TEAM - G

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

___________________________________________________________________________

W.P (PIL).No:_________/2023

Public Interest Litigation field under Art.226

Of the Constitution of India,1950.
________________________________________________________________

Advocate Adil Shah …Petitioner

V.
Government of Goa …Respondent No.1

Khurana Rubber Industries Ltd. …Respondent No.2

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE BENCH OF HIGH COURT OF

BOMBAY AT GOA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ONBEHALF OF PETITIONERS

________________________________________________________________

I IIULER INTER-BATCH PRACTICE MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2023

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No CONTENTS Page No

1. THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5

I. TABLE OF CASES
II. BOOKS
III. DICTIONARIES
IV. STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
V. WEB SOURCES
VI. INTERNET ARTICLES

3. THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4. THE ISSUES PRESENTED 9

5. THE STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

6. THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

7. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11-15

8. THE PRAYER 16

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPLANATION

¶ Paragraph

Anr. Another

AIR All India Reports

Const. Constitution

Hon’ble Honourable

HC High Court

K.L.T Kerala Law Times

No. Number

Ors. Others

Pet Petitioner

PIL Public Interest Litigation

Res Respondent

S. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union of India

U.P Uttar Pradesh

V Versus

W.P Writ Petition

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASE

S.No CASES

1. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India

(1990)1 SCC 613

2. Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. UOI,

(1996) 3 SCC 212

3. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India

AIR 1978 SC 597

4. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India

AIR 1987 SC 1086

5. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

(2000) 10 SCC 664

6. P.C.Cherian Vs. State of Kerala.

1981 K.L.T. 113

7. Research Foundation For Science Technology National Resource Policy v.

Union of India and Anr
(2005) 10 SCC 510

7. Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar

AIR 1983 SC 1086

8. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P

AIR 1988 SC 2187

9. Subhash Kumar vs. State. of Bihar

(1991) 1 SCC 598

4
BOOKS:

 P Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India, (Lexis Nexis), 6th Edition, (2021)

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS:

 The Constitution of India, 1950

 Environment Protection Act, 1968

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

WEB SOURCES:
1.www.scconline.com
2.www.manupatra.com
3. www.lexisnexis.com

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is most humbly submitted that the Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Court High Court
of Bombay at Goa by through Public Interest Litigation, invoking this Court’s jurisdiction
under article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
___________________________________________________________________________
ART 226 READS AS UNDER:

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, prohibitions, quo warranto 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 seat 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 aid 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

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

DETAILS OF PARTIES:

1. Adil Shah: Hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner’. He is a resident of the same

neighbourhood where the factory is established. A practising advocate at the High Court
of Bombay at Goa as well as lower court in civil and family matters, has also
represented several public issues as a public interest lawyer.
2. The Government of Goa: Hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent no. 1’.
3. Khurana Rubber Industries Ltd: Hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent no.2’. The
company is a small-scale rubber factory located in Mangaddo , Goa.

BACKGROUND :

Mr. Sohan Khurana, an engineering graduate from IIT Goa graduated from the University in
2014. He worked as Sr Director Operations at Tinayan Industries (one of the leading Rubber
Industries in the State of Goa) and was earning a handsome salary of 1 crore per year. In the
eight years that he worked with Tinayan Industries, he learned a lot about rubber manufacturing
and hence decided to set up his own small-scale rubber factory in Mangaddo, Goa. He met with
a lot of investors for his factory and once he was satisfied that he had the required investment,
he registered his company as Khurana Rubber Industries Ltd. He procured the necessary
licences and clearances, the factory began its operation from October 7, 2022. The company
required an investment of around 4 crores and the owner pulled an investment of around 1.5
crores from other investors and invested majority of the capital on his own only. Prior to the
company starting its operations the residents of the Mangaddo area had raised objections to the
establishment of the factory due to reasons of Environmental Damage. They also approached
the State Pollution Control Board but their concerns were not entertained. So much to dislike
the nearby populace the company started its manufacturing of the rubber products.

7
FACTS :

1. The owner of a rubber goods factory, installed world-class equipment to prevent carbon
black from escaping into the atmosphere. The manufacturing of rubber goods involves
using carbon black and the production process requires mixing of the rubber with
carbon on a voluminous scale in the factory.
2. However, within six months of operation, residents of the locality noticed black soot
on their property, trees and clothing. They contacted the factory manager, Mr. Gyanesh,
on April 17, 2023 who had noticed that the soot had started settling outside and that the
carbon had begun escaping into the atmosphere. He assured the residents that the
company would take immediate action and informed the owner , who was overseas and
was visiting for a month. Since he would return on May 10, 2023, the manager was
given the duty to take care of the matter immediately and take all necessary actions to
prevent discomfort to the nearby residents.
3. The Manager contacted the manufacturer of the equipment about the problem and was
informed that the repairmen would visit the factory in two days. The problem had
worsened by then and residents were raising objections to the continuing work in the
factory. He met with residents on April 21st and informed them that the repairmen
would solve the problem in a day or two.
4. The repairmen visited the factory on April 22 and informed the manager that the
ventilation equipment was not designed to handle the excessive amounts of carbon
being released due to overproduction of the rubber goods. The viable solution was to
either replace the equipment for Rs.10 lakhs, or to clean the existing equipment, which
would require shutting down operations for at least a week and has to pay minimal
costs.
5. The company decided not to suspend operations as advised by repairmen to save the
Rs. 10 lakh cost since it had not yet sold its first batch of product. They decided to let
the repairmen clean up as much as they could in two days before resuming operations.
6. The repairman refused to carry out the repair-work. Much to the dismay of the residents,
the factory had not stopped its operations and the levels of soot were continuously
increasing. So, the residents ultimately decided to approach the High Court by filing a
Public Interest Litigation through the Petitioner that is Adv. Adil Shah
7. Hence the present case.

8
 ISSUES PRESENTED

The following questions are presented before the Hon’ble Court to adjudicate in the

present circumstances:

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED

TO COMMENCE OPERATIONS?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT DEPOSIT OF CARBON BLACK FROM THE FACTORY

HAS DIRECTLY AFFECTED THE LIFE AND NATURAL AVOCATIONS OF THE
PEOPLE IN THE LOCALITY RESULTING IN INJURY AND DISCOMFORT TO THE
PUBLIC AT LARGE?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION

FOR THE INJURY AND DISCOMFORT CAUSED BY DEPOSIT OF CARBON
BLACK?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO

COMMENCE OPERATIONS?
It is contended that, the company should not have been allowed to commence operations due
to the government's failure to assess the environmental impact of the factory before issuing
clearances and a license and to monitor the factory's operations to ensure compliance with
environmental regulations, as evidenced by the excessive amounts of carbon black released
into the atmosphere. The government's negligence has caused harm to Mangaddo residents,
exposure to significant levels of carbon black, and nuisance, as a result damaged their property
and reduced the value of their land. It is therefore submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the
government should be held accountable for its negligence and ordered to compensate the
residents for the damage to their property.

II. WHETHER DEPOSIT OF CARBON BLACK FROM THE FACTORY HAS

DIRECTLY AFFECTED THE LIFE AND NATURAL AVOCATIONS OF THE
PEOPLE IN THE LOCALITY RESULTING IN INJURY AND DISCOMFORT TO
THE PUBLIC AT LARGE?
It is contended that, the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental right of life in India,
as outlined in Articles 21of the Indian Constitution. The counsel for the Petitioner primarily
contended the application of articles 48A, 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, it is
most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the present circumstances violate the
right to clean and healthy environment embedded in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

III. WHETHER THE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE

INJURY AND DISCOMFORT CAUSED BY DEPOSIT OF CARBON BLACK OR
NOT?
It is contended that, the Polluter Pays Principle imposes liability for harm to the environment,
compensation for victims, and cost of restoring it. In the current circumstances, the company
is liable for non-compliance with the principle, as no preventive measures were taken to curb
pollution. It is therefore most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the Government
of Goa must be directed to take corrective measures to restore the environment.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO

COMMENCE OPERATIONS?
1.1. That the company should not have been allowed to commence operations.
1.1.1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the case of Subhash Kumar vs.
State. of Bihar1 (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 of the Constitution's right to
life, which includes the right to enjoy clean water and air for the purpose of a full enjoyment
of life, constitutes a basic right.
1.1.2. The Petitioner humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the government failed to
adequately assess the environmental impact of the factory before issuing clearances and a
licence. The residents of Mangaddo, where the factory is located, had raised objections to the
factory on environmental grounds, but their concerns were ignored 2. The contention proposed
is justified through the following arguments:
1.1.2.1 It is humbly submitted that the government has a duty to ensure that all development
projects are carried out in an environmentally friendly manner. This includes conducting
adequate environmental impact assessments and taking all necessary steps to mitigate any
negative impacts on the environment.
1.1.2.2. It is reverently submitted that in the present circumstances of the case, the government
failed to adequately assess the environmental impact of the factory before issuing clearances
and a licence. The government also ignored the concerns raised by the residents of Mangaddo3
1.1.2.3. It is respectfully submitted that there is a clear violation of the fundamental right of the
residents of Mangaddo to a healthy environment. The government's actions have also put the
lives and health of the residents of Mangaddo at risk.
1.1.2.4.It is humbly submitted that the Supreme Court of India has held that the right to a
healthy environment is a fundamental right enshrined under art. 21 of the Constitution of India,
1950. The Court has also held that the state has an obligation to create an environment where
people can live with dignity.

1
Subhash Kumar vs. State. of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 59
2
See the background presented in the statement of facts.
3
See the background presented in the statement of facts

11
1.1.2.5. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the case of Olga Tellis v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation4 (1985), the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes
the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. The Court also held that the state has a
duty to protect the environment.
1.1.3 It is most reverently submitted that the petitioner also contends that the government failed
to monitor the factory's operations to ensure that it was complying with environmental
regulations. Once the factory started operating, the government should have monitored its
emissions to ensure that they were within safe limits. However, the government failed to do so,
as evidenced by the fact that the factory was releasing excessive amounts of carbon black into
the atmosphere.
The government has a duty to ensure that all industries comply with environmental regulations,
and this includes monitoring their emissions. The Sighting Guidelines and Town Planning in
the State of Goa provide a framework for the development of industries in the state. The
guidelines require industries to comply with all environmental regulations, and they also
require the government to monitor the emissions of industries to ensure that they are within
safe limits.
1.1.4.The government's negligence has caused harm to the residents of Mangaddo. The
residents have been exposed to significant levels of carbon black.
1.1.5.The government's negligence has also caused nuisance to the residents of Mangaddo. The
soot from the factory has damaged their property and reduced the value of their land.
Article 300A of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to property. This right has been
interpreted by the Supreme Court of India to include the right to protect one's property from
damage.
The government's negligence has therefore violated the fundamental right of the residents of
Mangaddo to property. The government should be held accountable for its negligence and
should be ordered to compensate the residents of Mangaddo for the damage to their property.

4
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,1985 SCC (3) 545

12
II. WHETHER DEPOSIT OF CARBON BLACK FROM THE FACTORY HAS
DIRECTLY AFFECTED THE LIFE AND NATURAL AVOCATIONS OF THE
PEOPLE IN THE LOCALITY RESULTING IN INJURY AND DISCOMFORT TO
THE PUBLIC AT LARGE?

2.1 It is humbly submitted that the Right to a healthy environment is the core of the Right to
life. Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution take measures to protect the right
to a healthy environment.

2.1.1 It is most reverently submitted that, according to Article 48A:Protection and improvement
of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life The State shall endeavour to protect
and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country

2.1.2 It is further submitted that, Article 51-A (g) deals with Fundamental Duties of the citizens
states: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living
creatures.”

2.1.3 Thus, it is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, protection and
improvement of the natural environment is the duty of the State (Article 48-A) and every citizen
(Article 51- A (g)).

2.2.1 It is humbly submitted that, According to Article 21 of the constitution, “no person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
Article 21 has received liberal interpretation from time to time after the decision of the Supreme
Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India,5 (AIR 1978 SC 597). Right to healthy environment
is an important attribute of the right to live with human dignity. The right to live in a healthy
environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in the case of Rural
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P 6, AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly known as
Dehradun Quarrying Case). It is the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to
environment and ecological balance in which the Supreme Court directed to stop the excavation

5
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 597)
6
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P, AIR 1988 SC 2187

13
(illegal mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. And in the case of M.C. Mehta
vs. Union of India 7, AIR 1987 SC 1086 the Supreme Court treated the right to live in a
pollution free environment as a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of P.C.Cherian Vs. State of Kerala8 1981 K.L.T.
113 dealt with the similar issue of the carbon black and the court stated that:

“14.The further question is whether there is weight in the contention that carbon has no toxic
effect on human body and dissemination of carbon is not a public nuisance. It is sheer common
sense that if the atmosphere gets contaminated with carbon particles, visible or invisible there
is every risk that they would get themselves deposited on the bodies, and get into the respiratory
organs of the people residing in the neighbourhood. The evidence is that the particles get
deposited on the wearing apparel of the people and the walls of buildings not to mention the
other umpteen articles which may get affected by the deposit. This is therefore an outstanding
instance of air pollution which has become a menace to people in the industrial cities.
The term air pollution, according to the definition adopted by the W.H.O., is limited to the
situations in which the outdoor ambient atmosphere contains materials in concentrations
which are harmful to man and his environment. “Air pollution has been shown to increase the
incidences of emphysema, bronchitis, pneumonia and asthma. It is suspected of being an
ancillary cause of lung cancer and arteriosclerosis. Air pollution obscures vision, damages
buildings, destroys crops and alters weather”.

2.2.2 Therefore in the light of the above arguments it is most humbly submitted before this
Hon’ble Court that, in the present case the factory has directly affected the Life and Natural
Avocations of the people in the locality resulting in injury and discomfort to the public at large
and also violates the Right to Clean and Healthy Environment which is embedded in the Article
21 of the Constitution of India

7
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
8
P.C.Cherian Vs. State of Kerala,1981 K.L.T. 113

14
III. WHETHER THE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE
INJURY AND DISCOMFORT CAUSED BY DEPOSIT OF CARBON BLACK OR NOT?
3.1 It is most humbly submitted that, the Polluter Pays Principle9 imposes absolute liability for
harm caused to the environment, to compensate the victims of pollution and to pay the cost of
restoring the environment.10 The burden of maintaining the said balance lies on the unit which
has caused the pollution11

3.1.1 It is humbly submitted that polluter pays principle’ was for the first time applied and
defined in the 1996 case of Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India12. In this
case, Justice Dalveer Bhandari determined that reversing the imbalance caused to the ecology
is the part and parcel of the industrial process. Thus, the financial responsibility of taking
prevention and controlling measures for the pollution caused should rest upon the industry
which caused pollution. The financial burden cannot be shifted to the shoulders of the
government neither in preventing nor in correcting the dent

3.1.2 It is further submitted that in the cases of Research Foundation For Science Technology
National Resource Policy v. Union of India and Anr and Vellore Citizens13, Welfare Forum v.
Union of India and Ors14. The Judges interpreted that principles such as the precautionary principle,
the polluter pays principle form an intrinsic part of the laws of the environmental laws of India

3.2 Therefore it is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, in the instant
case, the Company is liable for non-compliance with the aforementioned principle; since no
preventive measures were taken by Company for curbing the pollution released from the unit
which effected the life and natural avocation of the people resulting in Injury and Discomfort
to the public at large and therefore must pay damages for the harm caused to the environment
as well as to people since it is their fundamental right to be compensated15. Also, the
Government of Goa must be directed to take corrective measures in order to restore the
environment.

9
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990)1 SCC 613
10
Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. UOI, (1996) 3 SCC 212
11
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India , (2000) 10 SCC 664
12
Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India, 1996 SCC (3) 212
13
Research Foundation For Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India and Anr,
(2005) 10 SCC 510
14
Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors, (1996) 5 SCC 647
15
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086

15
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Declare that the Government was negligent in issuing clearances and licences to the
Khurana Rubber Industries Ltd.
2. Direct the Government of Goa to take corrective measures in order to restore the
environment.
3. Order the Company to vacate the premises as it is located in a densely populated
residential area.
4. Order the Company to compensate the residents of Mangaddo for the grievances they
have suffered.

And any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case in
the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

AND FOR THIS THE PETITIONER SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

16