Professional Documents
Culture Documents
th
7 HNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
IN THE MATTERS OF
STATE OF ADHALI AND STATE OF PARMALAPETITIONERS
v.
UNION OF ARESSIA.RESPONDENT
WITH
SAVE THE FARMERS FORUMPETITIONER
v.
UNION OF ARESSIA.RESPONDENT
WITH
FORUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHT.PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF ARESSIA....RESPONDENT
WITH
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS AND ADVOCACY...PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF ARESSIA....RESPONDENT
[I.A.1] Water is a state subject under List II of the Seventh Schedule .............................. 16
[II.A.4] Arbitrary power being vested in the Government through this Act ..................... 21
[II.B.1] Linking of Rivers will not allow Conservation in the true sense of the term ....... 22
[III.A.1] Unfair treatment meted out to the people of Vindhya and Normanda ................ 23
[III.A.3] No substantial proof of difference between Vindhya and other States ............... 23
[III.A.6] The people of Vindhya and Normanda had legitimate expectation from the
Central Government ........................................................................................................... 24
[III.A.7] Clear representation had been given by the Central Government ....................... 25
& And
Anr. Another
Ors. Others
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
V Versus
WP Writ Petition
Art Article
C Civil
Edn Edition
Para
Ker Kerela
All Allahabad
Kar Karnataka
Pat Patna
Bom Bombay
Cal Calcutta
Guj Gujrat
LEGISLATIONS
CASES
20. Louis De Raedt & Ors v Union of India & Ors., 1991 SCR (3) 149 ................................ 15
21. M C Mehta v Union of India(Delhi Stone Crushing Case) 1992 (3) SCC 256. ................. 5
22. M.P. Oil Extraction v State of M.P., AIR 1998 SC 145. .................................................. 11
23. Madras City Wine Merchants Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 5 SCC 509 .... 11
24. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597...................................................... 12
25. Nageswara v. Andhra Pradesh Transport Corpn., AIR 1959 SC 308 ............................... 3
26. Navnit Lal v. I.T.A.A. Commr., AIR 1965 SC 1375............................................................ 3
27. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp, AIR 1986 SC 180 ............................................... 7
28. Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689............................................................ 12
29. Osmania University v. R. Madhavi, AIR 1998 AP130 ..................................................... 10
30. Pentiah v. Veeramallappa, AIR 1961 SC 1107 .................................................................. 2
31. Power Measurement Ltd. v U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And Ors., 2003 (2) AWC 1642
........................................................................................................................................... 15
32. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)5 SCC 111 .......... 9
33. Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P. (2003)4 SCC ..................................... 2
34. S.S. Bala v. Sardana (1997)8 SCC 522 .............................................................................. 3
35. Satish Nambiar v Union of India, 2007 (5) Bom CR 247 ................................................ 15
36. Satwant Singh v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836 .................................................... 9
37. Shankaranarayana v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1571 ............................................... 3
38. Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322 ..................................................... 10
39. State of A.P. v. Mcdowell & Co. (1996)3 SCC 709 ............................................................ 2
40. State of Bombay v. United Motors, AIR 1951 SC 252. .................................................... 13
41. State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty AIR 1987 SC 331 ...................................................... 12
42. State of V.P. v. Moradhwaj, AIR 1960 SC 796 .................................................................. 3
43. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811 15
44. Stelmakh Leonid Iuliia v Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, WP 1648 of 2010
(Bombay High Court). ...................................................................................................... 15
45. Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420, .......................................................... 5
46. Sundararamier v. State of A.P., AIR 1958 SC 468 ............................................................ 2
47. Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021 ............................................. 12
48. Syndicate v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 460 ................................................................ 12
49. T. Damodar Rao v The Special Officer Municiapl Corporation of Hyderabad AIR 1987
AP 171 ................................................................................................................................ 5
50. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 4256.. 7
51. Union of India v. R. Sarangapani, AIR 2000 SC 2163 ...................................................... 9
52. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715 ............................. 6
53. Virender Gaur v State of Haryana 1995 (2) SCC 577........................................................ 5
BOOKS REFERRED
1. Shyam Divan, Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India, Second
Edition 2004, Oxford...6
2. D.D. Basu, Case Book on Indian Constitutional Law, Second Edition 2007, Kamal Law
House, Kolkata.3
3. M. P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Fifth Edition 2008, Wadhwa and Co., Nagpur...4
4. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India Volume 1,2,3, Fourth Edition 2002, Universal,
New Delhi..10
The Appellants herein are the State of Adhali, the State of Parmala, Save The Farmers, the
Forum for Environmental Right and the Centre for Environmental Rights and Advocacy. Under
Article 131 (a) of the Constitution of Aressia, 1950, this Honble Court has been vested with
original jurisdiction as regards any dispute between the Government of Aressia and one or more
states. Further, under Article 32 of the Constitution, a party is permitted to move this Honble
Court by way of appropriate proceedings for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Also, under
Article 133 of the Constitution, the Honble Court has been vested with Appellate Jurisdiction as
regards appeals arising from High Courts with respect to civil matters. Section 22 of The
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, a statutory right of appeal within ninety days is given to any
person aggrieved by any order, award or decision of the National Green Tribunal.
Section 3 of The Linking of Rivers Act, 2010, enacted by the Central Government in August 2010,
gave the Central Government the power to take measures for ensuring availability of water and
linking of rivers. Section 3 (3) provides for the constitution of an authority to take necessary steps for
the linking of rivers. The
Central Government constituted an Authority for Linking of Rivers (ALR) on September 28, 2010.
Some State Governments expressed concerns regarding submergence of land and forest,
intrusion of saline water in coastal area, decrease in fisheries and sharing of water between the
states and neighboring countries. Some NGOs saw political motivation and a possibility of
corruption creeping in the implementation of the project and this compelled the Central
Government not to implement the Linking of River Project immediately.
ISSUE 1:
ISSUE 2:
ISSUE 3:
ISSUE 4:
[I] Whether Section 3 of the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 is ultra vires to the Constitution of
Aressia.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that Section 3 of the Linking of Rivers Act is
ultra vires to the Constitution of Aressia, as there has been an encroachment upon the powers of
state by the Centre. The Central Government has passed a legislation whose provisions go
against the federal nature of the Constitution.
[II] Whether the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 violates the environmental rights of citizens of
Aressia and the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that there has been violation of the environmental
rights as the interlinking of rivers would cause irreversible environmental damage which would
violate the fundamental rights, which have been extended to include environmental rights. It also goes
against the basic motive of Forest (Conservation) Act, as there would be destruction of forest land due
to this move.
[III] Whether, the exclusion and non-implementation of Linking of River Project for the
State of Vindhya is violative of fundamental rights of people of State of Vindhya and State
of Normanda.
It is humbly submitted before the Court that exclusion of State of Vindhya does violate Article 14 and
Article 21, as the government has not substantial proof of difference between Vindhya and the other
states of Aressia due to which the exclusion of Vindhya is done, and there is no reasonableness in tis
action. The government has been arbitrary in its action of excluding Vindhya from the process of
interlinking and has not given a legislative backing to this exclusion.
[IV] Whether the Petition filed by Forum for Environmental Right (FER) is maintainable
before the High Court of Neruda.
It is humbly submitted before the Court that the Petition is maintainable before the High Court as
there is an obligation on the Government of Aressia, as per the provisions of the Constitution of
Aressia and opinion of courts laid down in previous cases to ensure that the Fundamental Rights of
the citizens of Boressia are not violated.
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Supreme Court of Aressia that Section 3 of The
Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 is ultra vires to the Constitution of Aressia1 as there has been an
encroachment upon the power of the States by the Centre [I.A]. It also goes against the federal
nature of the Constitution of Aressia [I.B].
1
Constitution of Aressia is pari materia to the Constitution of India.
2
Entry 56, List I, Schedule VII, The Constitution of Aressia, 1950.
3
Entry 17, List II, Schedule VII, The Constitution of Aressia, 1950.
4
6, Moot Proposition.
5
9, Moot Proposition.
can make laws for the State or any part thereof. Thus, the Central Government of Aressia has no
power whatsoever to take decisions regarding the linking of these rivers. The constitutional
validity of an act can be challenged only on two grounds viz., (i) lack of legislative competence;
and (ii) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in part III of the Constitution or of
any other constitutional provisions.6 It is respectfully brought to the notice of the court that the
Central Government of Aressia does not have competence to legislate regarding the rivers
included in the first phase of Linking of River Project, as water is a state subject and thus, the
initiative and responsibility for development of inter-state rivers and river valleys must primarily
rest on State Governments. Moreover, Section 3 of the act also violates provisions contained in
the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of Aressia by stating that measures can be taken by the
Central Government in relation to water and linking of rivers.
6
Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P. (2003)4 SCC 104; State of A.P. v. Mcdowell & Co. (1996)3 SCC
709
7
Fatehchand v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1855.
8
Sundararamier v. State of A.P., AIR 1958 SC 468.
9
Abdul Quader v. S.T.O., AIR 1964 SC 922.
10
Pentiah v. Veeramallappa, AIR 1961 SC 1107.
11
Navnit Lal v. I.T.A.A. Commr., AIR 1965 SC 1375.
12
Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564; D.D. BASU, CASE BOOK ON INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 413
(2003).
13
S.S. Bala v. Sardana (1997)8 SCC 522; K.C.G. Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1953 SC 375.
14
Id.,at 9.
15
Nageswara v. Andhra Pradesh Transport Corpn., AIR 1959 SC 308; State of V.P. v. Moradhwaj, AIR 1960 SC
796; Board of Trustees v. Union College, AIR 1962 SC 458; Shankaranarayana v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC
1571.
16
Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1295.
17
Joshi v. Ajit Mills, AIR 1973 SC 2279.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court of Aressia that the provisions of
Linking of Rivers Act are violative of the Environmental Rights of people [II.A] and the
provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980[II.B].
18
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 19-20 (2008).
19
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.,AIR 1973 SC 1461.
20
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420, 424; M C Mehta v Union of India(Delhi Stone Crushing Case)
1992 (3) SCC 256.; Virender Gaur v State of Haryana 1995 (2) SCC 577..
21
Indian council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (CRZ Notification Case) 1996 (5) SCC 281.
22
T. Damodar Rao v The Special Officer Municiapl Corporation of Hyderabad AIR 1987 AP 171, 181.
23
Pankaj Singh and Dharamveer Singh, A Tughlakian Folly, Down To Earth, March 15, 2004, 54.
24
Ramaswamy R Iyer, Linking of judicial activism or error, Economic and Political Weekly, XXXVII, November
16, 2002, 4595.
25
Asha Ramachandran, Does the concept of networking of rivers hold water? The debate rages, Down to earth, Vol
II, no 13, November 30, 2007, 7-8.
26
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v MV Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812.
[II.A.4] Arbitrary power being vested in the Government through this Act
Article 14 of the constitution may also be infringed by the government decisions that have an
impact on the environment.28 It may be invoked to challenge government sanctions for activities
with high environmental impact, where the permissions are arbitrarily granted without an
adequate consideration of environmental impacts.29 It is an environmental right as it protects the
citizens against arbitrary actions of government which will result in environmental degradation.
The act which was passed for the interlinking of rivers, named The Linking of Rivers Act, gives
arbitrary power to the government for taking steps for interlinking of rivers, irrespective of the
threat to the environment and ecology. Thus, it violates the fundamental right under Article 14.
The legislature has passed the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to provide for conservation of
forest and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto enacted the Forest
(Conservation) Act.30 The various State Governments in Aressia have shared their apprehension
that the linking of rivers may lead to submergence of land and forest. The apprehensions have a
strong foundation since linking of rivers is often accompanied by repercussions such as
deforestation and soil erosion.31 Some major impacts can be submergence of forest habitats and
movement routes of wildlife, loss of bio-diversity (flora and fauna), the deterioration of soil
27
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715.
28
SHYAM DIVAN, ARMIN ROSENCRANZ, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY IN INDIA 418(2008).
29
Kinkri Devi v State of Himanchal Pradesh AIR 1988 HP 4, 9.
30
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 4256.
31
Dharmendra Mehata & Naveen K. Mehta, INTERLINKING OF RIVERS IN INDIA: ISSUES & CHALLENGES,
available at http://www.geoecomar.ro/website/publicatii/Nr.19-2013/12 _mehta _web _2013.pdf (Last visited on
September 2, 2014).
fertility, alterations in geomorphic features leading to loss of aquatic and riparian habitats,
implications for estuarine processes, changes in saline circulation and salinity gradients, altered
energy flows, changes in water quality, introduction of invasive species, and subsequent
establishment and spread of disease vectors.32 Linking of Rivers is an act of violence against
nature as it involves an action and not with the logic of nature.
[II.B.1] Linking of Rivers will not allow Conservation in the true sense of the term
It is respectfully brought to the notice of court that Conservation includes preservation,
maintenance, sustainable utilization, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment.33
The Central Government, as of now, has not announced any action that it plans to undertake in
order to counter the ill-effects that the linking of rivers will cause. The term conservation has a
huge ambit and holds under it facets of preservation, maintenance and sustainable utilization. It
is highly unlikely that any protective step taken by the government, under the precautionary
principle34 will be able to cover all the dimensions of it. It is humbly submitted that the Linking
of Rivers Project under the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 will have a detrimental impact on the
forest cover of the country of Aressia.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court of Aressia that the exclusion and non-
implementation of Linking of Rivers Project for the state of Vindhya is violative of Fundamental
Rights of people of State of Vindhya and State of Normanda as Article 14[III.A] and Article
21[III.B] of the Constitution are being violated. Also, a writ of mandamus can be issued in this
case [III.C]. It is also to be noted that the Constitution is above the international obligations of
the country [III.D].
32
Nidhi Pasi & Richard Smardon, Inter-Linking of Rivers: A solution for water-crisis in India or a decision in
doubt?, 2 JSPG 19 (2012).
33
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp, AIR 1986 SC 180.
34
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. Prof. MV Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812,819.
[III.A.1] Unfair treatment meted out to the people of Vindhya and Normanda
Article 14 of the Constitution of Aressia lays down that no one can be discriminated against
anybody and everyone should be treated as equals. It contemplates reasonableness in State
action, the absence of which would entail the violation of Article 14.35 It is humbly submitted
before the Court that all the States of Aressia would be availing themselves of the benefits of the
Linking of Rivers Project that have been enumerated by the Central Government, while the
States of Vindhya and Normanda have been unfairly prejudiced against and have been excluded
from the aforementioned project.
35
Amita v. Union of India (2005) 13 SCC 721.
36
Id.
37
11, Moot Proposition.
38
5, Moot Proposition.
39
Union of India v. R. Sarangapani, AIR 2000 SC 2163.
[III.A.6] The people of Vindhya and Normanda had legitimate expectation from the Central
Government
The Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 gives a legal right to the people of Vindhya and Normanda to
become a beneficiary of the Linking of Rivers Project as the act does not contain any provision
that talks about their exclusion. Arguendo, even if no legal right arises, the people of Normanda
40
Satwant Singh v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836.
41
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)5 SCC 111.
42
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 498.
43
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322.
44
Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101.
and Vindhya can have a legitimate expectation from the Central Government regarding the
implementation of the project.
A case of legitimate expectation would arise when a body by representation or by past practice
aroused expectation which it would be within its power to fulfill. 45 The Central Government of
Aressia had launched a full-fledged project which was to be implemented in six states of the
country Vindhya being one of the states. Now this sudden exclusion has robbed the people of
Vindhya as well the people of Normanda of the opportunity of getting the benefits of linking of
the rivers. Problems of a large number of farmers of these states were going to be addressed but
the exclusion will render then economically hapless.
The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct
enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision
arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms
part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. The
doctrine of legitimate expectation operates in the domain of public law and in appropriate cases,
constitutes a substantive and enforceable right.47 It is humbly pleaded before the court that the
exclusion of the state of Vindhya from the Linking of Rivers Project is a case where an arbitrary
decision has violated Article 14- a golden thread that runs through the entire fabric of the
Constitution.
45
Osmania University v. R. Madhavi, AIR 1998 AP130; H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 342-43
(2002).
46
Madras City Wine Merchants Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 5 SCC 509.
47
M.P. Oil Extraction v State of M.P., AIR 1998 SC 145.
Article 21 of the Constitution envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a person. The
fundamental right to livelihood48 guaranteed under Article 21 has been violated on account of the
arbitrary action of the State. The Linking of Rivers Project was to improve the economy of the
country by addressing the issue of water scarcity and drying of rivers all over Aressia. 49 Since
the Government is committed to ensure the availability of sufficient water not only for drinking
or sanitation but also for agricultural and industrial purposes, it is highly unjust on the part of the
Central Government to deprive the people of Vindhya and Normanda of these opportunities. The
word Life under Article 21 means a quality of Life,50 which can only be provided to the people
of Vindhya and Normanda by mitigating the shortage of water.
The existence of a right is the foundation of the jurisdiction of a court to issue a writ of
mandamus.55 The Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 had been enacted to ensure availability of water
to the people of Aressia by linking rivers across the country. The people of the states of Vindhya
have a legal right in this case which cannot be denied. Mandamus lies to enforce a public duty in
the performance of which the petitioner has a sufficient legal interest, but he must show that he
48
Id at 33.
49
3, Moot Proposition.
50
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1994 SC 1844.
51
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
52
Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021.
53
Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 514; Dolly Chandra v. Chairman Jee, (2005) 9
SCC 779.
54
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
55
State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty AIR 1987 SC 331.
has demanded performance which has been refused.56 The farmers from State of Vindhya and
State of Normanda protested the exclusion of State of Vindhya from the linking of river project
but ultimately they had to approach the Honble Supreme Court for issuance of the writ of
mandamus. The very purpose of mandamus is to do justice when there is a wrongful exercise of
power or a refusal to perform duties57 and even if there is an adequate alternate remedy,
mandamus is not refused where the petition deals with the violation of fundamental rights.58
It is humbly submitted before the Court that the Central Government of Aressia cannot take a
defense that the exclusion of State of Vindhya from the Linking of Rivers Project is in
accordance with its international obligations. The Constitution is the most supreme law of the
land and any action that violates the basic structure of the Constitution can never be justified on
the grounds that it was done in order to make compliance with any other law or regulation.
According to Heinrich Triepel, the German Jurist, International law is made for states, while
national laws are for individuals.
56
Syndicate v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 460.
57
Binny Limited vs. V. Sadasivan 2005 AIR (SC) 3202.
58
State of Bombay v. United Motors, AIR 1951 SC 252.
59
Edwin Borchard, The Relation between International Law and Municipal Law, 27 Va. L. Rev. 137 (1940).
60
Jolly Jeorge Vs. Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the writ petition is maintainable before the
High Court of Neruda since The Respondent has a duty to ensure Fundamental Rights of
Boressian citizens [IV.A].
14. Equality before law.The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
21. Protection of life and personal liberty.No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India.61 The Fundamental Rights are available to all the
Citizens of the country but only a few of them are also available to persons. 62 It has been
held by the Honble Supreme Court that the words all citizens have been deliberately used to
keep out all non-citizens, including aliens.63 The fundamental right of a foreign citizen is
confined to Article 21 for the life and liberty.64 A Division Bench of the Honble Allahabad High
Court has also opined that the foreigners enjoy some Fundamental Rights under the Constitution
of this country but the same is confined to Article 21 of the Constitution. Fundamental rights,
which are available to the citizens of this country, cannot be extended to non-citizens through
Article 14 of the Constitution.65
It is therefore urged that since even non-Aressian citizens are entitled to these limited
Fundamental Rights, therefore even Boressian citizens are entitled to avail of them. Thus, it is
urged that the petition was maintainable before the Honble High Court of Neruda and fit to be
heard, as certain Fundamental Rights are available to non-citizens, including Boressian citizens.
Hence, it is clear that certain rights have indeed been bestowed on non-citizens also. So, the river
linking project, on account of it being harmful to the citizens of Boressia, cannot be sustained in
the eyes of law. The Honble High Court of Neruda, thus, stands unjustified in rejecting the writ
petition on the ground of preliminary objection raised by the Respondent.
61
Stelmakh Leonid Iuliia v Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, WP 1648 of 2010 (Bombay High Court).
62
Chairman, Railway Board and others v Mrs. Chandrima Das and others, AIR 2000 SC 988.
63
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811.
64
Louis De Raedt & Ors v Union of India & Ors., 1991 SCR (3) 149.
65
Power Measurement Ltd. v U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And Ors., 2003 (2) AWC 1642.
66
Satish Nambiar v Union of India, 2007 (5) Bom CR 247.
THE PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in the light of the Acts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Honble Court, that it may graciously be
pleased to
1. Declare Section 3 of the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 ultra-vires to the Constitution.
2. Constitute a high-powered committee to conduct a detailed Environment Impact
Assessment and a Social Impact Assessment.
3. Examine the report of such committee.
4. Include adequate safeguards to protect Environmental interests, the interests of the states of
Aressia as well as the interests of Boressian citizens.
And pass any other order/s that this Honble Court may deem fit in the favour of the Petitioners
so as to meet the ends of equity, justice and good conscience.