Memorial for the Respondent (Venkatesh Gaikwad)

this is my memorial on behalf of the respondent side of the moot court competition conducted by Lawoctopus law School

1. CODE: 11


IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF SHOLAY


PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF SHOLAY


IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. ____ OF 2024


HELPERS OF LIVING LIFE (HOLL) ..P ETITIONER

VERSUS

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
& RELIABLE PVT. LTD ..R ESPONDENTS


LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
1 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. STATUTES REFERRED

SR.NO. STATUTES REFERRED

CITED ON PAGE
NO.
1. T HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PASSIM
2. T HE WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT 1972 PASSIM
3. E NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1986 PASSIM


2. TABLE OF CASES

NAME OF THE CASES & ITS RELEVANT CITATIONS
(REPORTED JUDGEMENTS )
PAGE NO.
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc
AIR1986SC1 80 : MANU/SC/0039/1985 : [1985]Supp2SCR51 :
(1985)3SCC545
8
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs Delhi Administration & Ors; (2001)
AIR2001SC1447 : MANU/SC/0189/2001 : (2001)3SCC635
:[2001]2SCR630
9
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and
Ors AIR2013SC3217: MANU/SC/0397/2013 : (2013)8SCC154
:[2013]6SCR810
10
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
(15.03.2005 - SC) : AIR2005SC2994 : MANU/SC/0206/2005 :
(2005)4SCC32 :[2005]2SCR840
11
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
(28.08.1996 - SC) AIR1996SC2715 : MANU/SC/0686/1996 :
[1996]Supp5SCR241 :(1996)5SCC647
12
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa
and Ors. (12.05.2006 - SC) AIR2006SC2038:
MANU/SC/8159/2006 : [2006]Supp(2)SCR362 : 2006)6SCC371
12
A. Iyappan vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone
Management Authority and Ors. (06.10.2017 - NGT) :
MANU/GT/0092/2017
14
The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs. The State
of Kerala Maradu Municipality and Ors. (08.05.2019 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0808/2019 : (2019)7SCC248 : [2019]8SCR625
16

3. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

3. BOOKS, REPORTS ETC.

SR.
NO.
NAME OF THE BOOK
1. T HE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 49TH EDITION DR. J.N.
PANDEY.
2. POLICY INITIATIVES AND THE ROLE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY
3. MP JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 6TH EDITION
4. UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 1996 (REPORT)
5. DEVELOPMENT, DISPLACEMENT AND ETHICS (REPORT)
6. D URGA DAS BASU INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
25TH EDITION LEXIS NEXIS
7. BROOM’S LEGAL MAXIMS 14TH EDITION.
8. M INISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE
NOTIFICATION NO. GSR37 (E)
9. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT
10. OLIVE RIDLEY SEA TURTLE (WIKIPEDIA)
11. OLIVE RIDLEY SEA TURTLE (WWF REPORT)
12. AGENDA 21 REPORT, EARTH SUMMIT RIO DE JANEIRO

4. IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS:
“Petitioner” for the purpose of this memorial shall stand for “Helpers of
Living life.”

“Respondent” for the purpose of this memorial shall stand for “Central
Government and Reliable Ltd.”

5. DYNAMIC LINKS
(OFFICIAL WEBSITES APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA )
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.scconline.com

4. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
3 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Sholay, seeking the enforcement of fundamental
rights and the Respondents submit to that.
1


1
The Constitutional Law of India 49
th
Edition Dr. J.N. Pandey.

5. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
4 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Republic of Sholay, a Southern Asian country, has designated an area
near the Gulf of Gabbar in the state of Jairashtra, called Harinagar, as a
Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under a government initiative to promote
sustainable energy production.
2. In 2018, Harinagar was classified as a CRZ-IA area, but following a re-
assessment in 2022, it was reclassified as CRZ-IIIB.
3. In February 2023, the government auctioned the construction project for
the SEZ, which was awarded to Reliable Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (the
Company). The construction was set to commence in May 2023.
4. In July 2023, a committee from the World Wildlife Federation (WWF)
reported an unusual migration of Olive Ridley Turtles to the Gulf of
Sambha, near the Harinagar shoreline, sparking protests from
environmental activists and the local Keshto fishing community. The
Keshto tribe, whose livelihood depends on fishing, claimed that the
construction disrupted their activities and displaced their homes.
5. Helpers of Living Life (HOLL), an NGO, filed a Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) in the Supreme Court of Sholay, seeking compensation for ecological
damage and the loss of livelihood for the Keshto community. They also
requested the demolition of the SEZ, citing environmental concerns.
6. The respondents, the Central Government and Reliable Constructions Pvt.
Ltd., argue that the reclassification of Harinagar and the approval of the
SEZ were conducted legally and that the construction activities should not
be halted or reversed.
7. Hence the Petition stands before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sholay.

6. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
5 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN
THE PRESENT CASE.
1) IS THE PETITION MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT UNDER
ARTICLE 32?

2) WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT’S ACT OF RECLASSIFYING THE AREA FROM
CRZ-IA TO CRZ-IIIB IS VALID?

3) WHETHER THE APPROVAL OF THE SEZ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS VALID?

4) CAN LIABILITY BE IMPOSED ON THE RESPONDENTS, AND CAN THEY BE
ORDERED TO DEMOLISH THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS?

7. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
6 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1) IS THE PETITION MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT UNDER
ARTICLE 32?
The Respondents argue that the petition filed by Helpers of Living Life
(HOLL) is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution. They
assert that the judiciary's role is limited in cases involving the
implementation of government policies unless there's a direct violation of
fundamental rights.
2) WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT’S ACT OF RECLASSIFYING THE AREA FROM
CRZ-IA TO CRZ-IIIB IS VALID?
The Respondents contend that the government’s act of reclassifying the
area from CRZ-IA to CRZ-IIIB is valid and within its legal authority. The
reclassification was done in accordance with the principles of sustainable
development, balancing environmental concerns with the need for
economic growth.
3) WHETHER THE APPROVAL OF THE SEZ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS VALID?
The Respondents maintain that the approval of the SEZ construction
project is valid. While concerns were raised about the impact on Olive
Ridley Turtles, it is established that their migration is their natural
tendency.
4) CAN LIABILITY BE IMPOSED ON THE RESPONDENTS, AND CAN THEY BE
ORDERED TO DEMOLISH THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS?
The Respondents argue against imposing liability or ordering the
demolition of the already constructed buildings and continue the
construction.

8. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
7 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

PLEADINGS
It is humbly submitted that,
1. IS THE PETITION MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT UNDER
ARTICLE 32?
1. It is humbly submitted by the Central Government and Reliable Pvt. Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the “Respondents”) that Helpers of Living life (HOLL)
(hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioners”) petition is not maintainable before
the SC under article 32 of the constitution for mainly two reasons i.e. the role of
judiciary in the implementation of government policy and non-violation of
fundamental rights.
2. The Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers between the 3 organs
of the government i.e. executive, legislature and Judiciary. The Judiciary while
tasked with upholding the law, must respect the domain of policy formulation
and implementation, which lies primarily in the hands of the executive and
legislature.
3. Article 50
2
of the Constitution is obligated to maintain independence of the
Judiciary from the executive. The judiciary, the executive and the legislatives
were given different fields in the Indian Constitution and their functions were
demarcated. The narrative of their domains runs across different sketches of the
Indian Constitution. It was the executive and the legislature, who were dictated
to respect and prosper the cause of fundamental rights.
4. In the instant case the Government has set up a project in Hari Nagar which was
set to build an industrial area for rending to companies that would produce
sustainable energy resources. This area was declared to be as a Special
Economic Zone (SEZ) and classified as CRZ-IIIB. The construction of the

2
Policy Initiatives and the Role of Indian Judiciary (SCC blog post0

9. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
8 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

Industrial Park has put an impact on the livelihood of the Keshto Community
which resided there.
5. The right to livelihood is given under Article 21
3
states that no person shall be
deprived of his life and livelihood except according to procedure established by
law. In 1986 the UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Right to
Development.. The discussion of the heart of the problem agreed by the members
of such assembly was that people displaced by development projects are
generally seen as a necessary sacrifice on the road to development.
4

6. By applying ethical analysis to displacement-inducing development moves the
treatment away from simple moralism. It recognises ethical complexity, including
the possibility that such displacement may be justified if certain conditions are
met.
5

7. Furthermore, The Constitution does not put an absolute embargo on the
deprivation of life or personal liberty. It is far too well settled to admit of any
argument that the procedure prescribed by law for the deprivation of the right
conferred by Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable.
6

8. The intent of the project is for the development of the society and it supports the
Directive Principles under Article 39(b) and (c)
7
, focusing on the distribution of
resources for the common good. The industrial park is a significant step toward
achieving these constitutional objectives, justifying the displacement as part of a
larger public interest initiative.
9. Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex
8
(The Welfare of the People is the Supreme Law),
the government’s decision to develop the industrial park aligns with its duty to
prioritize public welfare. Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit
8
(An Act of the Court
Shall Prejudice No One) further underscores the necessity of judicial restraint in
interfering with government policies. The courts must ensure that their actions

3
MP Jain Indian Constitutional Law 6
th
Edition
4
UN General Assembly, 1996
5
Development, displacement and ethics (Report)
6
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc
7
Durga Das Basu Introduction to Constitution of India 25
th
Edition Lexis Nexis

10. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
9 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

do not harm the public interest, especially when the government’s initiatives are
aimed at advancing the collective good. Interfering in the construction of the
industrial park could potentially hinder the government’s efforts to enhance
economic opportunities for the region. Dura Lex, Sed Lex
8
(The Law is Harsh,
but It is the Law) highlights that, while the law may seem severe to those directly
affected by the industrial park's construction, its enforcement is crucial for the
greater good. Therefore, the project under this policy is for public welfare and
hence the court is reluctant to interfere the policy decisions made by the
government.
10. That, it is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review,
do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive, unless the
policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness
or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide
will render the policy unconstitutional.
9

11. As the current petition seeks to challenge a government policy that does not
directly infringe upon fundamental rights. The industrial park project is a lawful
exercise of state power aimed at public welfare, with adequate measures taken to
address the displacement and livelihood concerns of the affected individuals. The
courts must recognize the balance between individual rights and the collective
good, as embodied in the Directive Principles and the government’s policy
framework.
12. That, the alignment of the industrial park project with constitutional principles
and the absence of any direct violation of fundamental rights, the petition under
Article 32 should be deemed non-maintainable.


8
Broom’s Legal Maxims 14
th
Edition.
9
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs Delhi Administration & Ors; (2001) 3 SCC 635,

11. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
10 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

It is humbly submitted that,
2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT’S ACT OF RECLASSIFYING THE AREA FROM
CRA-IA TO CRZ-IIB IS VALID?

1. It is humbly submitted by the respondents that the act of Government to
reclassify the area from CRZ-IA to CRZ-IIB is valid. The central issue
pertains to the legality and validity of the government’s decision to reclassify
an area from Coastal Regulation Zone
10
(CRZ) I-A, which strictly prohibits
development, to CRZ III-B, which permits controlled development, after a
gap of four years.
2. The primary legal consideration is whether the government’s reclassification
is consistent with the principles laid down in the CRZ Notification, 2011, and
subsequent amendments. Article 48A of the Indian Constitution imposes a
duty on the State to protect and improve the environment. Furthermore,
Article 51A(g) obliges every citizen to protect and preserve the environment.
The government’s power to reclassify must be exercised within these
constitutional mandates. Jurisprudence under the doctrine of sustainable
development also plays a pivotal role in assessing the validity of the
reclassification. Sustainable development has come to be firmly embedded in
our constitutional jurisprudence as an integral part of the fundamental rights
conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution.
11

3. The reclassification aligns with the broader public interest, balancing
environmental protection with the need for sustainable development. CRZ-
IIIB regulations ensure that any development is carried out with stringent
environmental safeguards, mitigating any potential adverse effects on the
ecosystem. This approach enables the government to address the
developmental needs of the region, including infrastructure improvements

10
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Notification No. GSR37 (E)
11
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

12. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
11 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

and economic opportunities, while still adhering to environmental protection
principles given under the Environmental Protection Act 1986
12
.
4. The government’s decision to reclassify the area from CRZ-IA to CRZ-IIIB
may have been influenced by evolving socio-economic conditions and the
need for infrastructure development. However, the four-year gap between the
initial classification and reclassification raises questions about whether there
were significant changes in environmental conditions or developmental
priorities that warranted such a shift.
5. The validity of the reclassification hinges on the government’s ability to
justify the decision as a reasonable exercise of its policy-making powers.
Courts have historically refrained from interfering in policy decisions unless
they are shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of statutory or
constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court, in Narmada Bachao Andolan
v. Union of India (2000),
13
upheld the government’s decision to proceed with
the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, despite environmental concerns,
on the grounds that the decision was based on a thorough assessment of both
environmental and developmental factors.
6. Similarly, in this case, if the government can establish that the reclassification
was made so as to serve a legitimate public interest, hence the reclassification
should be upheld. The decision must be evaluated in light of the principles of
sustainable development, with due consideration given to both environmental
protection and the developmental needs of the region.
7. That after completing this project, the said industrial park will be rented to
companies that produce sustainable energy sources which will be helping in
the development of the village. Despite the Remediation of the damaged
environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such

12
Environmental Protection Act 1986.
13
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)

13. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
12 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost
of reversing the damaged ecology.
14
.
8. Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present,
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. The concept of sustainable development can be interpreted in many
different ways, but at its core is an approach to development that looks to
balance different, and often competing, needs against an awareness of the
environmental, social and economic limitations we face as a society.
15

9. Sustainable use of natural resources should essentially be based on
maintaining a balance between development and ecosystem. Coordinated
efforts of all concerned would be required to solve the problem of ecological
crisis and pollution. Unless we adopt an approach of sustainable use, the
problem of environmental degradation cannot be solved. The concept of
sustainable development was propounded by the World Commission on
Environment and Development', which very aptly and comprehensively
defined it as 'development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.
Survival of mankind depends on following the said definition in letter and
spirit.
16
The precautionary principle, which mandates that any action
potentially harmful to the environment must be avoided unless proven safe,
is particularly relevant here. If the government’s reclassification and the
development project are shown to be in the public interest, with long-term
benefits outweighing the environmental costs, and if they were made
following proper procedures, the actions could be deemed valid.
10. In conclusion, the reclassification of the area from CRZ-IA to CRZ-IIIB is
legally valid, therefore, the government’s act of reclassification is justified
and should be upheld.

14
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors
15
Sustainable development Commission
16
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa and Ors.

14. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
13 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

It is humbly submitted that,
3. WHETHER THE APPROVAL OF THE SEZ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS VALID?

1. It is humbly submitted that, the approval of the SEZ Construction Project
is valid. The SEZ project received approval despite concerns regarding its
potential impact on the local ecosystem, particularly the Olive Ridley
Turtles, which are known to use the region for nesting. The WWF report
highlights that the construction activities may disrupt the natural breeding
and nesting patterns of these endangered species i.e. Olive Ridley Turtles.
However, it is essential to note that the project also aims to boost economic
development, create jobs, and enhance infrastructure, which are critical
considerations for the government.
2. Olive Ridley Turtles are defined under PART – C sub section Reptiles of
the The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
17
The Olive Ridley Sea Turtle
(Lepidochelys olivacea), also known commonly as the Pacific ridley sea
turtle, is a species of turtle in the family Cheloniidae. The species is the
second-smallest and most abundant of all sea turtles found in the world. L.
olivacea is found in warm and tropical waters, primarily in the Pacific and
Indian Oceans, but also in the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
3. It is a well-established fact that Olive ridley sea turtles migrate in huge
numbers from the beginning of November, every year, for mating and
nesting
18
. These turtles spend their entire lives in the ocean, and migrate
thousands of kilometres between feeding and mating grounds in the course
of a year.
19

4. Through a detailed analysis it can clearly be inferred that during the
breeding season Olive Ridley Turtles tend to be displace from their original

17
The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
18
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Wikipedia)
19
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (WWF Report)

15. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
14 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

habitat. This migration is indeed unusual but it is their nature to migrate
during the breeding season.
5. The habit of Olive Ridley Sea Turtles is widespread and not confined to a
particular locality. They migrate from their breeding grounds which may
be separated by several thousand km. The available data indicates that the
Orissa coast is the most after sought breeding grounds for Olive Ridley Sea
Turtles in the world and Tamil Nadu Coast forms part of the migratory
corridor from Srilanka to Orissa. Olive Ridley Sea Turtles prefer a site as
their nesting habitat which should be relatively undisturbed and away from
human intervention.
6. Thus it is clear that the Olive Ridley Sea Turtle species is not endemic and
it is not an endangered species and confined only to Sathurangapattinam
of Tamil Nadu Coast. The site chosen for establishing the Port will not
result in any serious threat to the survival of the turtle as a species as the
Olive Ridley Sea Turtles are known to migrate periodically over large
distances across oceans..
20

7. In the same judgement it was held that We are unable to convince ourselves
that the construction of the port at the proposed site will result in serious
threat to the survival of the turtle as a species though what may happen is
the shifting of the turtle from the areas to other more favourable nesting
beaches and sites particularly because the turtle is known for migrating
periodically over large distances across the oceans.
8. It is evident from the facts that WWF reports contend the approval of the
SEZ construction project liable for the displacement of the turtles but the
there is no such interference of the Construction Project with the oceanic
habitat of the area.

20
A. Iyappan vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority and Ors.

16. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
15 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

9. The validity of the SEZ project's approval hinges on whether the
environmental assessments adequately considered the impact on the Olive
Ridley Turtles and whether the project complies with the relevant
environmental laws. The principle of sustainable development allows for
development projects to proceed, provided they do not cause irreversible
damage to the environment. In this context, the Court must determine
whether the displacement of the turtles during their breeding season
constitutes such damage.
10. This project under the government scheme will play a crucial role in the
sustainable development of the area due to which the approval of the
project must be deemed valid.

17. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
16 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

It is humbly submitted that,
4. CAN LIABILITY BE IMPOSED ON THE RESPONDENTS, AND CAN THEY BE
ORDERED TO DEMOLISH THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING?
1. It is humbly submitted by the respondents that that the Keshto community's
displacement, while regrettable, is not grounds for imposing liability for
demolition.
2. The respondents humbly submit that their actions comply with statutory and
constitutional obligations, and the comparison to the Maradu Demolition
Order is misplaced.
3. The respondents submit that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees
the right to life, including the right to livelihood, has not been violated. The
displacement was a consequence of the legally sanctioned SEZ project, which
was duly reclassified from CRZ-IA to CRZ-IIIB. The respondents rely on
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) to underscore the
importance of livelihood, and in this context, they will be indeed liable for
rehabilitation and compensation measures as mandated by the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894
21
, and subsequent amendments.
4. The petitioners’ invocation of the Maradu Demolition Order
22
is respectfully
challenged. The Maradu case involved unauthorized residential construction
in a CRZ zone, whereas the present case involves an industrial project with
significant public interest in sustainable development. The respondents draw
the Court’s attention to the principle of sustainable development upheld in
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) and argue that this
principle supports the continuation of the SEZ project as it promotes public
welfare and sustainable development.
5. The displacement of the Keshto community is acknowledged by the
respondents, but it is submitted that this displacement was necessary for the

21
Land Acquisition Act 1894
22
The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority Vs. The State of Kerala Maradu Municipality and Ors.

18. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
17 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

larger public interest served by the SEZ project. Rehabilitation efforts are in
place, consistent with the precedents set in Narmada Bachao Andolan v.
Union of India (2000), where the Court balanced development needs with the
rights of displaced communities.
6. The respondents further submit that the SEZ project, reclassified to CRZ-IIIB,
is fundamentally different from the Maradu case. The reclassification was
conducted in accordance with legal procedures and serves the public interest
constructing an industrial park which will be further given to the companies
that produce sustainable energy sources. The respondents argue that projects
with significant public interest should not be treated the same as residential
constructions.
7. The respondents respectfully submit that while they are responsible for
ensuring the rehabilitation of the displaced Keshto community, the demand
for demolition is legally and factually baseless. The Maradu case, which
involved illegal residential buildings, cannot be equated with the instant SEZ
project, which underwent a legal reclassification process and contributes to
sustainable development.
8. The respondents also highlight that this SEZ project’s focus on renewable
energy production aligns with sustainable developmental goals, and its
demolition would contradict the objectives of promoting green energy and
economic growth.
9. The respondents submit that international and national reports on sustainable
development, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
23
,
support the continuation of projects like the SEZ. These reports emphasize
the importance of balancing environmental protection with economic
development.
10. The respondents rely on *Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation*
(1985) and *Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India* (2000) to support

23
Agenda 21 Report, Earth Summit Rio De Janeiro

19. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
18 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

their argument that while displacement must be managed through proper
rehabilitation, it does not automatically warrant the demolition of the project.
The cases establish the importance of balancing individual rights with broader
public interests.
11. The respondents acknowledge the significance of the *Maradu Demolition
Case* (2019) but respectfully submit that it does not apply here. The Court’s
decision in supports the argument that projects serving a significant public
interest, especially those aligned with sustainable development, should be
treated differently from purely residential developments.
12. In conclusion, the respondents submit that while they acknowledge their
responsibility for the displacement of the Keshto community, this does not
justify the demolition of the SEZ project. The project, reclassified to CRZ-
IIIB, serves a significant public interest by promoting sustainable energy. The
respondents request the Court to recognize the differences between the
present case and the Maradu case and to allow the project to continue in the
interest of sustainable development and economic growth.

20. LLS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
19 | P a g e M e m o r i a l f o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t

PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES, AND
ARGUMENTS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE RESPONDENTS HUMBLY
PRAY THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
DECLARE THAT THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND DISMISS THE SAID
PETITION;
GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS
FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL, AS IN
DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.



Sd/-

Counsel for the Respondent