IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MODERN SCHOOL
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES..................................................................PETITIONER

VS.
UNION OF INDIA................................................RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ON SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................4

□ LEGISLATION

□ CASES REFERRED

□ BOOKS REFERRED

□ LAW LEXICON AND DICTIONARIES

□ LEGAL DATABASES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................7

STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................8

ISSUES RAISED................................................................................................................10

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.........................................................................................11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED............................................................................................12

PRAYER.............................................................................................................................19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 2

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION

1. The Constitution of India, 1951

2. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

CASES REFERRED

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI, AIR 1986 SC 802
Federation of Delhi Bus Operators & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine Del
1707 : (2011) 180 DLT 283 (DB)
Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 514
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018, AIR 2017 SC 4161
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & another, AIR 1980 SC 1992
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
Mahabir Auto Store v. Indian Oil Corporation,1990 SCR (1) 818
Mahesh Chandra vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and Ors ( AIR 1993 SC 935)
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Air 1978 SC 597
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal CorporationAIR 1986 SC 180
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689
PUDR v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1473,
R. D. Shetty v Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628
Romesh Thapar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149
Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021.
T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. UOI, 2006 WP(C) No. 202 of 1995

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 3

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Dr. J.N. Pandey, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (51st ed. 2014).
2. Dr. S.C. Kashyap, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (1st ed., 2008).
3. M.P. Jain, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (7th ed., 2015).

LAW LEXICON AND DICTIONARIES

1. Bryan A. Garner, BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY, (2nd ed., 2004).

2. Justice R.P. Sethi, SUPREME COURT ON WORDS AND PHRASES, (2 nd ed., 2004).
3. Webster‟s UNIVERSAL DICTIONARY, (1st ed., 1993).

LEGAL DATABASES

1. www.indiancaselaws.org
2. www.indiankanoon.org
3. www.judic.nic.in
4. www.lexisnexis.com
5. www.scconline.co.in

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 4

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

HC High Court

Hon‟ble Honourable

Ors. Others

S.C.R. Supreme Court Report

SC Supreme Court Cases

SCC Supreme Court

UP Uttar Pradesh

V. Versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 5

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 1 of the
Constitution of India on the grounds of violation of Fundamental Rights by the Government
of India.

The petitioner most humbly submits before the jurisdiction of the present Court and accepts
that it has power and authority to preside over the present case.

1
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
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That Delhi, the sixth-most populated metropolis in the world, is one of the most heavily
polluted cities in India and the most polluted city in the world as per the World Health
Organization, in May 2014. The present environmental problems in Delhi, India, are a
threat to the well-being of the city's and area's inhabitants as well as the flora and fauna.
2. That the city suffers from air pollution caused by road dust and industry, with
comparatively smaller contributions from unclean engines in transportation, especially
diesel-powered city buses and trucks, and two-wheelers and three-wheelers with two-
stroke engines. Besides human and environmental damage, pollution has caused
economic damage as well.
3. That on April 8, 2015, the Delhi Green Tribunal (DGT) issued a fresh ban on all diesel
buses and trucks more than 5 years old from plying in the National Capital Region. On
the next day, the Delhi government came up with a unique order of the era whereby the
vehicles with odd and even registration numbers will be allowed on alternate days from
January 01, 2016. It also passed an order to requisition school buses to ply as
commercial, public buses after school had ended in order to encourage the commuters
of Delhi to take public transport rather than rely solely on their private vehicles.
4. That the Modern School of Environmental Studies, Delhi was plying school buses
running on diesel purchased in 2005 for school purposes, and coincidently, all the buses
were of the odd number series. The school not being the sole victim of the ban got the
support of all the private schools of Delhi.
5. That the Action Committee for Unaided Recognized Private Schools, Delhi aggrieved
by the orders of DGT and the Delhi government, has filed a Writ petition in the
Supreme Court against the DGT ban and the Odd-Even formula order of Delhi
government on the following grounds:

 That taking the schools' own buses is in violation of Education Act which stipulates
that school's assets cannot be put to commercial use. Such an act amounts to violation
of basic principles and provisions of DSEAR (Delhi School Education Act and Rules)
1973.
 That the insurance of school buses stipulates use of buses for students only. The
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 7
 school buses are not permitted to be used for general public nor should the school
buses be used for hire.
 That the road tax exemption also stipulates the buses shall not be used for any
commercial purposes.
 That the order of DGT was also substitutive of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act
which prescribed a fitness test, and not the vehicle‟s age, to ascertain whether it
should be allowed to ply or not.
 That it is further contended that such a ban is completely arbitrary, and raised the
argument that it is not the College who is responsible for making Delhi a gas chamber.

6. That a Public Interest Litigation was also filed before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi
by a group of public-spirited individuals. It has been contended that the Odd-Even
formula did affect the private individuals, especially those who have to commute to
work and also persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups who rely on their
personal means of transport to get by.
7. That the individuals approached the court to issue a writ that would restrain the Delhi
government from implementing the Odd-Even rule on private vehicles and cars in
Delhi.
8. That both the petitions have been clubbed together and placed to be heard by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 8

 STAEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE COURT HAS REQUISITE JURISDICTION TO MAINTAIN THIS

PETITION?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE D BAN BY THE NGT AND THE ODD-EVEN SCHEME VIOLATES
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF DELHI?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE BAN IMPOSED IS ARBITRARY IN NATURE?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 9

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE COURT HAS REQUISITE JURISDICTION TO MAINTAIN THIS

PETITION?
The writ petition is maintainable under Article 32 as there has been a violation of
fundamental rights of the public at large.

II. WHETHER THE D BAN BY THE NGT AND THE ODD-EVEN SCHEME
VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF DELHI?
It is humbly stated before the Hon‟ble Court that the very basic Fundamental Rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of India have been infringed by the orders of the Delhi
Green Tribunal and the Government of Delhi.

III. WHETHER THE BAN IMPOSED IS ARBITRARY IN NATURE?

The Odd- Even Scheme by the Delhi government and the ban on the diesel buses and trucks
older than 5 years is an arbitrary and unconstitutional decision of the Delhi Green Tribunal. It
is violative of the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which tests the vehicle on its
fitness and not age.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 10

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.WHETHER THE COURT HAS REQUISITE JURISDICTION TO MAINTAIN THIS

PETITION?

1.1 POWER UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1. The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution.

2. The sole objective of Art. 32 is the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of India. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked in any case of
violation of a fundamental right guaranteed by part III of the Constitution of India as has been
observed in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India2 amongst the many others. The
constitution makers conferred on the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the speedy
enforcement of fundamental rights and made the right to approach the Supreme Court for such
enforcement itself a fundamental right.3

3. The Fundamental Rights provided in the Indian Constitution are guaranteed against any executive
and legislative actions. Any executive or legislative action, which infringes upon the Fundamental
Rights of any person or any group of persons, can be declared as void by the Courts under Article 14
of the Constitution.
4. Dr Ambedkar stated that: “If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most
important- an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity— I could not refer to any
other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it and I am
glad that the House has realized its importance.”
5. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution. In this case, In the eyes of law, all persons within the territory of our country should be
treated equally. Equality before Law basically means that all persons should be treated equally no
matter whether they are poor or rich, male or female, upper caste or lower caste. This state
cannot provide any special privileges to anyone in the country.

2
AIR 1951 SC 41
3
Durga Das Basu, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3711 (8rd Ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
2008).
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 11
 6. Hence the petitioner is justified in challenging the authority of the Central Government and filing a
writ petition for the same under Art. 32.

1.2 MAINTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

7. The petitioner most humbly submits that then the PIL filed by the Modern School of Environmental
Studies (hereinafter called as 'petitioner") is maintainable. Ordinarily, the PIL may be entertained on
any subject of vital public importance including when in a case of Petitioners complaining violation of
human rights4, under Art. under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The petition is maintainable on the
grounds that; Firstly the right to equality under Art. 14, right to freedom of movement and trade and
profession under Art. 19 and the right to livelihood and personal liberty under Art.21 has been grossly
violated by the 'odd- even Policy' (hereafter referred to as the 'policy"), and Lastly, the alternate
remedies need not be exhausted.

8. Firstly, the policy by allowing the use of vehicles odd no vehicle one day and even no vehicle another
day, restricts the freedom to trade without any proper cause or reasonableness Restriction placed by
any act on free movement is a writ on its face5. It further infringes upon their freedom to trade and
profession as the profession as the restriction affects restriction affects their day to their day to day
work and business. Secondly, the policy has also led to deprivation of livelihood for a lot of
businessmen and commoners by restraining their mode of transportation.

9. Lastly, any law which does not pass the Test of Reasonable Classification6 is said to be breaching the
equality principle under Art.14. The emancipatory doctrine of 'Manifes *Manifest Arbitrariness,' tests
unreasonable State action on the anvil on being palpably or manifestly arbitrary so as to violate Article
147. The 'policy' fails the twin test as well as the test of manifest arbitrariness by exempting only
certain sections of the population from the policy.

10. It is to be noted that a petitioner has sufficient standing to file a writ petition, if his fundamental right
is infringed." Justice P. N. Bhagwati in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India8 articulated the concept of PIL as
follows, "any member of public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ
in the High Court under Article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental rights of such persons or
determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong
or legal injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons."

11. Therefore, since any member of the public or organization may bring it for judicial scrutiny*, the
petitioner has the standing to file the petition.

12. It was made clear in Janata Dal v H.S. Chaudhary9that only a person 'acting bona fide and "having
sufficient public interest' in the proceeding of public interest litigation will have alone the locus standi
but not a person for personal gain or political motive or any oblique consideration. It is respectfully
submitted that the Petitioner has no personal interest, individual gain, private motive or oblique
reasons in filing this writ petition. It is not guided for gain of any other individual person, institution
4
Maintainability of public interest litigation,2010
55
“The freedom of trade and commerce in the indian constitution”
66
Dr.Saurabh Choudhary & ors vs. Union Of India,AIR 2004 SC 2212
77
E.P.Royappa v. state of tamil nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3
88
AIR 1962 SC 149
99
AIR 1993 SC 892,64
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 12
 or body.

13. In the present case, there is no alternative efficacious remedy available in terms of the prayers sought
in this writ petition and thus, there is no requirement approach any Government authority for the
reliefs sought herein. Moreover, this Hon'ble Court has on multiple occasions expressly rejected an
argument that called for exhaustion of local remedies1010. It has been held that availability of an
alternative remedy is one of such considerations which the Supreme Court may take into account to
refuse to exercise its jurisdiction, but this principle does not apply to the enforcement Fundamental
Rights either under Article 32 or under 226 of the Constitution1111.

Hence, it is humbly submitted that since there has been a violation of the fundamental rights, the Court
has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
bought as a Public Interest Litigation.

1010
Kharak Singh vs. state of uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295,Ramesh thappar vs. state of madras,AIR 1950 SC 124
1111
P.V. SURENDER BABU VS. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, 1998 (5) ALD 549, 1998 (5) ALT 640
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 13
 2. WHETHER THE D BAN BY THE NGT AND THE ODD-EVEN SCHEME VIOLATES
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF DELHI?

It is humbly stated before the Hon’ble Court that the very basic Fundamental Rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of India have been infringed by the orders of the Delhi Green
Tribunal and the Government of Delhi.
1. The Petitioner in the present matter is also challenging the validity of Odd-Even
Scheme of Govt of NCT of Delhi as it is arbitrary, irritational, unconstitutional, abuse
of power, contrary to statutory provision Section 115(Power to restrict the use of
vehicle) Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (59 of 1988) and contrary to the fundamental rights –
equality before Law and equal protection of law (Article 14 of the Constitution of
India), prohibition of discrimination (Article 15 of the Constitution of India), all
citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation,
trade or business and to move freely throughout the territory of India (Article 19[1][g]
& 19[1][d]of the Constitution of India) equal opportunity in public employment, right
to establish educational institution, right to know etc. guaranteed under Articles 14, 15,
19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner submits that the jurisdiction of Art 14 extends to the prevention of
arbitrary and unreasonable actions of the State, which are “antithetical”12 to the rule of
equality. The principles of Indian Law have thrown open the gates of Executive action
to Judicial Scrutiny Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees the equal protection of
laws. Historically, the courts have held that this guarantee requires all laws to confirm
to a “reasonable classification” standard: that is, there must exist an “intelligible
differentia” (between what the law covers and what it doesn‟t), and that this differentia
must bear a “rational nexus” with a legitimate State purpose. This, however, is a
standard that accords great deference to State action, and is often insufficient to capture
the full range of inequalities and disadvantages that exist in society.
It is humbly submitted that right to freedom of profession and occupation under Art. 19
(1) (g) includes the right to discontinue the profession or occupation. Odd Even Vehicle
Scheme violates Fundamental Rights of residents of Delhi and adjoining states
residents who daily commute in/out of Delhi in their four wheeled vehicles (motor cars
etc.) to do their jobs/business to earn their livelihood and is ultra vires Article 19(1)(g)
of the Constitution of India.

12
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board –II v. Prof. MV Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 14

 3. Buses are the main bridge through which children used to get the education. . Thus, the
submission of the petitioner herein that the said scheme is vague and impractical apart
from being an utter blatant and willful violation of Article 14,19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
4. Freedom of movement guaranteed by clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution in
addition to the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Citizens have to be
provided access to roads and public highways which access is necessary for proper
exercise of right to life. A restriction on the freedom of movement of citizens is prima
facie suspect, but said right is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable restriction
contemplated under clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
5. Firstly, the scheme implemented by the govt. of NCT deprives people's right of personal liberty.
It means the scheme violates Art.21 of the Constitution. Art.21 Sates as "No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by the law.
6. Prior to Meneka Gandhi V. Union of India1313 case, the scope of Art.21 was very limited. It
would protect the citizens only from the arbitrary action of the executive. Now, Art.21 protects
the right to life and personal liberty of citizen not only from Executive action but from the
legislative action also.
7. In Meneka Gandhi case the Supreme Court has widened the scope of the words 'personal liberty'
considerably. Bhagwati J. observed: "The expression 'personal liberty' in Art.21 is of widest
amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and
some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional
protection under Art. 19."
8. Thus, Art.21 requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a person is deprived of
his/her life and personal liberty; There must be a valid law. The law must provide a procedure.
The procedure must be just, fair and reasonable. The law must satisfy the requirements of Art. 14
and 19 i,e,, it must be reasonable.
9. When a law made then it must pass through the test of constitution. If it is inconsistent with the
provisions of the constitution, then the Supreme court shall declare it unconstitutional.
10. In the present case, the scheme violated the fundamental rights of the people at large. It is at the
liberty of people which mode of transport they would use. But their liberty is taken away here
which clearly violates Art.21 of the constitution.
11. Now about the scheme, the scheme is totally unfair and unreasonable. It is good that Govt. of
NCT Delhi has thought about curbing the air pollution but the scheme is very inefficient. It was

1313
AIR 1978 SC 597
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 15
 very carelessly made. In NCT, there are many areas even now where proper public transport is
not available.
12. The scheme also violated right to equality as mentioned under Art. 14 of the constitution. The
most affected people from this scheme are middle class and lower middle-class families. They
have only one car for their whole family and even having one car for the whole family they
cannot use it as per their wish. Now if there any emergency arises in their house then also their
liberty to use their own car has been limited within those prescribed days with respective of their
car's number.
13. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation1414, popularly known as the 'pavement dwellers
case a five Judges Bench of the court has finally ruled that the word 'life' in Art.21 includes the
'right to livelihood': "that is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that
right is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood. If the
right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest ways to
depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood.

1414
1986 SC 180: (1985) 3 SCC 545
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 16
 3. WHETHER THE BAN IMPOSED IS ARBITRARY IN NATURE?
1. The Odd- Even Scheme by the Delhi government and the ban on the diesel buses and trucks
older than 5 years is an arbitrary and unconstitutional decision of the Delhi Green Tribunal. It
is violative of the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which tests the vehicle on its
fitness and not age.
2. The Section 115 of Motor Vehicles Act reads-

115. Power to restrict the use of vehicles.—The State Government or any authority
authorized in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the
interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge,
may by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions
and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of
any specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally
in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is
imposed.
3. In the case of Federation of Delhi Bus Operators & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi &
Ors.16, by the ruling, literal and mischief rule of interpretation and understanding the
analogy of numbering of class species in various it crystal clear that the driving of
motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles in no way
whatsoever can bring Odd Even in the ambit of Class and Hence the Odd Even
Notice of Govt of NCT of Delhi is arbitrary, irritational, unconstitutional, abuse of
power, contrary to statutory provision Section 115 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (59 of
1988). The Odd- Even Scheme was hence in violation to the provisions of the MV
Act.

4. Also it has been contended that the diesel ban by the DGT is ultra vires the expressed
provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, expresses a
provision for the fitness of the vehicles under Sec 59 under which the vehicles are tested
upon their mechanical attributes like brake power, fumes emission, pollutants emitted etc.
but nowhere on the age of the vehicles. The diesel ban imposed on the basis of age of the
said vehicles is not within the sphere of the fitness test as provided by the Motor Vehicles
Act. An authority has to act properly for the purpose for which the power is conferred. He

16
2011 SCC OnLine Del 1707 : (2011) 180 DLT 283 (DB)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 17

 must take a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the statutes. He
must not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. Any such illegal, irrational
or arbitrary action or decision, whether in the nature of legislative, administrative or quasi-
judicial exercise of power is liable to be quashed being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.

4. The petitioners also contend that the Odd-Even Scheme is an abuse of powers by the
State Government of Delhi in the name of pollution control. The impugned scheme
does not fulfil the test of reasonableness. And what is unreasonable is arbitrary. An
arbitrary action is ultra vires. It does not become bona fide and in good faith merely
because no personal gain or benefit to the person exercising discretion should be
established.17

5. An action is mala fide if it is contrary to the purpose for which it was authorised to be
exercised. It has been contended that the scheme of Odd-Even is nowhere effective in
controlling the pollution when it is specifically directed to private vehicles and the
public transport vehicles like the auto-rickshaws and taxis continue to ply a emit
pollutants everyday without a hurdle.

6. That, in legislations enacted for general benefit and common good the responsibility is
far graver. It demands purposeful approach. The exercise of discretion should be
objective. Test of reasonableness is stricter. The public functionaries should be duty
conscious rather than power charged. Its actions and decisions which touch the
common man have to be tested on the touchstone of fairness and justice. That act
which is not fair and just is unreasonable. Dishonesty in discharge of duty vitiates the
action without anything more. An action is bad even without proof of motive of
dishonesty, if the authority is found to have acted contrary to reason.18

17
Mahesh Chandra vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and Ors ( AIR 1993 SC 935)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 18
18
Ibid.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 19

 PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO
DECLARE THAT:

A. THE PRESENT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

B. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO

LAUNCH A SCHEME LIKE THE ODD-EVEN RULE OR THE
DIESEL BAN

C. THE BAN IMPOSED IS ARBITRARY IN NATURE.

AND/OR

PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON„BLE COURT MAY

DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND
GOOD CONSCIENCE.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER AS IN
DUTY BOUND
SHALL EVER PRAY.

(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 20