THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

Page | 1
THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page | 2
THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Page | 3
THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Page | 4
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces

Page | 5
THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Minas Tirith is the world’s third most populous country. In the State
of East Pradesh which has a coastline of 1,000 km, the natural resources including
iron ore and coal are found in abundance. Around 40% of the State’s population
consists of tribal people who live in the forests.
2. The Central Government decided to lease out the mines . With the approval of the
Cabinet, the Government has notified the “New Mining Deal, 2015” which is its
master plan on mining. Subsequent to the plan, it had auctioned iron mines in blocks
to several foreign mining giants. The auction was won by M/s. Marvolo Miners Inc.
3. The MoEF gave the clearance for mining activities. The MoEF followed procedural
requirements and all the required assessments were carried out before granting the
license.
4. In East Pradesh, Marvolo’s license was restricted to iron blocks A, B and C in which
mining was permitted only upto a depth of 100 feet. Marvolo mined in blocks A, B
and D. They left C untouched. This was only identified by a news reporter’s secret
investigation. The report further alleged that they have mined more than 125 feet in
the said block.
5. Mr. Percival Brian who was a candidate campaigning for the elections filed a PIL
before the High Court of East Pradesh against the whole mining activity and sought a
criminal case against Marvolo for violations. The court ordered SEIAA to conduct an
investigation.
6. The SEIAA held a press conference wherein it was informed that more than 100 feet
was mined. It also categorically announced that the license should not have been
granted to any of these mining blocks as they critically affect the tribal population and
the environment.
7. The NGT convened a forum on Saturday and granted a suo motu injunction against
any further mining and ordered the mine to be sealed until further orders.
8. Aggrieved by this and the High Court PIL, Marvolo decided to approach the Supreme
Court of Minas Tirith. The Supreme Court found this matter to be of great importance
and decided to take the main case.
Page | 6
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the SLP filed is maintainable or not?

II. Whether the NGT has suo motu powers?

III. Whether there was a criminal violation of mining license and whether it caused the
environmental degradation?

IV. Whether the mining in the area is against environmental safety and violates the rights
of the tribal people?

Page | 7
THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Page | 8
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the instant special leave petition 1 is
maintainable as there have arisen circumstances and involve a substantial question of law
which need to be addressed by this Court. Thus, the Petitioner has approached this Court
against the order of the NGT under Article 1362 of the Manas Tirith Constitution.

Act of NGT was not justified

In A.P.H.L.Conference, Shillong v. W.A. Sangma,3the Court observed:
“The principal test which must necessarily be present in determining the character of the
authority as tribunal is whether that authority is empowered to exercise any adjudicating
power of the state and whether the same has been conferred on it by any statute or a statutory
rule.
The NGT act, 2010 does not mentions the presence of suo moto powers and thereby the
injunction placed by NGT was unjustified. The Supreme Court may grant for a SLP under
Article 136 against the order of the Tribunal in cases where special circumstances exist.4

PIL had vested interest

It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of PIL will along have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the
tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a
1
Hereinafter referred as SLP.
2
Article 136 in The Constitution Of Vindia:“Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.”
3
A.P.H.L.Conference, Shillong v. W.A. Sangma, AIR 1977 SC 2155.
4
Indian Iron and Steel Company v. Their Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130.

Page | 9
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.
Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for
vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.5
While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has
to be taken that the court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional
framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The court has come down heavily whenever
the executive has sought to impinge upon the court's jurisdiction6
It was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of
PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court
under the guise of a public interest litigant. He has also left the following note of caution:
"But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in
cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political
motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused
by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political
objective.”7

Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined the "public interest
litigation" in its report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows

“Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts provide legal
representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been
undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide
such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such
groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic
minorities and others”

1.1.1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the power under Article 136 has
been characterized as “an untrammeled reservoir of power incapable of being
confined to definitional bounds; the discretion conferred on the Supreme Court being
subjected to only one limitation i.e. the wisdom and good sense of justice of the

5
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. 1993 Cri LJ 600
6
Narmada Bachao Angolan v. Union of India and Ors AIR 2000 SC 3751
7
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [1982] 2 SCR 365

Page | 10
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

judges.”8 The exercise of the power of the court is not circumscribed by any limitation
as to who may invoke it.9
1.1.2. Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal upon the party 10 but merely vests
discretion in the SC to interfere in exceptional cases. 11 Under Article 136, the Court
may generously step in to impart justice and remedy injustice 12 and it is for the Apex
Court to decide whether to entertain an appeal or not.13
1.1.3. It is most reverentially submitted that Under this Article, the shall have the power to
grant special leave to appeal:
a) from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order,
b) in any cause or matter,
c) Passed or made by any court or tribunal, in the territory of India.14 The expression
“any cause or matter” is of a very wide import.15
1.1.4. It is respectfully submitted that in a plethora of cases, 16 the Apex Court has heard
appeals from Tribunals under an SLP. The Apex Court has interfered with decisions
of the tribunals where the order was erroneous, 17 there was an error of law in the
tribunal decision18 and where the tribunal order was unjust. 19

8
Kunhayammed v. State of Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 2587.
9
Esher Singh v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585.
10
Supra Footnote 5:Kunhayammed; Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Employees, AIR 1959
SC 633.
11
State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, AIR 1960 SC 391; Municipal Board, Pratabgarh v. Mahendra Singh
Chawla, AIR 1982 SC 1493.
12
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036.
13
Sales Tax Officer v. Shree Durga Oil Mills, AIR 1998 SC 591.
14
DURGA DAS BASU, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 14th edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur.
(2009); Pg. 827.
15
Jagatjit Distilling Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1969) SC [CA 840/66, Dt. 29-04-1969].
16
J.K. Iron & Steel Co. v. Mazdur Union, AIR 1956 SC 231; CSIR v. K.G.S. Bhatt, AIR 1989 SC 1972; Rajgarh
Jute Mills v. Eastern Railway, AIR 1958 SC 525; S.S. Light Railway Co. v. U.D. Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1960 SC
695; Sovachand v. Commissioner., Income Tax, AIR 1959 SC 59.
17
Bhikaji Keshao v. Brij Lal Nandlal, AIR 1955 SC 610; Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing. Co. v. Union
of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785.
18
Kays Concern v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1525; Hindusatan Antibiotics v. Workmen, AIR 1967 SC 948.
19
Manoj Kumar Rai v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 882.

Page | 11
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

1.1.5. The Special Leave Appeal may be allowed in exceptional cases, such as, a breach of
the principles of natural justice by the order appealed against; 20 or where the appeal to
the SC is on appoint which could not have been decided in the appeal under the
ordinary law.21 The existence of an alternative remedy is no ground for taking away
the jurisdiction under Article 136.22
1.1.6. Article 136 confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in
suitable cases. It is a special jurisdiction and a residuary power. It is extraordinary in
its amplitude, its limits, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself.23
1.1.7. The only uniform standard that can be laid down regarding these variety of cases is
that the power shall be exercised only where special circumstances are shown to
exist,24 which in the instant case are clearly present The powers under this Article are
special and extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has been no
miscarriage of justice.25 The Constitutional Jurisdiction conferred by Art. 136 of the
Constitution cannot be limited or taken away by any legislation subordinate to the
Constitution.26
1.1.8. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in
determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying
those principles the question would not be a substantial question of law. 27

20
Mahadayala Premchandra v. C.T.O., AIR 1958 SC 667; Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, AIR 1955 SC 65.
21
Cf. Kanhaiyalal Lohia v., Commissioner of IT, AIR 1962 SC 1323.
22
Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros., AIR 1959 SC 1362; Ram Dayal v. Narbada, AIR 1973 SC 804;
Nirma Ltd. v. Lurgi GMBH, AIR 2002 SC 3695; ITI ltd. V. Siemens Network Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 2308; Dipak
Chandra Ruhidas v. Chandan Kumar Sarkar, AIR 2003 SC 3701; Shail v. Manoj Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 3210;
Virender Kumar Rai v. Union of India, (2004) 13 SCC 463.
23
Ramakant Rai v Madan Rai, AIR 2004 SC 77; P.S.R. Sadanantham v. Arunachalam, (1980) 3 SCC 141;
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520.
24
Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank, AIR 1950 SC 188; Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
25
State of Rajashtan v. Sohan Lal, (2004) 5 SCC 573.
26
Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, AIR 2004 SC 2489; Union Carbide Corporation v
Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248; S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386; Surya Dev Rai v.
Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675.
27
Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1962) AIR 1314 (SC).

Page | 12
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

To be ‘substantial’ a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the
land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if
answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned28

28
Santosh Hazari v Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 (SC).

Page | 13
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

WHETHER NGT HAS SUO MOTO POWERS?

It is most respectfully submitted that the NGT Act 2010 does not mention the provision
regarding the suo-moto powers for National Green Tribunal. The contentions will be much
more justified from the arguments presented herein under.

2.1. The statute does not mention suo-moto powers for NGT.

2.1.1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the statutory bodies cannot
use the power to make rules and regulations to enlarge the powers beyond the
scope intended by the legislature.29
2.1.2. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Additional District Magistrate
(Rev.) Delhi Administration v. Shri Ram30 that it is a well-recognised principle
that the conferment of rulemaking power by an Act does not enable the rule
making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of enabling Act.
2.1.3. It is further submitted that the powers of NGT has been clearly defined in the
Chapter III, Section 19 of the NGT Act. It nowhere mentions suo-moto powers for
the NGT so NGT cannot extend its powers to take suo-moto cognizance of the
offence.

2.2. The NGT is not a court and judiciary has acknowledged that NGT does
not have suo-moto powers.

2.2.1. It is most respectfully submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court in
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala and Ors. 31 that
tribunals act in a judicial manner and even on evidence on oath, but they are not
part of the ordinary Courts of Civil Judicature. They are very similar to courts but
are not courts. So it is clear that NGT cannot be termed as ‘court’ and does not
have powers to take suo-moto cognizance unlike other civil courts.

29
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, AIR1975SC1331
30
AIR 2000 SC 2143
31
AIR 1961 SC 1669

Page | 14
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

2.2.2. It is further submitted that it has been held by Madras High Court in P.Sundarjan
v. The Deputy Registrar of National Green Tribunal and Ors.32 that NGT cannot
suo-moto cognizance of the matters.
2.2.3. [Arguendo] The principal bench of NGT at Delhi in Bajinath Prajapati v.
Ministry of Environment and Forest33 has itself acknowledged that “it is
mentionable that we are not conferred with suo moto powers to proceed with the
case.”
2.2.4. It is therefore most humbly submitted that in the light of above arguments that
NGT wass totally unjustified in exercising suo-moto powers which has neither
been conferred by the NGT Act 2010 nor the judiciary has recognized.

32
2015 (4) CTC 353
33
NGT Appeal No. 18/2011

Page | 15
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

3. WHETHER THERE WAS A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF MINING LICENSE AND

WHETHER IT CAUSED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION?

It is most respectfully submitted that the parliament of Minas Tirith has enacted specific
legislations regarding mining sector in Minas Tirith viz. Mines Act 1952 and MMDR Act
1957. The act of the Malvoro Mining Company does not entail criminally violation a mining
lease which shall further be substantiated by the arguments advances.

3.1. That the act of the Marlvoro Mining Company is a mere breach of license

3.1.1. It is submitted that the license granted by the Govt. to the Marlvoro is a contract in
itself as the Apex Court in State U.P. and Ors. v. Sheopat Rai and Ors34 has used
license and contract interchangeably and moreover it has been held by Apex Court
in State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. and Anr.35 That
“the relationship between State and the licensee is contractual in nature”
3.1.2. It is submitted that the mining of mine D by Malvoro is merely a breach a contract
and therefore the penalties which will flow from such breach will be governed by
Minas Tirith Contracts Act 1872 which stipulates that for a breach of contract the
injured party may bring suit for damages.36 “Damages” means compensation in
terms of money for the loss suffered by injured parties.37
3.1.3. Therefore Marlvoro Mining Company is obliged just to pat damages which arise
naturally in the usual course of things from breach itself.38

3.2. That the act of Marlvoro Mining Company cannot attract penal
provisions.
3.2.1. It is most respectfully submitted that the act of Marlvoro Mining Company falls
under MMDR Act and the Mines Act. It was held in D. Sudharshan v. State 39 and
followed in Muthu and another v. State 40“That Section 22 of the The Mines and

34
AIR 1994 SC 813
35
(2004)11SCC26
36
State Bank of Saurashtra v PNB, 2001 5SCC 751
37
Oil & Natural Gas Corpn Ltd v. Saw Pipes Ltd, (2003) 5 SCC 705
38
Hadley v Baxendale, 16LQR 275 (1900)
39
(2006) 2 MLJ (Cri) 115
40
Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 12307 of 2011 dated 16.09.2011.

Page | 16
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

Minerals Act will over-ride the provisions of the General Law, viz., the Code of
Criminal Procedure and so, the FIR registered under Section 379 of IPC, on the
allegation that theft of sand belonging to the Government was committed by the
accused, is illegal”
3.2.2. It is further submitted that if the offence as alleged Under Section 378 Indian
Penal Code against the accused is dissociated from the allegation of excavation of
earth without license constituting an offence Under Section 21(2) of the MMDR
Act, 1957, then there is no ingredient for an offence Under Section 379 Indian
Penal Code against the accused.41
3.2.3. It is further submitted that the Apex Court in Jeevan Kumar Raut v. CBI 42 and
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Vinod Kumar Surana and
Anr.43 relied on the decision of Kerela High Court 44 and decision of Madras High
Court45 on the interpretation of similar clauses under different enactments. It was
contended that if the intention of the Legislature was to make violation of the
provisions of Section 4 of the MMDR Act as an offence of theft, there would have
been an appropriate provision in the MMDR Act itself.

3.3. Prosecution under two enactments will violate the fundamental rights of
Marlvoro Mining Company

3.3.1. It is submitted that the fundamental right which is guaranteed in Article 20(2)
enunciates the principle of "autrefois convict" or "double jeopardy". The roots of
that principle are to be found in the well-established rule of the common law of
England "that where a person has been convicted of an offence by a court of
competent jurisdiction the conviction is a bar to all further criminal proceedings
for the same offence."46
3.3.2. To the same effect is the ancient maxim "Nemo bis debet punire pro uno delicto",
that is to say that no one ought to be twice punished for one offence or as it is
sometimes written "pro eadem causa", that is, for the same cause.47

41
Smt. Seema Sarkar v. The State, (1995) 1 CALLT 95 (HC)
42
(2009) 7 SCC 526
43
(2011) 1 SCC 534
44
2008 Cr. L.J. 2388
45
2012 Cri LJ 1705
46
Reg. v. Miles 24, Q.B.D. 423
47
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325

Page | 17
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

3.3.3. It is further submitted that where the same evidence suffices to prove both crimes,
they are the same for double jeopardy purposes, and the clause forbids successive
trials and cumulative punishments for the two crimes.48

3.4. The act of Marvolo Mining Company has not caused Environmental
Degradation

3.4.1. The allegations against Marvolo Mining Company are totally unfounded

3.4.1.1. It is further submitted that the allegations made against the Marvolo Mining
Company are based upon the secret investigations of the news reported. Moreover
the various impacts on environment has been highlighted by the subsequent news
reports.
3.4.1.2. It is further submitted that the news reports cannot be considered to be a
reliable source of information as the Apex Court in Quamarul Islam vs. S.K.
Kanta and Ors.49 that “Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the
contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be
proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled.”
3.4.1.3. The repugnancy of the News Report will be further highlighted from the point
that News Report alleges that tiger population in the region has been reduced by
20% in the past 2 months but it is most respectfully submitted that the tiger census
is conducted by NTCA50 which conducted tiger census in 201451 and tiger census
for 2015 is yet to be done.
3.4.1.4. It is contended therefore the source of the data for the report cannot be relied
upon and it is not rational to take cognizance on the basis of a newspaper report.

3.4.2. The report of SEIAA is in itself not clear regarding environmental

degradation

48
State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and Ors. (1988) 4SCC 655
49
AIR 1994 SC 1733
50
National Tiger Conservation Authority
51
http://projecttiger.nic.in/WriteReadData/LetestNews/Document/Tiger%20Status
%20booklet_XPS170115212.pdf

Page | 18
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

3.4.2.1. It is most respectfully submitted that the SEIAA conducted reports it itself not
clear whether the mining of mine D caused environmental degradation.52 Further it
is submitted that there is nothing in the report that suggests that environment has
been affected. It has merely warned against granting mining license in these mines
and there is nothing to support the allegations hence made.
3.4.2.2. It is finally submitted that there is nothing substantial in the facts of the case to
prove that the mining activity has caused environmental damages.

52
Page 6, Para 9, Moot Proposition

Page | 19
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

4. WHETHER THE MINING IN THE AREA IS AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY

AND VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL PEOPLE?

4.1. The New Mining Deal has been implemented taking into account the
demands of the nation

4.1.1. That the nation requires iron-ore to meet the military demands

4.1.1.1. It is submitted that the New Mining Deal 2015 has been implemented taking
into account the military requirements of the country53. Defence of a country is of
prime importance that requires iron and steel for production. Moreover it is further
to be seen that for the maintenance of the security of the nation this deal has been
envisaged. It is submitted that the Apex Court has held in Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.54 that “Mining activity may have to be
permitted to the extent it was necessary in the interest of defence if the country as
also by way of the safeguarding of the foreign exchange position”
4.1.1.2. Therefore it is imperative for the government to boost mining sector in India
to meet the military demands taking into account the nation’s security.

4.1.2. The govt. needs to maintain its financial position

4.1.2.1. It is humbly submitted that the intention of the government is to maintain the
financial solidarity of the country in respect of which this mining deal has been
brought. The government has envisaged this deal due to various factors-
a) The demand for various metals and minerals will grow substantially over the next
15 years.
b) The power and cement industries also aid growth in the metals and mining sector.
c) India’s strategic location enables convenient exports.
d) India’s per capita steel consumption is four times lower than the global average.

53
Page 4, Para 3, Moot Proposition
54
AIR1987SC2426

Page | 20
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

e) India has the world’s sixth largest reserve base of bauxite and fifth largest base of
iron ore, accounting for about 5% and 8% respectively of total world production.55
4.1.2.2. It is therefore contended that the New Mines Deal, 2015 was implemented to
ensure that the Government is able to maintain its financial position.

4.2. The New Mining Deal is not against Environmental Safety

It is submitted that if industry is necessity, pollution inevitable. Since progress and

pollution go together, there can be no end of progress, and consequently, no escape from
pollution. If industry is necessary evil, pollution surest sufferance. 56 In the light of this
observation of the Supreme Court following arguments are advanced.

4.2.1. Necessary clearances have been given by the Central Govt.

4.2.1.1. It is most respectfully submitted that the true intention of the government is to
expedite the availability of iron and steel in the country. The New Mining Deal, as
appears has created a centralised platform for clearance and granting of mining
license and as MoEF followed procedural requirements and all required
assessments were carried out before granting the license57
4.2.1.2. Therefore it is humbly submitted that the environmental impact of mining was
taken into consideration.

4.2.2. The mining waste can be used for beneficial purposes

4.2.2.1. It is submitted that natural resources have got to be tapped for the purpose of
social development but one cannot forget at the same time that tapping of
resources has to be done with requisite attention and care so that ecology and
environment may not be affected in any serious way; there may not be any
depletion of water resources and long-term planning must be undertaken to keep
up the national wealth.

55
http://www.makeinindia.com/sector/mining/
56
KM. Chinnappa and T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR2003SC724
57
Page 5, Para 4, Moot Proposition

Page | 21
 THE 9TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

4.2.2.2. It has always to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind
and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation.58
4.2.2.3. It is further submitted that mining is inherently not pollutive rather there is a
positive impact of mining on agriculture as sufficient water is discharged from the
mine, which can be utilized for the irrigation and increasing the productivity.
Mine drainage water in many mines are not contaminated except highly
suspended solids, which can be removed by simple setting method of water
purification.59

4.2.3. The rights of the tribal people haven’t been violated

4.2.3.1. It is most respectfully submitted that the New Mining Deal has been approved
taking into view the requirements of the nation. It is further submitted that the
tribal people haven’t been affected in this deal.
4.2.3.2. It is respectfully submitted that the mining activity is site specific and
therefore it is contended that it will ultimately prove beneficial to the tribal people.
It is in this context that the observation of Apex Court in Narmada Bachao
Andolan v. UOI and Ors.60 is of relevance. A part of the judgement states that “It
is not fair that tribals and the people in un-developed villages should continue in
the same condition without ever enjoying the fruits of science and technology for
better health and have a higher quality of life style.”
4.2.3.3. It is submitted that the New Mining Deal in any sense doen not put a
restriction on the tribal people from entering the area specified for Mining activity
no does they put restriction on their rights to collect forest produce. Therefore it is
contended that the New Mining Deal has taken care of all such aspects and is
totally justified.

58
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1987] 1 SCR 641
59
Page 32, EIA Manual by MoEF
60
AIR 2010 SC 2221

Page | 22