CHITRANGUDI-APPELLANTS-1 (1)

TEAM: CHITRANGUDI
THE DIRECTORATE OF LEGAL STUDIES, CHENNAI
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
STATE LEVEL ENGLISH MOOT COMPETITION, 2024
Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARATHAM
IN THE MATTER OF:
SLP No. _/2024
THE DEMOCRAT ……………………………………..…..... APPELLANT
V.
UNION OF BHARATHAM & ANR ………………...…… RESPONDENTS
ALONG WITH
Civil Appeal No. _/2024
VARSHI …………………….………………………………..... APPELLANT
V.
UNION OF BHARATHAM & ANR …………….……… RESPONDENTS
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT

STATE LEVEL ENGLISH MOOT COMPETITION, 2024 Page |2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... 5
CASES .................................................................................................................................... 5
STATUTES ............................................................................................................................ 5
BOOKS ................................................................................................................................... 6
LEGAL DATABASE ............................................................................................................. 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................... 9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................................... 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS ........................................................................................... 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................. 13
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACQUISITION OF LAND OF THE TRIBAL PEOPLE
FOR THE SAID PROJECT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY
THROUGH THE IDUKKAL RESERVE FOREST VIOLATE THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE SHENGEN TRIBE? .......................................... 13
1.1. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19: ........................................................................... 13
1.2. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21: ........................................................................... 14
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE SAID CONSTRUCTION OF GREENFIELD
EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT WITHOUT REQUISITE ENVIRONMENT
CLEARANCE AND LATER APPLYING FOR THE POST FACTO CLEARANCE
IS JUSTICIABLE? ............................................................................................................. 16
2.1.THE GECP HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH EIA NOTIFICATION, 2006: ...... 16
2.2. POST FACTO DEFENSE CANNOT VINDICATE THE FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE ACTUAL CLEARANCE PROCEDURE: ................................................... 17
ISSUE 3: WHETHER CONSTRUCTION OF GREENFIELD EXPRESSWAY
CORRIDOR PROJECT IS IN VIOLATION OF COASTAL REGULATION ZONE
NOTIFICATION AND LATER ON CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER POST
FACTO CLEARANCE IS VALID? ................................................................................. 19
3.1 NON COMPLIANCE OF COSTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION 2011:
........................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 EXEMPTION CLAIMS MADE UNDER POST FACTO CLEARANCE IS
INVALID: ......................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1 INFRINGEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: ........ 21
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 24

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.NO ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
1. & And
2. A.I.R All India Report
3. Anr. Another
4. CRZ Costal Regulation Zone
5. EC Environmental Clearances
6. EIA Environmental Impact

Assessment
7. GECP Greenfield Expressway
Corridor Project
8. HC High Court
9. Hon’ble Honourable
10. i.e. That is
11. J. Justice
12. Ltd. Limited
13. MoEFCC Ministry of Environment,

Forest and Climate Change
14. NGT National Green Tribunal
15. No. Number
16. OM Office Memorandum
17. Para, ¶ Paragraph
18. Ors. Others
19. Re Reference
20. S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

21. S.C.R Supreme Court Reporter
22. SC Supreme Court
23. Sec. Section
24. Supp. Supplementary
25. UoI Union of India
26. v. Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. State Of Kerala And Another v. Peoples Union For Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit And
Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of 2001).
2. Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd, 1995 AIR 2200, 1995 SCC (1) 501
3. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A .Industries, AIR 1986 SC 180
4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 SCC (3) 545
5. Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors, 1989 AIR 549
6. Vanashakti vs Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1394/2023
7. F. No. 22-21/2020-IA. III (OM)
8. S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of India
9. Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 338]
10. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V Rohit Prajapati
11. BDA v. Sudhakar Hegde, (2020) 15 SCC 63
12. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa & Ors 12 May, 2006
13. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India 28 August, 1996
14. Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 499.
STATUTES
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1986
3. THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) NOTIFICATION, 2006
4. COSTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION, 2011
5. THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RULES, 1986

BOOKS
1. M P JAIN INDIAN; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EIGHTH EDITION 2018
2. DURGA DAS BASU; CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (VOLUME-1) 14 2009
3. DURGA DAS BASU; CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (VOLUME-2) 14 2009
4. GURDIP SINGH; ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, SECOND EDITION 2016
5. DR. S.C. TRIPATHI; ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS
LEGAL DATABASE
1. INDIAN KANOON
2. SCC ONLINE
3. MANUPATRA
4. HEIN ONLINE
5. JSTOR

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE APPELLANTS APPROACH THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

BHARATHAM UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHARATHAM
AND SECTION 22 OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010 READ WITH
ARTICLE 139 A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHARATHAM.
Article 136 in Constitution of India
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Not withstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.
Section 22 in The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
22. Appeal to Supreme Court.
- Any person aggrieved by any award, decision or order of the Tribunal, may, file an appeal
to the Supreme Court, within ninety days from the date of communication of the award,
decision or order of the Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in
section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Provided that the Supreme Court may
entertain any appeal after the expiry of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal.
Article 139A in Constitution of India
139A. Transfer of certain cases
(1)Where cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending
before the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts
and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or an application made by the Attorney-
General of India or by a party to any such case that such questions are substantial questions of

general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases pending before the
High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself:
Provided that the Supreme Court may after determining the said questions of law return any
case so withdrawn together with a copy of its judgment on such questions to the High Court
from which the case has been withdrawn, and the High Court shall on receipt thereof, proceed
to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment.
(2)The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice, transfer
any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High
Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Backdrop: The Union of Bhratham1 is a country in South Asia is the seventh largest in area
and most populous in the world. Bharatham’s GDP emerged as the fastest growing major
economy in the world and it’s economy is mainly attributed to its robust infrastructure
developments. In Bharatham, since Vedic time the main motto of social life is “to live in
harmony with nature”.
Project proposal: In 2021, the Union Government has proposed a “Greenfield Expressway
Corridor Project” connecting city of Silverster with the capital city of Thainadu, Puhar which
reduces the travelling time by three hours with otherwise would take eight hours. Thainadu is
a southern state in Bharatham, Silverster and Puhar are the two cities with very high avenues
of growth majorly contribute to the economy of the State of Thainadu.
Emergence of conflicts: On knowing that the proposed Highway project has been passing
through the Idukkal Reserve Forest, a major biodiversity region of the State of Thainadu, the
Shengen Tribes who are the natives of Idukkal region enjoying indigenous rights, raised their
concerns and conducted various mass movements. The Government pacified them and later,
acquired the land and dislocated them. Also the Greenfield expressway Corridor Project
passes through 10 kms of Koodi, Kaadai, Kadambu which falls on CRZ IB and CRZ II.
Legal proceedings: On 2nd October, 2022 Union Minister for Transport and Highways laid
the foundation stone for construction. Since the Shengen Tribes lost their confidence against
the government, on January 2023 ‘The Democrat’, an NGO on behalf who works on the
welfare of the tribes filed a petition before HC of Thainadu for the violation of fundamental
rights. The NGO then approached the Hon’ble SC as the said petition was dismissed by the
HC. Upon 50% completion of the construction work by September 2023, the Government
applied post facto clearances upon the notification by MoEFCC. On October 2023, Varshi, a
law student and social activist approached hon’ble NGT to grant interim stay on the project
requisite EC and CRZ clearance. Varshi has approached hon’ble SC as the hon’ble NGT
dismissed the petition. The hon’ble SC has merged both the petitions and listed the cases to
hear the following issues for final hearing
1
Here in after referred as Bharatham

STATE LEVEL ENGLISH MOOT COMPETITION, 2024 P a g e | 10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1:
WHETHER THE ACQUISITION OF LAND OF THE TRIBAL PEOPLE FOR THE SAID
PROJECT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY THROUGH THE
IDUKKAL RESERVE FOREST VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE
SHENGEN TRIBE?
ISSUE 2:
WHETHER THE SAID CONSTRUCTION OF GREENFIELD EXPRESSWAY

CORRIDOR PROJECT WITHOUT REQUISITE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE AND
LATER APPLYING FOR THE POST FACTO CLEARANCE IS JUSTICIABLE?
ISSUE 3:
WHETHER CONSTRUCTION OF GREENFIELD EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT

IS IN VIOLATION OF COASTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION AND LATER
ON CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER POST FACTO CLEARANCE IS VALID?

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

THROUGH THE IDUKKAL RESERVE FOREST VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF THE SHENGEN TRIBE?
It is most respectfully submitted that the acquisition of land of the tribal people for the said
project and the construction of the highway through the Idukkal Reserve Forest violate the
Fundamental Rights of the Shengen Tribe. The Constitution of Bharatham seeks to protect
tribal interests, especially their autonomy and rights over their land.1 It provides a
comprehensive scheme with directions to protect the indigenous groups from exploitation and
to secure their rights over their land and includes them in Scheduled Tribes as per
applicability article 342 and article 366(25) of the constitution depending on factors such as
dependence on natural resources for livelihood2 and lack of exposure to civilization.3 Any
violation that disrupts their right over land will in turn violate their fundamental rights under
the Bharatham Constitution.

CLEARANCE AND LATER APPLYING FOR THE POST FACTO CLEARANCE IS
JUSTICIABLE?
It is most respectfully submitted that the construction of Greenfield Expressway Corridor

Project without requisite environmental clearance and later applying for the post facto
clearance is justiciable. Given the context of the case, the impugned construction of GECP is
capable of being handled by judicial action subsequently terminated due to the negligence and
non-compliance with environmental regulations.


FACTO CLEARANCE IS VALID?
It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble Supreme Court of Bharatham that the
construction of Greenfield Expressway Corridor Project is in violation of Costal Zone
Notification and later on claiming exemption under post facto clearance is invalid. This
argument is presented in a twofold manner.
It is humbly submitted that the respondents have failed to adhere the Costal Regulation Zone
notification, 2011. It is humbly submitted that Greenfield Expressway Corridor Project which
falls on CRZ IB and CRZ II areas, claiming CRZ clearance after completion of nearly 50% of
the construction work clearly infringes the principles enshrined under the environmental Law.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

THROUGH THE IDUKKAL RESERVE FOREST VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF THE SHENGEN TRIBE?
[¶1.] It is most respectfully submitted that the acquisition of land of the tribal people for the
said project and the construction of the highway through the Idukkal Reserve Forest violate
the Fundamental Rights of the Shengen Tribe. The Constitution of Bharatham seeks to protect
tribal interests, especially their autonomy and rights over their land.2It provides a
comprehensive scheme with directions to protect the indigenous groups from exploitation and
to secure their rights over their land and includes them in Scheduled Tribes as per
applicability article 342 and article 366(25) of the constitution depending on factors such as
dependence on natural resources for livelihood3 and lack of exposure to civilization.4 Any
violation that distrupts their right over land will inturn violate their fundamental rights under
the Bharatham Constitution.
1.1.VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19:
[¶2.] The Article 19 of the Bharatham Constitution guarantees certain fundamental freedoms
to the citizens. According to Article 19(1)(e) every citizen of India has the right "to reside and
settle in any part of the territory of India."The article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to
occupation and provides a tool which will ensure to all citizens their right to earn livelihood.
Moreover the special acts such as The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 guarantees the traditional forest dwellers
2
Schedule 5 & 6 of the Indian Constitution
3
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & ors, AIR 1997 SC 3297.
4
State Of Kerala And Another v. Peoples Union For Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit And Others (Civil
Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of 2001).

right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation for
habitation or for self-cultivation for livelihood.5
[¶3.] In the present case, the Government acquired the native land of the Shengen tribal
people and dislocated them from their place6 for the construction of the Greenfield corridor
expressway project through the “Idukkal Reserve Forest '' for the length of 45 kms. 7 This has
severely violated their right under Article 19(e) and 19(g). Also, irrespective of raising
objection, concerns and showing opposition by conducting various mass moments, the
government failed to act righteously by abiding to state principles and acted in complete bias
in favour of the construction project.
[¶4.] While it can be said that the rights under article 19(1) is subject to reasonable
restrictions under sub clause (2), however it is not applicable in the present case. Because it is
subject to reasonable restriction, which the Legislature may impose in public interest. It is
therefore necessary to examine whether such restriction is meant to protect social welfare
satisfying the need of prevailing social values.8 However in this present case, the restriction is
unreasonable as it does not protect but instead harms the public welfare by dislocating the
indigenous people and disrupting thier lives.
1.2.VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21:
[¶5.] The concept of ‘right to livelihood’ has been read into the constitutional guarantee under
Article 21.9 In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, it was observed
that interpreting 'life' in the strict sense without including livelihood would render the right
meaningless since nobody could live without means of livelihood.10
[¶6.] The term ‘life’ in its expanded horizons includes all that gives meaning to a man's life
including his tradition, culture and heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure
would certainly come within the encompass of an expanded concept of Article 21 of the
5
Section 3(a) of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006
6
Para 8, moot proposition
7
ibid
8
Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd, 1995 AIR 2200, 1995 SCC (1) 501
9
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A .Industries, AIR 1986 SC 180
10
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 SCC (3) 545

Constitution. Yet, when one seeks relief for breach of Article 21, it must be a direct, overt and
tangible act which threatens the fullness of his life or the lives of others in the community. 11
The act of the government by dislocating the Shengen tribes severely disrupts their lives as
their entire livelihood mostly revolves around the Idukkal Reserve Forest by pasturing,
collecting andselling minor forest produces.12
[¶7.] According to the doctrine of parens patriae, the State has duty bound to protect the
interest of public and should take the due responsibility in assessing the consequences of
matters thatt affect the well-being of its citizens. However the government in the present case
has only focused on economic growth and development and this in turn made the welfare of
Shengen tribe people out of context. Hence the government's forceful dislocation lack of
concern on the future of the Shengen tribes has led to their violation of fundamental rights as
guaranteed under article 19 and 21 of the constitution.
11
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors, 1989 AIR 549, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 870
12
Para 8, moot proposition


CLEARANCE AND LATER APPLYING FOR THE POST FACTO CLEARANCE IS
JUSTICIABLE?
[¶8.] It is most respectfully submitted that the construction of Greenfield Expressway

Corridor Project without requisite environmental clearance and later applying for the post
facto clearance is justiciable. ‘Justiciable’ refers to a matter which is capable of being decided
by a court. Given the context of the case, the impugned construction of GECP is capable of
being handled by judicial action subsequently terminated due to the negligence and non-
compliance with environmental regulations.
2.1.THE GECP HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH EIA NOTIFICATION, 2006:
[¶9.] The Environmental Impact Assessment is a process through which an environmental

impact of a proposed development is evaluated by considering the inter-related socio-
economic, cultural, and human-health impacts. In Bharatham, the EIA Notification, 2006,
which is statutorily backed by the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is the governing legal
instrument to grant clearance for the establishment or expansion of an industry on the basis of
the potential environmental impact of the project. The para 4 of the notification broadly
categorizes all the projects and activities into two categories namely A and B. Since GECP
was proposed by the union Government, it falls under the purview of category A.
[¶10.] The schedule in the notification which classifies the list of projects requiring prior
environment clearance specifies 'highway' as 7th in the list (7f). This has also been mentioned
in point (ii) para 4 of the notification and states that itt requires a 'prior' environmental
clearance from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)
on the recommendations of an Expert Appraisal Committee. Also, according to para 6 of the
notification, such a clearance application should be made right after the identification of
prospective site and well before commencing any construction activity, or preparation of
land, at the site by the applicant. An impact assessment is something which can only take
place before commencement of activity and not after, and that an Environment clearance is an
approval which is taken prior to the commencement of activity and emanates from

precautionary principle which is one of the cornerstones of environmental jurisprudence.13

However the government in its construction of GECP has failed to comply the same as 60%
of the total construction got completed without obtaining any clearance.
2.2. POST FACTO DEFENSE CANNOT VINDICATE THE FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH THE ACTUAL CLEARANCE PROCEDURE:
[¶11.] While it had been mentioned in the factsheet that the Government has applied for the
post facto clearances for the Expressway Project in September 2023, however such an attempt
is in vain. Because the one time notification that the government has referred to was
applicable only for six months from the date of publication of the notification. This
illustration regarding the one time notification S.0.804(E) dated 14 March 201714 was further
reiterated in the standard operating procedure15 released by MOEF dated 7th July 2021.
[¶12.] Since the government has applied for post facto clearance well after the lapse of such
notification, the GECP is not even eligible to be considered under post facto clearance. More
recently, the Hon'ble SC has imposed a stay on MoEF's July 2021 and January 2022 orders,
which granted permission for ex-post facto clearance without prior approval mandated under
the EIA notification, 2006.16 While the petition sought a direction to the ministry and state
EIA authorities regarding not to process and entertain any application for grant of ex post
facto environment clearance after 13 April 2018, however the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
imposed an complete stay until further order and also held that Prior & post facto green nods
can’t co-exist.
[¶13.] In the case of S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of India, it was held that the ex post facto
clearance takes away scoping and the resultant EIA.17 In either view of the matter,
environment law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance. This would be
contrary to both the precautionary principle as well as the need for sustainable development.18
In the case of BDA v. Sudhakar Hegde, the hon’ble court held that the compliance with the
13
Vanashakti vs Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1394/2023
14
S.0.804(E) notification dated 14 March 2017 by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change
15
F. No. 22-21/2020-IA. III (OM)
16
Vanashakti vs Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1394/2023
17
S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of India; Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC
338]
18
Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V Rohit Prajapati

2006 Notification and other statutory enactments envisaged in the ElA process cannot be
reduced to an ad hoc mechanism where the project proponent seeks to remedy its abject
failure and seek the requisite clearances at a belated stage.19 Thus, Post facto defense cannot
vindicate the failure to comply with the actual clearance procedure. Hence due to all the
violations performed and likely to be caused by the government in construction of GECP, the
project qualifies to be stayed by this hon'ble court.
19
BDA v. Sudhakar Hegde, (2020) 15 SCC 63


FACTO CLEARANCE IS VALID?
[¶14.] It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble Supreme Court of Bharatham that the
construction of Greenfield Expressway Corridor Project is in violation of Costal Zone
Notification and later on claiming exemption under post facto clearance is invalid. This
argument is presented in a twofold manner 1.Non compliance of Costal Regulation Zone
Notification 2011; 2. Exemption claim made under post facto clearance is invalid.
3.1 NON COMPLIANCE OF COSTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION 2011:
[¶15.] The Costal Regulation Notification20, 2011 issued under the Environmental Protection
Act, 198621 regulates construction and other similar activities on the coast. It is humbly
submitted that the norms for regulation of activities permissible under this notification is
traceable under Para 8 of the CRZ notification, 2011. As per para 8(ii) which regulates
permissible activities of CRZ IB zone states as follow;
8. (ii) Areas between LTL and HTL which are not ecologically sensitive, necessary safety
measures will be incorporated while permitting the following, namely
(a) exploration and extraction of natural gas;

(b) construction of dispensaries, schools, public rainshelter, community toilets, bridges,
roads, jetties, [erosion control measures] water supply, drainage , sewerage which are
required for traditional inhabitants living within the biosphere reserves after obtaining
approval from concerned CZMA.
(c) necessary safety measure shall be incorporated while permitting such development
activities in the area falling in the hazard zone;
(d) salt harvesting by solar evaporation of seawater;
(e) desalination plants;
(f) storage of non-hazardous cargo such as edible oil, fertilizers and food grain within
notified ports;
20
Hereinafter referred to as CRZ Notification 2011.
21
Section 3 (2) (1) (v) Environmental (protection) Act, 1986.

(g) construction of trans harbor sea links, roads on stilts or pillars without affecting the
tidal flow of water.
[¶16.] It is humbly submitted that in this present case the project “Greenfield Expressway
Corridor Project”22 which has been proposed by the Union Government doesn’t falls under
the above mentioned regulatory norms of the CRZ notification. It is worth mentioning that the
term roads in Para 8(ii)(b) doesn’t includes construction of highways or expressways. Since
Expressways offer superior highway facility with higher specifications. It provides for more
lanes, better surface, divided carriageway, controlled access grade separations at cross-roads
and fencing etc. Expressways permits only fast moving vehicles and are meant to carry
through traffic23. Also provision 3 (xii) of the CRZ notification 2011 clearly states that
“construction activities in CRZ I except those specified in para 8 of this notification are
prohibited activities within costal regulation zone. It is unambiguous that the term roads are
entirely different from expressway. Thus the respondent can’t claim a validation of their
construction merely under roads category.
[¶17.] It is most humbly submitted that Para 4(d) of the CRZ notification 2011 states,
“Construction involves more than 20,000sq mts built-up area in CRZ-II shall be considered
[for approval] in accordance with EIA notification, 2006. In this present case it is well evident
from the facts that the Greenfield expressway Corridor Project passes through 10 kms of
Koodi, Kaadai, Kadambu which falls on CRZ IB and CRZ II. It is to be noted that 10kms is
equivalent to 10,000,000sq kms. Thus it is necessary under to CRZ notification to claim prior
clearance for the said project.
[¶18.] Therefore it is humbly submitted that the respondents have failed to adhere the Costal
Regulation Zone notification, 2011.
3.2 EXEMPTION CLAIMS MADE UNDER POST FACTO CLEARANCE IS

INVALID:
[¶19.] It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble bench that the exemption claim by the
respondent under post facto clearance is invalid.
22
Moot proposition para 7; line 2
23
https://morth.nic.in/about-highways#:~:text=Further%2C%20Expressways%20offer,a%20State%20Road.

[¶20.] It is humbly submitted that currently, there is no provision for granting post facto CRZ
clearance, an office memorandum24 from Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change clearly laid down the procedure for dealing with violations arising due to not
obtaining a prior CRZ clearance for permissible activities.
[¶21.] It is notable that para 4 (ii) of the said office memorandum states, “All activities, which
are otherwise permissible under the provisions of the Costal Regulation Zone Notification,
but have commenced construction without prior clearance, would be considered for
prospective clearance to the concerned CZMA…”. It is clear for the wordings of this
notification that unless the commenced construction without prior clearance goes along with
the activities which are permissible under the provisions of the CRZ notification, it can’t be
considered for prospective clearance. However the respondents have breached the Costal
Regulation Zone Notification as it was addressed in prior contentions.
[22.] Therefore it is apparent that the respondents can’t claim exemption under post facto
clearance as they clearly violated the norms of the CRZ notification.
3.2.1 INFRINGEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW:
[¶23.] It is humbly submitted that Greenfield Expressway Corridor Project which falls on
CRZ IB and CRZ II areas, claiming CRZ clearance after completion of nearly 50% of the
construction work clearly infringes the principles enshrined under the environmental Law.
[¶24.] In Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa & Ors 25, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, as guiding rules for Sustainable Development, that
humanity must take no more from nature than man can replenish and that people must adopt
lifestyles and development paths that work within the nature's limit. Also in Vellore Citizens
Welfare Forum vs. Union of India26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized the
Precautionary Principle and explained that environmental measures by the State Government
and the statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental
degradation.
24
F.NO.19-27/2015-IA.III
25
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa & Ors 12 May, 2006
26
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India 28 August, 1996

[¶25.] It is most humbly submitted that claiming exemption under post facto clearance blatant
subversion of precautionary principle. As for environmental decision making, the
precautionary principle ensures that the effects of activities on the environment receive
adequate consideration before actions are taken in connection with them. Thereby, it helps to
deter grave or irreversible harm to the environment or human health in the absence of
scientific certainty.27
[26.] Precautionary principle facilitates a prior merit review comprising of factual, technical
and legal aspects of any developmental projects. It ensures (a) that the state and statutory
authorities anticipate, deter and stifle the cause of environmental degradation, (b) that
scientific uncertainty shall not act as a ground to put off measures preventing environmental
degradation and (c) that the industrialist or developer bears the burden of proving that that the
proposed activity is environmental sound.28 Thus, in effect, the precautionary principle serves
as a normative commitment29 that will help narrow uncertainty between the cause and effect
of environmental damage.
[¶27.] It is to be noted that the project has been proposed by the Union Government. If the
Government fails to follow the regulatory regime and other factors under the CRZ
notification and claiming exemption under post facto then it explicitly gives room for a moral
hazard that incentivizes further violations and literally gives a license to errant units who are
fully aware of the existence of the statute but have willfully chosen to violate it. Thus through
claiming post facto clearance the respondent not only committing a breach of precautionary
principle and constitutional obligation imposed on it by Article 48A but also continuing to
dismantle the elaborate system of environmental regulation built over the past several years.
[¶28.] The claim of ex-post facto clearance undermines the very essence of the precautionary
principle. It thus hinders the possibility of conducting an exhaustive assessment of
environmental risks associated with a certain activity. This approach overlooks the damage
already caused to the environment by the industries or development initiatives, downgrades
the importance of the assessment made prior to granting clearances and reduces the entire
27
Sands, P. & Peel, J. Principles Of International Environmental Law, 3rd. ed., (Cambridge University Press
(2012).
28
Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 at 658.
29
Gitanjali Nain Gill, The Precautionary Principle, Its Interpretation and Application by The Indian Judiciary:
‘When I Use A Word It Means Just What I Choose It to Mean-Neither More nor Less’ Humpty Dumpty, Volume
21(4), 292-308.

process to merely a mechanical exercise.30 Particularly, when the assessment relates to highly
fragile eco-system such as the coastal zone, post facto clearances will only blur the actual
environmental harm and in turn reduces the entire process to a mere bureaucratic nod for a
particular project.
[¶29.] It is humbly submitted that the exemption claim under post facto is also a complete
dilution of polluter pay principle. The claim of ex-post facto clearance stands in favor of
this modus operandi, as it implies that violations -which should have been prevented in the
first place – can be condoned by simply paying a price; a price which in many cases is
affordable. Thus, it dilutes the polluters pay principle to that of a ‘pollute and ‘pay’ principle.
[¶30.] Therefore with the above contentions it is well evident that claiming exemption under
post fact will violate the principles under environmental law. Thus it is humbly submitted that
the construction of Greenfield Expressway Corridor Project is in violation of Costal Zone
Notification and later on claiming exemption under post facto clearance is invalid.
30
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 499.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS PRESENTED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE APPELLANTS HUMBLY
SUBMITS THAT THE HON’BLE BENCH BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND
DECLARE THAT:
1. THE APPEAL BY THE APPELLANTS IS MAINTAINABLE

2. THE ACQUISITION OF LAND OF THE TRIBAL PEOPLE FOR THE SAID
PROJECT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY THROUGH THE
IDUKKAL RESERVE FOREST VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
THE SHENGEN TRIBE
3. THE SAID CONSTRUCTION OF GREENFIELD EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR
PROJECT WITHOUT REQUISITE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE AND LATER
APPLYING FOR THE POST FACTO CLEARANCE IS JUSTICIABLE
4. THE CONSTRUCTION OF GREENFIELD EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT
is in VIOLATION COASTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION AND
LATER ON CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER POST FACTO CLEARANCE IS
INVALID
AND TO PASS ANY OTHER RELIEF, THAT THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
OF BHARATHAM MAY DEEMED FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE AND FOR THIS ACT OF
KINDNESS, THE APPELLANTS SHALL DULY BOUND FOR EVER PRAY.
SD/-
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

CHITRANGUDI-APPELLANTS-1 (1)

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationMoot memo appellant

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHITRANGUDI-APPELLANTS-1 (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHITRANGUDI-APPELLANTS-1 (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM: CHITRANGUDI

THE DIRECTORATE OF LEGAL STUDIES, CHENNAI

GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, SALEM

STATE LEVEL ENGLISH MOOT COMPETITION, 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

SLP No. _/2024

THE DEMOCRAT ……………………………………..…..... APPELLANT

UNION OF BHARATHAM & ANR ………………...…… RESPONDENTS

Civil Appeal No. _/2024

VARSHI …………………….………………………………..... APPELLANT

UNION OF BHARATHAM & ANR …………….……… RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

S.NO ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

2. A.I.R All India Report

4. CRZ Costal Regulation Zone

6. EIA Environmental Impact

10. i.e. That is

12. Ltd. Limited

13. MoEFCC Ministry of Environment,

15. No. Number

16. OM Office Memorandum

17. Para, ¶ Paragraph

18. Ors. Others

20. S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

21. S.C.R Supreme Court Reporter

22. SC Supreme Court

23. Sec. Section

24. Supp. Supplementary

25. UoI Union of India

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1986

3. THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) NOTIFICATION, 2006

4. COSTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION, 2011

5. THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RULES, 1986

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

1. M P JAIN INDIAN; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EIGHTH EDITION 2018

2. DURGA DAS BASU; CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (VOLUME-1) 14 2009

3. DURGA DAS BASU; CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (VOLUME-2) 14 2009

4. GURDIP SINGH; ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, SECOND EDITION 2016

5. DR. S.C. TRIPATHI; ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

THE APPELLANTS APPROACH THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

Article 136 in Constitution of India

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

Section 22 in The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

22. Appeal to Supreme Court.

Article 139A in Constitution of India

139A. Transfer of certain cases

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

WHETHER THE SAID CONSTRUCTION OF GREENFIELD EXPRESSWAY

WHETHER CONSTRUCTION OF GREENFIELD EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS