Download Purushartha Singh Evidence Project- Turnitin Report and more Assignments Law in PDF only on Docsity!
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Table of Contents] 12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA Before THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MANNA PRADESH [UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950] IN THE MATTER OF: M/S LANDMUGHAL PVT. LTD. …………………………………………… PETITIONER 1 MR. CHAGAN PEDDY……………………………………………………...PETITIONER 2 v. STATE OF MANNA PRADESH……………………………………………RESPONDENT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | 0
CODE: 201P
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Table of Contents] TABLE OF CONTENT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................II INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................III STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................IV SUMMARY OF FACTS...........................................................................................................V ISSUES RAISED..................................................................................................................VIII SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................IX ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................... 1 I. THE MANNA PRADESH DECENTRALISATION OF CAPITAL ACT, 2019 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?............................................................................................................. 1 A. Violative of Article 3 of the Constitution................................................................ 1 B. The Decentralised Act is repugnant to the central act............................................. 3 C. Violative of Article 38 of the Constitution.............................................................. 4 II. THE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FARMERS AND OTHER LAND HOLDERS COULD BE RESCINDED DUE TO ALLEGATION OF INSIDER TRADING UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION..................................................................................... 7 A. The contract entered between the farmer and the landholders violates the 'Right to Equality' as envisaged under Art. 14 of the Constitution................................................... 7 a. Grave Miscarriage of Justice has been Caused by the State and its Instrumentalities............................................................................................................. 7 b. The Contract Between the Parties must be Rescinded......................................... 9 B. The Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be Invoked............................................................................................................................. 10 a. The Petitioners have the required Locus Standi................................................. 10 b. An Appropriate writ can be issued..................................................................... 12 PRAYER OF RELIEF.............................................................................................................XI Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | I
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Index of Authorities] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES ABL International LTD. And Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and other (2004) 3 SCC 553................................................................................................... 7 Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617..................................... 8 Air India v. United Labour Union, (1997) 9 SCC 377............................................................... 5 Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691.............................................................................. 10 Common Cause v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 1................................................................... 5 Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Casting Ltd. and Another (2004) 6 SCC 36...... 4 LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd. (1986) 1 SCC 264....................................................................... 11 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India and Another (1979) 3 SCC 431........................................... 4 M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. v. State of A.P. AIR 1958 SC 468.............................................. 2 Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971 1 SCC 85.......................................... 3 Meenakshi Mills Ltd v A.V. Vishwanatha Shastri (1955) 1 SCR 787...................................... 7 Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and others (2012) 8 SCC 216............ 8 Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 643.............. 2 ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier, (2005) 5 SCC 245..................................................................... 12 Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand (2011) 8 SCC 708............................................................. 3 Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489......... 8 Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India (2006) 10 SCC 1............ 8 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India , (1994) 3 SCC 1....................................................................... 1 Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P (1991) 1 SCC 212........................................................... 10 State of Uttaranchal v. Siddharth Srivastava (2003) 9 SCC 336............................................... 2 Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publication Ltd (1993) 1 SCC 435.................................. 11 Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651.................................................................... 9 Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademark (1998) 8 SCC 1........................................ 10 STATUTES Constitution of India 1950......................................................................................................... 3 BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | III
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Index of Authorities] J. K. Verma, B.R. Ghaiye Law and Procedure of Departmental Enquiries (In Private and Public Sectors) (4th edn, Eastern Book Comapny 2012).................................................... 10 Kumar Kartikeya, Article 12 Meaning Scope and Emerging Judicial Trends (1st edn, Eastern Book Company 2020)............................................................................................................ 5 T.K. Tope’s, TK Topes Constitutional Law of India (3rd^ edn, Eastern Book Company 2010).. 2 V. Visalakshi and P. Arun Bhupathi, Government Contracts (1st edn, Eastern Book Company 2014).................................................................................................................................... 12 Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | IV
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Summary of Facts] SUMMARY OF FACTS PARTIES TO THE CASE In the instant matter, the parties to the dispute are:
1. M/s Landmughal ltd. [ hereinafter Petitioner No. 1] and Mr. Chagan Peddy [ hereinafter Petitioner No. 2] 2. State of Manna Pradesh [ hereinafter Respondent No. 1] BACKGROUND In 2014, The Union Parliament of Kailasha reorganized the State of Ma-Nadu into two States i.e., State of Ma-Nadu and the State of Manna Pradesh. The Parliament had passed The Manna Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (Act No. 11 of 2014). Therefore, a new state the State of Manna Pradesh was formed. The Capital of the former State of Ma-Nadu was Bhagya Nagar. According to Section 5 of the act, It was decided Bhagya Nagar to be the common capital for States of Ma-Nadu and Manna Pradesh for ten years and after the expiry of period Bhagya Nagar shall be the capital of the State of Ma-Nadu and there shall be a new capital for the State of Manna Pradesh. According to Section 6 of the Act, An Expert Committee will be formed to study alternatives for setting up a capital for Manna Pradesh which will submit a report within six months. On August 31st, 2014, The Expert Committee submitted its report within the specified time. It suggested the area around the birthplace of Raja Agnipati adjacent to the river Meghna is the most preferred and the State Government may choose to declare that as Capital city. On September 26th, 2014, The then Chief Minister of the State of Manna Pradesh made a speech before the Legislative Assembly regarding the formation of the new capital on either side of the river Meghna. On September 27th, 2014, Petitioner No. 1, a business concern of one of the minister’s wife in the state government bought a property of 88 Acres abutting the riverfront of river Meghna On December 30th, 2014, an official declaration of the capital centered around the historic birthplace of Raja Agnipati was notified through a Government Order being G.O. No. 10 of 2014 The Capital was named as ‘Naravati’ Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | VI
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Summary of Facts] THE CONTROVERSY Since 2015 The Union Government as well as the State Government has invested more than KNR 60 thousand crores for building various infrastructures for the New Capital ‘Naravati since 2015. As of 2019, all the constructions in Naravati are about to be completed or at an advanced stage. In May 2019, Opposition leader Shri. Magan Peddy won the election. On June 01st, 2019, A Cabinet Committee consisting of the entire cabinet was constituted to study alternative models and to suggest appropriate recommendations for a decentralized model. Due to which all the ongoing construction activities in Naravati were stopped. On July 01st, 2019, The Legislative Assembly of the State of Manna Pradesh passed Bill to enact the Manna Pradesh Decentralization of Capital Act, 2019. The Bills were transmitted to Legislative Council. the legislative Council voted in favor of referring the Bills to a ‘Select Committee’ but the secretary of the council refused to constitute the ‘Select Committee’. On August 15th, 2019, A Special Investigation Team constituted by the government submitted its report regarding illegality committed in acquisition/land pooling in and around ‘Naravati’ On November 01st, 2019, The Bills were reintroduced and passed in the Legislative Assembly. for the second time But, the Members of the Upper House adopted a resolution observing that the Bills ought not to have been reintroduced in the Assembly for the second time. On December 31st, 2019, Despite the resolution, The Governor assented to the Bill. The Act came into force THE WRIT PETITION AND LISTING OF CASE Petitioner No.1 approached the High Court of Manna Pradesh challenging the constitutionality of the Manna Pradesh Decentralisation of Capital Act, 2019. The Particular Writ Petition filed was W.P. No. 2088 of 2019. Petitioner No. 2 filed writ Petition being to rescind all contracts entered between farmers and land grabbers during the ensuing period of September 2014 to December 2014. The private parties including Petitioner No. 1 were impleaded in the Writ Petition and have taken Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | VII
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Issues Raised] ISSUES RAISED The petitioner has placed before the Hon’ble High Court of Manna Pradesh, the following issues for its consideration: ISSUE I Whether the Manna Pradesh Decentralization of Capital Act, 2019 is Unconstitutional? ISSUE II Whether the contract entered into between farmers and other land holders could be rescinded due to allegation of insider trading under Article 226 of the constitution? Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | IX
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Summary of Arguments] SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ISSUE 1. Whether the Manna Pradesh Decentralisation of Capital Act, 2019 is Unconstitutional? Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | X
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Arguments Advanced] [¶4.] Article 3 plays an important role in the federal nature of the Constitution. The power to alter the boundaries of States or to create new States within the territory of India is given only to Parliament, with a provision for taking into account the views of the Legislatures of the affected States. This is a "unitary" feature of our Federal Constitution.^3 [¶5.] The power of Parliament to make law under Articles 3 and 4 is plenary and traverses overall legislative subjects as are necessary for effectuating a proper reorganization of States. The constitutional validity of a law made under Articles 3 and 4 cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of legislative competence with reference to the Lists of the Seventh Schedule and the power of the State to enact laws in List II of the Seventh Schedule is subject to parliamentary legislation under Articles 3 and 4.^4 [¶6.] The law so made may also make supplemental, incidental, and consequential provisions which would include provisions relating to setting up of the legislative, executive, and judicial organs of the State essential to the effective state administration, expenditure and distribution of revenue, apportionment of assets and liabilities, provisions as to services and other related matters.^5 [¶7.] When a new state is created, difficulties and issues would arise but these have to be dealt with in the parameters of the constitutional provisions and the law and not by negating the mandate of parliament which has created the new state in terms of Art. 3 of the constitution.^6 [¶8.] It is submitted in the present case, The Manna Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 [ hereinafter, MPRC Act] has been passed by the parliament of Kailasha. In Section 5 clause (2) of the Act, it is mentioned that Bhagya Nagar shall be the capital of the State of Ma-Nadu and there shall be a new capital for the State of Manna Pradesh. In section 6, it is mentioned that an expert committee will be set up to study various alternatives regarding the new capital and make recommendations in a period not exceeding six months from the date of enactment of the MPRC Act. [¶9.] It is further submitted that the Expert committee made the recommendation within six months of enactment and suggested the area around the birthplace of Raja Agnipati abutting river Meghna is the most preferred area to locate the capital of Manna Pradesh. However, the State legislature passed the Decentralisation Act forming three capital around the state which (^3) T.K. Tope’s, TK Topes Constitutional Law of India (3rd (^) edn, Eastern Book Company 2010). (^4) Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 643 (^5) State of Uttaranchal v. Siddharth Srivastava (2003) 9 SCC 336. (^6) M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. v. State of A.P. AIR 1958 SC 468. Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | 2
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Arguments Advanced] is contradictory to MPRC Act. This impugned Act is clearly against the federal structure of the constitution. [¶10.] It is a well-settled principle of law that no part of a statute or no words of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statue has to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. It is also trite that statue or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved.^7 [¶11.] In the light of the above-mentioned arguments, the petitioners most respectfully submit before the Hon'ble Court that the fundamental dichotomy between the objective sought by the MPRC Act and decentralized act contravenes each other and is violative of Art. 3 of the Constitution. B. THE DECENTRALISED ACT IS REPUGNANT TO THE CENTRAL ACT [¶12.] It is submitted that Art. 254^8 deals with inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States. It is mentioned that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament, which Parliament is competent to enact. The law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. [¶13.] The question of repugnancy under Art. 254 of the Constitution arises when the provisions of both laws are completely inconsistent or irreconcilable. Repugnancy between the two statues would arise if there is a direct conflict. Hence it becomes quite necessary to examine as to whether the two legislation cover or relate to the same subject matter or different.^9 [¶14.] When there exists a direct conflict between two provisions and not otherwise. Once it held that law made by parliament and the state legislature occupy the same field, the subsequent legislation made by the state which had received the assent of the President of India indisputably would prevail over the parliamentary Act when there exists direct conflict between two enactments. Both the laws would ordinarily be allowed to have their play in their own respective field. However, in the event there exists any conflict, the parliamentary (^7) Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971 1 SCC 85. (^8) Constitution of India 1950, Art 254(a) (^9) Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand (2011) 8 SCC 708. Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | 3
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Arguments Advanced] ideals, viz national unity and integrity and democratic and equitable society to be achieved through a socio-economic revolution perused with a democratic spirit using the constitution and democratic institution.^13 [¶20.] As Provided under Article 38 (1)^14 , it is mentioned that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic, and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. [¶21.] In Common Cause v. Union of India^15 [ hereinafter , ‘Common Cause’], the Hon'ble Supreme court held that Article 38 and 39 of the constitution enjoin upon the state a duty to consistently endeavor to achieve social and economic justice to the teeming millions of the country whom even today live behind an artificially drawn poverty line. What can be a surer way in the march forward than by ensuring avoidance of unproductive expenditure of public funds. This is how the present matter is viewed and necessity is felt for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to proceed further. [¶22.] Social Justice is an integral part of justice in the generic sense of which social justice is one of its species. It is a dynamic device to mitigate the suffering of the weaker section of the society to elevate them to live a life with dignity. It is not simply an idea but an essential part of the complex social change. The Constitution mandates the state to bring justice in all facets of human activity.^16 [¶23.] In the present case, more than 60 thousand crores KNR has been invested by the Union and State Government for building various infrastructures for the New Capital. Also, all the constructions are about to be completed or at an advanced stage. The massive amount of money spent on building up the capital city is coming from exchequer funds. The exchequer is nothing but public funds. [¶24.] It is Submitted that the Decentralization Act will pose a major threat to livelihood and would affect the economy of the entire state. The above-mentioned common cause case is parallelly applicable as there was also unproductive expenditure of state funds and the Hon’ble court put a check on it. (^13) Kumar Kartikeya, Article 12 Meaning Scope and Emerging Judicial Trends (1st edn, Eastern Book Company 2020). (^14) Constitution of India, art 38(a) (^15) Common Cause v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 1. (^16) Air India v. United Labour Union, (1997) 9 SCC 377. Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | 5
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Arguments Advanced] [¶25.] The statement of object and appended to the impugned legislation neither conveyed any public interest nor justified the abandoning of the existing capital city. Therefore, the court must strike down the impugned Act. Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | 6
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Arguments Advanced] [¶32.] In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India^20 , It was held that the instrumentality of the state which would be ‘other authority’ under Article 12 cannot commit a breach of a solemn undertaking to the prejudice of the other party which acted on that undertaking or promise and put itself in a disadvantageous position. [¶33.] The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non- arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities.^21 [¶34.] The State, its corporations, instrumentalities, and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards, and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision- making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fide, unreasonableness, and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities, and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point.^22 [¶35.] In the present case, the Government and its official acted in a mala fide way and arbitrarily tried to encroach upon the rights of the Petitioner No. 2. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Consequently, the Petitioners have suffered a violation of rights by the state and its instrumentalities, thereby causing grave injustice. Thus, the Petitioner humbly submits that the present petition is maintainable in the ends of justice. b. The Contract Between the Parties must be Rescinded [¶36.] It is submitted that judicial review the basic test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. This means that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it otherwise it may result in illegality.^23 (^20) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489. (^21) Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and others (2012) 8 SCC 216. (^22) Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617. (^23) Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India (2006) 10 SCC 1 Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | 8
12 th^ Intra University Moot Court Competition, 2021 [Arguments Advanced] [¶37.] The principle of "judicial review" cannot be denied even in contractual matters or matters in which the Government exercises its contractual powers, but the judicial review is intended to prevent arbitrariness and it must be exercised in the larger public interest.^24 [¶38.] In Tata Cellular v. Union of India^25 , The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered and held that judicial review would apply even to the exercise of contractual powers by the government and government institution in order to arrest arbitrariness and laid down the limitation for exercise of power in contractual matter. The court must confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: a) Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? b) Committed an error of law, c) committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, d) reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, e) abused its powers. [¶39.] Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with how those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: a) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. b) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. c) Procedural impropriety. [¶40.] The requirement of Article 14 should extend even in the sphere of contractual matter for regulating the conduct of the state activity. Applicability of Article 14 to all executive action being settled and the same reason its applicability at the threshold to the making of a contract in exercise of the executive power being beyond dispute, the state cannot cast off its personality and exercise unbridled power unfettered by the requirement of Article 14 in the sphere of contractual matters and claim to be governed therein only by private law principle (^24) Id. (^25) Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651. Memorial on behalf of Petitioner Page | 9
