatment before the law guaranteed by Article 14.
• Discriminatory Practices: If the company engaged in practices that specifically target
certain communities for waste disposal or pollution exposure, it could constitute direct
discrimination.
• Disparate Impact: Even without targeting specific groups, if the pollution's consequences
adversely affect certain communities more than others, it could still violate the principle of
equality.

4.In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)15: This landmark case recognized the right
to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to a clean
and healthy environment. It established that causing air and water pollution violates this
fundamental rights.

5. In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2002) 16 : This case
highlighted the responsibility of the state to protect the environment and the fundamental rights of
citizens. It acknowledged the link between environmental degradation and violations of the right
to life, health, and livelihood.
6. In the cases of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P17 and Subhash
Kumar v. State of bihar , have established that the right to a pollution free environment is an
integral part of Article 21 . Hence it is most humbly submitted before this High Court that the
company should be held liable for negligence in overseeing and regulating the waste management
practices and should be accountable for the same.

15
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 AIR 1086
16
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1774
17
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P, 1985 AIR SC 652

18
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

7.Viendar Gaur V . State of Haryana (1994)18:In this case the court held that, Any activities
which cause environmental pollution should be regarded as amounting to violation of Art21
therefore hygiene environment is a integral part of right to healthy life and it would be impossible
to live with human dignity without a healthy environment. Hence Art21 guarantees fundamental
right to life–a life of dignity to be lived in a proper environment free from danger of disease and
infection. It is an established fact that there exists a close link between life and environment. Rights
to life would become meaningless if there is no healthy environment.

18
Virendra Gaur And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors 1995 (2) SCC 577 on 24 November, 1994

19
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed before the High Court, to find, adjudge and declare that –

• The PIL filed by the petitioner has locus standi before the High court.
• Issue an interim injunction against the activities of Industrial Corporation Ltd. from
engaging in any activities that cause air and water pollution exceeding permissible limits.
• Order Industrial Corporation Ltd. to implement specific measures to mitigate the existing
environmental damage and restore the environment to its pre-pollution state.
• Order Industrial Corporation Ltd. to pay compensation to the affected communities to
cover documented medical expenses, loss of livelihood, property damage, and other
quantifiable losses arising from the pollution.

And may pass any other order in favour of the petitioner which this High court may deem fit in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Roll No:- 83

Semester :- 2

Counsels for the petitioner

20