TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………...…….….2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………..............................3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………...4

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………...…...…5

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………….6

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………….…7

PRAYER…………….…………………………………………………………………….….10

1
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Petitioner Jankalyan NGO

Respondent State of Kautilya

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

Art. Article

COI Constitution of Indus

UOI Union Of India

PIL Public Interest Litigation

2
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

• Constitution of Indus

CASES

• Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary (AIR 1993) SC 892

WEBSITES

• https://www.scconline.com
• www.indiacode.nic.in
• https://www.aironline.in/

3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The State of Kautilya and Reliable Industries Ltd., the respondents, submit that the High Court
of Kautilya does have jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indus to
hear the present petition.

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The State of Kautilya, grappling with severe water scarcity and the threat of drought,
has made a policy decision to construct several dams to accumulate rainwater. These
dams will provide a sustainable solution to the state’s water crisis by addressing the
growing needs for drinking water, agriculture, and industry, and will also help recharge
underground water levels.

2. One of the dams is planned in a district heavily affected by water shortages. Although
the project will impact ten villages, where agriculture is the primary livelihood, the state
argues that the dam is essential for the greater public good. The government awarded
the contract to Reliable Industries Ltd., which has received the
necessary environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The
clearance was granted on the basis that the project serves the larger public interest.

3. The State of Kautilya and Reliable Industries assert that the environmental
clearance was obtained lawfully, and the project is vital for ensuring long-term water
security in the region. They also argue that policy decisions, especially those related
to public interest, should not be interfered with by the courts unless there is a clear
violation of the law.

4. The respondents assert that the larger public benefit of the dam outweighs the concerns
raised by Jankalyan, an environmental NGO, and the affected agriculturists. They
contend that the dam will ultimately improve water availability and aid in the economic
development of the region, which justifies any temporary inconvenience caused by the
displacement of villagers.

5
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the present petition has been filed in public interest &; therefore, maintainable as a
Public Interest Litigation?

2. Whether the Writ Petition filed under art. 226 &; art. 227 of the Constitution of Indus is
Maintainable?

3. Whether the High Court of Kautilya can interfere in any policy decision taken by the State
of Kautilya?

4. Whether the displacement of the agriculturists from the area where the proposed dam is to
be constructed amounts to violations of Art. 21 of the Constitution of Indus?

6
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1 - Whether the present petition has been filed in public interest & therefore maintainable
as a Public Interest Litigation?

The petition filed by Jankalyan is concerned with environmental protection and to protect the
interest of the villagers who will be displaced due to the dam’s construction. However, there is
no concrete evidence or scientific data to substantiate the claim that the construction of the dam
will have an adverse impact on the environment. The environmental clearance granted to the
project demonstrates that all the necessary environmental guidelines have been adhered to by
the state.

The dam is crucial for addressing the acute water scarcity in the state, benefiting millions of
residents by providing water for drinking, agriculture, and industry.

The petitioners are attempting to represent a minority of people (the displaced agriculturists),
whereas the project is aimed at greater public welfare. Courts have previously held that projects
of public necessity should not be stalled by PILs that focus on localized issues without
considering the broader implications.

Hence, this petition is not a true PIL, as it serves narrow interests rather than benefiting the
general public, and is thus not maintainable.

In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary (AIR 1993) SC 892, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
held that, lexically, the term "PIL" refers to a legal action initiated in a court of law for the
enforcement of public/general interest when the public or a specific class of the public has
some interest (including a pecuniary interest) that affects their legal rights or liabilities. Only
clear, specific and non-speculative public injuries should be entertained as PILs.

Issue 2- Whether the Writ Petition filed under art. 226 & art. 227 of the Constitution of Indus
is Maintainable?

The writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indus is not maintainable
because, the decision to construct the dam, including the grant of environmental clearance, has
been taken after due process and is in compliance with all statutory laws.

Article 226 provides for writs in cases where there is a violation of fundamental rights, but no
such rights are being violated here. The displaced agriculturists are being provided with
compensation and rehabilitation, which negates the claim of deprivation of the right to
livelihood.

Article 227 is meant for supervisory jurisdiction, and does not apply to the current case where
the government has acted within its lawful administrative powers.

7
Additionally, the public interest nature of the dam project warrants deference to the executive
and legislative authorities. Judicial interference in matters that have been properly executed in
the public interest should be avoided.

In People’s Union for Civil Liberty v. Union of India (AIR 1997) SC 568, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that Article 226 petitions are maintainable only where the fundamental
rights are violated or there is manifest injustice; mere disagreement with a policy is not
grounds for judicial intervention.

Issue 3- Whether the High Court of Kautilya can interfere in any policy decision taken by the
State of Kautilya?

The Courts should exercise judicial restraint in interfering with policy decisions made by the
state, particularly those aimed at public welfare.

The construction of the dam is a legitimate policy decision made in response to the state’s water
crisis, which is a pressing issue affecting millions of people. The decision to construct the dam
is well within the powers of the executive.

Judicial interference in executive decisions is permissible only when the policy is arbitrary,
unconstitutional, or violates fundamental rights. In this case, the State of Kautilya has adhered
to legal processes, obtained environmental clearance, and taken steps for rehabilitation of the
displaced people, which makes this decision constitutionally sound.

Courts have previously held that policy decisions, especially those with environmental and
economic implications, are better left to the expertise of the executive branch unless there is
clear evidence of legal or constitutional violations.

In Balco Employees Union v. Union of India (AIR 2002) SC 350, the hon’ble Supreme Court
held that the state’s right to undertake industrial projects in the national interest, even when
such projects involved displacing certain communities, provided that proper rehabilitation
measures were in place. Similarly, the dam project in this case addresses a critical public need
for water security and includes adequate provisions for the rehabilitation of displaced villagers.

Issue 4 - Whether the displacement of the agriculturists from the area where the proposed dam
is to be constructed amounts to violations of Art. 21 of the Constitution of Indus?

8
The displacement of agriculturists due to the construction of the dam does not constitute a
violation of Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution of Indus.

Right to livelihood under Article 21 is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions
when it comes to larger public interest. The State has implemented a comprehensive
rehabilitation and compensation scheme to ensure that the displaced agriculturists are provided
alternative means of livelihood and resettlement.

The project is aimed at ensuring water security, which directly impacts the right to life of the
entire population of Kautilya. Thus, the greater public interest outweighs the temporary
inconvenience caused to a small group of displaced individuals.

The courts have previously recognized that development projects requiring displacement, when
accompanied by adequate compensation and resettlement plans, do not violate Article 21. The
State is fulfilling its obligation by balancing individual rights with public welfare.

In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs UOI (2000) 10 SCC 664, the case concerned the construction
of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River, which displaced a large number of people.
The petitioners challenged the dam project on environmental grounds and claimed it violated
their fundamental rights under Article 21. The judicial restraint should be exercised in policy
matters, especially in public welfare projects like dam construction. The court held that
development projects, if implemented with proper safeguards, should not be stalled by
individual grievances.

9
 PRAYER

WHEREOF IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGMENTS ADVANCED AND

1. Dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioners as it lacks merit and does not
demonstrate any violation of constitutional or legal provisions.
2. Hold that the policy decision taken by the State of Kautilya to construct the dam is in
the larger public interest, aimed at addressing the acute water scarcity and benefiting
the state's population, and that such policy decisions are beyond the scope of judicial
interference unless they are arbitrary or unconstitutional.
3. Declare that the environmental clearance granted to Reliable Industries Ltd. was issued
in accordance with the law and after due consideration of the environmental impact,
and does not infringe upon any rights of the petitioners.
4. Acknowledge that the displacement and rehabilitation of affected agriculturists will be
carried out in a manner consistent with the law, and that adequate compensation and
resettlement plans have been or will be implemented.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION OR RELIEF THAT THE HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

10