IN THE HON’BLE - Webs · Web viewIn The Hon’ble S upreme C ourt of R enata Writ Petition ( c ) : ____/2019 Ananda and Ors … Petitioner v. Union of Renata and Ors … Defendants

IN THE HONrsquoBLE

SUPREME COURT OF RENATA

WRIT PETITION ( C ) ____2019

Ananda and Ors hellip Petitioner

Union of Renata and Ors hellip Defendants

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

AMITY UNIVERSITY FIRST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2011

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S I I

I N D E X O F A U T H O R I T I E S I I I

S T A T E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N V I

S T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S V I I

S T A T E M E N T O F C H A R G E S I X

A R G U M E N T S A D V A N C E D 1

[A] THE SUPREME COURT OF RENATA CANNOT ENTERTAIN THIS PRESENT CASE

[B] THE CIVIL LIABILITIES NUCLEAR DAMAGES ACT 2010 IS VALID AND

CONSTITUTIONAL

[C] NO ABSOLUTE LIABILITY CAN ACCRUE ON THE GOVERNMENT OF RENATA AND SANTAGAR POWER CORPORATION

P R A Y E R 3 3

L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S

AIR All India ReporterCPC Code Of Civil ProcedureHONrsquoBLE HonorableSC Supreme CourtSCC Supreme Court CasesSCR Supreme Court ReporterUOI Union Of Indiawww World wide Web2010 Act Civil Liabilities Nuclear Damage Act

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

L I S T O F C A S E S

1 Additional sec to the Govt of India amp Ors v Smt Alka Subhas Gadia Anr helliphelliphellip4

2 AIADMK v LKTripathi helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

3 Bacchan singh v State of Punjab helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8

4 Bank of India v Peerless general finance amp investment co ltd amp orshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 11

5 CJ of Andhra Pradesh v LVADixitulu amp ors helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 11

6 Deepak Bajaj v State of Maharashtra amp Anr helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 4

7 Dhondi Tukaram Mali v Dadoo Piraji Adgale helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 5

8 EP Royappa v St of Tamil Nadu amp orshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 13

9 Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v Ramchandra Bhikaji helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 5

10 Hillier v Air Ministry helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip21

11 Jitendra nath Biswas v Emperor amp Cyclone tea amp cohelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 6

12 LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltdhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip22

13 Maneka Gandhi v UoIhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 13

14 National telephone co v Baker Eastern helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip21

15 South African telegraph company limited v Capetown tramways co ltdhelliphelliphelliphellip 21

16 Premier Automobile ltd v Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Brsquobay amp ors helliphelliphelliphellip 6

17 Quamarul Islam v SKKanya helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 19

18 Rylands v Fletcher helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 20

19 SAKhan v Bhajan lalhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 19

20 Shri Panch Nagar Parakh Manaasur v Purghottam Das helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 5

21 State of Bombay v RMDChelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 9

22 State of Madras v VGRow helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip9

23 Union of India v Ranbaxy Laboratories ltd helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

L I S T O F W E B S I T E S

wwwmaupatracomwwwindiankanooncomwwwwikipediacomwwwssconlinecomwwwindialawcom

L I S T O F B O O K S A N D A R T I C L E S

1 IDSA Brief 2110 Ramachandran

2 ldquoTortsrdquo by Michael Jones 4th Edn

3 ldquoWinfield and Jolowicz on Tortrdquo 13th Edn

4 Rattanlal amp Dhirajlal ldquoThe Law of Tortsrdquo26th Edn

5 The Constitution Of India

S T A T E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N

The Supreme Court of Renata has jurisdiction to try entertain and adjudicate the present

matter under the provisions of the Constitution Of Renata

S T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S

1 Union of Renata is a developed state It is located in the Southern Asia The

Constitution establishes a republican form of government with Presidents as the head of the

state It is a commonwealth nation and guarantees to its citizenrsquos basic fundamental rights

including equality before law and protection of life and liberty

2 Renata facing extreme energy crisis was eyed as the best business centre for all the

corporate giants related to nuclear energy The Government of Renata while understanding

this part and with the intention of raising its revenues besides protecting the human rights of

its citizens passed the Civil Liabilities for Nuclear Damages Act 2010 The Preamble to the

Act laid down

ldquoAn Act to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to

the victims of a nuclear incident through a no fault liability regime channelling

liability to the operator appointment of Claims Commissioner establishing of

Nuclear Damage Claims Commission and for connected matters therewith or

incidental theretordquo

Retania is not a member of any international instrument regarding civil liability for

nuclear damages but signed and ratified Agreement for Civil Nuclear Cooperation

with the Golanod United on August 3 2007 which entered into force on January 1

2008 The Agreement provides for transfer of technology and nuclear fuel at

subsidised rates to be used for production of energy

3 On March 27 2017 at 0023 Hrs while testing the potential safety emergency core cooling

feature in a scheduled experiment during the normal shutdown procedure at the Santagar

Power Plant located at Santagar District in Eastern Province of Renata the nuclear reactor

suffered a catastrophic power increase leading to explosions in the core thereby dispersing

large quantities of radioactive fuel and core materials into the atmosphere igniting the

combustible graphite moderator leading to a nuclear meltdown Five neighbouring provinces

and some trans-boundary areas were also affected

4 The incident was brought to the notice of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority which

in a meeting held on April 4 2017 and after preliminary inquiry concluding that there was no

grave and imminent danger to life and property did not notify the incident

5 The Renatan Times leading newspaper reported that lsquofour hundred times more radioactive

material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima However

compared to the total amount released by nuclear weapons testing during the 1950s and

1960s the Santagar disaster released 100 to 1000 times less radioactivity Around 124

million people affected with damage to property amounting to $12 billionrsquo The matter was

of grave concern as per the reports but the reply by the authorities was found to be

completely disappointing When contacted by the Press the Director-General of the Santagar

Power Plant refused to comment on the incident A similar report on melt down was

published in Retanian Daily another leading newspaper

6 Sources in the Santagar Power Plant mentioned that the cooling feature imported from

Karnikav Inc of Golanod United had been replaced a month back Foul play on the part of

Karnikav was suspected which was later confirmed by the Director-Generalrsquos office It was

contended by Santagar Power Corporation that no liability could be accorded since the

cooling feature supplied by Karnikav which was the cause of the incident was faulty

7 The claims were estimated to be around $23 billion Several Writ Petitions were filed

against Santagar Power Corporation including Karnikav Inc by various NGOs in the High

Courts of as many as five provinces of Renata (as the district courts had no jurisdiction over

this matter) inter alia challenging the validity of the Nuclear Damages Act 2010 mainly on

the grounds of its insufficiency to meet the liabilities in case of nuclear disaster Transfer

petition was filed in the Supreme Court by Anada an organisation working for the protection

and preservation of environment founded by Ms Riyalin Roundal a Retanian citizen

8 The Supreme Court issued notice to all concerned and listed the matter for hearing on

20082019

S T A T E M E N T O F I S S U E S

Part One Challenge to Jurisdiction

I The Supreme Court of Renata has no jurisdiction to hear the present claims

Part Two Challenge To Validity

II The 2010 Act is completely valid and constitutional in nature

Part Three Merits

III There is no absolute liability on part of the Respondents for the damage caused in

the present case

1No absolute liability on part of the Government

2 No Liability on Part of Santagar power Corporation

A R G U M E N T S A D V A N C E D

PART ONE OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court of Renata has no jurisdiction to hear the present claims

1 Union of Renata is a developed state It is a commonwealth nation and guarantees to its

citizens basic fundamental rights including equality before law and protection of life and

liberty Renata was facing ldquoextreme energy crisisrdquo1The Government of Renata while

understanding this part and with the intention of raising its revenues besides protecting the

human rights of its citizens passed the Civil Liabilities for Nuclear Damages Act 20102 The

Preamble to the Civil Liabilities for Nuclear Damages Act 2010 (hereinafter ldquothe 2010 Actrdquo)

states as follows

incidental theretordquo3

1 Para 1 moot proposition

2 The 2010 Act itself purports to establish a concrete framework for disposal of cases

that relate to the subject-matter such as the one in the present case The competent

authority to entertain the claims such as those arising out of or incidental to nuclear

damages shall be dealt in accordance with the procedure established by law The

correct procedure is the one which is inlaid in the 2010 Act and the Legislature itself

has approved the same

3 It is humbly submitted before the Honrsquoble Supreme Court that it is clear from the

preamble of impugned Act the claims commission has the competent jurisdiction in

the present case as per the procedure in accordance with law laid down by the

legislature ldquo appointment of Claims Commissioner establishing of Nuclear

Damage Claims Commission and for connected matters therewith or incidental

theretordquo Under this provision the matter should have been raised before the Claims

Commission rather than directly approaching the Supreme Court The Supreme court

although is the apex court its doors cannot be knocked before exhausting other

available alternatives remedies established by law

4 In this case as per Para6 of the Moot Problem ldquo The claims were estimated to be

around $23 billionrdquo The claims are basically for compensation and are conceived as

monetary claims having determinate amounts Thus more than being a patent breach

of Fundamental Rights the present case deals with compensation arising out of Torts

Such matter is purely of a civil nature and invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court in garb of the violation of Fundamental Rights will only frustrate the

very purpose of the 2010 Act

5 The 2010 Act provides the apt procedure to settle such kind of a matter through a

Claims Commission Merely because an alternative remedy in the form of

approaching the Supreme Court exists it does not mean that the appropriate course

need not be followed Even MC Mehta vs UOI4 States that

ldquoIt is only in exceptional cases of the nature indicated by us above that compensation

may be awarded in a petition under Article 32rdquo

In India the Courts of law have laid down in a number of cases that the power under

Article 32 should be sparingly used Article 32 Of The Indian Constitution provides

(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

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

ldquoThe powers under Articles 226 and 32 are wide and are untrammeled by any

external restrictions and can reach any executive order resulting in civil or criminal

consequences However the Courts(India) have over the years evolved certain self-

restraints for exercising these powers They have done so in the interests of the

administration of justice and for better and more efficient and informed exercise of

the said powers rdquo5

ldquoIt is in pursuance of this self-evolved judicial policy and in conformity with the self-

imposed internal restrictions that the Courts insist that the aggrieved person first

allow the due operation discretionary extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under

Articles 226 and 32 respectively and implementation of the concerned law and

exhaust the remedies provided by it before approaching the High Court and this

Court to invoke their That jurisdiction by its very nature is to be used sparingly and

in circumstances where no other efficacious remedy is available rdquo 6

6 Similarly in the present case the appellants should have first exhausted the available

remedy before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Renata

Therefore it is humbly submitted that the writ petition holds no merit should not be

entertained by the Supreme Court of Renata in the present case

7 A perfectly sound analogy may be drawn from Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code

1908 of India (India being a commonwealth country like Renata) That Section only

recognizes the principle that a Court has the jurisdiction to try all the suits of a civil

nature unless the Court is impliedly or expressly barred from doing so For instance

5 Additional Secretary to the Government Of India and OthrsvSmt Alka Shubhas Gadia Anr 1990 SCR Supl (3) 583 1992 SCC Supl (1) 496

6 Deepak Bajaj v State of Maharashtra amp Anr 12 2008

where the jurisdiction to try suits relating to agricultural land were specifically meant

to be tried by the competent authority under the Tenancy Act of 1948 the Civil Court

was expressly barred from trying such a suit7 Similarly in cases where the subject-

matter is Electricity Income Tax Central Administration etc there have been

separate Tribunals which have been established by various Legislations and it is only

those Tribunals that are competent to try the suits of a civil nature dealing with a

subject-matter such as theft of Electricity Income Tax Evasion Indian Administrative

Services etc respectively

8 In a more recent case of Shri Panch Nagar Parakh Manaasur v Purshottam Das the

Supreme Court (India) examined the issue of implied bar of the Civil Court under

section 9 of the CPC in the matter where remedy was provided in a special statute

and it observed

However in cases where there is no express provision excluding jurisdiction of

the Civil Court it would be necessary to enquire and determine whether it is

impliedly barred For this purpose the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions

are required to be examined to find out whether the statute provides rights and remedy

and where the scheme of the Act is such that the procedure provided therein will be

conclusive giving finality and thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in

respect thereof8

9 ldquoThe enforcement of a right or an obligation under the Act the remedy provided uno

flatu in it is the exclusive remedy The legislature in its wisdom did not think it fit and

7 Dhondi Tukaram Mali v Dadoo Piraji Adgale AIR 1954 Bom 100 Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi [AIR 1979 SC 653]

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

proper to provide a very easy and smooth remedy for enforcement of the rights and

obligations created under the Act Persons wishing the enjoyment of such rights and

wanting its enforcement must rest content to secure the remedy provided by the Act

In India under s 9 CPC courts have subject to certain restrictions jurisdiction to

try suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or

impliedly barred If a suit in relation to an industrial dispute relates to the enforcement

of a right created under the Act by necessary intendment the jurisdiction of the civil

court is barred That being so in India it is barred for all purposes and a suit for in-rdquo9

10 ldquoA five-Judges Bench of this Court (Supreme Court of India) considered the language

of Section 9 and the scope thereof in respect of exclusion of jurisdiction and it was

observed Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and

the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the

result of the inquiry may be decisive In the latter case it is necessary to see if the

statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the

right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and

liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted and whether remedies

normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or

11 In the present case the preamble clearly states that the Nuclear Damage Claims

Commission will be set up which will deal with connected matters therewith or

incidental thereto Thus the act itself provides the procedure and remedy and it was

9 Premier Automobile LtdvsKamlekar Shantaram Wadke Of Bombay amp Ors 1975 AIR 2238 1976 SCR (1) 427

10 Jitendra Nath Biswas v Emperor and Cyclone Tea and Co amp Athr 1990 AIR 255 1989 SCR (3) 640

not open to the appellant to approach the civil court for getting the relief which he

could get only under the scheme of the Act

12 Hence it is humbly submitted before this Honrsquoble Court that even though the

Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of Fundamental Rights of any citizen still it

does not mean that the procedure established by law will be compromised in a callous

manner Hence it is only the Nuclear Claims Commission which is competent to hear

the present case The Supreme Court cannot be approached before exhausting the

available remedy provided for in the 2010 Act

PART TWO VALIDITY OF THE 2010 ACT

1 It is not disputed that if any enactment violates the Fundamental Rights as being

arbitrary unjust unreasonable or irrational in nature then such enactment is clearly

invalid11 However that is not the case with the 2010 Act in the present matter As per

Para 2 of the Moot Problem the Government of Renata has fully considered three

things before enacting the 2010 Act ie (a) trying to find a solution to the extreme

energy crisis in Renata (b) raising the Revenue of the State and (c) protecting the

Human Rights of its citizens It cannot be patently said that the Government has

arbitrarily formulated such a policy as the 2010 Act without even considering the

various practicalities associated with the Act As MC Mehta12 (supra) puts it

ldquoThe infringement of the fundamental right must be gross and patent that is

incontrovertible and ex facie glaring and either such infringement should be on a

large scale affecting the fundamental rights of a large number of persons or it

should appear unjust or unduly harsh or oppressive on account of their poverty or

disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position to require the person

or persons affected by such infringement to initiate and pursue action in the civil

courtsrdquo

11 Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab [(1982) 3 SCC 24 at p56]

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

2 The 2010 Act purports to establish a ldquono fault liability regimerdquo and provides ldquofor civil

liability for nuclear damagerdquo There is nothing which is patently wrong or ulterior

about the 2010 Act The basic Fundamental Rights such as equality before law and

protection of life and liberty have by no means been abridged or curtailed by the very

inception of the 2010 Act It has been laid down in State of Bombay vs RMDC13

ldquowhen the validity of an Act is called in question the first thing for the court to do is

to examine whether the Act is a law with respect to a topic assigned to the particular

Legislature which enacted it If it is then the court is next to consider whether in the

case of an Act passed by the Legislature of a Province (now a State) its operation

extends beyond the boundaries of the Province or the State for under the provisions

conferring legislative powers on it such Legislature can only make a law for its

territories or any part thereof and its laws cannot in the absence of a territorial

nexus have any extra-territorial operation If the impugned law satisfies both these

tests then finally the court has to ascertain if there is anything in any other part of the

Constitution which places any fetter on the legislative powers of such Legislature The

impugned law has to pass all these three testsrdquo

3 The first two tests can be assumed to have been fully satisfied in the present matter as

neither is it the case of Petitioner that they have not nor are the facts of the Problem

suggesting anything contrary to that assumption The final test which remains is

arguable since it is contended by the Petitioners that the 2010 Act is in contravention

of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Renata

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

4 Such an argument is tenuous and fragile because merely engaging in an activity such

as one related to production of Nuclear Energy is not violative of the Fundamental

Right to life and liberty of the Renatian citizens Every Country has a right to meet its

energy requirements through various possible channels and the Treaty which Renata

has entered into with Golanod United vide Para7 of the Moot Problem is only for

the development of Renatian Nuclear Energy Industry Such an inherent power of the

State to create profit-making agencies for earning Revenue and bettering the standards

of living of its citizens is a common practice and nothing can curtail or take away that

power from the State This power is not violative of any rights of citizensA distinctly

supportive message emerged from the leaders of the seven leading economic

countries and the Russian Federation at the Nuclear Safety and Security Summit held

in Moscow during April 1996 It declares

We are ready to co-operate among ourselves so that the use of nuclear energy is

conducted all over the world consistently with fundamental principles of nuclear

safety Further we are committed to measures which will enable nuclear power

already a significant contributor to electricity supply in those countries choosing to

exploit it to continue in the next century to play an important role in meeting future

energy demands consistent with the goal of sustainable development agreed at the Rio

Conference

5 In Union of India v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd14 the Supreme Court of India

observed that all statutes have to be considered in light of the object and purport of the

Act In Reserve Bank of India v Peerless General Finance and Investment Co Ltd

and Ors15 this Court held that

Interpretation [of statutory provisions] must depend on the text and the context They

are the bases of interpretation One may well say if the text is the texture context is

what gives the colour Neither can be ignored Both are important That

interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual A

statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted With this knowledge the

statute must be read first as a whole and then section by section clause by clause

phrase by phrase and word by word If a statute is looked at in the context of its

enactment with the glasses of the statute-maker provided by such context its scheme

the sections clauses phrases and words may take colour and appear different than

when the statute is looked at without the glasseshelliprdquo

6 In Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others v L V A Dixitulu and Others16 a

Constitutional Bench of this Court observed

The primary principle of interpretation is that a constitutional or statutory provision

should be construed according to the intent of they that made it (Code) Normally

such intent is gathered from the language of the provision If the language of the

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

phraseology employed by the legislation is precise and plain and thus by itself

proclaims the legislative intent in unequivocal terms the same must be given effect

to regardless of the consequences that may follow But if the words used in the

provision are imprecise protean or evocative or can reasonably bear meaning more

than one the rule of strict grammatical construction ceases to be a sure guide to reach

at the real legislative intent In such a case in order to ascertain the true meaning of

the terms and phrases employed it is legitimate for the court to go beyond the arid

literal confines of the provision and to call in aid other well-recognised rules of

construction such as its legislative history the basic scheme and framework of the

statute as a whole each portion throwing light on the resthellip

7 With reference to the above mentioned case laws it can also be gathered that the Act

does not infringe the basic fundamental rights of life and liberty The Act should be

construed according to the intent of the legislature which is to provide for a prompt

compensation The legislature very well specifies the procedure for claiming

compensation by providing for the appointment of Claims Commissioner and

establishing the Nuclear Damages Claims Commission The act by laying down the

Commission provides for the mode of relief in the form of accessibility of special

courts The intent behind barring the jurisdiction of civil courts to try such claims was

to provide for prompt compensation

8 Thus there is nothing to suggest patently that the 2010 Act per se is unconstitutional

or invalid

9 Act must be examined on the touchstone of the fundamental rights on the basis of the

test laid down by this Court in State of Madras v VG Row17 There at page 607 of

the report this Court has reiterated that in considering the reasonableness of the law

17 1952 CrLJ 966

imposing restrictions on the fundamental rights both the substantive and the

procedural aspects of the impugned restrictive law should be examined from the point

of view of reasonableness And the test of reasonableness wherever prescribed

should be applied to each individual Statute impugned and no abstract standard or

general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases The

nature of the right alleged to have been infringed the underlying purpose of the

restrictions imposed the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby

the disproportion of the imposition the prevailing conditions at the time should all

enter into the judicial verdict (The emphasis supplied) Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri

reiterated that in evaluating such elusive factors and forming their own conception of

what is reasonable in the circumstances of a given case it is inevitable that the social

philosophy and the scale of values of the judges participating in the decision would

play an important role

In the present case there is nothing in the act to suggest that it is not reasonable or jus thus

the contention of invalidity cannot be sustained

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

1 No absolute liability on part of the Government

a It is most humbly submitted before this Honrsquoble court that the Government of Renata

cannot be held liable in the present case The preamble of the 2010 Act creates a lsquono

fault liability regimersquo under which the civil liability for nuclear damage will be

ldquochannelledrdquo to the operator Thus the liability under the act has clearly been

channelled to the operator and therefore the claims against the government cannot be

maintained The legislature laid down this law whereby it channelled the liability to

he operator was done keeping in mind the fact that otherwise the compensation if

demanded from the government would be paid out of the citizenrsquos own pocket the tax

money would come back to the citizens in form of compensation The whole point of

channelling the liability was to make sure that the ldquocorporate giantsrdquo which eyed

Renata ldquoas the best business centrerdquo for its extreme energy crisis can be made liable

directly to pay to the citizen

b The internationally evolved and accepted basic principles of liability in case of a

nuclear accident requiring compensation against damage caused including to the

environment are1818 Civil Nuclear Liability Bill IDSA Brief by Ramachandran 2010 page4

1048723 Strict liability of the operator of a nuclear installation which relieves the victim from

burden of proof

1048723 Legal channelling of liability exclusively to the operator regardless of the accidentrsquos

cause ndash lsquoabsolute liabilityrsquo ndash except for acts of armed conflict hostilities or insurrection

1048723 Mandatory financial coverage of the operatorrsquos liability through insurance coverage

or any other means of financial security and

1048723 Exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of the State where the nuclear accident occurs

The strict and absolute liability of the operator is in fact in keeping with the lsquoPolluter

Paysrsquo principle of international norms of environmental law This exclusive liability of the

operator has been criticized on the grounds that it frees the supplier of nuclear equipment of

any liability whatsoever even if the incident had arisen because of defective equipment or

design flaw in the reactor system19

c At the international level there are four instruments for nuclear liability that share

these common principles the OECDrsquos Paris Convention of 1960 (entered into force in

1968) which was strengthened by the Brussels Supplementary Convention (BSC) in

1963 the IAEArsquos Vienna Convention of 1963 (entered into force in 1977) and the yet

to come into force Convention on Supplementary Compensation To enable a

common geographical scope for the two Conventions they were linked in 1988 by a

Joint Protocol Towards striking a balance between operatorrsquos liability and promoting

investment in nuclear power the operatorrsquos liability is generally limited However to

bridge the compensation gap beyond the operator limit the conventions envisage a

three-tier liability structure operator liability installation state liability and liability 19 The Civil Labilities Nuclear Bill IDSA Brief Issue 2010(page 4)

of contracting parties to the convention (Channelled through a contributory

international fund) In principle however depending upon the convention adhered to

or an appropriate national legislation operatorrsquos liability may be kept limited or

unlimited20

d Renata is not a party to any of the nuclear liability conventions mentioned above

Renata has a domestic legislation in the form of the 2010 Act which is in line with the

international conventions The 2010 Act channels the liability on to the operator

therefore the compensation in cases of nuclear accidents cannot be claimed from the

government the operator is liable to pay compensation Thus the contention that the

government liable cannot be sustained

e More so the law laid down in MC Mehta v UOI21 ldquoIf the enterprise is permitted to

carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profits the law must

presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of

any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as

an appropriate item of its overheads Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity

for private profit can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise engaged in

such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on

account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity

regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or notrdquo

f The above Act passed by the legislature attempts to do the same by establishing the

ldquono fault liability regimerdquo and channelling it to the operator To ensure that when a 20 IDSA BRIEF Ramachadran (page 4)2010

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

corporate giant engages itself in the hazardous activity it can be held liable to pay in

cases of an accident

g It is a humby submitted before this Honrsquoble Court that when MC Mehta (supra)

case was decided there was no Legislature governing the matter brought before the

court but in the present case the legislature has passed the Act thus in the absence of

any concrete law perhaps the Indian Supreme Court rightly took over the job of laying

down the law in MC Mehta case rather than interpreting it However the Renatian

Supreme Court is not as helpless as the Indian Supreme Court was back then and all it

has to do is to interpret the 2010 Act Once the liability for Nuclear Damages is

ldquochannelledrdquo to the Operator of the Nuclear Plant it means that the liability has been

ldquoshiftedrdquo to the Operator and it is now the Operator and no one else who is to be held

liable for anything which may happen adversely due to the working of the Nuclear

h The only role of the Government is to import the technology and nuclear fuel at

subsidized rates from Karnikav Inc of Golanod United for the production of energy

as per Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Moot Problem Thus if at all there arises any

liability then it should be that of the ldquooperatorrdquo and not the government of Renata

The facts are silent as to whether the Director General of the Santagar Power Plant

was a Government officer or if the Government was controlling the operation of the

Power Plant

i Moreover the plaintiff is demanding compensation without any exact statistics or data

or an authority supporting their claim It is very well mentioned in the facts of the

case that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority did not notify the incident and

cited the lack of any grave and imminent danger to life and property as the reason

Now it is to be seen that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority is the authentic

board to notify nuclear incident or a newspaper report

j The civil liability for Nuclear Damage Act2010 passed in October 2010 in India

lays down the similar preamble as Union of Renata in its act In that particular act

clause (3) specify Atomic Energy Regulatory authority to notify any nuclear incident

if it is satisfied about the gravity of the nuclear incident In the present case the

incident was reported to the Authorityon preliminary investigation they found it not

to be of any grave and imminent danger and did not notified the incident This

establishes that the news paper reports were overhyped and no grave damage has

been caused as commented by Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority

k More so the petitioner has claimed compensation and the basis of their claim is the

report published in newspaper as per para 4 of the damage to moot problem which

said that around 124 million people affected with damage to property amounting to

$12 billion However the credibility of such reports is itself not as accurate as they

do not have any evidentiary value

l In Quamarul Islam V S K Kanya22where in an election petition it was necessary to

prove the speech delivered by the winning candidate the supreme court did not allow

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

it be proved only by producing the newspaper on account of the speech Supreme

Court(India) in SA Khan V Bhajan Lal23 held that facts contained in the newspaper

report would have to be proved Even where a person against whom an item of news

appears in the press has not denied it it would not constitute evidence against him

Further in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam V LKTripathi24 Supreme

court(India) held evidence produced in the form of newspaper and tapes not to be

relevant

m Likewise in the present case it is well established that the newspapers have blown the

whole event out of proportion and even the claims which have arisen after such

reports are merely of a determinate monetary value seeking compensation rather than

anything else Thus in the present matter the Government of Renata cannot be held

liable the compensation if any is to be paid by the operator

2 No Absolute Liability On Part Of Santagar

a It is most humbly presented before this Honble court that the Santagar power

corporation which is the operator in the present case cannot be held liable in this case

and the compensation to be claimed if any has to be against the supplier as it was due

to the faulty cooling feature that the accident happened The preamble to the Civil

liabilities Act2010 clearly mentions the provision for a ldquono fault liability rdquo channelled

to the operator This principle was laid down in RYLANDS V FLETCHER

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

b The rule of strict liability laid down by Blackburn J in Rylands v Fletcher 25

The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is two fold (i) The people who engage in

particularly hazardous activities should bear the burden of the risk of damage that

their activities generate and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism the

person who does such hazardous activity (usually a corporation) being in the best

position to spread the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products26

c Thus in cases where the principle of strict liability applies the defendant has to pay

damages for injury caused to the plaintiff even though the defendant may not have

been at any fault

d The rule in Rylands v Fletcher (supra) was subsequently interpreted to cover a variety

of things likely to do mischief on escape irrespective of whether they were dangerous

per se eg water electricity explosions oil noxious fumes colliery spoil poisonous

vegetation a flagpole etc 27vide National Telephone Co v Baker28 Eastern and

e South African Telegraph Co Ltd v Cape Town Tramways Co Ltd29 Hillier v Air

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

26 Torts by Michael Jones 4th edition(p 267)

27 Winfield and jolowicg on ldquotortrdquo 13th edition p 425

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

f In other common law jurisdictions such as Canada Ireland and New Zealand cases

based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher continue to come before the courts The

general approach has been to follow the lead given by the English courts

in Cambridge Water 31 Consequently the cases have been decided under the narrow

rule only There have been two successful claims in Canada in recent years32 whilst

others have foundered on the traditional rocks which beset Rylands v

Fletcher litigation33

g Clearly a niche has been found for the narrow rule in the common law world Even in

England a recent case34 shows that it is possible for a claimant to succeed on the basis

of Rylands v Fletcher

h In the United States however the wide rule has had more success As Fleming notes

lsquoafter an at first cool reception strict liability is now generally applied to ldquoabnormally

dangerousrdquo activities that is those with inherent risks that cannot be eliminated by

the exercise of reasonable carersquo35 Strict liability is consistent with the lsquopolluter paysrsquo

principle in the environmental arena Therefore it cannot be contended that the Civil

Liabilities Nuclear Damages Act 2010 is inadequate and insufficient to meet the

liabilities arising in such cases

31 Van Gerven Lever and Larouche Cases Materials and Text on National Supranational and International Tort Law (Hart Publishing 2000) at 204-5

32 Smith Bros Excavating Windsor Ltd v Price Waterhouse Ltd [1994] Ont Sup CJ LEXIS 1034 (Canada) Hamilton v Papakura DC [2002] 3 New Zealand Law Reports 308 (New Zealand) and Superquinn Ltd v Bray UDC [1998] 3 IR 542 (Ireland)

33 Croft v Nova Scotia Power Inc [2003] 125 All Canada Weekly Summaries (3d) 740 (Award of damages upheld by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court

34 Hoffman v Monsanto Canada Inc [2005] 139 All Canada Weekly Summaries 35 LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC)

i Apart from the above some other exceptions carved out to the rule in Rylands v

Fletcher (supra) are (a) consent of the plaintiff (b) common benefit (c) Act of

stranger (d) Act of God (e) Statutory authority (f) default of plaintiff36 As the 2010

Act establishes a ldquono faultrdquo liability regime whereby the exceptions can be said to be

applicable In the present case the accident happened due the faulty cooling feature

supplied by Karinkav Inc therefore In this case Santagar Power Corporation cannot

be held absolutely liable for it and the compensation if any has to be paid by the

supplier

i More so at international level the operators liability is never absolute and unlimited

ldquoright to recourserdquo 37 is common to all international conventions and national laws These

provision provide for making the supplier legally liable in cases of accidents resulting due

to a wilful act or gross negligence on part of the suppliers Therefore in the present case

where the accident happened due to the suppliers faulty cooling feature Santagar cannot

be held absolutely liable

III Compensation has been claimed without any quantification of damages

It is humbly submitted before this honrsquoble court that the plaintiff has sought damages from

the court without any reasonable authority The preamble clearly lays down the provision of a

claims commission from which compensation in case of a nuclear accident can be sought

Moreover it has already been submitted that newspaper reports are not the competent

36 Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort 13th Edn

37 Civil Liabilities Act IDSA Issue Brief 2010

authority In an article written by Nathalie LJT Horbach and Patrick Blanchard in an

international business law journal38it is mentioned that it is for the applicable substantive law

to determine the precise damage concept and delineation and thus also whether certain types

of environmental damage might be compensable under the headings as provided by the

relevant conventions

Hence liability if any arises is to be determined through the competent authority and is to be

based on to what the substantive laws provides The civil liabilities act as passed by the union

of Renata provides for such a provision Compensation can only be claimed after notification

of the incident if it seems appropriate by the Atomic energy regulatory authority and proper

quantification of damages has been done by the appropriate authority as per the substantive

laws laid down by Union of Renata

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In light of the foregoing submissions and the reasoning made therein it is most humbly

prayed before this Honrsquoble Court

1 That the Honrsquoble Court need not entertain this Petition due to lack of jurisdiction and

38 Nuclear Civil Liability For International Transport New Queries And Proposal

2 That the 2010 Nuclear Damages Act is constitutional and valid and

3 That there accrues no absolute liability to any of the Respondents in the present case

and or

4 That it may pass any other Order which it deems fit and just in the light and

circumstances of the present case

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE RESPONDENT AS IN DUTY BOUND

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

(Counsel for the Respondent)

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Torts by Michael Jones 4th edition(p 267)

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

list of books and Articles

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Part Three Merits

III There is no absolute liability on part of the Respondents for the damage caused in the present case

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S I I

I N D E X O F A U T H O R I T I E S I I I

S T A T E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N V I

S T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S V I I

S T A T E M E N T O F C H A R G E S I X

A R G U M E N T S A D V A N C E D 1

[A] THE SUPREME COURT OF RENATA CANNOT ENTERTAIN THIS PRESENT CASE

[B] THE CIVIL LIABILITIES NUCLEAR DAMAGES ACT 2010 IS VALID AND

CONSTITUTIONAL

[C] NO ABSOLUTE LIABILITY CAN ACCRUE ON THE GOVERNMENT OF RENATA AND SANTAGAR POWER CORPORATION

P R A Y E R 3 3

L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S

AIR All India ReporterCPC Code Of Civil ProcedureHONrsquoBLE HonorableSC Supreme CourtSCC Supreme Court CasesSCR Supreme Court ReporterUOI Union Of Indiawww World wide Web2010 Act Civil Liabilities Nuclear Damage Act

Act laid down

20082019

Part Three Merits

the present case

states as follows

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

Act laid down

20082019

Part Three Merits

the present case

states as follows

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

Act laid down

20082019

Part Three Merits

the present case

states as follows

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

Act laid down

20082019

Part Three Merits

the present case

states as follows

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

Act laid down

20082019

Part Three Merits

the present case

states as follows

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

20082019

Part Three Merits

the present case

states as follows

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

20082019

Part Three Merits

the present case

states as follows

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

Part Three Merits

the present case

states as follows

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

states as follows

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

under clause ( 2 )

4 AIR 1987 SC 1086

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

and it observed

respect thereof8

8 AIR 1999 SC 3071 JT 1999 (6) SC 155 1999 (5) SCALE 87

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

courtsrdquo

12 AIR 1987 SC 1089

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

13 AIR 1957 SC 699

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

Conference

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

14 (2008) 7 SCC 502

15 (1987) 1 SCC 424

16 (1979) 2 SCC 34

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

or invalid

17 1952 CrLJ 966

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

PART THREE MERITS

the present case

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

burden of proof

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

unlimited20

21 AIR 1987 SC 1086

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

Power Plant

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

22 AIR 1994 SC 1733

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

relevant

23 AIR 199U3 SC 1348

24 AIR 2009 SC 1314

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

been at any fault

Ministry30 etc

25 1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

28 (1893) 2 CH 186

29 (1902) AC 381

30 (1962) CLY 2084

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

supplier

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

and or

SHALL EVER PRAY

Dated March 26 2011

AMC 215(A)

1868 [LR 3 HL 330]

Table of Contents

list of Cases

list of websites

Part Three Merits

Arguments Advanced

PART THREE MERITS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Dated March 26 2011

Documents

IN THE HON’BLE - Webs · Web viewIn The Hon’ble S upreme C ourt of R enata Writ Petition ( c ) : ____/2019 Ananda and Ors … Petitioner v. Union of Renata and Ors … Defendants