THE 1ST MRINALINI DEVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Before the Hon’’ble Supreme Court of Hindiva.

IN THE MATTERS OF:

The State of Heradun & ...PETITIONER

V.

Queenfisher International Inc. ..................................................................................... RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 124 /2015

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’’BLE Supreme Court of Hindiva .

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

i
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 SMITA COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT MEMORIAL 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No
PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4 SUMMARY OF FACTS

5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8 PRAYER

2|Page
 SMITA COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT MEMORIAL 2023

IST OF ABREVIATIONS

% Percentage

& And

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Anr. Another

Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal

QHI Queenfisher Hindiva Inc.

F.I.R First Information Report

Govt. Government

Hon‟ble Honourable

i.e. That is

NHRC National Human Rights Commission

LR Law Report

Ltd. Limited

Ors Others

1 Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner

 SMITA COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT MEMORIAL 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

a. The Constitution of Hindiva, 1950.

b. Human Rights Protection Act, 1998.

c. Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

d. Other statutes as and when referred at the time of oral submissions.

CASES

ABUZAR HOSSAIN V. STATE OF W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489.......................................... 16

ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2013) 13 SCC 1 .7

ASHWANI KUMAR SAXENA V. STATE OF M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750............................ 14

ATBIR V. GOVT. OF N.C.T. DELHI, (2010) 9 SCC 1 ......................................................... 8

AVISHEK GOENKA V. UNION OF INDIA, (2012) 8 SCC 441. ......................................... 5

BABLOO PASI V. STATE OF JHARKHAND, (2008) 13 SCC 133................................... 17

BACHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1980 SC 898 ............................................ 8

ONKAR LAL BAJAJ V. UNION OF INDIA, (2003) 2 SCC 673. ......................................... 3

PARAG BHATI (JUVENILE) V. STATE OF U.P., (2016) SC 509 .................................... 13

2 Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner

 SMITA COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT MEMORIAL 2023

BOOKS AND ARTICLES

a. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

b. The Constitution of Hindiva.

LEGAL DATABASES

 Manupatra
 SCC Online
 West Law
 Indian Kanoon
 www.legislature.org
 www.sci.gov.in
 www.britannica.com
 www.indiakanoon.com
 www.wikipedia.com
 www.equalityhumanrights.com
 http://www.theindianlawyer.in/
 http://www.oecd.com/

3 Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner

 SMITA COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT MEMORIAL 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED

WRIT PETITION HAS INVOKED THE WRIT JURISDICTION
OF THIS HONORABLE COURT UNDER HUMAN RIGHTS
PROTECTION ACT, 1998.

4 Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner

 SMITA COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT MEMORIAL 2023

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Counsel for the petitioner most respectfully SHOWETH:

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon”ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:

BACKGROUND:

i. The Union of Hindiva is demographically the 7th largest country in the world and is home
to 1/3 of the world’s population. There are 29 constituent federal states which form the
Union of Hindiva .

ii. Rich in natural resources, the Republic of Hindiva has a huge population of workers in the
unorganized sector.

iii. . Agriculture has been the backbone of Hindiva for decades. Therefore, it was imminent
on the part of Hindiva to roll out water conservation projects, including construction of
dams, reservoirs, etc. for purposes of human consumption, hydroelectricity, irrigation
facilities, industrial uses, etc.

iv. The Union of Hindiva also has a sizeable tribal population. According to the census taken
in 2016, the tribal population accounted for 8% of Hindiva ’s 64 million population.

v. Yulu Tribe was one of the tribe which was present in state of Heradun. And this Tribe
was culturally unique, their indigenous agricultural and livestock management techniques
were well renowned.

vi. As Hindiva started moving towards an industrial economy in the late1990’s. Queenfisher
International Inc., a multi-national company based in the Republic of Prudentia and having
business operations in more than 60 States of the world was a leading brewer under the
label, “LIGHTSTORM”, was one of the first foreign companies to invest in the Union of
Hindiva .

DISPUTE:

i. According to the National Human Rights Commission of Hindiva Despite the

ongoing water crisis in the Hindiva , on 23.01.2011, QHI announced its intention
of establishing a new plant for production of its most valued beer brand “VOLT”,
in the district of Sartur, State of Heradun.

ii. The land which is provided to the QHI was predominantly a tribal belt with rich
flora and fauna adjacent to the Agada forests which have been inhabited by the
Yulu Tribe for several centuries.

5 Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner

 SMITA COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT MEMORIAL 2023

iii. Govt. of Heradun has acquired lands (including certain forest lands) for various
public purposes strictly in accordance with the laws in force of the Union of
Hindiva .

iv. Their resistance to developmental projects initiated by the Heradun government

stems from the fact that the Heradun government was rapidly transforming a tribal
belt into an industrial zone, exploiting the Yulu Tribe by snatching their ancient
lands and depriving their life and livelihoods including their most valuable water
source water.

v. The Heradun Government apart from rubbishing the findings of the NHRC
remained uncooperative with the measures taken by the NHRC on the issues
pertaining to the Yulu Tribe and was yet to provide the interim-relief ordered by
the NHRC.

EPILOGUE:

i. Now the National Human Rights Commission of Hindiva has filed a WRIT PETITION in
the HON’’BLE Supreme court of Hindiva under Human Rights Protection Act, 1998 .

6 Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner

 SMITA COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT MEMORIAL 2023

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1:
Whether the petition filed by the Hindiva n National Human Rights Commission against the State
of Heradun and QHI-a non-state entity maintainable before law?

ISSUE 2:
Whether QHI is liable to compensate the Yulu Tribe for damages caused to aquifers of the Yulu
lands on account of exploiting and commodifying a vital natural resource-Water?

7 Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner

 SMITA COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT MEMORIAL 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

The petition filed by the Hindiva n National Human Rights Commission against the State of
Heradun and QHI-a non-state entity maintainable before law.

It is most respectfully submitted before the Hon’’ble Court that the Writ Petition filed under art.
226 of the Constitution is maintainable. In the present case, the question of law involved in the
present petition is of recurring nature which has been raised in a plethora of cases. Hence, it is
humbly submitted before this Hon’’ble Supreme Court of Hindiva that the matter involves
substantial question of law and hence entitled to be maintainable.

The QHI is liable to compensate the Yulu Tribe for damages caused to aquifers of the Yulu
lands on account of exploiting and commodifying a vital natural resource-Water.

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’’ble Court that under the Human Rights Protection Act, 1998.
The yulu tribe is liable to get the compensation as the QHI has exploited their natural source of
water . and as well as it was found that the ‘hunger and malnutrition’ among the tribal community
was primarily due to the unsustainable acquisition of their lands over the years.

8 Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:
Whether the petition filed by the Hindiva n National Human Rights Commission against the
State of Heradun and QHI-a non-state entity maintainable before law?
______________________________________________________________________________-

It is most respectfully submitted before the Hon’’ble Court that the Writ Petition filed under art.
226 of the Constitution is maintainable. In the present case, the question of law involved in the
present petition is of recurring nature which has been raised in a plethora of cases. Hence, it is
humbly submitted before this Hon’’ble Supreme Court of Hindiva that the matter involves
substantial question of law and hence entitled to be maintainable.

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE

PRESENT WRIT PETITION AND IS ALSO MAINTAINABLE IN THIS HON’BLE
COURT.

1. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner have filed the present Writ Petition before this
Hon’ble court under article Article 14 of the Indian Constitution proclaims the general right of all
persons to equality before the law. The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court for the grant
of writ in the nature of the order or directions directing the Court that QHI is liable to compensate
the Yulu Tribe for damages caused to aquifers of the Yulu lands on account of exploiting and
commodifying a vital natural resource-Water.

2. It is submitted that Part III of the Constitution which deals with “Fundamental rights” is
regarded as the basic structure of the Constitution. The doctrine of basic structure not only applies
against the amendments under the exercise of constituent power but also against exercise of
legislative and executive power.
_________________________
1 Article 226 of the Constitution of Hindiva, 1950
3. It is humbly submitted that the Article Section 77 Payment of compensation or deposit of same
in authority - The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

4. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has the locus standing to file the said petition as this
very fundamental right of the petitioner with reference to the Article 145 , Article 14(1)6 , Article
14(3)7 and Article 218 guaranteed by the constitution of Hindiva and hence the present writ
petition is maintainable, and on account of the same relief is sought.

SINCE, THE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER IS IN

QUESTION, THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THIS HON’BLE
COURT AND THE HON’BLE COURT HAS ALL THE RIGHTS TO ENTERTAIN THE
PRESENT WRIT PETITION.

_________________________________________________
4 Article 14 of the Constitution of Hindiva, 1950
5 Article 14(1) of the Constitution of Hindiva, 1950
6 Article 14(3) of the Constitution of Hindiva, 1950
7 Article 226 of the Constitution of Hindiva, 1950
ISSUE 2:
Whether QHI is liable to compensate the Yulu Tribe for damages caused to aquifers of the
Yulu lands on account of exploiting and commodifying a vital natural resource-Water?

It is most respectfully submitted before the Hon’’ble Court that the Writ Petition filed under art.
226 of the Constitution is maintainable. In the present case, the question of law involved in the
present petition is of recurring nature which has been raised in a plethora of cases. Hence, it is
humbly submitted before this Hon’’ble Supreme Court of Hindiva that the matter involves
substantial question of law and hence entitled to be maintainable.

Under the Article Section 77 Payment of compensation & Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act 2013,The QHI is liable to compensate the Yulu Tribe for damages caused to aquifers of
the Yulu lands on account of exploiting and commodifying a vital natural resource-Water.

5. It is humbly submitted that Article Section 77 Payment of compensation or deposit of same in

authority - The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act 2013. QHI is liable to compensate the Yulu Tribe for damages caused to aquifers
of the Yulu lands on account of exploiting and commodifying a vital natural resource-Water.

6. It is further submitted that this principle is not only against the fundamental principle but also contrary to
the Human Rights.

7. The constitutional right to access to clean drinking water can be drawn from the right to food,

the right to clean environment and the right to health, all of which have been protected under the
broad heading of the RIGHT TO LIFE, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

8. . It is humbly submitted that The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Issued a notice to the
Govt. of Heradun seeking explanation on the news article about gross human rights violations of the Yulu
Tribe over the years and the inaction on the part of the Heradun Govt. to ameliorate the miserable
conditions prevailing in the State of Heradun
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, this Hon’’ble Court may be pleased to:

Find that:

a. To allow the present writ petition.

b. The QHI is liable to compensate the Yulu Tribe for damages caused to aquifers of the
Yulu lands on account of exploiting and commodifying a vital natural resource-Water.

And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity, and good conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER