LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

A - 15

LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2016

BEFORE THE

HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PERIYANA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

IN THE MATTER OF

Periyar Villagers Association..Appellants

Versus

Jackson Oils Ltd. and Ors. ......Respondents

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF PERIYANA

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 1

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS.. 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...... 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ... 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..... 11
1. THE APPEAL FILED BY PERIYAR VILLAGERS ASSOCIATION UNDER 11
SECTION 96 OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE IMPUNGED JUDGMENT OF
DISTRICT COURT OF PERIYAR IS MAINTAINBLE.
1.1 Appellants have Locus Standi 11
1.2. The High Court has jurisdiction to hear the present appeal 12
1.3. There were many illegalities and irregularities of procedure and violation of 12
the principles of natural justice resulting in absence of a fair trial and there was
gross miscarriage of justice.
2. THE JACKSON OILS LTD., GROVER & SONS Pvt. Ltd., MATHEW CO- 13
OPERATIVE WORKERS ASSOCIATION ARE LIABLE FOR
NEGLIGENCE IN HANDLING THE SEWEAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM.
3 The State Government was negligent in handling the entire situation. 20

PRAYER 22

ABBREVIATIONS USED

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 2

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Sec. : Section

AIR : All India Report

Art. : Article

Co. : Company

Honble : Honorable

Ltd. : Limited

SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

I.P.C. : Indian Penal Code

Cr.P.C. : Criminal Procedure Code

u/s : under section

r/w : read with

Yrs. : Years

v. / vs. : Versus

& : and

Pg. : Page

Ors. : Others

Anr. : Another

Edn. : Edition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 3

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

STATUTES:

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

CASES REFFERED
1. Amanullah and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., MANU/SC/0403/2016
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819.
3. Rylands v. Fletcher, [1868] UKHL 1.
4. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 1989 SCC (2) 540.
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819.
6. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
7. Dr. W.L. Wadewhra v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2969.
8. Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
9. State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, AIR 1997 SC 1225.
10. Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 1864.

Books Referred:
P.M. Bakshi, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 12th Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co
Pvt. Ltd., 2013

V.N. Shukla, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 9th Edition, Eastern Book Company

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Law of Torts, 36th Edition, Lexis Nexis Publications.

Websites Referred:
www.lexisnexis.com

www.judis.nic.in

www.manupatra.com

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 4

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

1. Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd., a private company, operated a business of collecting and disposing
industrial waste & oils which were highly toxic in their metallic & chemical composition.
2. Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd. had the benefit of a trade effluent disposal license granted to them by
Jackson Oils Ltd., a state owned enterprise, to dispose of their toxic liquors into their sewerage
system subject to stringent conditions.
3. Mathew Co-Op Workers Association performed, on a day-to-day basis for profit the duties of
Jackson Oils Ltd. in the area.
4. Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd. maintained at their collection site a five- stage interceptor from
which an outlet pipe led directly into the sewer pipe and then a pumping station which was
operated and maintained by Jackson Oils Ltd. The distance between the site and the pumping
station was approximately 50 yards.
5. Jackson Oils Ltd. was granted permission to discharge sewage, in an emergency, through the
overflow into another pit made for emergency purposes, which was very close to the stream.
They also required to have a small detoxification plant so the sewage when discharged would
have low toxic content.
6. There was two spindle operated pumps provided at the pumping station, but at that time neither
of them was in operation. So, Mathew Co-Op Workers Association substituted a single
submersible pump for one of the two spindle operated pumps.
7. Soon thereafter, Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd. disposed the polluting liquors into the sewer pipes. The
detoxification plant was unable to detoxify such a large amount of waste. However, the waste
was sufficiently clean (as required by the Gov. by its silence).
8. Consequently, there was a large amount of waste in the pit, which was overflowed into the
stream. It had an adverse effect on the biodiversity of the stream, by which a certain sea creature
Sea Queen after mutated growth resembled like another insect Sea Heart, which was a
principal source of food for the fishes.
9. After mistakenly consuming Sea Queen as Sea Heart, which contained a certain chemical,
the fishes get contaminated. The fishes were a source of food for nearby villages and towns and a
major source of income to villagers. After consuming contaminated fishes, the villagers fell ill
and subsequently died.
10. Then the Gov. constituted a committee to look into the matter. After examination, the
committee recommended that a clean up operation by introducing a variety of turtle that
consumed Sea Queen and its egg. This led to destruction of both the sea creatures.
11. Regarding the Sea Heart, the Gov. said it would re- introduce the species, which take up to 3
years. This led to villagers deprived of their livelihood, became destitute without any

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 5

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

alternative arrangements. It was also learned that a large no. of people in the towns had fallen
ill and lots of deaths took place.
12. The fisherman and townspeople formed an association, the Periyar Villager Association and
filed a suit before the learned District court against Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Jackson Oils
Ltd., Mathew Co-Op Workers Association and the State of Periyana contending that the
discharge of waste was in contravention of conditions of their duty of care.

13. Finding of the District Court: The Court dismissed the suit against Jackson Oils Ltd. and
Mathew & Co-Op Workers Association on the ground that they had taken reasonable care and
precaution. It held that damages are not foreseeable and a state owned enterprise was
performing a sovereign function. It also held that Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd. was not negligent
in performing its duty.
14. Appeal before Honble High Court of Periyana: The Periyar Villagers Association filed an
appeal under section 96 of C.P.C. in Honble H.C. of Periyana against the order and judgment
of District Court of Periyar. The appellants plead for compensation and exemplary damages.

SATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants Periyar Villagers Association have filed appeal under Section 96 of
Civil Procedure Code in Honble High Court of Periyana against the impugned
judgment and order passed by District Court of Periyana.

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 6

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY PERIYAR VILLAGERS

ASSOCIATION UNDER SECTION 96 OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE
IMPUNGED JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT OF PERIYAR IS
MAINTAINBLE OR NOT?

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 7

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

2. WHETHER THE JACKSON OILS LTD., GROVER & SONS Pvt. Ltd.,
MATHEW CO-OPERATIVE WORKERS ASSOCIATION ARE LIABLE
FOR NEGLIGENCE IN HANDLING THE SEWEAGE DISPOSAL
SYSTEM OR NOT?

Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff?

Whether the defendant breached or failed to perform that duty, either totally or
partially?
Whether the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of this breach of duty?
Whether the Doctrine of Absolute Liability will apply on Jackson Oil Ltd. & Ors. Or
not?

3. Whether the State Government was negligent in handling the entire situation
or not?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE APPEAL FILED BY PERIYAR VILLAGERS ASSOCIATION UNDER

SECTION 96 OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE IMPUNGED JUDGMENT OF
DISTRICT COURT OF PERIYAR IS MAINTAINBLE.

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the appellants, the Periyar Villagers Association
which was formed of the fishermens and town people have the locus standi in the present case.
The appellants are the aggrieved parties and are affected by the judgment of learned District

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 8

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Court. There rights have been violated and they suffered huge amounts of damages in form of loss
of life, loss of livelihood and sufferings during medical treatment.

It is humbly submitted that the Honble High Court has jurisdiction to hear the present case under
section 96 of C.P.C. which empowers the Honble High Court to hear the appeal of any aggrieved
party against the order and judgment of District Court in the civil matter.

The judgment of learned District Court is tainted with serious legal infirmities, its approach is
wrong in law and is founded on a legal construction which is wrong. Thus the appeal filed shall
be maintainable.

2. THE JACKSON OILS LTD., GROVER & SONS Pvt. Ltd., MATHEW CO-
OPERATIVE WORKERS ASSOCIATION ARE LIABLE FOR
NEGLIGENCE IN HANDLING THE SEWEAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM

In present case the three parties namely Jackson Oils Ltd., Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Mathew Co-
op. workers association negligently contribute to the injury and damages to members of Periyar
Villagers Association.

The incident happened i.e. the toxic sewage got released into stream due to overflow from the pit
which was the result of breach of duty of care by the defendants.

It caused injury, the biodiversity of stream got effected, and as a result Sea Queen, Sea- Heart and
fishes got contaminated. On their consumption large no. of people in village and town got
severely ill and subsequently died.

The defendants were in control of or responsible for whatever caused the incident. Thus they are
liable for negligence.

3. The State Government was negligent in handling the entire situation.

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 9

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

According to the leading principle of torts ubi jus ibi remedium, which means for every
wrongful injury, there must be some compensation. In present case the no. of constitutional rights
of plaintiff have been violated and they suffered huge amount of damages in consequence.

Thus it is humbly submitted that the state is liable for exemplary damages, owing to the extent of
damages done to the people and ecology of the area. It should be excess of the loss suffered by
plaintiff and must be given to set an example so that such an action is not repeated in future.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE APPEAL FILED BY PERIYAR VILLAGERS ASSOCIATION UNDER

SECTION 96 OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE IMPUNGED JUDGMENT OF
DISTRICT COURT OF PERIYAR IS MAINTAINBLE.

Section 96: Appeal from original decree

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 10

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the
time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising
original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the court with the consent of parties.
(4) No appeal shall lie, expect on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature
cognizable by courts of small causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the
original suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees.

1.1. The appellant have the Locus Standi

In case of Amanullah and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.1 the Honable Supreme Court in
Para. 23, observed the general meaning of Locus Standi The term locus standi is a Latin term,
the general meaning of which is place of standing. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10 th
Edn. at page 834, defines the term locus standi as the right or capacity to bring an action or to
appear in a court. The traditional view of locus standi has been that the person who is aggrieved
or affected has the standing before the court, i.e., to say he only has a right to move the court for
seeking justice. Later, this Court, with justice-oriented approach, relaxed the strict Rule with
regard to locus standi, allowing any person from the society not related to the cause of action to
approach the court seeking for those who could not approach themselves.

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the appellants, the Periyar Villagers
Association which was formed of the fishermens and town people have the locus standi in the
present case. The appellants are the aggrieved parties and are affected by the judgment of learned
District Court. There rights have been violated and they suffered huge amounts of damages in
form of loss of life, loss of livelihood and sufferings during medical treatment.

1.2. The Honble High Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal

1 Amanullah and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., MANU/SC/0403/2016

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 11

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

It is humbly submitted that the Honble High Court has jurisdiction to hear the present case under
section 96 of C.P.C. which empowers the Honble High Court to hear the appeal of any aggrieved
party against the order and judgment of District Court in the civil matter.

1.3. There were many illegalities and irregularities of procedure and violation of the
principles of natural justices resulting in absence of a fair trial and there was gross
miscarriage of justice.

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Honble High Court that Learned
District Court of Periyar dismissed the suit on the grounds which are judicially incorrect
and violates the legal principles.
Learned District Court dismissed the suit on the ground that Jackson Oils Ltd. and
Mathew Co-Op Workers Association had taken reasonable care and precaution. It also
held that Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd. are not negligent in disposing of their duties.
It is most humbly submitted that Jackson Oils Ltd., Mathew Co-Op Workers Association
are negligent in performing their duties. At the pumping station, both the pumps was not in
operation, one is totally removed and other had been cannibalized.
The detoxification plant was also not function well. When the waste disposed into the
interceptor which was highly toxic composition.
There was a large amount of waste in the pit, which was close to the stream. The waste
overflowed into the stream and cause an adverse effect on biodiversity. As a result of
which the fishes in the stream got contaminated, due to their consumption the villagers
and the residents of towns fell ill and subsequently died.
The death rate was subsequently increasing but the state government did not made serious
efforts to handle the issue neither any compensation was given to the persons who suffered
damages.

Thus the judgment of learned District Court is tainted with serious legal infirmities, its
approach is wrong in law and is founded on a legal construction which is wrong.

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 12

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THUS IT IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUMITTED THAT THE APPEAL

FILED BY PERIYAR VILLAGERS ASSOCIATION u/s 96 OF C.P.C. IN HONBLE HIGH
COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.

2. THE JACKSON OILS LTD., GROVER & SONS Pvt. Ltd., MATHEW CO-
OPERATIVE WORKERS ASSOCIATION ARE LIABLE FOR
NEGLIGENCE IN HANDLING THE SEWEAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM.

Negligence constitutes a breach of duty imposed by law where such duty owed, where the
person responsible is liable for such reasonable foreseeable damage which would ensue

In order to establish the tort of negligence, it must be proved that:

(a) The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

(b) The defendant breached (failed to perform) that duty, either totally or partially.
(c) The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of this breach of duty.

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 13

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

2.1. The Jackson Oils Ltd & Ors. owed a duty of care to the members of Periyar
Villagers Association
It is humbly submitted that Jackson Oils Ltd. is a state owned enterprise which provided
sewage disposal facilities in the area. So it has duty of care towards resident of the area
that they should not suffer any damages by any act or omission of it.
Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd. operated business of collecting and disposing industrial waste &
oils which were highly toxic in their metallic & chemical composition. They had the
benefit of a trade effluent disposal license granted to them by Jackson Oils Ltd., a state
owned enterprise, to dispose of their toxic liquors into their sewerage system subject to
stringent conditions. Thus in this case the activity poses the more risk and so the
higher duty of care is expected.
Mathew Co-Op Workers Association performed, on a day-to-day basis for profit the duties
of Jackson Oils Ltd. in the area. Since they were in contract with a state owned enterprise,
and were acting as its agent so they also owed the same duty of care as Jackson Oils Ltd.

2.2. The defendants breached that duty.

There is very high magnitude of risk involved in the activity, the defendants were dealing
with.
It is humbly submitted that Jackson Oils Ltd. Granted permission to discharge sewage in
an emergency through the overflow into another pit made for emergency purposes.
However, this pit was open and close to stream and hence there was high possibility that
water would seep into the stream. Thus standard duty of care was not maintained.
According to standard of duty of care the two pumps should be maintained in the pumping
station to ensure that such an emergency did not happen, they were also required to install
and operate a small detoxification plant so that sewage if discharge into pit would have
low toxic content.
At the relevant time, neither of two spindle operated pumps was in operation. One has
been totally removed and the other had been cannibalized. This shows the breach of duty
of care.
Having knowledge about emergency condition, the Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd. disposed their
toxic industrial waste into sewage system. The detoxification plant was unable to detoxify

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 14

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

that large amount of waste. Consequently, there was large amount of waste in the pit,
which not only seeped into stream but also overflowed into it. The overflow of waste into
stream shows the breach of duty of care in which all the three parties are involved.

2.3. The Periyar Villagers Association suffered damages as a result of that breach of

duty.
The overflow of toxic waste into stream had an adverse effect on biodiversity of the
stream by which a certain sea creature Sea Queen after mutated growth resembled like
another insect Sea Heart, which was a principal source of food for the fishes.

After mistakenly consuming Sea Queen as Sea Heart, which contained a certain
chemical, the fishes got contaminated. It is humbly submitted that the chemical
responsible for contamination was the same chemical which the waste produced by Grover
& Sons Pvt. Ltd. contained.

The fishes were a source of food for nearby villages and towns and a major source of
income to villagers. After consuming contaminated fishes, the villagers fell ill and
subsequently died. The death toll kept on increasing both in town and village
By the clean up operation done by government in the stream all the sea queens and sea-
hearts were destroyed. As a result of which fishes also died. Therefore the villagers were
deprived of their livelihood. The government was unable to provide sufficient alternate
arrangements.

This is the case of composite negligence

In present case the three parties namely Jackson Oils Ltd., Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Mathew Co-
op. workers association negligently contribute to the injury and damages to members of Periyar
Villagers Association.

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor will apply in this case.

The general rule in negligence is that plaintiff must prove that defendant was negligent. Res Ipsa
Loquitor means the things speak for itself. This doctrine comes into play when the act that

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 15

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

caused injury to the plaintiff itself raises a strong presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant i.e. where the act could not have happened but for the negligence of the defendant.

In present case this doctrine will apply because -:

1. The incident happened i.e. the toxic sewage got released into stream due to overflow from
the pit which was the result of breach of duty of care by the defendants.
2. It caused injury, the biodiversity of stream got effected, and as a result Sea Queen, Sea-
Heart and fishes got contaminated. On their consumption large no. of people in village and
town got severely ill and subsequently died.
3. The defendants were in control of or responsible for whatever caused the incident.

Thus it is humbly submitted that now it is up to the defendants to show that they were not
negligent, i.e. the burden of proof is reversed.

2.4. The rule of Absolute Liability will apply on Jackson Oil Ltd. & Ors.

It is humbly submitted that in the landmark judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case of M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India2 which dealt with the leakage of poisonous Oleum gas from one of the
units of Shriram industries in Delhi, as a result of which several people were injured. It was held
that irrespective of any lack of negligence or intention, the defendant was absolutely liable for the
damages caused. The court held that in this rule of Absolute liability, there were no defences as
were there in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher3 of strict liability rule. The logic the court used
was that a person who carries on a dangerous activity for profit is responsible for any harm
that may flow from such activity.

Honble Supreme Court decision in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India was based on following
Ratio decidendi-

The Honble court held that we must also deal with one other question which was seriously
debated before us and that question is as to what is the measure of liability of an enterprise which
is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring
in such industry, persons die or are injured. Does the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher apply or is there
any other principle on which the liability can be determined? The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was
evolved in the year 1866 and it provides that a person who for his own purposes being on to his
2 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819.
3 Rylands v. Fletcher, [1868] UKHL 1.

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 16

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his
peril and, if he fails to do so, is prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequence
of its escape. The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped
without that person's wilful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its
existence. This rule laid down a principle of liability that if a person who brings on to his land and
collects and keeps there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to
another, he is liable to compensate for the damage caused. Of course, this rule applies only to
non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the
escape is due to an act of God and an act of a stranger or the default of the person injured or
where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases
where there is statutory authority.

This rule evolved in the 19th Century at a time when all these developments of science and
technology had not taken place cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard of liability
consistent with the constitutional norms and the needs of the present day economy and social
structure. We need not feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in this context of a totally
different kind of economy. Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing
society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in the country.
We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in
England or for the matter of that in any other foreign country.
We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous
industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the
factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the
community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently
dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken.
The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety
and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to
compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all
reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part.
We would therefore hold that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 17

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the
enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident
The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation
payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise.

This rule of absolute liability was also followed in the Bhopal Gas leak case i.e. Union Carbide
Corporation v. Union of India4 and is used in no. of environmental pollution cases.

It is humbly submitted that in arguendo even if we assume that the defendants were not
negligent in this case, then also they cannot escape from the rule of absolute liability.
It is humbly submitted that Jackson Oils Ltd., Grover & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Mathew Co-op.
workers association were carrying on dangerous activity i.e. disposal of highly toxic
industrial waste and oil through sewage system.
Their activity was for the Profit.
Thus, they are responsible for the harm and damages to Periyar Village Association which
arise due to their activity.

The defendants should have taken steps to ensure that seepage did not take place into stream and
also would have covered the pit to prevent overflow. But these essential measures were not taken
in present case.

THUS IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THATTHE JACKSON OILS LTD.,

GROVER & SONS Pvt. Ltd., MATHEW CO-OPERATIVE WORKERS
ASSOCIATION ARE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE IN HANDLING THE
SEWEAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM.

4 Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 1989 SCC (2) 540.

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 18

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

3. The State Government was negligent in handling the entire situation.

It is humbly submitted that no. of rights of members of Periyana Villagers Association are
violated in this case, of which many are fundamental rights, they also suffered damages in form of
loss of life, property, the money spent in medical treatment etc.

It is humbly submitted that Jackson Oils Ltd. is a state owned company, the state along with other
three companies violated Right to life of people of Periyana guaranteed to Indian citizens under
Article 21 of Constitution of India.

The Right to life includes various rights as held in no. of cases-

Right to Healthy Environment this right was included in Right to life in case of M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India5 and in case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India.6
This Right itself includes Right to Pollution free water and air as held in case of Dr. W.L.
Wadewhra v. Union of India7 and Protection from hazardous industries as held in case
of Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India8
Right to Heath as held in case of State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla9
Right to Livelihood as held in case of Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar10

The rights mentioned above are violated by the state as

5 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819.
6 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
7 Dr. W.L. Wadewhra v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2969.
8 Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
9 State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, AIR 1997 SC 1225.

10 Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 1864.

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 19

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

i. The Jackson Oils Ltd. is State owned company so the state government is liable for its acts
of negligence. As a result of which the river stream and the creatures in it got contaminated
due to overflow of toxic industrial waste in it. Consequently, large no. of people due to
consumption of contaminated fish fell ill and subsequently died.
ii. It is humbly submitted that government constituted a fact finding committee to look into
the matter. The committee reported the mutilated growth of Sea Queen to cause of illness
but the committee did not looked into the cause of mutation, that was the release of toxic
waste into stream due to negligence of the three companies. It is clearly evident from the
fact that government wanted to save the responsible companies from the subsequent legal
action.
iii. The government launched clean up operation, as a result of which Sea Queen and Sea
Heart were destroyed. Consequently the fishes also started dying due to unavailability of
the principal source of food. Thus, the villagers were deprived of their livelihood and the
government did not made any alternate earning arrangements for them.
iv. It is humbly submitted that neither state government nor any of the liable companies
provided compensation to the villagers who died or fell ill due to this negligent act of
releasing of toxic waste into stream.

According to the leading principle of torts ubi jus ibi remedium, which means for every
wrongful injury, there must be some compensation. In present case the no. of constitutional rights
of plaintiff have been violated and they suffered huge amount of damages in consequence.

According to the doctrine of Parens Patriae (father of the country) the state is under obligation
to look after the interest of those who are unable to look after themselves. The idea behind Parens
Patriae is that if a citizen is in need of someone who can act as a parent who can make decisions
and take some other action, sometimes the State is best qualified to take on this role.

Thus it is humbly submitted that the state is liable for exemplary damages, owing to the extent of
damages done to the people and ecology of the area. It should be excess of the loss suffered by
plaintiff and must be given to set an example so that such an action is not repeated in future.

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 20

 LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Thus it is humbly submitted that the State Government was negligent in handling the entire
situation.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the fact used, issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities

cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Honble court may be pleased to adjudge

and declare that:

1. THE APPEAL FILED BY PERIYAR VILLAGERS ASSOCIATION UNDER SECTION

96 OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE IMPUNGED JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT OF
PERIYAR IS MAINTAINBLE.
2. THE JACKSON OILS LTD., GROVER & SONS Pvt. Ltd., MATHEW CO-OPERATIVE
WORKERS ASSOCIATION ARE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE IN HANDLING THE
SEWEAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
3. The State Government was negligent in handling the entire situation and the people must
be awarded by the exemplary damages.

According to what is just and good, it is an appeal of the counsel to Honble Court to adjudge the

above prayers, and grant any other relief which this Honble Court may be pleased to grant and is

deemed fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which respectfully submitted

For the act of Kindness, the Appellants shall Duty Bound Forever

All of which is most humbly prayed

Counsels for the Appellants

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 21