XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

TC01_R

UNIVERSITY LAW COLLEGE & DEPT. OF STUDIES IN LAW

XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
(SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

___________________________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KHAZLAND

WP. No. ______ / 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Charles Fischer………………………………………………………………………Petitioner

V.

2. Union of Khazland and Anr.…………………………………………………….Respondents

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KHAZLAND, 1950

__________________________________________________________________________________________

-MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS-

__________________________________________________________________________________________
1|Page
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sl. No. Topic Title Page No.

1. CAUSE TITLE (COVER PAGE) 1
2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
3. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
4. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-6
5. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
6. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-10
7. ISSUES RAISED 11
8. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12-13
9. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 01: Whether the Petitioner had the Locus Standi to file a 14-17
PIL on the issue of awarding the tender to Global Construction?
ISSUE 02: Whether the Trigerrex could implead the Public 18-19
Interest Litigation (PIL), claiming the kind of relief they had
sought before the court?
ISSUE 03: Whether the government, or any specific functionary 19-23
including Adam, could be held liable for the tragedy, or whether
there was Contributory Negligence on the part of the public who
were on the bridge when it collapsed?
ISSUE 04: Whether the notification issued by the Government 23-26
of Khazland imposing partial lockdown was in violation of Part
III of the Constitution of Khazland?
10. PRAYER 27

2|Page
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

[Link]. Abbreviation Description

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. & And
3. Anr. Another
4. Art. Article
5. C.L.J. Criminal Law Journal
6. Govt. Government
7. H.C. High Court
8. Hon’ble Honourable
9. Ker Kerala
10. NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
11. NIT Notice Inviting Tender
12. Ors. Others
13. Pvt. Private
14. P.I.L. Public Interest Litigation
15. P.R. Public Relations
16. Retd. Retired
17. SC Supreme Court
18. SCC Supreme Court Cases
19. SCR Supreme Court Reports
20. i.e. That is
21. U.O.I. Union Of India
22. v. Versus
23. W.P. Writ Petition

3|Page
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

I. CASES CITED:
[Link]. Case Name Equivalent Citation(s)

1. State of M.P. and Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors., (1986) 4 SCC 566.
2. A.V. Venkateshwaran v. [Link]. AIR 1961 SC 1906.
3. Academy of Nutrition Improvement & ors v. Union of (2011) SCC OnLine
India SC 875.
4. Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai (2008) 5 SCC 217.
5. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports AIR 1974 SC 1539
and Ors.
6. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal. (2004) 3 SCC 349.
7. Association of Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, 2002 (2) ALD 609.
Manufacturers, A.P. v. A.P. Health, Medical, Housing
and Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyd. and
Anr.,
8. Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery. AIR 1979 SC 1889.
9. BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
10. Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal. AIR 1962 SC 1044.
11. Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457;
12. Deena Dayal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155
13. Energy Watchdog v. CERC (2017) 14 SCC 80
14. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, (1981) ILLJ 193 SC
15. G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council,. AIR 1991 SC 1153
16. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK (2003) 7 SCC 546
Rajan and Ors.
17. Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner Of Police. 1973 AIR 87, 1973
SCR (2) 26.

4|Page
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

18. Kusum Lata v. Union of India. (2006) 6 SCC 180.

19. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer. AIR 2003 SC 4182.
20. R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group. (2005) 3 SCC 91.
21. R.K. Garg v. Union of India,; AIR 1981 SC 2138
22. Romesh Thapar v Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124.
23. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India. AIR 1982 SC 149.
24. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal. (1987) 2 SCC 295:
AIR 1987 SC 1109.
25. Satyabrata Ghosh v. Mugneeram Bangur. [1954] SCR 310
26. Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Sm. Deorajin, AIR 1960 SC 941
27. SC. Cooper v. Union of India. [1970] 3 SCR 530.
28. Sushila Devi v. Ramnandan Prasad, AIR 1976 SC 177
29. Woolridge v. Sumner (1963) 2 Q.B. 43
30. Yaro Khan v. Union of India, WP(C) 2599 of 2007.

II. STATUTES REFERRED:

Sl. No. Statute Name Sections/Articles/Clauses

referred
1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites
and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act,
2010.
2. The Constitution of India, 1950. Articles 14, 19 (1) (a),
21.
3. The Societies Registrations Act, 1860 Section 8.

III. DICTIONARIES AND BOOKS/JOURNALS REFERRED:

1. Bhakshi.P, The Constitution of India Bare Act, Universal Law Publishers.

2. Black Law’s Dictionary, 9th Edition.

3. Dr. R.K. Bangia’s “Law of Torts”, Allahabad Law Agency, 25th edition.

5|Page
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

4. Merriam-Webster Law Dictionary.

5. MP Jain’s “The Constitution of India”.

IV. ELECTRONIC/ONLINE SOURCES:

1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]
5. [Link]
6. [Link]
7. [Link]
8. SCC Online
9. [Link]
10. [Link]

6|Page
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Judicature in Khazland has
jurisdiction to entertain matters under Article 32 of the Constitution of Khazland, 1950, which
reads as under:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(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.”1

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
The respondents humbly do not submit to the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

1
INDIA CONSTI. Article 32 Part III Constitution of Khazland pari materia to the Constitution of India, 1950.

7|Page
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:

1. The Democratic Republic of Khazland is rich in culture and history. Hundreds of years
back, its armies had marched and conquered almost the whole civilised world under
General Zakarum, until when they were defeated by a tiny village in Gaul. While returning
to Khazland, misfortune and the Zakarumite army was drowned in the river Troy after the
bridge, built on river on which they were marching collapsed. This event has been
romanticised by the people of Khazland in their folk literature, and with synchronisation of
march on the bridge, which caused it to collapse due to resonance. Currently, an ancient
delipidated bridge near the Western border of Khazland was claimed by some to be the
very same bridge where this had taken place, and that it was rebuilt by the locals centuries
ago, but without any proof of its connection with this epic event. In the modern Khazland
culture, the accomplishments of General Zakarum and his army were most famously
captured by the rock band Ajar in their seminal music album titled ‘Z-The End’, which
invoked national pride, and ended with the song ‘Resonance’.

SERIES OF EVENTS:

2. The present government of Khazland is under the leadership of Mr. Adam Zakarumus, who
claims to be a direct descendant of General Zakarum. With elections drawing near, Adam
wanted to fight the anti-incumbency factor by invoking nationalist sentiment. His political
advisor Mr. Harrison suggested that he should capitalise on the fame of his legendary
ancestor General Zakarum, and use the derelict bridge on Khazland Western borders as a
symbol of newfound and renewed Khazland nationalism and pride. Adam ordered the
Archaeological Department of Khazland to renovate the bridge.

3. The Archaeological Department invited tenders for repairing the bridge by publishing the
Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) in a newspaper and only one Firm, named “Global
Constructions” participated in the process and was awarded the tender. The Government’s

8|Page
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

PR machinery quickly got into the act and started publicising the repair work, claiming it
to be the resurgence of Zakarum’s legacy by his descendant. However, very soon, the topic
quickly became stale, as people became more interested in the ongoing local cricket
tournament.

4. To popularise his idea of renovating the bridge, Adam organised a concert. Fortunately for
him, the time of the year was quite close to the 25th anniversary of Ajar having released
their best-selling album “Z-The End”and named the concert as “The March of Time”. The
venue was the historically significant bridge certified by the Archaeological. Global
Constructions also released a press statement claiming that the restoration work would be
completed in fifteen days’ time.

EMERGENCE OF ISSUES:

5. Pete Larkin, the leader of the Opposition, got one of his followers named Charles Fischer
to file a PIL before the Supreme Court of Khazland just three days before the inauguration
date, challenging the process of awarding the tender to repair the bridge by Global
Constructions, claiming that the Firm was owned by a relative of Adams’ political advisor
Mr. Harrison, and that the prescribed procedure was not followed. The Petitioner also
objected to the concert being conducted at a site declared by the Archaeological Department
as a historical monument of national importance, stating that it might damage the bridge.
When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Supreme Court, the government counsel
resisted the granting of interim stay of the concert, stating that it was of national importance
as the entire nation was looking forward to it, and alleged that the PIL was politically
motivated.

6. The concert went on with great spirits. When they reached the final part of the ‘Resonance’
song, which breaks into a marching tune, many people instinctively started moving their
feet in a marching movement. Ironically, at the precise moment when the song ended, the
bridge came crashing down, throwing hundreds of people down into the river Troy similar
to what happened during General Zakarumite’s era. Rescue teams were hurried to the spot,
but many people were injured and died even before they could be rescued.

9|Page
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

7. It was a tragedy of epic proportions, and suddenly, public excitement turned into sadness
and anger, and everyone’s gaze fell upon the PIL that had been filed before the Supreme
Court, alleging irregularities in awarding the tender to Global Constructions.
Demonstrations were organised throughout the country against the government, notably by
the opposition parties, who called for the resignation of Adam and his cabinet.

8. Later that day, the government of Khazland issued a notification under the Disaster
Management Act, claiming that there was a sudden spurt in cases of Covid-19, and
announced a nationwide partial lockdown with immediate effect, and banned the assembly
of more than four people in public places. The opposition termed this as a direct attack on
people’s right to protest and their freedom of expression, guaranteed as a fundamental right
under the Constitution of Khazland.

9. An organisation of ex-servicemen, named “Trigerrex”, sought to be impleaded into the PIL,

claiming that the illegal acts of the government had resulted in the loss of hundreds of
innocent lives, and that the government must take full responsibility for the tragedy and
financially compensate the victims’ families, and also by declaring that Adam was
complicit and hence disqualified from fighting the upcoming elections. They also
challenged the notification issued by the government imposing the partial lockdown, stating
that it was a violation of people’s Right to freedom of expression guaranteed in Part III of
the Constitution of Khazland.

10 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 01: Whether the Petitioner had the Locus Standi to file a PIL on the issue of
awarding the tender to Global Construction?

1.1 Whether the PIL has Locus Standi and is it Pro Bono Publico?
1.2 Whether the present writ petition has been filed prematurely?
1.3 Whether this Honourable Court would be justified in interfering with a policy decision?
1.4 Whether alternative remedies have been exhausted for the Petitioners?

ISSUE 02: Whether the Trigerrex could implead the Public Interest Litigation (PIL),
claiming the kind of relief they had sought before the court?

2.1 Whether Triggerex can be impleaded into the PIL?

2.2 Whether the government is liable to pay compensation, as per the claim made by Trigerrex?
2.3 Whether the claim of Trigerrex to declare Adam complicit and to be disqualified from
fighting the ensuing elections is valid?

ISSUE 03: Whether the government, or any specific functionary including Adam, could
be held liable for the tragedy, or whether there was Contributory Negligence on the part
of the public who were on the bridge when it collapsed?

3.1 Whether the Respondents are liable for the loss of lives?
3.2 Whether there is Contributory Negligence by the public?

ISSUE 04: Whether the notification issued by the Government of Khazland imposing
partial lockdown was in violation of Part III of the Constitution of Khazland?

4.1 Whether imposing of partial lockdown violates Right to Freedom Speech and Expression?
4.2 Whether imposing of partial lockdown violates Right to Life and Personal Liberty?

11 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 01: Whether the Petitioner had the Locus Standi to file a PIL on the issue of
awarding the tender to Global Construction?

The counsels for respondents humbly submit that the Public Interest Litigation (Writ) Petition
filed by the Petitioners are mala fide and the Petitioners in the instant case do not have sufficient
interest. Further, no Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner were infringed, therefore the
Petitioners have no locus standi to approach this Hon’ble Court, under the guise of a Public
Interest Litigation. The Petitioners are also not exhausted with alternative remedies available
to them. Their Petition is not Pro Bono Publico.

ISSUE 02: Whether the Trigerrex could implead the Public Interest Litigation (PIL),
claiming the kind of relief they had sought before the court?

The counsels for respondents humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court that the organisation
of Trigerrex has no locus standi to implead into this Public Interest Litigation (Writ) Petition
already filed. There are no common grounds for them to implead in the existing Petition.
Further this organisation of ex-servicemen also make a legally baseless claim that Adam has
to be declared complicit and are pleading before this Court to disqualify him from contesting
in the upcoming elections. The organisation cannot be impleaded into this PIL filed.

ISSUE 03: Whether the government, or any specific functionary including Adam, could
be held liable for the tragedy, or whether there was Contributory Negligence on the part
of the public who were on the bridge when it collapsed?

The counsels for respondents humbly submit before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the bridge
was constructed with due diligence and hence the respondents have in fact fulfilled all the
duties from their end. On the other hand, the public is liable for contributory negligence and
had voluntarily gathered for the concert. Hence, the government cannot be held liable for the
tragedy which was the result of the public negligence.

12 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

ISSUE 04: Whether the notification issued by the Government of Khazland imposing
partial lockdown was in violation of Part III of the Constitution of Khazland?

The counsels for respondents humbly submit before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Khazland
that the Government of Khazland rightfully imposed partial lockdown measures as per the legal
provisions enshrined in the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Over and above the legal
provisions, this curfew was imposed with the good faith to protect the people of Khazland from
succumbing to Covid-19. This partial lockdown has been in adherence to the Reasonable
Restrictions for Fundamental Rights.

13 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 01: Whether the Petitioner had the Locus Standi to file a PIL on the issue of
awarding the tender to Global Construction?

The counsels for respondents humbly seek to answer this issue in negative arguments.
1. The counsel humbly seeks to refute the claim made in this issue, wherein in the instant case
a Writ Petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court claiming that the tender allotted to
Global Constructions is a wrongful act.

1.1 Whether the PIL has Locus Standi and is it Pro Bono Publico?

2. Locus standi is a right to appear in a court or before anybody on a given question: a right
to be heard2. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Pro bono Publico means for the public
good; for the welfare of the whole.

3. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for
enforcement of Fundamental Rights3 , as guaranteed by part III of the Constitution.4 In the
present case, there has been no violation of the fundamental rights since, the action taken
by the State was in furtherance of the principle of economic and social justice and thus
cannot be termed as arbitrary or as one which was without the application of the mind. In
the following case the Petitioners have no Locus Standi as the PIL filed by them is mala
fide, does not have sufficient interest and there was no infringement of Fundamental Rights.

4. It was held by the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India5 that:
“Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of
persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed
in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any

2
Merriam-webster dictionary (2018).
3
Article 32(1) when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as
guaranteed by Part III and, for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III.
4
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC 1539 ¶ 10, Guruvayur Devaswom
Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546 ¶ 50, BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union
of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
5
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.

14 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

such legal wrong is threatened by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially

or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any
member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or
writ in the High Court under Art. 226 or to the Supreme Court under Art. 32.”

5. 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.6 And this was further emphasized when the court observed that:
"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

6. In the instant case, neither a legal wrong nor legal injury has been caused to the petitioners
and neither is such a legal wrong threatened by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability
or socially or economically disadvantaged position. It is very clear based on the facts of the
case that the petitioners are filing the said petitions with a mala fide intent to topple off the
existing political party ruling the government. This PIL is a clear expression of discontent
against the State as well as its representing Government and is an attempt by him to paint
the Government in a bad colour. Although in the case of PILs, the Locus is relaxed, The
Court must look into the ‘locus’ before it entertains the petition.8

1.2 Whether the present writ petition has been filed prematurely?

7. The respondent submits that the Court has held that only if there is a violation of
Fundamental Rights can it step in under the Jurisdiction of Article 32 9. The petitioner is
raising a mere scholarly objection, without any locus standi. The tender allotment to Global

6
Kusum Lata v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180.
7
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
8
R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91.
9
Romesh Thapar v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124.

15 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

Constructions has been transparent. Hence when there is no damnus, the Petitioner cannot
seek a remedy.
Therefore, the respondents submit that the petition is not maintainable.

1.3 Whether this Honourable Court would be justified in interfering with a policy decision?

8. The general principles by which a government is guided in its management of public affai
rs, or the legislature in its measures are government policies10. The respondent most
humbly submits that the Supreme Court has long held that interference into policy actions
is not within the its jurisdiction10 as reiterated in the recent Iodine Salt Case11. It has been
held that a writ petition cannot be maintainable if its sole purpose is to question a policy
decision of the Government12. The position of law on the matter of policy decisions is quite
clear, from decisions such as BALCO Employees Union13, and a host of other cases. The
list is truly extensive14, as the underlying principle is sound in law. Unless there is prima
facie evidence to prove that exercise of discretion has been arbitrary, unreasonable or mala
fide, the Court cannot step into the shoes of the Government to decide the validity of a
policy15. It is a matter of public policy that the Court not permit litigations on the same
issue be raised in perpetuity16, as no public undertaking will ever succeed if such a practice
is encouraged. Thus, the policy decision of the Government regarding the Troy River bridge
tender cannot be questioned before the court of law.

9. In the recent Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research
(CAPSR) & Ors.17, the Supreme Court upheld that,

10
[Link]
11
Academy of Nutrition Improvement & Ors v. Union of India, (2011) SCC OnLine SC 875.
12
Association of Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, Manufacturers, A.P. v. A.P. Health, Medical, Housing and
Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyd. and Anr., 2002 (2) ALD 609.
13
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2001 AIR SCW 5135 “It was submitted … that the wisdom
and advisability of economic policies of Government are not amenable to judicial review. It is not for Courts to
consider the relative merits of different economic policies. Court is not the Forum for resolving the conflicting
clauses regarding the wisdom or advisability of policy..”.
14
SC. Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 530; Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India,
(1981) ILLJ 193 SC; R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138; G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal
Council, AIR 1991 SC 1153.
15
State of M.P. and Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors., (1986) 4 SCC 566.
16
Sushila Devi v. Ramnandan Prasad, AIR 1976 SC 177; Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Sm. Deorajin, AIR 1960 SC 941;
Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457; Deena Dayal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155; Yaro Khan v.
Union of India, WP(C) 2599 of 2007.
17
See also Maa Binda Express Carrier case; Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, (2008) 5 SCC
217 (para 12).

16 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

“As per the settled position of law, the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are
within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial
scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. As per the settled position
of law, the terms of the Invitation to Tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same
being in the realm of contract. The Government/tenderer/tender making authority must
have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender.”

1.4 Whether alternative remedies have been exhausted for the Petitioners?

10. Alternative remedy is a bar unless there was complete lack of jurisdiction in the officer or
authority to take action impugned18, however, the existence of a competent lower court to
hear this particular case questions the maintainability of the writ petition filed. It was held
this Hon’ble apex court in Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery19 where
there is alternative statutory remedy court should not interfere unless the alternative remedy
is too dilatory or cannot grant quick relief. Thus, the respondents humbly submit that the
present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that alternative remedy has not been
exhausted. Thus, the counsel for the respondents submit that the present writ petition,
challenging the awarding of tender to Global Constructions, in not maintainable for the
aforesaid reasons. Moreover, the Petitioners could have approached the High Court of the
respective state where the Troy-river-bridge collapsed under Article 226.

11. The Petitioners in the instant case have been aggrieved by a tender allotment work and
imposing of lockdown by the government. These actions of the Union of Khazland are
Constitutionally valid and does not breach any Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners. If it
is argued that their right of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
Khazland has been infringed, the respondents would humbly contend that the curfew for
covid-19 is protected under clause (2) of the same article under “reasonable restrictions”.
Therefore, no Fundamental rights of the Petitioners have been breached, further proving
that the PIL filed by them is not maintainable. The detailed pleading with regard to the
breach of Fundamental Rights is discussed in the subsequent issues of this memorial.

18
A.V. Venkateshwaran v. [Link], AIR 1961 SC 1906.
19
Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery, AIR 1979 SC 1889.

17 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

ISSUE 02: Whether the Trigerrex could implead the Public Interest Litigation (PIL),
claiming the kind of relief they had sought before the court?

The counsels for respondents humbly seek to answer this issue in negative arguments.
12. In the instant case, an organisation of ex-servicemen named Trigerrex sought to implead
into the PIL already filed by Charles Fischer dealt with the same grounds. The counsel
representing both these petitioners humbly seeks to answer to the above issue in negative
arguments.

2.1 Whether Triggerex can be impleaded into the PIL?

13. Trigerexx cannot be impleaded into the PIL because it does not have suffiecient grounds to
establish the purpose of this PIL. They have challenged a social well-being measure of the
Government, which is completely contradictory to the motive of a PIL.

14. The majority judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Central Vista redevelopment
project has urged for introspection of the tool of Public Interest Litigation lamenting how
frivolous PILs are eating into the Court’s time which can be utilised for hearing other cases.
In Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal20 it was held that “when a person
acquires a Locus Standi, he has to have a personal or Individual Right which was violated
or threatened to be violated”. In the instant case, Trgerrex doesn’t have any threat to the
existence of their organisation nor to its members from the action of the government to
impose lockdown. Hence, they cannot be impleaded into the PIL.

15. The Counsel for the Respondent would like to humbly submit that a Public Interest
Litigation can be filed under Article 32 of Constitution for the enforcement of Fundamental
Rights21 as guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution of Khazland. However, the PIL filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable as there has been no violation of
Fundamental Rights. Art. 32(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to move the
Supreme court by “appropriate proceedings” for the enforcement of fundamental rights
conferred by Part III of the Constitution. There are no common grounds for them to implead
in the existing PIL.

20
Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044.
21
Article 32(1) when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as
guaranteed by Part III and, for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III.

18 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

2.2 Whether the claim of Trigerrex to declare Adam complicit and to be disqualified from
fighting the ensuing elections is valid?

16. In a case Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of WB 22, it was also held that a petition lacking
bona fides is an abuse of the process of the court and has been filed as a proxy litigation for
the purpose of achieving a private interest.

17. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, in Sachidanand Pandey v State of
West Bengal23 it was upheld that the courts must restrict the free flow of case under the
attractive name of PIL, otherwise it will pose a threat to courts and public in as much as
traditional litigation will suffer and the court of law instead of dispensing justice will have
to take upon them administrative and executive functions. In the instant case, the Election
Commission of Khazland must take into consideration with regard to the Disqualification
of Candidature instead of this Hon’ble Supreme Court.

18. Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 only disqualifies electoral candidates
once they are convicted of criminal charges. In the case in hand, Adam cannot be in any
way convicted of Criminal charges. He also cannot be disqualified by an order passed by
this Hon’ble Court until this case is disposed off.
In this case, there is a glare misuse of PIL and hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed
by this Hon’ble Court.

ISSUE 03: Whether the government, or any specific functionary including Adam, could
be held liable for the tragedy, or whether there was Contributory Negligence on the part
of the public who were on the bridge when it collapsed?

19. With reference to the facts, the government of Khazland repaired the ancient bridge which
was the historical monument of national importance. The archaeological department of
Khazland invited tenders for repairing the bridge by publishing Notice Invited Tender
(NIT) in the newspaper and awarded the tender to Global Constructions in the manner

22
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of WB, (2004) 3 SCC 349.
23
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal (1987) 2 SCC 295: AIR 1987 SC 1109.

19 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

provided under the law. The citizens have in fact not adhered to the provisions enshrined
in Part IV24 of the constitution by marching on the historic bridge.

3.1 Whether the Respondents are liable for the loss of lives?

The counsel for respondents humbly seeks to answer this in Negative.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram and Shyam Company v. State of
Haryana and Ors.1 clearly held that: “The law is well-settled that contracts by the State,
its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies must be normally granted through public
auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons and the notification of the
public-auction or inviting tenders should be advertised.” Thus, the counsel contents that
the NIT was published in the newspaper and all the procedures were followed by the
government in granting the tender.

21. The counsel humbly submits that, The Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and
Remains Act, 1958 provides the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and
archaeological sites and remains of national importance for the regulation and
archaeological excavation and for the protection of the monument. According to Section 3
- Certain ancient monuments, etc., deemed to be of national importance. And Section 4 -
Power of Central Government to declare ancient monuments, etc., to be of national
importance.

22. With the reference to the facts, the venue where people gathered for the concert was the
historically significant bridge certified by the archaeological department of Khazland
which is of national importance. The respondents repaired the bridge only to preserve the
ancient monument. Thus, the counsel contends that the PIL filled by the opposition party
is politically motivated and that it was filed blatantly only to stall the inauguration.
Therefore, respondents were not liable for the tragedy which broke out after the renovation
of the bridge.

23. The principle of force majeure can be held applicable to the instant case, ‘where the event
or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled includes both acts of nature and

24
Fundamental Duties Article 51A (f).

20 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

acts of people25’. Hence, the crashing down of the bridge which led to the tragedy of loss
of many lives was unforeseen. In a line of decisions starting from Satyabrata Ghosh v.
Mugneeram Bangur26 & Energy Watchdog v. CERC27, the Supreme Court has held that
if a force majeure event occurs dehors the contract, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act
applies - A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or,
by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void
when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. Compensation for loss through non-
performance of act known to be impossible or unlawful.” Hence, the counsel contents that
there was no contract between the public and the government to borne the loss of life as the
consent was voluntary. Thus, government is not liable to compensate.

3.2 Whether the public can be held tortiously liable for the tragedy?
The counsel seeks the answer to this in Affirmative.

24. With reference to the facts, After the renovation of the bridge a concert was organised in
the name of ‘The March of Time’ and the venue was the historically significant bridge
certified by the archaeological department of Khazland. The large crowd gathered at the
concert site to hear the popular song “Z- The End”. When the song reached to the final part
which breaks into the marching tune the public instinctively started moving their feet in the
marching movement which led to the crashing down of the bridge resulting in the tragedy
with loss of many lives.

25. The counsel humbly submits there was a ‘Contributory Negligence’ on part of the public
who were on the bridge when it collapsed. The public was negligent in not adhering to
safety instructions that had been displayed at the bridge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer28, if a person's or persons
negligent act or omission was the proximate and immediate cause of death, the fact that the
person suffering injury was himself negligent and also contributed to the accident or other
circumstances by which the injury was caused would not afford a defence to the other.
Thus, the government cannot be blamed for the negligence of the public.

25
Blacks Law Dictionary (11th Edition, 2019
26
Satyabrata Ghosh v. Mugneeram Bangur, [1954] SCR 310.
27
Energy Watchdog v. CERC, (2017) 14 SCC 80.
28
Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, AIR 2003 SC 4182.

21 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

26. In the case of Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. the deceased crossed the road
which had become slippery due to ice. As he suddenly came in front of the motor vehicle,
he was run over by the same. It was held the there was contributory negligence on the part
of the deceased. Similarly, in the case in hand when the public gather for a concert of
repaired ancient historic monument, the proximate cause of the tragedy is considered as the
public’s negligence.

27. The principle of res ipsa loquitur can be held to be applicable to the instant case, as the
large crowd thronged the renovated bridge which was declared as a historical monument
by the Archaeological Department, clearly emphasis on the due care to be taken by the
public. The safety guidelines issued by the government of Khazland displayed at the bridge
amounts to contributory negligence and respondents are not liable for the same.

28. Further, the counsel humbly submits that the defence of volenti non-fit Injuria can be
applied when there is complete knowledge of the danger and proof of the person consenting
to it. In the case of Woolridge v. Sumner29, a photographer hereafter called Plaintiff was
at a Horse show and was just standing in the boundary of the arena. Suddenly one of the
Horses in the show hastily took around due to which the plaintiff was frightened and fell
into the arena. Due to which he suffered serious injuries. The court held that defendant was
not liable as Plaintiff impliedly gave his consent to the risk involved. Hence the defence
of Volenti non-fit Injuria was successfully pleaded.

29. The people voluntarily gathered at the concert site for the inauguration of the bridge. No
person can enforce a right which he has voluntarily waived or abandoned30. Consent to
suffer the harm may be express or implied. In Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club31, a
spectator at a car racing event that was organized on the track, was owned by the
defendant’s company. During the course of the race, a collision occurred between cars, and
the plaintiff was injured as one of the cars landed on the spectators. It was held by the court
that the plaintiff gave implied consent for taking the risks. Hence, the defendant was not
made liable.

29
Woolridge v. Sumner (1963) 2 Q.B. 43.
30
Salmond, Torts, 14th ed., p. 47
31
Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1932) 1 K.B. 205.

22 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

30. The counsel for respondents humbly submits that the loss of life arose for the breaking of
bridge is due to the negligence on part of the public, where the consent to gather at the
bridge is voluntary. Thus, the responsibility of the government is limited yet, the ordinary
care was taken by the government of Khazland who displayed the safe measures at the
bridge. Thus, the public is liable for the tragedy and the loss of lives cannot be imposed on
the government.

ISSUE 04: Whether the notification issued by the government of Khazland imposing
partial lockdown was in violation of part III of the Constitution of Khazland?

31. With reference to the facts, after the unforeseen tragedy of crashing of the bridge,
demonstrations were organised throughout the country against the government notably by
the opposition parties. People participated in indefinite sit-ins blocking the national
highways nationwide. At the same instance, the government of Khazland issued a
notification under the Disaster Management Act as there was a sudden spurt in the cases of
Covid-19 and announced a partial lockdown nationwide with immediate effect and banned
assembly of more than four people in the public places to prevent the spread of the
pandemic.

4.1 Whether imposing of partial lockdown violates Right to Freedom Speech and Expression?
The counsel seeks to answer to answer this in Negative.

32. The Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of Khazland states that “Protection of certain rights
regarding freedom of speech etc. - all citizens have the right- (a) to freedom of speech and
expression”.The philosophy behind this article lies in the preamble of the constitution
where a solemn resolve is made to secure all its citizen liberty of thought and expression
the exercise of this right is however subject to “reasonable restriction” for certain purpose
being imposed under article 19(2) of the constitution of Khazland.

33. The counsel humbly submits that it is the duty of the government to protect and to promote
the best health of its country’s citizens. The government is allowed to put on any reasonable
restriction required to ensure the health and safety of the public whenever there is a threat
to the life of people are the security of nation. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti

23 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

Kureshi Kasab Jamat32, the Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘in the interest of
general public’ comprehends public order, public health, public security of the country.

34. National Disaster Management Authority Act (NDMA) 2005, the Epidemic Diseases Act,
1897, along with the varied usage of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a
nation take measures to prevent the spread of pandemic during lockdown all over the
country. The National Disaster Management Authority is conferred with the power under
Section 6(2) of the 2005 Act to lay down policies on the disaster management. As per
NDMA , it gives power to authorities to make policies as and when required regarding the
speech and expression of the public for the sake of disaster management.

35. Section 35 (2) (d) of The Disaster Management Act,2005 specifically provides that the
“Government shall take measures to ensure that the Ministries or Departments of the
Government of India take necessary measures for preparedness to promptly and effectively
respond to any threatening disaster situation or disaster.” Hence, it can be contended that
the government has the authority to declare the lockdown with immediate effect to
safeguard the public from the disaster of the pandemic.

36. Section 2 of The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 provides as follows: “2. Power to take
special measures and prescribe regulations as to dangerous epidemic disease.—(1) When
at any time the [State Government] is satisfied that [the State] or any part thereof is visited
by, or threatened with, an outbreak of any dangerous epidemic disease, the [State
Government], if [it] thinks that the ordinary provisions of the law for the time being in
force are insufficient for the purpose, may take, or require or empower any person to take,
such measures and, by public notice, prescribe such temporary regulations to be observed
by the public or by any person or class of persons as [it] shall deem necessary to prevent
the outbreak of such disease or the spread thereof, and may determine in what manner and
by whom any expenses incurred (including compensation if any) shall be defrayed.”

37. It is humbly submitted that it was necessary for the government of Khazland to declare the
partial lockdown all over the country as it is in the interest of the general public, for their
security and safety, provided the measures imposed are not ‘extra-constitutional. These

32

24 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

restrictions are mentioned under Article 19(5) of the Indian Constitution. Restrictions on
free movement can be imposed in the reasonable interest of the general public i.e., for the
good of or protection of rights of public and such a restriction is not despotic.

38. Article 353. Article 358 & Article 359 are the provisions which mentions that certain
fundamental rights of the citizens will become unenforceable during the time of emergency.
The power to impose the lockdown is very much available under the aforesaid Acts. The
lockdown is one of the measures taken up by the respondents to curb and restrict the spread
of the pandemic. Therefore, the imposition of the lockdown as a measure of curtailing the
spread of the pandemic by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary.

4.2 Whether imposing of partial lockdown violates Right to Life and Personal Liberty?

The counsel seeks to answer this in Negative.

39. According to Article 21 of the Constitution of Khazland – "No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Personal
liberty grants one the right not to be subjected to any form of imprisonment or coercion
without the justification of law.

40. Article 21 does not impose upon the State only, negative obligations not to act in such a
way as to interfere with the right to health. The Supreme Court also has the power to impose
positive obligations upon the State to take measures to provide adequate resources or access
to treatment facilities to secure effective enjoyment of the right to health. Hence, it can be
opined that state has the authority to take measures relating to the public health.

41. To secure protection of one’s life has been declared to be one of the foremost obligations
to the state it is not merely a right enshrined under article 21 but an obligation cast on state
to protect fundamental rights which is enshrined under both article 21 and under article 47
of the Constitution of Khazland.

42. In the case of Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police 33, the court held that the right
to assemble on public street could be subject to a reasonable restriction in the interest of

33
Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner Of Police, 1973 AIR 87, 1973 SCR (2) 26.

25 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

public order. With reference to the case in hand, the blocking of highways and organising
demonstration throughout the country against the government are against the public order
and do not come under the ambit of fundamental rights.

43. The counsel for respondents humbly submits that there is no violation of any Fundamental
right as guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of Khazland.

26 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-
 XIV INTRO MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 (SAMPLE MEMORIAL)

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel for respondents humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to kindly:

1. Dismiss the Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with costs.

Or pass an order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the interests of Justice, Equity and
Good Conscience.

THE PARTIES SHALL ACCEPT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AS FINAL AND
BINDING FOR THEM AND SHALL EXECUTE IN IT ENTIRELY AND IN GOOD
FAITH.

For this act of kindness, the respondents shall duly bound forever pray.

Place: The Republic of Khazland Most respectfully submitted,

Date: 2nd December 2023 TC08_R

[THE COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENTS]

27 | P a g e
-Memorandum filed on behalf of the Respondents-