TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................3
STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION................................................................................5
STATEMENTS OF FACTS.............................................................................................6
STATEMENTS OF ISSUES...........................................................................................10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.....................................................................................11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.........................................................................................12
I. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE
AGAINST UNION OF ESSOS AND WINES OF WINTERFELL..........................14
II.
PRAYER......................................................................................................................16
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
PAGE No. 1
ABBREVIATION
DEFINITION
Para
Paras
AIR
Art.
Article
CTAS
EIHS
ENR
FRs
Fundamental Rights
Honble
Honorable
i.e.
That is
Ors.
Others
p.
Page
pp.
Pages
Pt
Part
PIL
r/w
Read with
SC
Supreme Court
SCC
Sec.
Section
u/a
Under Article
Vs.
Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE No. 2
DESCRIPTION
Supreme Court of India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Guidelines,
(Feb. 19, 2016; 11:17 p.m.)
<http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/circular/guidelines/pilguidelines.pdf
>
PAGE No.
10
2.
3.
STATUTE INVOLVED
S. No.
1.
STATUTE/LEGISLATION
PAGE No.
S. No.
WEBSITES
PAGE No.
1.
www,google.com
2.
www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
3.
www.rbi.org.in
4.
www.india.gov.in
www.finmin.nic.in
2.
3.
WEBSITES
TABLE OF CASES
PAGE No. 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
PAGE
No.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
PAGE No. 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
PAGE No. 5
2.
Wines of Winterfell valued at approx. ENR 850mn is one such large alcohol
manufacturer. Plenders Bride an economical whisky introduced by Wines of Winterfell in
2006 has become a popular brand because a very little amount of this whisky can induce a
pleasant high. Plenders Bride comes with a warning stating, The pleasure of Plenders
Bride can cause deleterious effects on your health still there was no adverse impact on its
sale.
3.
4.
The same fact was corroborated by The Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (CTAS),
a private institution composed of scientists of international eminence. However, CTAS
went a step ahead and conducted a study of a number of alcohol brands to find out the
real cause for Renal Calculus. After six months they arrived at a conclusion and blamed
Plenders Bride whisky for the same. Their report claims that Plenders Bride contains
traces of oxides, supposedly of metals from the network of pipes use by the distillery.
5.
On the basis of this report, various patients of Renal Calculus filed civil suits in different
courts of Essos as per their jurisdiction asking for damages. In some of the cases, the
court awarded compensation while other cases were decided in favour of Wines of
Winterfell. The treatment and rehabilitation of patients of Renal Calculus costs
approximately ENR 85,000.
6.
A public spirited lawyer who has experience in mass tort litigation against business
enterprises has filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Honble Supreme Court of
Essos in an attempt to bring all the matters sub-judice before different subordinate courts.
PAGE No. 6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
THE RESPONDENTS RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF
ESSOS, FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
ISSUE I:
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
PAGE No. 7
ISSUE II:
ISSUE III:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE
AGAINST UNION OF ESSOS AND WINES OF WINTERFELL.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that, this petition filed by petitioner was
wrongly admitted and is not maintainable as per the guidelines of the Honble Court.
PAGE No. 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE
AGAINST UNION OF ESSOS AND WINES OF WINTERFELL.
VIOLATIVE OF GUIDELINES ISSUED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT
PAGE No. 9
PAGE No. 10
The respondents humbly submit that the subordinate courts are competent enough to
adjudicate this particular case. Alternative remedy is barred unless there was complete lack of
jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take action impugned 2, however, the existence of the
subordinate courts, questions the maintainability of the writ petition filed. It was held by this
Honble Apex Court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs. Jainson Hosiery3 where there is
alternative statutory remedy available 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.
NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BY THE STATE
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that Public Interest Litigation can be filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 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., as
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.4
The respondent submits that this Court in the case of Romesh Thapar vs. Union of India5,
held that only if there is a violation of Fundamental Rights can it step under the Jurisdiction
of Article 32. In the present case, there has been no violation of the Fundamental Rights as
such and of all the rights guaranteed under the Part III of the Constitution, Article 21 i.e.,
Right to life and personal liberty has been given widest scope but the same is unavailable in
cases involving infringement of the same right by a private party.
This court in Vidya Sharma vs. Shiv Narain Verma6 commented that, that the fundamental
rights are available only against the State; a person whose right to personal liberty is
2 A.V. Venkateshwaran vs. R.S.Wadhwani AIR 1961 SC 1906.
3 Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs. Jainson Hosiery AIR 1979 SC 1889.
4 Andhra Industrial Works vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1539 10;
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee vs. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546
50; BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
PAGE No. 11
Thus, the report of CTAS, which is a non-government institution and hence there is no
credibility of its findings
6 Vidya Sharma vs. Shiv Narain Verma AIR 1956 SC 108: (1955) 2 SCR 983.
PAGE No. 12
PAGE No. 13
PRAYER
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities cited, the
counsel for the Respondents humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
1. To hold that the petition filed before the Honble Court was wrongly admitted and is not
maintainable and dismiss the same.
2. In the alternative declare and adjudge:
AND/OR
Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of Justice,
Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For this Act of Kindness, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall forever pray.
PAGE No. 14
PAGE No. 15