MZLC 3rd MOOT MEMORIAL RESPONDENT (ENVIRONMENTAL CASE)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court enjoys the right to preside over this matter by virtue
of Section 22 of The National Green Tribunal Act 2010 which provides that, 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 Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the
grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court the facts of the
present case are summarized as follows:
1. Friends of Earth, an environmental organization approached the National Green

Tribunal (NGT) alleging ‘X’ organization responsible for causing damage to the
river floodplains by conducting ‘Y’ Festival there. The NGT held ‘X’
organization responsible for causing environmental degradation and directed
that Rs. 5 Crore paid by the organization in fine be utilized for restoration of the
affected area.
2. The high-powered panel had stated that the floodplains had lost “almost all its
natural vegetation” like trees, shrubs, tall grasses, aquatic vegetation, including
water hyacinth that provides habitat to a large number of animals, insects and
mud-dwelling organisms because of the three-day ‘Y’ Festival. According to
them, the ground was totally leveled, compacted and hardened and is now totally
devoid of water bodies or depressions and completely barren. It further claims
that a different kind of external material was used to level the ground and
compress it.
3. ‘X’ organization responded that the ‘Y’ Festival was conducted to “spread the
message of global peace and harmony in diversity by bringing together spiritual
and religious leaders, politicians, peacemakers and artists from across the
world”. X submitted a peek into the satellite images of the concerned land parcel
indicates these to be farm lands and the area under contention as flat land and
not a floodplain.
4. ‘X’ organization submitted that, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change had contended that as per a 2006 environment impact
assessment report, the festival did not require any environmental clearance.
5. ‘X’ organization further submitted that, the event was conducted after
complying with all environmental norms by procuring approvals from the
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change department, the State
Pollution Control Committee, the State Irrigation Committee, State Disaster
Management Authority, Irrigation and Flood Control Department of State, so
they should not held liable and penalty imposed on them should be refunded.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS HAVE BEEN AND ARE

BEING DESTROYED ECOLOGICALLY, ENVIRONMENTALLY AND
BIOLOGICALLY BY THE X FOUNDATION?
2. WHETHER THE FOUNDATION IS RESPONSIBLE TO RESTORE THE VENUE

TO ITS PRE-EXISTING CONDITION?
3. IN THE EVENT OF SUCH ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND
CONSEQUENCE WHETHER THE DAMAGE PAYABLE BY THE
ORGANIZERS ARE ADEQUATE?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS HAVE BEEN AND ARE

BEING DESTROYED ECOLOGICALLY, ENVIRONMENTALLY AND
BIOLOGICALLY BY THE X FOUNDATION?
A. That the river is an aquatic lifeline for millions of people and others are
dependent on it for sustenance. On becoming aware that sacred river is
critically threatened by unrelenting encroachment on its flood plains and
by increasing pollution load emanating as much as from domestic refuse as
from agricultural and industrial effluents. Manoj Misra vs. Union of India1.
which came to be decided by the judgment of the Tribunal (for short,
‘Yamuna judgement’) directions were also issued with regard to
prohibition on carrying on any construction activity in the demarcated
flood plain of the river. The demarcation of flood plain with reference to 1
in 25 years was also directed. The flood plain had been demarcated and
delineated.
B. Dumping of debris and construction waste is a direct source of not only
polluting river but even the environment and ecology as a whole.
Directions were also issued in Yamuna judgement to impose
environmental compensation in case of violation of Tribunal’s directions,
particularly, in relation to flood plain.
C. A writ petition in the High Court of Delhi was filed bearing Writ Petition
No. 2344 of 2007 titled as Anand Arya and Anr. vs. Union Bank of India
& Ors. challenging the said action and holding of the event on the flood
plain of river Yamuna. The High Court of Delhi had appointed a
Committee. The recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the
1
13th January, 2015; (2015 ALL (I) NGT REPORTER (1) DELHI 139.
High Court of Delhi and the annual event was stopped. Flood plain of
rivers form essential ecological continuum of healthy rivers. These provide
essential space to the rivers to spread with ease their flood period flows
and recharge the associated aquifers.
D. Respondent was planning to bring millions of people from all over the
world to their Culture Festival Celebration. Respondent had started
construction on the flood plain for organizing the said festival and for
which 8 illegal and unauthorized dumping and construction in the active
flood plains of river was taking place over some 25 hectares upstream of
DND Flyway. Thus the flood plains which were excellent natural wetlands
are cleared and levelled by the Respondent Foundation.
2. WHETHER THE FOUNDATION IS RESPONSIBLE TO RESTORE THE VENUE

TO ITS PRE-EXISTING CONDITION?
A. The flood plains are also the lands that play an extremely important role in
facilitating the self cleansing ability of the rivers; provide habitat to large
number of riparian plants and animals and create wetlands including
marshes that help biological cleaning of waste water before it could enter
and pollute the river proper. Flood plains of river are not waste lands.
These should not be treated as lands lying fallow and utilizable in the
manner which is the matter of contest in this application.
B. The authorities failed to take any effective action while on the other hand
they fail to comply with the directions of the Tribunal as contained in the
Yamuna judgment. There was need to conduct an environmental impact of
the activity including construction works. The DDA had wrongfully
reportedly permitted the land in the river bed/flood plain to be used for the
event by Respondent.
3. IN THE EVENT OF SUCH ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND
CONSEQUENCE WHETHER THE DAMAGE PAYABLE BY THE
ORGANIZERS ARE ADEQUATE
A. The Apex Court in Shriram Gas Leak Case2 and in the Bichhri 3case the
apex court nicely weighted and balanced the conspectus of absolute

liability and polluter pays principle. The court interpreted the principle to
mean that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends to the
cost of restoring the environmental degradation in addition to
compensating the victims of pollution.
B. The Court observed that sec 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986, empower the Central Government to give directions and take

measures for giving effect to this principle.
C. Span Motel was direct to pay compensation for restitution of the
environment and ecology in M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath4. In Pravinbhai J

Patel V. State of Gujarat5 the court directed the polluting units to either
shut down or pay one percent of its gross turnover towards ‘Socio-
economic uplift’ of the affected villages
D. In Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India6 the apex court
stated that precautionary principle and polluter pays principle govern the
law in India as is clear from the Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the
Constitution and that, in various environmental statutes, such as Water
Act, 1974, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and other statutes,
these concepts are already implied.
2
M C Mehta v. Union of India 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819
3
Indian Enviro Legal Council v. Union of India 1996 AIR 1446.
4
1997 1 SCC 388.
5
1995 (2) Guj LR 1210.
6
AIR 1996 SC 2715.
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced

and authorities cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Respondent humbly pray
before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to dismiss the appeal.
Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity,
justice and good conscience and for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships
the Defendant shall as duty bound ever pray.
Sd/- _______________________ Counsels for the Defendant

MZLC 3rd MOOT MEMORIAL RESPONDENT (ENVIRONMENTAL CASE)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MZLC 3rd MOOT MEMORIAL RESPONDENT (ENVIRONMENTAL CASE)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

MZLC 3rd MOOT MEMORIAL RESPONDENT (ENVIRONMENTAL CASE)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. Friends of Earth, an environmental organization approached the National Green

1. WHETHER THE FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS HAVE BEEN AND ARE

2. WHETHER THE FOUNDATION IS RESPONSIBLE TO RESTORE THE VENUE

1. WHETHER THE FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS HAVE BEEN AND ARE

2. WHETHER THE FOUNDATION IS RESPONSIBLE TO RESTORE THE VENUE

apex court nicely weighted and balanced the conspectus of absolute

1986, empower the Central Government to give directions and take

environment and ecology in M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath4. In Pravinbhai J

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced

Sd/- _______________________ Counsels for the Defendant

You might also like