Moot court memorials copy about environmental law case law on envirom, Summaries of Law

Download Moot court memorials copy about environmental law case law on envirom and more Summaries Law in PDF only on Docsity! 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF RAMBO ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2013 UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF RAMBO In the matter of Article 19 and Article 21 of Constitution of Rambo PRO BONO ENVIRO SOCIETY…………….………………………………..PETITIONER v. UNION OF RAMBO AND ANR. ………....…………………………………. RESPONDENTS UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‟BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF RAMBO MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 i MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ i List Of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. iii Index Of Authorities .................................................................................................................. v Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................ x Statement of facts ...................................................................................................................... xi Statement of Issues ................................................................................................................ xiii Summary of Arguments .......................................................................................................... xiv Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................. 1 I. Whether the Public Interest Litigation filed against Union of Rambo and Maraco International Ltd. is Maintainable. ......................................................................................... 1 I.1. Public Interest litigation can be filed against the Union and MIL ....................... 1 I.2. Fundamental Rights have been violated .............................................................. 2 I.2.1. Violation of the rights of the Indigenous People.............................................. 2 I.2.2. Violation of the rights of the people of Roah. .................................................. 2 II. Whether There Has Been Violation Of Fundamental Rights Of Indigenous People. ... 2 II.1. Violation of Article 21 ......................................................................................... 2 II.1.1. They are indigenous people.............................................................................. 3 II.1.2. Deforestation of forest ...................................................................................... 4 II.1.3. Violation of test of equality and reasonableness .............................................. 5 II.2. Violation of Article 19 ......................................................................................... 5 II.3. Indigenous people should be rehabilitated and relocated .................................... 6 III. Whether Union Of Rambo And Maraco International Ltd. Are Liable For Environment Degradation ...................................................................................................... 6 III.1. Location of Construction Unit at an improper place ........................................... 7 III.1.1. Violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 ............................ 7 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 iv MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER PAT Patna PIL Public Interest Litigation Raj Rajasthan SC Supreme Court SCC Supreme Court Reports SCJ Supreme Court Journal Sec. Section u/a Under Article UDHR United Nations Declaration on human rights. UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 v MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES 1.A.P. State Fishermen Development and Welfare Association v. District Collector and Ors, 2010 (2) ALD 300 ................................................................................................ 5 2.Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121 2 3.Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib , AIR 1981 SC 487 ............................................................. 1 4.Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. v. Anuj Joshi and Ors.2013 (10) SCALE 261 9 5.Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board –II v. Prof. MV Mayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62 .. 2 6.Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India and others, W.P. No. 2262/99 ....................... 5 7.Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325 .................................................... 3 8.Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union Of India & Others 1984 AIR 802 ............................. 9 9.Binny Ltd. And Anr. v. Sadasivan and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 320 ..................................... 1 10.CERC v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1795 ................................................................ 12 11.Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 ...................................... 1, 3, 12 12.Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. KKRMC Welfare Association AIR 2000 SC 2773.............................................................................................................................. 11 13.Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. v. UOI (1996) 10 SCC 104 ................................................ 6 14.Dolly Chandra v. Chairman Jee, (2005) 9 SCC 779 ....................................................... 3 15.Farhad K. Wadia v.Union of India and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 442 ................................... 10 16.Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1994 SC 1844................................... 3 17.Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Agarwal v. Government of National Territory of Delhi, AIR 2001 Del 455. ........................................................................................ 10 18.Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., AIR 2001 Del 45 .......................................................................................................... 10 19.Goa Foundation and Others v. State of Goa and Others, 2001 (3) BomCR 813 ............ 6 20.Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 514 .......................... 3 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 vi MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 21.In Re: Noise Pollution- Prevention of Environment and Sound Pollution v. UOI and Anr, AIR 2005 SC 3136............................................................................................... 10 22.Indian Council For Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161 ..... 2, 12 23.K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, 2013 Indlaw SC 628 .................. 4 24.Kailas v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2011, arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 10367 of 2010 ................................................................................. 4 25.Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 29.1 ..................................................................................................................... 7 26.Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 291 ...................................................................................................................... 6 27.M C Mehta v. UOI, (1987) 1 SCC 395 ......................................................................... 12 28.M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath , AIR 2000 SC 1997 ........................................................... 9 29.M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.AIR 2004 SC 4016 ........................................... 9 30.Madhu Kishore v.State of Bihar 1996 5 SCC 125 .......................................................... 9 31.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597.................................................... 3 32.Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India , (2000) 10 SCC 664 ............................. 12 33.NTPC Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors 2011(11) ADJ 390 ................. 11 34.Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp, AIR 1986 SC 180 ........................................... 2 35.Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689 ......................................................... 4 36.Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others, Writ Petition No. 180 of 2011 ............................................................................................ 4, 5 37.People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 .............. 5 38.PG Gupta v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 2 SCC 182 ........................................................... 2 39.Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086 ......................................................... 12 40.Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 ....... 5 41.S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) No. 561 of 1994 .......................... 6 42.Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3297 ......................... 4, 6, 7 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 ix MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 2. Environment Protection Act, 1986 3. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 4. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 5. Indian Forest Act, 1927 6. Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forests Right) Act, 2006. 7. Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 8. Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 9. Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 10. Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 CONVENTIONS 1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 2. Convention Of International Trade In Endangered Species Of Wild Fauna And Flora, 1975 3. Convention on Migratory Species, 1983 4. The Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (ILO Convention 107) 5. The Rio Submit, 1992 6. United Nation Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 7. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 8. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 9. United Nation Declaration on Indigenous People, 2007 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 x MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Rambo has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32 of the Constitution of Rambo which reads as follows: “32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part- (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.” 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 xi MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The “Republic of “Rambo” is an island in the Pongean Sea. It has a lush topography. It is the tenth largest country in the world with a land area measuring 21, 30,500 square kilometres, one of the fastest developing countries and the most populated country as well. There are two national political parties, Democratic People Front (DPF) and Liberal People Front (LPF) and several regional parties. The country has ratified various international treaties such as UDHR, ICESCR, and UNFCCC. The Republic of Rambo on account of its coastline faces natural disasters frequently. 2. In February 2005, the government headed by DPF had proposed various developmental projects including environmental projects in the country. It had constituted a Committee to control Environmental hazards. In November 2005, the Committee had submitted its report suggesting various recommendations including reduction of carbon emissions, construction of sea walls and disaster management. 3. In February 2010, LPF came to power. In March 2011, an expert committee headed by the former Chief Justice of Rambo, Hon‟ble J. Tikishaki was constituted for analysing the feasibility of implementation of the project among other things. 4. The committee recommended a revisit to the Disaster Management Program of the country stressing on the need to remove industries from the coastline which were adding to the pollutants and, to protect the fragile environment zones in the Country. 5. The Union Territory of Roah is an island that is not connected to the mainland of Rambo. It lies 200 kilometres off the eastern coast of the country. The extent of land in Roah is 5, 13,500 square kilometres. Its topography includes lush mangrove forests. These forests consist of the indigenous population “Karyos” who are untouched by civilization. The people worshiped nature and followed traditional methods. The eastern coastline of Roah consists of rich forest reserves called Nacro forest. 6. In April 1989, 2, 10,000 square kilometres of Roah were declared as reserved forests. The Kayos were not relocated since, they were key to the protection of the environment and the forests 7. Due to population growth, land space became scarce in Rambo and thus, the unexplored civilization of the island of Roah was brought to light. The people in the mainland started moving to Roah. The price of land in Roah increased manifold 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 xiv MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS Issue I Whether the public interest litigation filed against union of Rambo and Maraco International Ltd. is maintainable. It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that present PIL is maintainable against Union of Rambo and also against Maraco International since, it is a state u/a 12 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that since there has been gross violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the PIL is maintainable, and on account of the same relief is sought. Issue II Whether there has been violation of the rights of the Indigenous People. It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that, Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated on account of arbitrary action of state, thus, resulting in the violation of Article 14 as well. Right to Reside, Right to Livelihood and Right to Shelter have been violated on account of deforestation and right to Culture has also been violated since, the Indigenous people were subject to forced assimilation and Isolation. Issue III Whether Union of Rambo and Maraco International Ltd. are liable for Environment Degradation. It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that, Union of Rambo and Maraco International Ltd. are liable for degrading the environment by committing acts such as that of setting up the construction unit in an improper location, thereby violating the coastal regulation norms and polluting the environment, which further violated fundamental rights of the people. Union of Rambo is also responsible for the climate change and therefore, is liable to pay damages. 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED I. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED AGAINST UNION OF RAMBO AND MARACO INTERNATIONAL LTD. IS MAINTAINABLE. The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution 1 , since, (I.1) Maraco International Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as MIL) falls within the ambit of “other authorities” as enshrined u/a 12 of the Constitution (II.2) There has been violation of Fundamental Rights. I.1. Public Interest litigation can be filed against the Union and MIL A PIL can be filed against the State for the violation of Fundamental rights 2 under Article 32 of the Constitution; therefore, the PIL is maintainable against Union of Rambo. Further, to constitute a private party as being state, the same must fall within the ambit of other authorities u/a 12 and thus must satisfy the court that it is either an instrumentality or an agency of the State 3 . In order to adjudge the same, the functions of the corporation 4 must be of public importance, and closely related to governmental functions. 5 Public Function is one which “seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public” 6 .Institutions engaged in performing public functions are, by virtue of the functions performed, government agencies. 7 Further under the well-established doctrine of Parens Patriae, it is the obligation of the State to protect and take into custody the rights and the privileges of its citizens for discharging its obligations. 8 The act of construction of a sea wall is ideally perpetuated to seek the collective benefit of the people 9 by protecting the interests and lives of the individuals of the concerned area where the construction takes place. Hence, in the present case, the act of MIL engaged in construction of sea wall is a public function as well as a Governmental function. 1 Constitution of Rambo, Pari Materia to Constitution of India (Herein after referred as Constitution). 2 Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331, ¶ 95. 3 Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib , AIR 1981 SC 487, ¶9. 4 For the purposes of this test a company can be considered corporation, Ibid at ¶ 11. 5 Ibid at ¶ 9(5). 6 Binny Ltd. And Anr. v. Sadasivan and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 320 ¶ 11. 7 Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagatram and Ors AIR 1975 SC 1331 8 Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480, ¶ 35. 9 Technical Memorandum on Guidelines for design and construction of sea wall Ministry of water resources Govt. of India. Avalable at http://cwc.gov.in/CPDAC/Guideline/CWPRS%20-Technical%20Memoranda.pdf, Last Accessed 18 th October, 2013. 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Therefore, it is humbly submitted that, MIL being an instrumentality of the state for the purposes of construction of sea wall falls within the ambit of “Other Authroity” as enshrined u/a 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, a PIL is maintainable against MIL Arguendo, if, MIL is a private party, a PIL can be instituted against private party u/a 32 of the Constitution 10 , if the State is made a co-party in the petition. I.2. Fundamental Rights have been violated I.2.1. Violation of the rights of the Indigenous People. The fundamental right to shelter 11 and livelihood 12 of the Indigenous people have been as guaranteed under u/a 21 of the Constitution been violated on account of the arbitrary action of the state. I.2.2. Violation of the rights of the people of Roah. Also, there has been violation of right to Healthy Environment 13 as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since the state and MIL are responsible for pollution among other things. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the present PIL is maintainable against Union of Rambo and Maraco International Ltd. II. WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. The indigenous people were subjected to forced assimilation and isolation and hence, the fundamental rights as guaranteed under; [II.1] Article 21 of the Constitution [II.2] and Article 19 have been violated; [II.3] Therefore, they should be rehabilitated and relocated. II.1. Violation of Article 21 Article 21 of the Constitution envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a person. The word “Life” under Article 21 means a quality of life 14 , which includes right of food, and 10 Indian Council For Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161 ¶ 20. 11 Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimala Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520, PG Gupta v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 2 SCC 182, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121. 12 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp, AIR 1986 SC 180. 13 Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board –II v. Prof. MV Mayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62. 14 Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1994 SC 1844. 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER In the present case, the island of Roah includes lush topography of Mangrove Forests 45 . Mangrove trees have been classified as endangered species by IUCN. Further, the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991 [hereinafter referred to 1991 Notification] passed under Environmental Protection Act, 1986 46 , classifies the mangroves area under eco- sensitive area where the construction of residential building is not permitted. 47 However, in 2010 Mangroves were cut and buildings were constructed to accommodate the people of Rambo 48 , which not only resulted in violation of 1991 Notification but also that of Article 21. Since, Mangrove forests removes the pollutants and also acts as a barrier of floods, provides nesting places for fishes 49 ; it is the ultimate source of life and livelihood and so by conducting deforestation on these forests there is a violation of Article 21. II.1.3. Violation of test of equality and reasonableness Section 2(ii) (iv) of The FCA, 1980 provides that Central Government can only grants the permission of deforestation for the “non-forest purposes” 50 and such clearances are granted if Central Government considers it reasonable to cut the forest, which is decided on the basis of the report of the committee 51 . However, in the present case there has been non-application of mind for granting the approval, since, firstly, residential buildings cannot be constructed by causing deforestation of Mangrove trees 52 , secondly, considerable reduction of forest in the island of Roah made it more susceptible to natural disasters. It thus fails to meet the test of reasonableness under Article 19. Further, the Government of Rambo has acted arbitrarily by neglecting the rights of tribals and safeguarding the rights of non-tribals, despite the fact that the movement of non tribals is restricted to tribal area, so as to avoid their exploitation 53 , and thus, there has been violation of Article 14, on account of abuse of power and arbitrariness in the actions of the Government. II.2. Violation of Article 19 45 ¶4 Moot Proposition. 46 Section 3(1) And Section 3(2) (v) Of EPA, 1986 And Rule 5(3)(D) Of The Environment Protection Rules. 47 Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 291. 48 ¶10 Moot Proposition. 49 S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) No. 561 of 1994. 50 Section 2, FCA, 1980. 51 Constituted under Rule 2-A of the Forest Conservation Rules,1981, Rule 5 and 6 of Forest Conservation Rules , 1981, Goa Foundation and Others v. State of Goa and Others, 2001 (3) BomCR 813. 52 Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 29.1. 53 Samatha v.State of AP & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3297, T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad v.UOI, (1997) 2 SCC 267. 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER The right of the indigenous people to settle and reside 54 and to own the property 55 anywhere in the territory of Rambo, especially in the forest of the Roah, guaranteed under Article 19(1) (e) has been violated, since; there was a lot of encroachment in the forest on account of deforestation. 56 Further when the Government personnel‟s were involved in disaster management program, due to their negligence there were lot of encroachments in the forest, which violated their right to reside under Article 19 of the Constitution. Hence, in the present case the cutting of forest has violated the rights of indigenous people to hold and live in the forest 57 , right to protect or conserve resource, and the right to access biodiversity and cultural diversity 58 guaranteed to indigenous people/tribals since their right to life and livelihood has been violated as envisaged under Article 21. II.3. Indigenous people should be rehabilitated and relocated Article 29 of the Constitution and Article 27 of ICCPR states that minority group should not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture. However, the fact that people of Rambo were allowed to settle and reside in the forest area of Roah, forcibly subjected the indigenous people to the new culture, making them more prone to exploitation, as they were not prepared physically, socially and culturally for such an interface. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the indigenous people should be rehabilitated pending their relocation 59 in an environment which is conducive to their right to life with dignity as ensured u/a 21. Under Article 47, the government is obliged to take steps 'for the improvement of public health' and the non-availability of financial resources is not an excuse in this regard. 60 III. WHETHER UNION OF RAMBO AND MARACO INTERNATIONAL LTD. ARE LIABLE FOR ENVIRONMENT DEGRADATION The Union of Rambo and MIL has caused environmental degradation by their respective acts, that being, [III.1] Location of Construction unit at an Improper Place [III.2] Pollution caused 54 Article 19, Constitution. 55 UDHR Articles 17 as well as in Article 6 of the ICESCR. 56 ¶10 Moot Proposition. 57 Section 3, The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dweller Act, 2006. 58 Ibid. 59 In accordance with Article 12 of the ILO Convention, 107. 60 Dr. B.L. Wadehra v. Union of India and others (1996) 2 SCC 594 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 7 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER by MIL, violated fundamental rights [III.3] Climate changes caused by Union of Rambo [III.4] and therefore, liable to pay damages for the violation of fundamental rights. III.1. Location of Construction Unit at an improper place III.1.1. Violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 61 , 2011 issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 62 regulates construction and other similar activities on the coast. 63 An area to be classified as CRZ-I 64 , must have ecologically sensitive areas including mangroves, protected reserved forest areas and turtle nesting grounds 65 , where no new construction is permitted, except as provided under the regulation. 66 In the present case, the proximate area in which the construction unit is located has lush Mangrove topography, reserved forests, nesting grounds for turtles and susceptible ecological features, therefore, the designated coastal area for the construction of sea walls can be construed to be CRZ I, and, since no sea wall construction is permitted in this area, it is clearly violative of the express regulations laid down in the CRZ Notification. Also, the ecologically sensitive areas like that of Roah are classified as Critical Vulnerable Coastal Area (CVCA) 67 , therefore, the presence of such a polluting construction site will further add to environmental degradation and natural disasters. III.1.2. Environment Impact Assessment was either not done or was done improperly An Environment Impact Assessment (hereinafter referred to as EIA) is conducted in order to anticipate the likely consequences of the project. 68 In the instant case, within one month of the construction site being set up, the effluents which were emitted from the construction site coupled with the high level of noise caused by the construction work polluted the environment, caused respiratory problems and became a nuisance for the inhabitants in and around the residential area, thus, violating Article 21 61 Hereinafter referred to as CRZ Notification 2011. 62 Section 3 (2) (1) (v) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 63 Regulation 8 (i) (I) (i) and (ii) CRZ Notification 2011, Pg. 9. 64 Coastal Zone Regulation Notification, 1991. 65 Regulation 7 (i) (A) and (B) CRZ Notification 2011, Pg. 8. 66 Regulation 8 (i) (I) (i) and (ii) CRZ Notification 2011, Pg. 9. 67 Regulation 8 (iii) (c) (4) CRZ Notification 2011, Pg. 16. 68 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4016, Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. v. Anuj Joshi and Ors.2013 (10) SCALE 261 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 10 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER III.3.3. Death of sea turtles in their natural habitat: The Sea Turtles being an endangered species have been declared as „Vulnerable‟ 91 . Therefore, their protection is considered to be of absolute 92 and paramount importance 93 under conventions such as CITES 94 , CMS 95 and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. In the present case, there has been a substantial risk to the survival and thriving of the endangered turtles due the close proximity of the seawall construction site to the surrounding turtle nesting and breeding habitats. Further, the sea turtles were being killed in their natural habitat due to the post-migration use of motor boats by the people. 96 Therefore, the Government of Rambo has failed to perform its duty imposed under Article 48 A and 51A (g) of the Constitution, to safeguard the environment and especially the existence of sea turtles. III.4. Damages to be awarded III.4.1. Non-Compliance of Precautionary Principle: The polluter pays principle 97 imposes absolute liability for harm caused to the environment, to compensate the victims of pollution and to pay the cost of restoring the environment. 98 The burden of maintaining the said balance lies on the unit which has caused the pollution 99 . Therefore, in the instant case, MIL is liable for non-compliance with the aforementioned principle; since no preventive measures were taken by MIL for curbing the pollution released from construction unit, and therefore must pay damages for the harm caused to the environment as well as to people since it is their fundamental right to be compensated 100 . Also, the Government of Rambo must be directed to take corrective measures in order to restore the environment. 91 International Union for Conservation of Nature Red Data Book at http://www.iucnredlist.org/ 92 Schedule I, Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 93 Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International and Anr ,2011 (45) PTC 275 (Del) 94 Article III, Appendix I of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 95 Memorandum of Understanding II signed by India under The Convention on Migratory Species(CMS). 96 ¶ 13 (c) of the Moot Proposition 97 Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990)1 SCC 613 98 Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. UOI, (1996) 3 SCC 212; M C Mehta v. UOI, (1987) 1 SCC 395. 99 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India , (2000) 10 SCC 664 100 Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086: (1983) 4 SCC 141, CERC v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1795 7 th Pro Bono National Environment Law Moot - 2013 11 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER PRAYER In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon‟ble Court be pleased to: 1. Hold the Union of Rambo liable for violation of fundamental rights of the Indigenous people, and order for their relocation and rehabilitation. 2. Hold the Union of Rambo and Maraco International Ltd. liable for environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. 3. Order and direct the government to take corrective measures to restore the degraded environment. 4. Order for the relocation of the construction unit; and, grant a temporary injunction against the same until an expert committee is appointed to assess the impact of the construction unit on its surroundings and suggest a new site. 5. Award compensatory damages to be paid by Maraco International for environmental clean-up. AND/OR Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray. COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER