T14 Respondent

BMSREENIVASAIAHMEMORIAL2ndNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION2016
T 14
BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF KANO
STATE OF KARAK....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF MANDEVILLERESPONDENT
PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 131 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KANO
To,
The Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court
The humble submission of the petitioner above named
Sd/- (Signature)
Sd/- (Signature)
Counsel for the Respondent
Respondent
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sl. No.
Particulars
Page No.
1.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ii
2.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
iii - v
Books referred
Dictionaries and Law Lexicons
Statutes and Rules referred
Websites referred
Table of cases
3.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
vi
4.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
vii
5.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
viii
6.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ix
7.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
8.
PRAYER
1 14
15
Page i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. AIR
All India Reporter
2. Art.
Article
3. Edn.
Edition
4. e.g
Example
5. EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
6. Honble
Honorable
7. i.e.
That is
8. MoEF
Ministry of Environment and Forest
9. SC
Supreme Court
10. SCC
Supreme Court Cases
11. SCR
Supreme Court Report
12. Vol.
Volume
13. Vs.
Verses
Page ii
Page iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED
i.
D D BASU: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LEXIS NEXIS, NAGPUR, 14TH

EDN.(2009)
ii.
D D BASU: COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LEXIS

NEXIS, NAGPUR, VOL.4, 8TH EDN. (2008)
iii.
D.J.DE, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ASIA LAW HOUSE, HYDERABAD,

VOL. 2, 2002 EDN.
iv.
Dr. L.M.SHINGHVI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, THOMSON REUTERS,

NEW DELHI, VOL.2, 3RD EDN., 2013
v.
Dr. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,

UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING CO., DELHI,VOL.1, 2008 EDN.
vi.
H. M. SEERVAI: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, N. M. TRIPATHI PVT

LTD, BOMBAY, 3RD EDITION.
vii.
JAIN,
M.P.:
INDIAN
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW,
WADHWA
AND
COMPANY,NAGPUR, 5TH EDN. (REP.2005)

viii.
P.
ISHWAR
BHAT:
INTER-STATE
AND
INTERNATIONAL
WATER
DISPUTE, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY (P) LTD, LUCKNOW, 1ST EDITION.

ix.
PROF. PRASAD DIWAN: ENVIRONMENT ADMNISTRATION, DEEP &

DEEP PUBLICATION, NEW DELHI.
x.
S. C. SHASTRI: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY (P)

LTD, LUCKNOW, 3RD EDITION.
xi.
SUSAN WOLF & ANNA WHITE: PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW,

CAVENDISH PUBLISHING LTD, GREAT BRITAIN, 2ND EDITION.
xii.
VIDYANATH: WATER RESOURCES OF INDIA, OXFORD UNIVERSITY

PRESS, NEW DELHI, 1ST EDITION.
xiii.
V. R. KRISHNA IYER: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND LEGAL

DEFENCE, STERLING PUBLISHERS PVT LTD
Page iv
DICTONARIES AND LAW LEXICONS

1. BLACK HENRY CAMPBELL, BLACK ' LAW DICTIONARY 6TH ED., 1990
2. BURTON WILLIAM C, LEGAL THESAURUS, 2ND ED., 1992
3. GARNER BRYAN, BLACK ' LAW DICTIONARY, 7TH ED
4. GARNER BRYAN, MODERN LEGAL USAGE, 1991
5. PRAMANATHA'S AIYER'S , "LAW LEXION", 2ND ED., 1997
6. THE OXFORD ADVANCED LEARNER DICTIONARY, 6TH ED. 2003
7. WHARTON, LAW LEXICON, 14TH ED. 1993
STATUTES, CONVENTIONS AND RULES REFERRED

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
THE ENVIRONMENTAL (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986
INTER STATE WATER DISPUTES ACT, 1956
CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE NON-NAVIGATIONAL USES OF
INTERNATIONAL WATER COURSES,1997
THE INDUS WATER TREATY, 1960
NATIONAL WATER POLICY, 2012
LIST OF WEBSITES REFERRED
http://www.indiankanoon.org
http://www.manupatra.com
http://www.legalpundits.com
http://www.lexisite.com
http://www.judisnic.in
http://www.lawteacher.net
http://www.legalindia.in
http://www.wrmin.gov.nic.in
http://www.enfor.gov.in
Page v
TABLE OF CASES
Atma Linga Reddy V. Union of India, (2008) 7 SCC 788;
Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 1428;
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3751;
Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon;
State of Orissa V. Government of India, (2009) 5 SCC 492;
Vedire Venkata Reddy v. Union of India, AIR 2005 AP 155;
Page vi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 of
the Indian Constitution.
Whereas Article 131 reads as under:
131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of this Constitution,
the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any
dispute
a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or
b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more
other States on the other; or
c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question
(whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends:
Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any
treaty, agreement, covenant, engagements, and or other similar instrument which,
having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution,
continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said
jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute.
BMSREENIVASAIAHMEMORIAL2ndNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION2016 Page vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Union of Kano is a democratic republic with 29 states. It is rich in non-renewable and
renewable resources. Kano which is headed by the Nudi Adami Party has always
supported the use of renewable energy which has been made as a national policy. East
zone of Kano is blessed with favorable ecosystem, helpful for agricultural purposes.
State of Karak and Mandeville are two neighboring states in east zone.
2. The State of Mandeville is excessively dependent on tourism and nature. The two States
had stressed relation pertaining to distribution of inter-state river Aishani which takes
birth in State of Karak and travels 800 km to the Great Kano Sea.
3. The two State Governments entered into agreement which proposed the construction of
a dam named AISHANI JAL for the purpose of providing water to the drought prone
areas in the State of Karak in the year 1970. New regional political party by name
Mandi Adami Party, displaced Kano Admi Party in State of Mandeville in the year
1985 and even contested in the State of Karak. Due to ideological differences between
the two parties, the JAL project was completely stalled.
4. The western part of Karak was hit by a severe drought which led to agitation and bundh
and a complete halt of the economy, affecting the State's revenue. This lead to change
of Government in the State of Karak and NAP came to power in the State of Karak. The
State of Karak proposed that there is need of 7.5 TMC of water to solve the issues in
western Karak, which was not agreed to on environmental grounds by the State of
Mandeville. State of Mandeville, approached the Union of Kano and a Water Tribunal
was set to solve the issue.
5. The Government of Karak, approached the Union Government for clearance for
AishaniJal project. The National Environment Engineering Institute and Ministry of
Water Resources gave in principle clearance.
6. The State of Mandeville approached the Water Tribunal seeking for a stay on the
clearance given and sought an injunction against construction of the Jal Project as the
same was affecting the flora and fauna. The tribunal was not convinced with this line of
argument and thus did not entertain the application and rejected the same. Aggrieved by
this, the State of Mandeville has approached the Supreme Court of Kano for seeking
relief. The matter is before the Supreme Court of Kano for final hearing.
BMSREENIVASAIAHMEMORIAL2ndNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION2016 Page viii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF AISHANI JAL PROJECT WILL
LEAD TO VAST AND IMMENSE ECOLOGICAL IMBALANCE?
3. WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF DAM WILL VIOLATE OR
PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE?
4. WHETHER THE STATE OF MANDEVILLE IS ENTITLED FOR ANY
RELIEF OR AWARD?
Page ix
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
It is respectfully submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Prima
facie the dispute is a water dispute. Secondly, it is a conflict for the use of water between
both the states. Finally, because it includes construction of dam the upper riparian state will
be in a dominant position over the control of water. Thus it also includes control of water so
the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the issue because Article 262 has a bar
on it. It is further submitted that inter-State water dispute should be dealt with only in
accordance with the provisions of Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956, and cannot be
challenged in any Court including the Supreme Court. Hence, the petition should be
dismissed.
2. WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF AISHANI JAL PROJECT WILL LEAD TO VAST
AND IMMENSE ECOLOGICAL IMBALANCE?
It is respectfully submitted that there is no ecological imbalance due to the construction of

Aishani jal project. Dams are constructed for Generating electricity; Supplying water for
agricultural, industrial, and household needs; controlling the impact of floodwaters; and
Enhancing river navigation. If dam is constructed it will increase the ecological balance on
the other hand. Water will reach the required place, peoples misery will be gone. It will
make the land more fertile. Irrigational facilities will increase which will in long run help
the nature only.
3. WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF DAM WILL VIOLATE OR PROTECT
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE?
It is respectfully submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the construction of dam
will enrich the fundamental rights of the citizens of State of Karak.
As quoted by Jwaharlal Nehru, First Prime Minister of India, Dams are the temple of
modern world. The benefits of dams are innumerable. The basic purpose of dam is to serve
public interest at large. When a dam is built the dispute of water gets solved. Building of
dam has manifold objective. First, the dam will provide water to areas where it is needed,
Second, ProA State should think and take decisions that will benefit its citizens. The
respondents have got permit from the Union Government and concerned ministries for the
construction. All Environment Impact Assessment have been done then only the authorities
Page x
gave the permit and it is very substantial in nature. Human Rights are those rights which are
social, legal and moral in nature. When the drought has hit the Western part of Karak, there
was agitation against the Government and no Government can sustain without the support
of its citizens. In those circumstances it is the foremost duty of the Government to seek
methods to earn that support by giving a solution to the problem of its citizens. Production
of hydroelectricity will increase, and third, it will cater to the need of irrigation.
4. WHETHER THE STATE OF MANDEVILLE IS ENTITLED FOR ANY AWARD
OR RELIEF?
It is most humbly submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the State of
Mandeville is not entitled for any relief or award.
As the State of Mandeville has already made an application for the injunction to Aishani Jal
project and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. When the tribunal which is constituted
to address the water dispute between both the states, thereafter anything related to that issue
will be decided by the tribunal only. As mentioned in ISWD Act, the tribunals decision
will be final in any matter related to water dispute. This matter of dam construction came
out of the water dispute going on between both the states. When the tribunal has already
decided the application to be dismissed then why again there is a petition before Supreme
Court? It is just wasting the precious time of the Honble Supreme Court.
B M SREENIVASAIAH MEMORIAL 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2016 Page 1
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
It is respectfully submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The
state of Mandeville approached the Union of Kano for referring the matter to the water
tribunal. Accordingly a tribunal was constituted and was in its process of adjudication with
regard to distribution of water. So the very base for the dispute is, 7.5 TMC of water that state
of Karak claimed to solve the issues in Western Karak. Whereas later the petitioner
concluded for themselves that 3.5 TMC would suffice. Thus prima facie the dispute is a water
dispute. Secondly, it is a conflict for the use of water between both the states. Finally,
because it includes construction of dam the upper riparian state will be in a dominant position
over the control of water. Thus it also includes control of water so the Supreme Court does
not have jurisdiction over the issue because Article 262 has a bar on it.
1.1 The petition is not maintainable as the Art. 262 provides as follows:
262. Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter State rivers or river valleys
(1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with
respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter State river or river
valley
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither
the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such
dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1).
This article empowers the parliament to provide for adjudication of any dispute or complaint
with respect to the use, distribution or control of waters or any inter-State river or river valley
and to bar the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court in respect of such disputes.
It may be pointed out that for the settlement of inter-State river water dispute, the Draft
Constitution of India initially contained similar provision in the 1935 Act. In the light of these
considerations, the present Article 262 was adopted. In the pursuance of the provision,
parliament enacted the Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956 VedireVenkata Reddy v. Union
of India1, the Act provides for appointment of ad hoc tribunals by the central government
when a State Government requests the centerfor tribunal and when the center is of the
opinion that the disputes cannot be settled by negotiations. Section 11 of the Act excludes the
VedireVenkata Reddy v. Union of India, AIR 2005 AP 155.
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to
the tribunal under this Act. The Act provides for finality of awards passed by the tribunal
after consideration of clarification sought either by the Central or State Government.
1.2 The constitution has made several departures from the provisions of Government of India
Act, 1935. (1) States legislative power over water is made subject to parliaments power
under entry 56 of list 1. (2) The machinery for resolving water dispute is not written into
constitution itself, but is to be provided for by law by parliament. (3)The jurisdiction of all
courts including Supreme Court is not excluded by the constitution but Art. 262 (2)
empowers parliament to provide for such exclusion by law.
1.3 Since the states, in every federation, normally act as independent units in the exercise of
their internal sovereignty, conflicts of interest between the units, are sure to arise. Hence, in
order to maintain the strength of the Union, it is essential that there should exist adequate
provision for judicial determination of disputes between the units and for settlement of
disputes by extra judicial bodies as well as their prevention by consultation and joint action.
While Art. , ante, provides, for the judicial determination of disputes between states by
vesting the Supreme Court with exclusive jurisdiction in the matter, Art. 262 provides for
adjudication of one class of such disputes, by an extra judicial tribunal, while Art. 263
provides for the prevention of inter-state dispute by investigation and recommendation by
administrative body.
1.4 The present article empowers the parliament to exclude the adjudication of any dispute
or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters, or of in any interState river or river valley, from the adjudication of the Supreme Court or any other Court and
provides for the adjudication of such dispute by any other authority and in any manner
provided by parliament. This clearly states that there is no jurisdiction of Supreme Court to
adjudicate the dispute and the parliament clearly provides for the adjudication of such
disputes by an extra judicial body or a tribunal.
1.5 But, till the tribunal is constituted, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass interim
orders to preserve status quo (State of Orissa V. Government of India2). In that case, the
agreement was entered into between two states to share water on equal basis. Subsequently,
one of the State started construction of side channel weir and a flood flow canal on the river
concerned. The same was objected by the other States. It was held that the dispute amounted
State of Orissa V. Government of India, (2009) 5 SCC 492.
to inter-State water dispute since the construction on the river could possibly disturb the
earlier agreement between the States and the tribunal had to decide the dispute. But in the
instinct case the tribunal has already been constituted and has got every jurisdiction to
adjudicate the disputes between the states for sharing of water.
1.6 It is further submitted that inter-State water dispute should be dealt with only in
accordance with the provisions of Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956, and cannot be
challenged in any Court including the Supreme Court. The contention that the bar under the
Act would not cover cases of private individuals approaching the Supreme Court was rejected
and no petition in Art. 32 could be entertained as held in Atma Linga Reddy V. Union of
India3.
1.7 It is further submitted that the petitioners are have no proper base to approach the
honorable Supreme Court. In support to statement made by the counsel it is very clear
according to the facts that the case prima faciehas breach of agreement which was in the year
1970 agreed upon by both the states to construct a dam across river Aishani called Aishani
jall project for the purpose of providing water to the drought prone areas in the State of
Karak. But today the petitioner is totally against the construction of the very same project for
which it had agreed upon. Thus it is now categorical that the petitioner is not abiding by the
same which is the breach of agreement and thus doesnt have a locus standi under Article 131
of the constitution. Article 131 does not entertain any petition of dispute between the states
for breach of agreement.
1.8 Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of this Constitution,
the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any
dispute
(a) Between the Government of India and one or more States; or
(b) Between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more
other States on the other; or
(c) Between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether
of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends: Provided that the
said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement,
covenant, engagements, and or other similar instrument which, having been entered into
or executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such
AtmaLinga Reddy V. Union of India,(2008) 7 SCC 788.
commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a
dispute. Thus petition filed under Article 32, Article 131, or article 136 is not maintainable.
Hence, the petition should be dismissed.
2. WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF AISHANI JAL PROJECT WILL LEAD

TO VAST AND IMMENSE ECOLOGICAL IMBALANCE?
It is respectfully submitted that there is no ecological imbalance due to the construction of
Aishani jal project. Dams are constructed for Generating electricity; Supplying water for
agricultural, industrial, and household needs; controlling the impact of floodwaters; and
Enhancing river navigation.
2.1 In the case of NarmadaBachaoAndolan v. Union of India4, the court considered various
aspects of environmental clearance of SardarSarovar Project by referring to vast scientific
data, which covered the issues relating to catchment area treatment, compensatory
afforestation, downstream impacts, salinity, sedimentation, flora and fauna, fisheries,
archeological remains, resettlement and rehabilitation and health concerns. B.N.Kirpal J for
the majority expressed satisfication on these matters and observed: care for environment is an
ongoing process and the system in place would ensure that ameliorative steps are taken to
counter the adverse effect, if any, on the environment with the construction of the dam.
2.2 Furthermore, environmental concern has not only to be of the area which is going to be
submerged but also its surrounding area. The impact on environment should be seen in
relation to the project as a whole. While an area of land will submerge but the construction of
dam will result in multifold improvement in the environment of the areas where canal water
will reach.
2.3 Further in Mullaperiyar case5, the court dealt with the problem of submerge of forest due
to heightening of dam and viewed that total extent of forest will not fall, and said: the
increase of water level will not affect the flora and fauna. In fact, the reports placed on record
that the fauna, particularly, elephant herds and the tigers will be happier when the water level
slowly rises to touch the forest line. In nature, all birds and animals love water spread and
exhibit their exuberant pleasure with heavy rain filling the reservoir resulting in lot of
greenery abd ecological environment around. The expert committee has reported that it will
be beneficial for the wildlife in the surrounding area as it will increase the carrying capacity
for wildlife like elephant, ungulates and in turn tigers, the apprehensions regarding adverse
impact on environment and ecology have been found by the experts to be unfound.
4
5
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3751

Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 1428
2.4 It is further submitted that if the minute details about the ecological imbalance is
considered there wont be any dams built in this world. Since the construction of dam is for
the very purpose to help the people of that region in terms of sufficient water supply,
sustainable electric supply, water supply to agricultural lands, and also help the wildlife as
observed in Mullaperiyar6 case.
2.5 The dams also helps in irrigation purposes, they are:
Dams and reservoirs are constructed to store surplus waters during wet periods, which can be
used for irrigating arid lands. One of the major benefits of dams and reservoirs is that water
flows can be regulated as per agricultural requirements of the various regions over the year.
Dams and reservoirs render unforgettable services to the mankind for meeting irrigation
requirements on a gigantic scale.
It is estimated that 80% of additional food production by the year 2025 would be available
from the irrigation made possible by dams and reservoirs.
Dams and reservoirs are most needed for meeting irrigation requirements of developing
countries, large parts of which are arid zones.
There is a need for construction of more reservoir based projects despite widespread
measures developed to conserve water through other improvements in irrigation technology.
It is further submitted that construction of dam provides a habitat for wetland species,
especially water birds. The reservoir can also be a source of water to animals and plants in the
adjoining areas and, where such areas have become unnatural dry, this can be a significant
environmental benefit.
The construction of dam also helps in flood control.
Floods in the rivers have been many a time playing havoc with the life and property of the
people. Dams and reservoirs can be effectively used to control floods by regulating river
water flows downstream the dam.
The dams are designed, constructed and operated as per a specific plan for routing floods
through the basin without any damage to life and property of the people.
The water conserved by means of dams and reservoirs at the time of floods can be utilized for
meeting irrigation and drinking water requirements and hydro power generation.
supra
2.6 Water is essential for sustenance of all forms of life on earth. It is not evenly distributed
all over the world and even its availability at the same locations is not uniform over the year.
While the parts of the world, which are scarce in water, are prone to drought, other parts of
the world, which are abundant in water, face a challenging job of optimally managing the
available water resources. No doubt the rivers are a great gift of nature and have been playing
a significant role in evolution of various civilizations, nonetheless on many occasions, rivers,
at the time of floods, have been playing havoc with the life and property of the people.
Management of river waters has been, therefore, one of the most prime issues under
consideration. Optimal management of river water resources demands that specific plans
should be evolved for various river basins which are found to be technically feasible and
economically viable after carrying out extensive surveys. Since the advent of civilization,
man has been constructing dams and reservoirs for storing surplus river waters available
during wet periods and for utilization of the same during lean periods. The dams and
reservoirs world over have been playing dual role of harnessing the river waters for
accelerating socio-economic growth and mitigating the miseries of a large population of the
world suffering from the vagaries of floods and droughts. Dams and reservoirs contribute
significantly in fulfilling the following basic human needs: 2.7 Water for drinking and industrial use:
Due to large variations in hydrological cycle, dams and reservoirs are required to be
constructed to store water during periods of surplus water availability and conserve the same
for utilization during lean periods when the water availability is scarce. Properly designed
and well-constructed dams play a great role in optimally meeting the drinking water
requirements of the people. Water stored in reservoirs is also used vastly for meeting
industrial needs. Regulated flow of water from reservoirs help in diluting harmful dissolved
substances in river waters during lean periods by supplementing low inflows and thus in
maintaining and preserving quality of water within safe limits.
Irrigation:
Dams and reservoirs are constructed to store surplus waters during wet periods, which can be
used for irrigating arid lands. One of the major benefits of dams and reservoirs is that water
flows can be regulated as per agricultural requirements of the various regions over the year.
Dams and reservoirs render unforgettable services to the mankind for meeting irrigation
requirements on a gigantic scale. It is estimated that 80% of additional food production by the
year 2025 would be available from the irrigation made possible by dams and reservoirs.
Dams and reservoirs are most needed for meeting irrigation requirements of developing
countries, large parts of which are arid zones. There is a need for construction of more
reservoir based projects despite widespread measures developed to conserve water through
other improvements in irrigation technology.
Flood Control:
Floods in the rivers have been many a time playing havoc with the life and property of the
people. Dams and reservoirs can be effectively used to control floods by regulating river
water flows downstream the dam. The dams are designed, constructed and operated as per a
specific plan for routing floods through the basin without any damage to life and property of
the people.
The water conserved by means of dams and reservoirs at the time of floods can be utilized for
meeting irrigation and drinking water requirements and hydro power generation.
Hydro power generation:
Energy plays a key role for socio-economic development of a country. Hydro power provides
a cheap, clean and renewable source of energy. Hydro power is the most advanced and
economically viable resource of renewable energy. Reservoir based hydroelectric projects
provide much needed peaking power to the grid. Unlike thermal power stations, hydro power
stations have fewer technical constraints and the hydro machines are capable of quick start
and taking instantaneous load variations. While large hydro potentials can be exploited
through mega hydroelectric projects for meeting power needs on regional or national basis,
small hydro potentials can be exploited through mini/micro hydel projects for meeting local
power needs of small areas. Besides hydro power generation, multi purpose hydroelectric
projects have the benefit of meeting irrigation and drinking water requirements and
controlling floods etc.
Inland navigation:
Enhanced inland navigation is a result of comprehensive basin planning and development,
utilizing dams, locks and reservoirs that are regulated to play a vital role in realizing large
economic benefits of national importance.
Recreation:
The reservoir made possible by constructing a dam presents a beautiful view of a lake. In the
areas where natural surface water is scarce or non-existent, the reservoirs are a great source of
recreation. Along with other objectives, recreational benefits such as boating, swimming,
fishing etc linked with lakes are also given due consideration at the planning stage to achieve
all the benefits of an ideal multipurpose project.
2.8 Dam construction, like a coin, has its two sides. How to exploit favorable conditions and
avoid unfavorable ones is the business of dam architects, dam constructors and dam
managers. Only taking the ultimate aim of improving the ecosystem and sustainable
development, and using environmental appraise deeply, setting down dam running mode to
take advantage of ecosystem, can our dam construction be better. We should promote the
beneficial aspects and alleviate the negative effects caused by dam construction. Then we can
make new engineering projects to be facilitated in societys sustainable development and
accelerate the harmonious coexist between nature and human being. We should promote the
beneficial aspects and alleviate the negative effects caused by dam construction. Then we can
make new engineering projects to be facilitated in societys sustainable development and
accelerate the harmonious coexist between nature and human being.
Therefore it is humbly submitted that the construction of dam will not lead to any ecological
imbalance. Instead it will give benefit and it is in public interest.
3. WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF DAM WILL VIOLATE OR PROTECT

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE?
It is respectfully submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the construction of dam
will protect the fundamental rights of the people of State of Karak.
3.1 As quoted by Jwaharlal Nehru, First Prime Minister of India, Dams are the temple of
modern world. The benefits of dams are innumerable. The basic purpose of dam is to serve
public interest at large. When a dam is built the dispute of water gets solved. Building of dam
has manifold objective. First, the dam will provide water to areas where it is needed, Second,
Production of hydroelectricity will increase, and third, it will cater to the need of irrigation.
When a project which has so many benefits, how can it violate someones fundamental
rights? In turn, it protects the right of people by catering their need. The dam will provide
water and better crop yield by enhancing irrigational facilities. Dams will cater the need of
drinking water also where clean drinking water is a fundamental right of people. Generation
of more electricity will lead to development socially and economically, both.
3.2 Logically, the problem that arises during the construction of dam is loss of shelter of the
tribal people, loss of land. It is a fact that only upstream facesthese problems. Here the State
of Karak is the upstream state. So the problem will be faced by the respondent.
3.3 Apart from this, dams are built to distribute water and divert part of water of river to a
specific area. Thats the reason why the dam is proposed to be built here. As it is very evident
that the Western part of Karak has been hit by drought which led to loss of lives and loss in
economic revenue due to bundh and agitation by the people.7 If the dam is built it will divert
the water of Aishani Jal to the drought prone areas benefiting it all the way.
3.4 A State should think and take decisions that will benefit its people. The respondents have
got permit from the Union Government and concerned ministries for the construction. All
Environment Impact Assessment have been done then only the authorities gave the permit
and it is very substantial in nature.
3.5 Human Rights are those rights which are social, legal and moral in nature. When the
drought has hit the Western part of Karak, there was agitation against the Government and no
Government can sustain without the support of its people. In those circumstances it is the
7thpara, 6th line of fact sheet
foremost duty of the Government to seek methods to earn that support by giving a solution to
the problem of its people.
3.6 In turn there will be violation of fundamental rights of people of State of Karak if the dam
is not constructed. People has the right to development and right to livelihood, which will be
violated. First of all, if the condition of drought is not solved then there will be loss of
livelihood. The agriculture will get a major hit and the people who are involved in agriculture
will have nothing to do to sustain their living. This problem of drought can only be solved by
construction of dam which will divert the river water to Western Karak.
3.7 Major water resources project need clearance from Central Water Commission and other
concerned authorities. Gujarat successfully argued before the Narmada Water Disputes
Tribunal that dam is the only solution, not only on the grounds of general droughtproneness of the State but in particular the imperative of alleviating the acute droughtaffliction of Kutch, Saurashtra and North Gujarat.8
3.8 As discussed before dams have manifold benefit one of them is development. If the dam
is not built, one of the projects which will give development will be destroyed. The State will
get economic benefit also as from the generation of hydroelectricity and it will also provide
for protection against floods.
3.9 Loss of forest because of any activity is undoubtedly harmful. But it cannot be ignored
and it is important to note that these large dams also cause conversion of waste land into
agricultural land and making the area greener. Large dams can also become the instruments
in improving the environment.
3.10 If this dam is not built, this will again violate Art.21 of the people of i.e. Right to life. As
it happened earlier that when the drought came and there was no proper mechanism to protect
people against the drought. People started agitation against the Government which also
claimed 189 lives. So to prohibit and avoid those alike situations to arise again it is necessary
to construct the dam and give people what they want to live their life peacefully. States
revenue and economy will also suffer if this dam is not built. Reasons for this argument are
that, first of all, if there is no agriculture, the growth in the agriculture sector will decrease.
Secondly agitation if occurred again will again lead to loss of property.
L.C.Jain, Dam v. Drinking Water, Exploring the Narmada Judgement
4. WHETHER THE STATE OF MANDEVILLE IS ENTITLED FOR ANY AWARD

OR RELIEF?
It is most humbly submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the State of Mandeville
is not entitled for any relief or award.
4.1 As the State of Mandeville has already made an application for the injunction to Aishani
Jal project and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. When the tribunal which is
constituted to address the water dispute between both the states, thereafter anything related to
that issue will be decided by the tribunal only. As mentioned in ISWD Act, the tribunals
decision will be final in any matter related to water dispute. This matter of dam construction
came out of the water dispute going on between both the states. When the tribunal has
already decided the application to be dismissed then why again there is a petition before
Supreme Court? It is just wasting the precious time of the Honble Supreme Court. .
4.2 Even the respondents have got the clearance from the Ministry of Water Resources and
the National Environment Engineering Institute. When the concerned authorities are vested
with the power of clearing the projects, it is obvious that they have fulfilled all the basic
conditions before giving the permit and they have assessed that why the permit should be
given. As it is very clear from the fact sheet that the drought has hit the western part of Karak
so to provide relief to the people of affected part, there was an immediate need to build the
dam as fast as possible. The main idea behind the construction of dam is to divert the water to
the drought prone area. Even the 1970 agreement between both the States states the same that
the construction of dam named Aishani Jal across the border region for the purpose of
providing water to the drought prone areas in the State of Karak.9
4.3 Now coming to the point of 7.5 tmc water requirement as contented by the respondents. It
is very practical and reasonable that the State of Karak need this much water for its western
part.
Argument in this favor would be the final award by the Cauvery Water Tribunal10 held,
The Tribunal hereby orders that the waters of the river Cauvery be allocated in three
States of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and U.T. of Pondicherry for their beneficial
uses as mentioned hereunder:
i) The State of Kerala
30 TMC
9 th
6 para, 6th line of the fact sheet

As notified in the Official Gazette through Ministry of Water Resources, Notification dated 19th February,
2013
10
ii) The State of Karnataka
270 TMC
iii) The State of Tamil Nadu
419 TMC
iv) U.T. of Pondicherry
7 TMC
What counsel is trying to prove by citing this is that, when Pondicherry being a Union
Territory and having area 492 sq.km got 7 TMC of water, State of Karak which is a quite big
state and we can infer that from the statistics given regarding the river basin cover i.e.; 34,
273 Sq.km, so the requirement of 7.5 tmc of water for its western part is justifiable. West
being one of the major directions will be a big part constituting the State.
4.4 The State of Mandeville is contending that requirement of 7.5 TMC water is excessive
and only 3.5 TMC water would suffice is baseless. The State who is asking for the required
water will know the reasonable use that it has to fulfill. Any other State has no authority to
decide how much water will suffice its (former States) use. Along with this counsel would
like to justify the need of 7.5 TMC water. Recently the petitioner state has been struck by
drought. So there is no water for irrigation, drinking purpose and other such use as industrial
use or production of power.
4.5 As held in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Others11, The Court itself is
not above the law. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the
Government, the Court should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions
are taken by the Government after due care and caution. In a democracy, welfare of the
people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society has to be the concern of a
responsible Government. If a policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any
law or is not malafide, it will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and
investigate those areas which are the functions of the executive. The courts in the exercise of
their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Courts are ill equipped
to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken.
4.6 Thinking from International perspective, Harmon doctrine also is in favor of the
Respondents.
The Harmon doctrine supported the legal position of an upper riparian to have access and use
the water of river in absolute terms.
The upper riparian States have always asserted the
sovereignty theory to claim absolute right over the water sources emanating in their
territories. US Attorney General, Judson Harmon in water dispute between US and Mexico,
11
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Others A.I.R. 2000 SC 3751
asserted, The fundamental principle of international law is the absolute sovereignty of every
nation, as against all the others, within its territory.12 This assertion was based on the basis
of the judgment of Marshall CJ in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon13.
4.7 In 1939, the Italian Court of Cassation attempted to clarify the mutual interest of France
and Italyin the Roya River with the following observation:
International law recognizes the right on the part of every riparian State to enjoy, as a
participant of a kind of partnership created by the river, all the advantages deriving from it
for the purpose of securing the welfare and the economic and civil progress of the nation..
However, although a State in the existence of its right of sovereignty, may subject public
rivers to whatever regime it deems best, it cannot disregard the international duty, derived
from that principle, not to impede or to destroy, as a result of this regime, the opportunity of
the other States to avail themselves of the flow of water for their own national needs.14
4.8 Here the State of Karak is having sovereignty over the river because Aishani River is
originating from the Jaguar village, State of Karak.15 It is only exercising its sovereignty over
the river and to make full use of it as per their requirement by building a dam. They are not
transgressing the right of other riparian State through which the river is flowing at the later
stage. Dam will benefit both the State. They even got permit from the concerned authorities
so they are also fulfilling the condition laid in the maxim sic uteretuoutalienum non laedas
(so use your own as not to harm that of another).
4.9 The Petitioner is not entitled for any relief because they are the one who breached the
agreement by opposing to a project for which they agreed once. It is also affecting the legal
right. When they are not fulfilling the obligation as a party to the agreement, they are not
entitled to any such claim. The respondent state is only completing what was there in the
agreement.
Hence the counsel for the respondent humbly plea before the Honble Supreme Court that the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief or award.
12
Official opinions of the Attorney General of the US, Advising the President and Heads of Departments in
relation to their Official Duties, Vol. XXI, Treaty of Guadaulpe Hidalgo- International Law, Opinion by Judson
harmon, 280-81 as cited in Tuomas Kuokkanen, International Law and the Environment: Variations on a Theme
(2002) 13.
13
3 L Ed 287: II US (7 Cranch) 116 (1812). The court held in this case:
The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation
not imposed by itself.
14
Societe Energie Electrique du Littoral Mediterraneen v. Compagnia ImpreseElettricheLiquiri, in the Italian
Court of Cassation, Feb. 13, 1939.
15
Para 5 3rd line of the fact sheet
PRAYER
Wherefore in the lights of the issues raised, arguments advanced, cases citied the counsel for
the respondents pray before this Honorable Supreme Court that it may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:
1. The Petition is not maintainable.
2. The construction of dam will not lead to vast and immense ecological imbalance.
Hence it should be implemented.
3. There will be no violation of fundamental rights of the people of State of Karak. It is
in the public interest.
4. The Petitioner is not entitled for any relief or award.
And the Court may be pleased to pass any such order or decree as it deems fit in terms of
justice and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, your lordships, petitioner shall as duty bound ever humble pray.
Respectfully submitted
...
(Counsel for Respondent)

T14 Respondent

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

T14 Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BMSREENIVASAIAHMEMORIAL2ndNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION2016

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF KANO

PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 131 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KANO

Counsel for the Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Dictionaries and Law Lexicons

Statutes and Rules referred

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

All India Reporter

Environmental Impact Assessment

Ministry of Environment and Forest

Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Report

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

D D BASU: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LEXIS NEXIS, NAGPUR, 14TH

D D BASU: COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LEXIS

D.J.DE, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ASIA LAW HOUSE, HYDERABAD,

Dr. L.M.SHINGHVI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, THOMSON REUTERS,

Dr. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,

H. M. SEERVAI: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, N. M. TRIPATHI PVT

COMPANY,NAGPUR, 5TH EDN. (REP.2005)

DISPUTE, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY (P) LTD, LUCKNOW, 1ST EDITION.

PROF. PRASAD DIWAN: ENVIRONMENT ADMNISTRATION, DEEP &

S. C. SHASTRI: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY (P)

SUSAN WOLF & ANNA WHITE: PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW,

VIDYANATH: WATER RESOURCES OF INDIA, OXFORD UNIVERSITY

V. R. KRISHNA IYER: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND LEGAL

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

DICTONARIES AND LAW LEXICONS

STATUTES, CONVENTIONS AND RULES REFERRED

LIST OF WEBSITES REFERRED

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Atma Linga Reddy V. Union of India, (2008) 7 SCC 788;

Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 1428;

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3751;

Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon;

State of Orissa V. Government of India, (2009) 5 SCC 492;

Vedire Venkata Reddy v. Union of India, AIR 2005 AP 155;

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

BMSREENIVASAIAHMEMORIAL2ndNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION2016 Page vii

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

BMSREENIVASAIAHMEMORIAL2ndNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION2016 Page viii

1. WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

It is respectfully submitted that there is no ecological imbalance due to the construction of

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

B M SREENIVASAIAH MEMORIAL 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2016 Page 1

VedireVenkata Reddy v. Union of India, AIR 2005 AP 155.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

B M SREENIVASAIAH MEMORIAL 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2016 Page 2

State of Orissa V. Government of India, (2009) 5 SCC 492.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

B M SREENIVASAIAH MEMORIAL 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2016 Page 3

AtmaLinga Reddy V. Union of India,(2008) 7 SCC 788.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

B M SREENIVASAIAH MEMORIAL 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2016 Page 4

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

B M SREENIVASAIAH MEMORIAL 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2016 Page 5

2. WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF AISHANI JAL PROJECT WILL LEAD

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3751

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

B M SREENIVASAIAH MEMORIAL 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2016 Page 6