PRACTICAL TRAINING-IV

ACADEMIC YEAR 2021-2024

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRIT Petition (Civil) No. of 2024)

IN THE MATTER OF

MUKUL RASTOGI & ANR ...................... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..................... RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITITONER

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

SUNIL KAVASKAR R (21LT0044)

MEMORANDAM FOR PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No Name Page No

1 Table of contents
2 Index of authorities
3 Statement of Jurisdiction
4 Statement of Facts
5 Issues Raised
6 Summary of Arguments
7 Arguments advanced
8 Prayer

MEMORANDAM FOR PETITIONER

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.No Abbreviations Expansion

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. ANR Another

3. ART Article

7. Crl/CRL Criminal

8. Cri.l.J Criminal law journal

9. CPC Code of civil procedure

10. Etc Etcetera

11. ORS Others

12. Hon’ble Honourable

14. I.e., Thatis

15. IPC Indian penal code

16. Ibid Ibidem

20. Mr. Mister

21. Ms. Mises

22. No. Number

24. Ors. Others

27. Re. Reference

29. S. Section

30. SC Supreme court

31. SCC Supreme court case

32. S/D Signed

33. V. Verses

MEMORANDAM FOR PETITIONER

 A) CASE REFFERED

1) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 549

2) S.P. Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [1982] 2 SCR 365

3) Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 1989

4) L.K. Koolwal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 19 September, 1986

5) Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

6) M.C.Mehta v. KamalNath (2000) 6 SCC 213
7) M.C.Mehta v. KamalNath, (2002) 3 SCC 653
8) In Union Carbide Corporation and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
9) Indian Council of Enviro- Legal Action vs. Union of India,1996 3 SCC 212
10) In re: Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant in RR Venkatapuram Village
Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh (2020)

B. BOOKS REFERRED:

1. ARVIND P DATAR,Commentary on the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,Vol.1&2.(2nded.,2007).

2. DURGA DAS BASU,CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,Vol.1&2.(14thed.,2009).

3. JAIN M.P.,Indian Constitutional Law (6thed.,Lexis Nexis Butterworth,2010).

4. J.N.PANDEY,CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA(55thed.,CentralLawAcademy,2018).

C. STATUES REFERRED:

MEMORANDAM FOR PETITIONER

 1. The Constitution of India,1950.
2 The Environment Protection Act ,1986
3 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

D. OTHER SOURCES:

2. http://www.scconline.com

3. www.manupatrafast.in

4. https://indiankannon.org

5. https://casemine.com

6. www.lexisnexisacademic.com

MEMORANDAM FOR PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petition filed under the Writ Jurisdiction of this Hon’able Court under article 32 of the
Constitution of India.

Article 32 read as-

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3)Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution”1

1
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950

MEMORANDA FOR PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Kanheri Nagar is a thickly populated area in Mumbai. The famous Food and Fertiliser
factory, Coromandel Garden International, which produced products like hard
technical oil, glycerine soaps and other petroleum products is situated in that area
 Mukul Rastogi, a social activist lawyer, submitted before the Supreme Court, a writ
petition seeking an order for closure and relocation of the Coromandel Garden
International's Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant to an area where no real danger to
the people's health and security will exist.
 Pending disposal of the petition, the Supreme Court allowed the plant to restart its
capacity and work. On the process of restarting capacity, Nitrous Di-oxide gas leaked
from one of its units, causing substantial harm to local residents as a result of the
plant's gas leakage.
 The petition filed by Mukul Rastogi was pending before the court during this incident.
A lawyer who practised in the Metropolitan Court also died as a result of Nitrous Di-
oxide gas inhalation. The people had hardly recovered from the shock of this tragedy
when, within two days, another leakage occurred, though this time a minor one, due to
the escape of Nitrous Di-oxide gas from a pipe joints, after which the claims for
compensation were filed, for the people who had suffered damage as a result of
Nitrous Di-oxide Gas escape, by the Mumbai Legal Aid & Advice Board and the
Mumbai Bar Association.
 The Mumbai administrations immediate response to these two leaks was to issue an
order by the Magistrate, in accordance to sub-section(1) of Section 133 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, ordering and requiring Coromandel Garden International to cease
the occupation of manufacturing and processing of dangerous and lethal chemicals
and gases, including chlorine, Nitrous Di-oxide, Super Chlorine, phosphate, etc. at
their facility in Mumbai and to remove such chemicals and gases from the facility
within 7 days and to refrain from storing them in the same place again or to appear in
the District Magistrate Court to show cause as to why this order should not be
enforced.
 On the Petition by Mukul Rastogi, the Supreme Court held that the case should be
referred to a larger bench because the questions raised involve substantial law issues
relating to the interpretation of Article 21 and 32 of the Constitution. In order to

MEMORANDA FOR PETITIONER

 assess whether a writ in conjunction with compensation could be awarded, the court
had to interpret Article 32.

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT IS

VIOLATED?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER A WRIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMPENSATION COULD BE

AWARDED ?

MEMORANDA FOR PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF ARGUEMENTS

WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the petition is maintainable under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. where there
is a violation of a fundamental or legal right of a person or a group of people who are unable
to approach a court of law for justice due to poverty, disability, or social and economic
disadvantages, any public-spirited individual or social action group can take action on their
behalf. Based on the fact of the case peoples in the Kanheri Nagar were affected by the
chemical gas released from the Coromandel Garden international .The petitioner Mukul
Rastogi, a social activist , lawyer come under the meaning of “ any public spirited individual
so, the writ petition filed on behalf of the peoples of the Kanheri nagar before the Hon’ble
court is maintainable

WHETHER THE RIGHT LIVE IN HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT IS VIOLATED?

The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that enjoyment of life and its
attainment including their right to live with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the
protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air,
water etc. without which the life cannot be enjoyed. In this case Coromandel Garden
International at Kanheri nagar, adversely affected the life of the people by polluting the air,
by releasing the chemicals in the atmosphere and Nitrous Di oxide gas Leaked from the plant
causing substantial harm to the local residents. There has been a violation of right to healthy
environment. Article 21 of the constitution of India is violated

WHETHER A WRIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMPENSATION COULD BE

AWARDED ?

The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the power of the court to give
compensation .under the article 32 of the constitution of India. In the present case
Coromandel Garden I nternational adversely affect the environment of chemical plant
situated area and cause many health issues to people in the area . A lawyer who practised in
the Metropolitan Court also died as a result of Nitrous Di-oxide gas inhalation release from

MEMORANDA FOR PETITIONER

the chemical plant .By applying absolute liability principle, Coromandel Garden International
is must be liable for the disaster and the death of the lawyer and must be liable and need to
give compensation to the affected people.

MEMORANDA FOR PETITIONER

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the petition is maintainable under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. where there
is a violation of a fundamental or legal right of a person or a group of people who are unable
to approach a court of law for justice due to poverty, disability, or social and economic
disadvantages, any public-spirited individual or social action group can take action on their
behalf.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors.2 Supreme court held that Article
32 does not merely confer power on this Court to issue a direction, order or writ for
enforcement of the fundamental rights but it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court
to protect the fundamental rights of the people and for that purpose this Court has all
incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new
strategies designed to' enforce the fundamental rights., particularly in the case of the poor and
the disadvantaged who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty
have no meaning.

In S,P. Gupta v. Union of India,3 Supreme Court held that "where a legal wrong or a legal
injury is caused to a any such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty
or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court
for relief, any member of the public or social action group can maintain an application for an
appropriate direction.

In this present case, Mukul Rastogi , a social activist , lawyer, having huge interest in the
public and social welfare filed a writ petition seeking an order for closure and relocation of
the Coromandel Garden International's Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant to an area where
real danger to the people's health and security will exist. Mukul Rastogi filed this case under

2
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors
3
S,P. Gupta v. Union of India

MEMORANDA FOR PETITIONER

the meaning of public-spirited individual or social action group on behalf of the aggrieved
person specially in the case of poor or disability so, this present petition was maintainable
under Article 32 of the constitution of India and pass an order in favour of the petitioner for
closure and relocation of the Coromandel Garden International .

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT WAS VIOLATED?

The counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme court that the constitutional
scheme to protect and preserve the environment has been provided under Articles 21, 48-A
and 51-A(g) which includes fundamental right to have healthy and pollution free
environment, constitutional obligation of the State and fundamental duty of all citizens of
India to protect and improve the natural environment. The talk of fundamental rights and in
particular right to life would become meaningless if there is no healthy environment.

The judicial grammar of interpretation has made “right to live in healthy environment” as
the sanctum sanctorum of Human Rights.
The Section 2(e) of The Environment Protection Act of 1986 defines, “a hazardous
substance to mean any substance or preparation which, by reason of its chemical or
physio-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other
living creatures, plants, micro-organisms, property or the environment.” . In this case it
could be seen that due to the gas leakage from Coromandel Garden International , there was
discharge of toxic substances. Nitrous Di oxide gas Leaked from the plant causing substantial
harm to the local residents. So,The Coromandel Garden International chemical plant violates
sec 2(e) of The Environment Protection Act of 1986
In Charal lal sahu v. Union of India4, the Supreme Court of India while upholding the
validity of the Bhopal Gas Leak disaster held that ‘in context of our national dimensions of
human rights, right to life, liberty, pollution free air and water is guaranteed by the
constitution under Article 21, 48-A and 51-A(g). it is the duty of the state to take effective
steps to protect the guaranteed constitutional rights.

4
Charal lal sahu v. Union of India

MEMORANDA FOR PETITIONER

In KL Koolwal v. Sate, the Rajasthan5 high court held that maintenance of health,
preservation of sanitation and environment falls within the preview of Article 21 of the
Constitution as it adversely affects the life of the citizen and it amounts to slow poisoning and
reducing the life of the citizen because of the hazards created, if not checked.
In Vellore citizens welfare forum v. Union of India6, the Supreme Court held that in view of
the constitutional provisions contained in articles 21, 48-A, 51-A (g) and other statutory
provisions contained in the Water Prevention and control of pollution Act, 1974, the Air
Prevention and control of pollution Act, 1981, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the
“precautionary principles” and the “polluter pays principle” are part of the environmental law
of the country. In other words, two basic principles of sustainable development can be
derived from various provisions including the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
In MC Mehta v. Union of India 7Supreme Court, held that Prima facie the right to live
cannot be enjoyed unless there is right to livelihood. The means of living are as much
important as oxygen is to biological life and since in our norms of human dignity we have
valued life as much more than mere biological existence, the importance of the means of
living cannot be over emphasized. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall
have deprived him of his life.
Hence the counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble supreme court that there was an
leakage of gases like Nitrous Di oxide from the plant that cause several disorder to the
resident of the area and A lawyer who practised in the Metropolitan Court also died as a
result of Nitrous Di-oxide gas inhalation ,the people in the area were affected by the leakage
of gases from the Coromandel Garden International that clearly shows that violation of
pollution free environment and chemical gas inhalation cause a death which violates the right
to live and collectively which violates the article 21of the constitution of India. Hence the
right to live in healthy environment under article 21 is violated

WHETHER A WRIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMPENSATION COULD BE

AWARDED ?
The counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble court that In Union Carbide Corporation
and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (Bhopal Gas Leak Case) Absolute Liability -
This principle means that if an individual is engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous

5
KL Koolwal v. Sate, the Rajasthan
6
Vellore citizens welfare forum v. Union of India
7
MC Mehta v. Union of India

MEMORANDA FOR PETITIONER

activity, and if any harm is caused to any person due to any accident which occurred during
carrying out such inherently dangerous and hazardous activity, then the person who is
carrying out such activity will be held absolutely liable .In the present case , the peoples in
the area of Kanheri Nagar were affected by the nitrous di oxide gas leaked from the
Coromendal Garden International. Based on the above principle ‘’ absolute liabitity’’, the
Coromendal Garden International chemical plant absolutely liable for the leakage of chemical
gas from the plant .A lawyer who practised in the Metropolitan Court also died as a result of
Nitrous Di-oxide gas inhalation ,the leakage of the gases from the chemical plant leads to lost
of the human being in the nagar again the Coromendal Garden International chemical plant
must be liable.
In Indian counsel for Enviro-Legal Action and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) 8 In this case
they follow the Polluter Pays Principle that the person who commits the offence of polluting
the environment is solely responsible to compensate for managing the harm caused to public
health at large. Like above this famous case environment get affected by the release of the
chemical gas from the Coromandel Garden International.Hence the chemical plant is solo
responsible for the offence and liable for compensation for affected public. The counsel
humbly submits before the Hon’ble court that The Coromandel Garden International
chemical plant require to deposit Rs fifty crores with the National Green Tribunal for the
disaster and also liable to give compensation to affected public like in the case of In re: Gas
Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant in RR Venkatapuram Village, Visakhapatnam in
Andhra Pradesh (2020)9, In this case, a hazardous gas called styrene leaked from the
factories of LG Polymers, causing the deaths of 12 people and injury to many more, as well
as damaging the environment. The company was held absolutely liable under the Act and was
required to deposit Rs fifty crores with the National Green Tribunal. Imposing fine against
the establishisment like Coromandel Grden International is the only way to reduce the
negligence or misconduct and other wise they will use the defence “Act of God”. Hence
,based on the above mentionted principle and famous case ,the Coromandel Garden
International must need to give compensation to the affected public along with the writ
petition.

8
Indian counsel for Enviro-Legal Action and Ors. vs. Union of India
9
In re: Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant in RR Venkatapuram Village, Visakhapatnam in Andhra
Pradesh (2020)

MEMORANDA FOR PETITIONER

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, written pleadings submitted and authorities cited,
it is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and
declare that

1) This present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the constitution of India and
pass an order in favour of the petitioner for closure and relocation of the Coromandel
Garden International.
2) The right to live in healthy environment under article 21 is violated.
3) The Coromandel Garden International must need to give compensation to the affected
public along with the writ petition.

And humbly pray the Hon’ble Court to pass any order or relief in the favor of the
petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the larger interest of the Justice.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

DATE

PLACE :PUDUCHERRY

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

SUNIL KAVASKAR R ( REG NO: 21LT0044)

MEMORANDA FOR PETITIONER