WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENTATION FORM
Writ Petition No- /2019(PIL)

A.V. AMARNATHAN Bangalore DISTRICT

# 1756, I ‘B’ MAIN, OO2 BETWEEN

GROUND FLOOR, A.V. AMARNATHAN
NARAYAN MANSION, ‘D’ BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560 010.
AND

State of Karnataka and others

SL. NO. Description Of Paper Presented Court Fee Affixed

On The Paper

1. On The Memo Writ Petition

3. Vakalath

4. On Certified Copies

5. On I.A. No. For

6. On Process Fee

7. On Copy Application

8.

9.

TOTAL

Number of Copies Furnished Other side served

Presented by

Advocate for Petitioner/

Appellant / Respondent Received Paper with

Court-fee lales as above
Advocate’s Clerk

Date:- 11/09/2019 Bangalore Receiving Clerk

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION No- /2019(GM- PIL)

BETWEEN:
A.V. AMARNATHAN,
ADVOCATE,
(party in person) … PETITIONER
AND:
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
And another. ... RESPONDENTS
INDEX

S. No. Document Page

01 SYNOPSIS

02 Memorandum of Writ Petition under article

226 of the constitution of India

03 Affidavit

04. Annexure- A- the copy of the online publicity

given by the 2nd Respondent

BANGALORE

DATE: 12/09/2019 PETITIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

WRIT PETITION No- /2019(GM- PIL)

BETWEEN:
A.V. AMARNATHAN,
ADVOCATE,
(party in person) … PETITIONER

AND:
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
AND ANOTHER. ... RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS

Sl. No. DATE DESCRIPTION

01 02/09/2019 The 2nd respondent started Bike rally

for its “ Cauvery Calling” Project.

02 08/09/2019 The 2nd respondent held a public

meeting at Bangalore wherein the

Chief minister of the state attended

and directed the Forest department to

provide 2 crores saplings to the 2nd

Respondent, who has given a public

call saying “Cavery calling”. The

second respondent is planting 253

crores trees and collection Rs 42/- per

tree from the general public to plant

trees on the public land is not correct

This collection of money from general

public is not correct and the same is

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

illegal. Hence this Public Interest

Litigation.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

. The petitioners submit that second respondent has given a public

call saying “Cavery calling” . The advertisement in the media given by the

2nd respondent is that the organization is planning to plant trees, across

the Cauvery river from the birth place Talacauvery to Thiruvarur. A

stretch of 639.1kms, the 2nd Respondent has started its Bike rally from

Talacauvery to Thiruvarur. The petitioner is closely watching the media

report both print and electronic. The petitioner submit that the respondent

is planning to plant 253 crores plants to save Cauvery River. The report

states that the 2nd respondent is collecting Rs. 42/- per tree planting from

the public. That means the 2nd Respondent is collecting a whooping sum

of Rs 253 X 42 in total of Rs, 10,626/- crores . This collection of money

from the public is very disturbing. Hence this Public Interest Litigation.

Bangalore PETITIONER

Date:- 12/09/2019 ( A.V. AMARNATHAN)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION No- /2019(GM- PIL)
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

BETWEEN:
A.V. AMARNATHAN,
ADVOCATE, (party in person)
S/o. T. K. KARUNAKARAN,
Aged 65 years,
#1756, 1ST ‘B’ MAIN,
KIRAN NARAYAN MANSION,
‘D’ BLOCK, II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 010. … PETITIONER

AND:

01. STATE OF KARNATAKA,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,
VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001.
(REP. BY IT'S CHIEF SECRETARY)

02. ISHA FOUNDATION,

Velliangiri Foothills,
Ishana vihar post
Coimbatore-641114,
India,
(Rep by its Guruji Jaggi Vasudev) ... RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The Petitioner respectfully submits as follows:-

1. The Petitioner craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court to file this

public interest litigation party in person.

2. The second respondent is a private organization headed by Guruji

Jaggi Vasudev. The said organization is into various activates

including yoga, teaching. The said originations has got several

volunteers Petitioner learnt that many students who either

discontinued their studies or stopped studying further, has joined

the 2nd Respondent organization. Many volunteers have left their

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

lucrative job and joined as volunteers of the 2nd Respondent

organization.

3. The petitioners submit that second respondent has given a public

call saying “Cavery calling” . The advertisement in the media given

by the 2nd respondent is that the organization is planning to plant

trees across the Cauvery river from the birth place Talacauvery to

Thiruvarur. A stretch of 639.1kms, the 2nd Respondent has started

its Bike rally from Talacauvery to Thiruvarur. The petitioner is

closely watching the media report both print and electronic. The

petitioner submit that the respondent is planning to plant 253 crores

plants to save Cauvery River. The report states that the 2nd

respondent is collecting Rs. 42/- per tree planting from the public.

That means the 2nd Respondent is collecting a whooping sum of Rs

253 X 42 in total of Rs, 10,626/- crores . This collection of money

from the public is very disturbing. A copy of the online publicity is

herewith produced and marked as Annexure-A.

4. The petitioner submits that the 2nd Respaondent is a private

organization . the said organization claims that they have studied

Cauvery River Basin, and has comeout with a project called Cauvery

Calling”. The 2nd respondent has organized a Bike Rally on

02/09/2019 form Bhagamandala Kodagu District. A function was

organized at Bangalore on 08/09/2019. The 2nd respondent is

calling the general public to contribute Rs 42 per tree. The 2nd

Respondent has plan to plant 253crores trees. The petitioner

submit that even Rs 1/- for 253 crores will amount to Rs, 253
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

crores. The said sum itself is a bigger amount. But the 2nd

Respondent collecting Rs 42/- Per plant that means Rs 10,626

crores. The petitioner submits that can such some be allowed to be

collected by a private organization to do a work on government

public land. The petitioner submits that the state cannot keep

quiet. Hence the Public Interest Litigation is filed.

5. The petitioner has not filed any other Writ or Case on the same

cause of action. The petitioner has no other alternative efficacies

remedy and hence this Writ Petition Under Article 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India.

GROUNDS

6. (a) The petitioner submit that in Karnataka a poor village lady by

name Salu Mara Thimmakka had planted many trees from the past

several decades, out of her own poor income. She did not collect any

money from general public.

(b) The petitioner submit that a person Jadav Payend, an

environmentalist has created a forest in Rajasthah where water was

not available.

7. The petitioner submit that Sri Sathya Sai Baba had taken up a

project to bring drinking water form Andra Pradesh to Chennai,

without claiming any money form General Public.

8. The petitioner submit that the Bangalore Advocates association had

conducted tree planting function many times without claiming any

money. Petitioner further submits that there are many organization

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

wherein general public participated in planting the trees without

collecting money from general public.

9. The petitioner submit that 2nd Respondent claims that it has

conducted studies regarding the Cauvery Basin. But the 2nd

Respondent ought have submitted the said report to the State. And

the state after deliberating the said studies should have given an

approval. But no such process is carried out. The petitioner submit

that no private organization can be permitted to carryout any work,

on the Government land, without there being a proper approval from

the state. The 2nd Respondent cannot carryout the said project on

the Government land. The state also has to study the project, and

look into the pros and cons of the said project to give approval for

such huge project.

10. The petitioner submit that the state can not permit a private

organization to collect funds for the project carried out on the

Government land. Hence the act of the 2nd Respondent is illegal

arbitrary, without any sanctions. The respondent are duty bound to

protect the interest of the general public.

11. The petitioner may be permitted to urge any other grounds at

the time of hearing.

GROUND FOR INTRIEM PRAYER

12. The Petitioner submits that the 2nd Respondent has started

collecting funds for its project. The petitioner submit that the 2 nd

respondent wants to plant 253 crores plant and collect Rs, 42/- per
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

each plant which amount is being collected form general Public for

the implements of the project by the 2nd Respondent on the

Government land. Hence the interim order as prayed for is very

essential.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the petitioner respectfully pray’s that this Hon'ble

Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in

the same nature directing the respondent to stop collecting Rs, 42/- per

tree for 253 crores plant fro

m the General Public.

(a) Direct the 1st respondent to look into the project of the 2nd Respondent

regarding the Cauvery Calling project of the 2nd Respondent, and take

appropriate steps.

(b) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit based on the

facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of equity and

justice.

INTERIM PRAYER

Pending disposal of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays that

this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent not to

collect any funds from the Public for the Cauvery calling project, in

the interest of equity and justice.

Bangalore PETITIONER
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Date: 11/09/2019 (A.V.AMARNATHAN)

Address for service

A.V.AMARNATHAN
#1756, 1st ‘B’ Main,
Kiran Narayan Mansion,
002, Ground Floor,
‘D’ Block, IInd Stage,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
Ph-9448376652

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION No- /2019 (GM-PIL)

BETWEEN:
A.V. AMARNATHAN,
ADVOCATE, (party in person) … PETITIONER
AND:
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
AND ANOTHER. ... RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

I, Sri A.V. AMARNATHAN, S/o. T. K. Karunakaran, Aged about 65

years, #1756, 1st ‘B’ Main, Kiran Narayan Mansion, 002, Ground Floor,
‘D’ Block, Ii Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 560 010, do hereby solemnly
affirm on oath and state as follows: -

1. I submit that I am the Petitioner in the above mentioned case and

well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. I submit that the averments stated in Para 1 to 12 of the
Accompanying petition are true to the best of my knowledge, belief
and faith.
3. I submit that the Annexure-A produce herewith is the photocopy.
4. I submit that this is my true name and signature and the contents
of this Affidavit is true to the best of my knowledge, belief and
faith.
IDENTIFIED BY ME

ADVOCATE DEPONENT

BANGALORE (SWORN TO BEFORE ME)

DATE:- 11/09/2019

No of Corrections:-