TEAM CODE:_____________

2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

ANAND, GUJARAT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF INDUS LAND,

INDUS LAND

IN THE MATTER OF
PETITIONER

RAM KRISHNA P
V
RESPONDENTS

STATE OF NORTHERN PURVANCHAL

AND
UNION OF INDUS LAND

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE FEDERAL COURT OF INDUS LAND

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1|Page

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr. No

Topics

Pg. No

1.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6-7
8

5.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

9-11
6.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

12-19
7.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY MR.
RAMKRISHNA P IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER Art. 32 OF
THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?
1.1. Whether the Bar under Sec. 11 of Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956 does not operate?
1.2. Whether the petitioner has Locus Standi to initiate the
present litigation?
2. WHETHER THE UNILATERAL ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF
NORTHERN PURVANCHAL WERE ULTRA VIRES AND
MALA FIDE?
2.1
Whether the State of Northern Purvanchal altered the
arrangement unilaterally and after stipulated time?
2.2
Whether the alteration in electricity and water supply
affected the general operation of the arrangement between the
two states?
3. WHETHER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUS LAND HAD
MALICE TO REFRAIN FROM EXERCISING DISCRETIONARY
POWER?
4. WHETHER VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE
FARMERS OF SOUTHERN PURVANCHAL UNDER Art. 21?

8.

SUBMISSION TO THE COURT

20
2|Page

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS

Fundamental Rights And Their Enforcement, Udai Raj Rai, Eastern Economy Edition.

Law of WRITS and other Constitutional Remedies by PREM & CHATURVEDI 3 rd Ed

Vol. 1 & Vol. 2

Principles of Administrative Law, An exhaustive commentary on Administrative Law

and Constitutional Principles, with Indian and Foreign case-law references, 7th Ed by
M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain Vol.1 & Vol. 2

Indian Constitutional Law by M.P.Jain 7th Ed.

The Law Lexicon The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary with Legal Maxim, Latin Terms,
Words & Phrases, P Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Ed

Public Interest Litigation by P.M. Bakshi, 3rd Ed.

Constitutional And Administrative Law by John Alder, 6th Ed

Public Interest Litigation with Model PIL Formats by Dr. B L Wadehra, 4th Ed

Public Interest Litigation Legal Aid and Lok Adalats by Mamta Rao Eastern Book
Company

Administrative Law, H.W.R Wade & C.F. Forsyth, 10th Ed, Oxford
Administrative Law by Justice C.K. Thakker, 2nd Edition, Eastern Book Company

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ISWD Act- Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Sec.- Section.
Art - Article

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS

The River Boards Act, 1956

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Constitution of Indus Land, 1950.

The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956

The State Re-organization Act, 1956

3|Page

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

CASES

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540

Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. and Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Ors, AIR
2004 SC 561

Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, AIR
2006 SC 1428

State of Orissa vs. Government of India and Anr, (2009 )5 SCC 492

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umedh Ram, AIR 1986 SC 847

Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh, AIR 1984 SC 309.

S.P Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149

Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982SC 1473

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802

Bihar Legal Support Society v. CJI, AIR 1987 SC 38

Jai Chand Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1967 SC 483

Tandon Bros. Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2001 SC 1866

In Re: Networking of Rivers, 2012(3) SCALE 74

Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu

Sangam vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1316

Henley Vs. Lyme Corporation, 130 ER 995

Asst. Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Prayag Dass Agarwal, AIR 1981 SC 1263

Clariant International Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), AIR
2004 SC 4236

Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1

Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2979

Madhu Kishwar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR1996 SC1864

Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. AND Vayyapuri
Kuppusami and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,AIR1986 SC180

Rochester Coprporation Vs. R., 27 LJ QB 434

Union of India Vs. S. B. Vohra, AIR 2004 SC 1402

4|Page

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Ram Krishna P. submits the following public interest litigation to this Court by the
Jurisdiction of this Court thus extends to all matters referred to by the parties in
accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution of Indus Land1.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions, and arguments.

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 clause ( 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

5|Page

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Union of Indus Land is a Federal Democratic Republic Country. There was one Purvanchal
Dam constructed to construct a canal for production of electricity and also for supply of
water for irrigation of the agricultural land of the state. The canal was so built that it was
covering entire state.

2) The canal was passing from northern part of the state to southern part of the state.
Purvanchal dam/Purvanchal Power Station was constructed in such a way that water level
was increased to such level that flow of water could be maintained with same pressure even
till last part of the canal. Entire states electricity requirement was fulfilled from the same
Purvanchal Hydral Power Station. On the other hand the canal was fulfilling the irrigational
requirement of entire state from northern side to southern side of the state.
However state of Purvanchal was reorganized into two different states, one was named as
Southern Purvanchal and the other state was named as Northern Purvanchal under the State
Re-organization Act 1956.

3) After partition of the state Purvanchal, the control of release of water from dam and release
of electricity from the Purvanchal Hydral Power Station came under complete control of
Northern Purvanchal state .
From the dam 20500 cusecs of water used to be released per day in canal so that 1000
cusecs of water per day used to reach to Southern Purvanchal State. The Purvanchal Hydral
Power Station used to produce 2000 MW of electricity and 1000 MW of electricity used to
be supplied from the Purvanchal Hydral Power Station to Southern Purvanchal State.

4) According to agreement Southern Purvanchal was sharing the electricity production cost
and also cost of maintenance of canal equally. Initially Northern Purvanchal State used to
share the electricity 1000 MW of Electricity and used to release water almost 10000 cusecs
of water per day to state of Southern Purvanchal State.

5) After 5 years there were assembly elections in both the states. In both the state new political
parties had come into power. After the election when Northern Purvanchal State started
6|Page

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

sharing only 500MW of the electricity to Southern Purvanchal State whereas production at
Purvanchal Hydral Power Station was same that of 2000 MW of electricity. Similarly the
quantity of water supply in canal was reduced. Instead of supply of 10000 cusecs of water
per day the supply of water in canal was reduced to 6000 cusecs of water per day. Whereas
there was no shortage of water level in dam. This resulted into serious irrigational problem
for the farmers of Southern Purvanchal State, whose fields otherwise was totally dependent
for irrigation from supply of the 10000 cusecs of water per day in the canal.

6) The farmers of Southern Purvanchal State were protesting and were asking the state
government of Suouthern Purvanchal State to intervene in the matter . However the state
government of Southern Purvanchal State could not resolve the issue inspite of the fact that
they had approached the government of Northern Purvanchal State several times for
restoring the earlier sharing of water and electricity. Nevertheless the government of
Southern Purvanchal State was not taking appropriate legal step.

7) The government of Southern Purvanchal State approached to the central government,

however both in the Central government as well as in the state government of Northern
Purvanchal State the governments were run by same political party, therefore the Central
government had not shown much interest in intervening in the matter whereas the farmers
of the Southern Purvanchal State were great sufferers because of the crops were destroyed
due to insufficient water supply in the canal and due to cut in eclectic supply the farmers
could not resort to alternative method of irrigation.
Mr. RamKrishna.P, a farmer of Southern Purvanchal State, has filed this PIL.

7|Page

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY MR. RAMKRISHNA P.

IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER Art. 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?
1.1. Whether the bar under Sec. 11 of Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not operate?
1.2. Whether the petitioner has Locus Standi to initiate the present litigation?

2. WHETHER THE UNILATERAL ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF NORTHERN

PURVANCHAL WERE ULTRA VIRES AND MALA FIDE?
2.1 Whether the State of Northern Purvanchal altered the arrangement unilaterally and
after stipulated time?
2.2 Whether the alteration in electricity and water supply affected the general operation
of the arrangement between the two states?

WHETHER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUS LAND HAD MALICE TO

REFRAIN FROM EXERCISING DISCRETIONARY POWER?

WHETHER VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE FARMERS OF

SOUTHERN PURVANCHAL UNDER Art. 21?

8|Page

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY MR. RAMKRISHNA P IS
MAINTAINABLE UNDER Art. 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

1.1 Bar under Sec. 11 of Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not operate.
The expression Public Interest Litigation means the legal action initiated in a Court of Law for
enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of community
have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. The
Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition
filed by any interested person, in the welfare of the people, who is in a disadvantaged position In
the present matter the farmers of the state of Southern Purvanchal are disadvantaged and hence
approach this court.
1.2

The petitioner has Locus Standi to initiate the present litigation.

Locus standi means the legal capacity to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. In many cases the
honble court has interpreted locus standi in a different way. But here, reduction in the supply of
water and electricity by the State Government of Northern Purvanchal injures the interest of the
farmers of the State of Southern Purvanchal. Mr. Ram Krishna P is one of the farmers of
Southern Purvanchal moving this Honourable Federal Court for relief. The petitioner in the
instant matter has a Locus Standi in the present petition.
2. THE UNILATERAL ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF NORTHERN PURVANCHAL
WERE ULTRA VIRES AND MALA FIDE.
The Constitution confers supreme and exclusive power on Parliament under Articles 3 and 4 so
that while creating new States by reorganisation, the Parliament may enact provisions for
dividing land, water and other resources; distribute the assets and liabilities of predecessor States
amongst the new States; make provisions for contracts and other legal rights and obligations. But
the State of Northern Purvanchal without the consultation of the State of Southern Purvanchal
reduced the water supply and electricity. Thus, the action of the state was ultra vires and malafide.

9|Page

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2.1 The State of Northern Purvanchal altered the arrangement unilaterally and after
stipulated time.
Sec. 108(1) of the States Reorganisation Act allows an adaption or modification of the
original arrangement, as may be agreed between the successor states by the 1st day of November
1957 (exactly one year from appointed day of reorganisation), provided such an adaptation or
modification does not affect the general operation of the arrangement.
The State of Northern Purvanchal reduced the amount of water and electricity supplied, without
consultation with the State of Southern Purvanchal. This unilateral action, after 5 years (of the
appointed day of reorganisation) fails to satisfy the requirement of stipulated time and mutual
agreement between the successor states under Sec. 108(1).
2.2

The alteration in electricity and water supply affected the general operation of the
arrangement between the two states.

The word 'modification' means a change or alteration which introduces new elements into the
details or some of them, but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject matter intact. 2
Adaptation means adjusting to circumstances. An agreement was entered into by the two
successor states for equally sharing the cost of production of electricity at the power station and
for maintaining the canal. This agreement and the equal division of water and electricity, to meet
the irrigation and electricity needs of the two states, are valid under Sec. 108(1) because it is an
adaptation and modification, between the two successor states (within the stipulated time), of the
original arrangement to fit the new circumstances without disturbing the general operation of the
arrangement.
3. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUS LAND HAD MALICE TO REFRAIN FROM
EXERCISING DISCRETIONARY POWER.
Sec. 107 of the States Reorganisation Act empowers the Central Government to direct the State
Government if it appears to the Central Government that the arrangement in regard to the
generation or supply of electric power or the supply of water has been modified to the
2

Dr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, The Law Lexicon (3rd ed. 2012), pg 1144

10 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

disadvantage of that area by reason of the fact that it has been transferred. The Central
Government may give such directions as it deems proper to the State Government or other
authority concerned for the maintenance, so far as practicable, of the previous arrangement.
Sec. 2 of the River Boards Act, 1956 declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the
Central Government should take under its control the regulation and development of inter-State
rivers and river valleys to the extent provided.
4. VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE FARMERS OF SOUTHERN
PURVANCHAL UNDER Art. 21
Life is a precious gift of nature to a being right to life as a fundamental right stands enshrined in
the Constitution. The right to get water is a part of right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the
easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of
livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its
effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. That explains the
massive migration of the rural population to big cities. They migrate because they have no means
of livelihood in the villages.

11 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY MR. RAMKRISHNA P IS
MAINTAINABLE UNDER Art. 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
1.1 Bar under Sec. 11 of Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not operate.
The expression Public Interest Litigation means the legal action initiated in a Court of Law for
enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of community
have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.3
The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can entertain a
petition filed by any interested person, in the welfare of the people, who is in a disadvantaged
position.4 In the present matter the farmers of the state of Southern Purvanchal are disadvantaged
and hence approach this court.
Article 262 provides that 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. The jurisdiction of the Courts in respect of any dispute or complaint referred
to in Article 262(1), can be barred by Parliament by making law. The ISWD Act, 1956 was
enacted by Parliament in exercise of power under Article 262 of the Constitution. Sec. 11 of the
said Act excludes the jurisdiction of Supreme Court in respect of a water dispute referred to the
Tribunal. Sec. 2(c) of this Act defines 'water dispute'. It, inter alia, means a dispute as to the use,
distribution or control of the waters of, or as to the interpretation or implementation of agreement
of such waters.5
The bar under Sec. 11 of the Act will come into play once the Tribunal is constituted and the
water dispute is referred to the said Tribunal. Till then, the bar of Sec. 11 cannot operate.6
The Central Government of Indus Land has constituted no such tribunal and thus the Honourable
Supreme Court is not barred to entertain the present petition.

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540

Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. and Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Ors, AIR 2004 SC 561
5
Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, AIR 2006 SC 1428
6
State of Orissa vs. Government of India and Anr, (2009 )5 SCC 492
4

12 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1.2 The petitioner has Locus Standi to initiate the present litigation.
Former Chief Justice Mukherji in State of Himachal Pradesh v Umedh Ram7 observed that In
public interest litigation cases the most crucial question for the court is to measure the
seriousness of the petitioner and to see whether he is actually the champion of the cause of the
persons or group he is representing.
Locus standi means the legal capacity to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.8 In the landmark
cases of S.P Gupta v. Union of India9, Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of
India10, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India11, the Supreme Court evolved a new rule
viz., any member of the public action bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an
action for redressal of public wrong or public injury. Such action can be brought by individuals,
groups, voluntary agencies, etc. However, the member of public should not be a mere busy body
or a meddlesome interloper but one who has sufficient interest in the proceeding.
In Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India12 the Supreme Court laid down
ordinarily only a person whose rights are violated can move a court for redress. However,
where there is likelihood of any Government action injuring the interests of many persons, any
one may move the court for relief.
A reduction in the supply of water and electricity by the State Government of Northern
Purvanchal injures the interest of the farmers of the State of Southern Purvanchal. Mr. Ram
Krishna P is one of the farmers of Southern Purvanchal moving this Honourable Federal Court
for relief. He has a Locus Standi in the present petition.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umedh Ram, AIR 1986 SC 847.

Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh, AIR 1984 SC 309.
9
S.P Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
10
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
11
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
12
Bihar Legal Support Society v. CJI, AIR 1987 SC 38.
8

13 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2. THE UNILATERAL ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF NORTHERN PURVANCHAL

WERE ULTRA VIRES AND MALA FIDE.
The Constitution confers supreme and exclusive power on Parliament under Articles 3 and 4 so
that while creating new States by reorganisation, the Parliament may enact provisions for
dividing land, water and other resources; distribute the assets and liabilities of predecessor States
amongst the new States; make provisions for contracts and other legal rights and obligations.13
The State of Purvanchal was re-organized in two different states under the States Reorganization
Act, 1956. Sec. 108 of the said Act pertains to continuance of agreements and arrangements
relating to certain irrigation, power or multipurpose project. The effect of Sec. 108 is that the
agreement between the predecessor States relating to irrigation and power generation etc. would
continue. There is a statutory recognition of the contractual rights and liabilities of the new States
which cannot be affected unilaterally by any of the party States either by legislation or executive
action.14
The Purvanchal canal was passing from northern part of the state to southern part of the state.
Purvanchal dam/Purvanchal Power Station was constructed in such a way that water level was
increased to such level that flow of water could be maintained with same pressure even till last
part of the canal. Entire states electricity requirement was fulfilled from the same Purvanchal
Hydral Power Station. This was the arrangement of water and electricity supply till
reorganisation. The State was then divided in such a way that both states had got almost same
territorial area and population. The dam released 20,500 cusecs of water per day of which 10,000
cusecs of water reached the Southern Purvanchal state. The hydral power station produced 2000
MW of electricity in a day, of which 1000 MW was supplied to Southern Purvanchal.
2.1 The State of Northern Purvanchal altered the arrangement unilaterally and after
stipulated time.
Sec. 108(1) of the States Reorganisation Act allows an adaption or modification of the
original arrangement, as may be agreed between the successor states by the 1st day of November

13
14

Supra footnote 5.
Supra footnote 5.

14 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1957 (exactly one year from appointed day of reorganisation), provided such an adaptation or
modification does not affect the general operation of the arrangement.
The State of Northern Purvanchal reduced the amount of water and electricity supplied, without
consultation with the State of Southern Purvanchal. This unilateral action, after 5 years (of the
appointed day of reorganisation) fails to satisfy the requirement of stipulated time and mutual
agreement between the successor states under Sec. 108(1).
2.2 The alteration in electricity and water supply affected the general operation of the
arrangement between the two states.
The word 'modification' means a change or alteration which introduces new elements into the
details or some of them, but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject matter intact.15
Adaptation means adjusting to circumstances.16 An agreement was entered into by the two
successor states for equally sharing the cost of production of electricity at the power station and
for maintaining the canal. This agreement and the equal division of water and electricity, to meet
the irrigation and electricity needs of the two states, are valid under Sec. 108(1) because it is an
adaptation and modification, between the two successor states (within the stipulated time), of the
original arrangement to fit the new circumstances without disturbing the general operation of the
arrangement.
A subsequent change in the quantity supplied of water and electricity does not qualify as a
modification or adaptation of the original arrangement under Sec. 108(1). The general purpose of
the dam and power station, being irrigation and electricity supply for cultivation, was affected.
The doctrine of ultra vires means that powers can be validly exercised only within their legal
limits.17 Excess or abuse of statutory jurisdiction is quashed, or prohibited as ultra vires.18 An
ultra vires administrative order or decision is regarded as void and is deprived of any legal
effect.19

15

Supra footnote 2
Dr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, The Law Lexicon (3rd ed. 2012), pg 42
17
M P Jain and S N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (7th ed. 2011), pg 1920
18
Lord Diplock, Judicial Control of Government (1979) Malayan Law Journal cxl, cxlvi
19
JAIN, Treatise, I, Chapter XIX
16

15 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

The aforementioned alterations in the supply of water and electricity, despite no reduction in the
amount of electricity produced and no shortage of water in the dam, prove mala fide exercise of
power by the State of Northern Purvanchal. The power conferred by the statute has been utilised
for some indirect purpose not connected with the object of the statute.20 To put it differently,
every action of a public authority must be based on utmost good faith, genuine belief and ought
to be supported by reason. If the action is contrary to law, it is mala fide and can be set aside on
the ground of justice, equity and good conscience.21

3. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUS LAND HAD MALICE TO REFRAIN FROM

EXERCISING DISCRETIONARY POWER.
Sec. 107 of the States Reorganisation Act empowers the Central Government to direct the State
Government if it appears to the Central Government that the arrangement in regard to the
generation or supply of electric power or the supply of water has been modified to the
disadvantage of that area by reason of the fact that it has been transferred. The Central
Government may give such directions as it deems proper to the State Government or other
authority concerned for the maintenance, so far as practicable, of the previous arrangement.
Sec. 2 of the River Boards Act, 1956 declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the
Central Government should take under its control the regulation and development of inter-State
rivers and river valleys to the extent provided22 in the act. It is an Act to establish Boards for the
Regulation and development of inter-State river basins, through advice and coordination, and
thereby to reduce the friction amongst the concerned States23
Sec. 4 of the ISWD Act indicates that on the basis of the request referred to in Sec. 3 of the Act,
if Central Government is of the opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, it

20

Jai Chand Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1967 SC 483

Tandon Bros. Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2001 SC 1866
22
River Boards Act, 1956
23
In Re: Networking of Rivers, 2012(3) SCALE 74
21

16 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

is mandatory for the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal (within one year of the request)
for adjudication of the dispute.24
It is settled law that all discretionary powers must be exercised reasonable and in larger public
interest.25 The Central Government should exercise its discretion bona fide and in good faith by
addressing itself to the matter before it and should not allow itself to be influenced by extraneous
and irrelevant considerations. The question should not be disposed of in an arbitrary or
capricious way.26 It must be a sound exercise in law. The discretionary power is to be exercised
keeping in view the purpose for which it is conferred, the object sought to be achieved and the
reasons for granting such wide jurisdiction.27
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the Government at the centre is by one political party
while the respective Governments in the two States are run by different political parties.28
Central Government is granted with wide powers to avoid the present situation of suffering of
farmers of one state due to the unauthorised actions of another. Its total neglect of duty29
amounts to malicious abuse of power.30 The disputes of this nature have the potentiality of
creating avoidable feelings of bitterness among the peoples of the States concerned. The longer
the disputes linger, more the bitterness. The Central Government as the guardian of the interests
of the people in all the States must, therefore, on all such occasions take prompt steps.31

24

Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam vs. Union of India
and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1316
25
Henley Vs. Lyme Corporation, 130 ER 995
26
Asst. Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Prayag Dass Agarwal, AIR 1981 SC 1263
27
Clariant International Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), AIR 2004 SC 4236
28
Supra footnote 24
29
30
31

Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1
Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2979
Supra footnote 24

17 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

4. VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE FARMERS OF SOUTHERN

PURVANCHAL UNDER Art. 21
Life is a precious gift of nature to a being right to life as a fundamental right stands enshrined in
the Constitution.32 The right to get water is a part of right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution.33
In Olga Tellis and Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., the Honourable
Federal Court34 (vide para 32) opined that, No person can live without the means of living, that
is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional
right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his
means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life
of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. That
explains the massive migration of the rural population to big cities. They migrate because they
have no means of livelihood in the villages. The motive which force people the desertion of their
hearths and homes in the villages that struggle for survival, that is, the struggle for life.
The farmers of the Southern Purvanchal State were deprived of their right to livelihood because
their crops were destroyed due to insufficient water supply and there was no alternative means of
irrigation due to cut in electric supply.

A person whose right has been infringed may apply for the writ of mandamus. Such right must
be subsisting on the date of filing the petition.35 The primary object of mandamus is to supply
defect of justice. It seeks to protect rights of a citizen by requiring enforcement and fulfilment of
imperative duty created by law.36

32

Madhu Kishwar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR1996 SC1864
Supra footnote 6
34
Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. AND Vayyapuri Kuppusami and Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.,AIR1986 SC180
35
C K Thakker, Administrative Law (2th ed. 2012), pg 986
36
C K Thakker, Administrative Law (2th ed. 2012), pg 981
33

18 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

The court has the power by writ of mandamus to amend all errors which end the oppression of
the subject or other misgovernment when no other specific remedy is available 37 and where
justice despite demanded has not been granted.38
Notwithstanding the powers vested by Sec. 9 of the (Inter State Water Disputes) Act in the Water
Disputes Tribunal to be constituted by the Central Government under Sec. 4, which includes the
power to grant the interim order, this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has ample
jurisdiction to pass interim orders preserving the status quo.39

37

Rochester Coprporation Vs. R., 27 LJ QB 434

Union of India Vs. S. B. Vohra, AIR 2004 SC 1402
39
Supra footnote 6
38

19 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

SUBMISSION TO THE COURT

Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the Petitioner humbly submit that the Federal Court of Indus Land be pleased to adjudge
and pass orders to the tune of the following:
1) To issue a writ of Mandamus to the State of Northern Purvanchal for restoration of the
original arrangement of supply of water and electricity to the State of Southern
Purvanchal.
2) To direct the Central Government of Indus Land to exercise its discretionary powers to
resolve the dispute between the two States.
And pass any other relief, that this Federal Court of Indus Land may deem fit and proper
in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

20 | P a g e

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER