SYNOPSIS

The present Writ Petition is being filled by the Petitioners

assailing the unconstitutional act of the Respondent in

passing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Herein

after referred as Impugned Act). The Impugned Act in

question has raised serious doubts over the intentions of

the government in adhering to the constitution of India or

to say it clearly showcases the misunderstanding of the

respondent by passing the impugned Act by overshadowing

the mandate of the Article 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution

of India.

Over the years, since the constitution has been written

and adopted in the country, it has been time and again

established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Constitution

stands above every and all actions of any form of

government and also that the preamble cannot be

overridden by any Act of the parliament. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has also established that there cannot be

any action violating the basic principles adopted in the

preamble of the Constitution.

The present Impugned Act in question, that is the

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has raised various

controversies all over the country as the Act stands to be

anti- muslim community and anti- minority even on the

face of it. The Act has made a clear exclusion of

muslimscommunity in regards to the government policy of

giving citizenship to the migrants and refugees.

The Citizenship Act, 1955 believed in citizenship

as a unifying idea. Itshared identity is at the core of

citizenship and has been at the core since the time the

constitution was enacted in India. The Act has set

guidelines for providing citizenship to the migrants who

have migrated to India and there are further regulations for

the illegal migrants and includes all aspect of the law in

detail. The entire purpose of this Impugned Act is to

oppress a particular caste, that is muslim community. The

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 provides the provisions

for giving Indian citizenship to the six minority communities

from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. These six

communities are - Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian

and Sikhs. This Act has exclusively excluded the Muslims

community which is entirely against the spirit of the

constitution and it is against the mandate of Article 15.

Constitution of India enshrines Fundamental rights

which cannot be violated by anybody, not even the

government, except for the exceptions given in the

Constitution itself. The importance of Fundamental rights

has been time and again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and no action stands to be valid when any

fundamental right of anyone is in danger. Article 14 of the

Constitution of India has given a right to equality to all the

people, which means that there should be no discrimination

based on caste, creed, religion or any other form. This bill

by specifically excluding muslims community from the

category of citizenship has violated that very Fundamental

right. This exclusion cannot be merely seen as an exclusion

from a bill or exclusion to a small privilege, it has to be

seen and interpreted as an act of the respondent against

the very spirit of the Constitution, which has to stand tall in

every circumstance and no government or law made by any

government is above the Constitution.

The preamble of the constitution is the basic structure

of the constitution and cannot be overridden by any act of

the parliament. The preamble of the Constitution

establishes India as a secular state, which means that

every religion in India would be treated with same respect

and that the Constitution of India recognizes and gives

same rights to every person following any religion. Any Act

against the basic principles given by the preamble is not

valid and hence, unconstitutional. Theprovisions of the

Impugned Act infringes the very concept of the secularism

as laid down in the constitution and it is violative of the

Basic structure theory as pronounced by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in various judgments

held that the Fundamental Rights is a right given to the

citizens as well as the foreigners who resides in India or are

currently in India. Therefore, the contention of the

respondent that the fundamental right is not a right given

to the foreigners under the Constitution and therefore the

Act excluding the muslims community explicitly is not

unconstitutional as it does not talk about the muslim

citizens of the country, is entirely wrong.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

KesavanandaBharatiSripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of

Kerala and Anr, (1973) 4 SCC 225 outlined the basic

structure doctrine of the constitution. The 13-judge

Constitution bench of the Supreme Court deliberated on the

limitations, if any, of the powers of the elected

representatives of the people and the nature of

fundamental rights of an individual. In a sharply divided

verdict, by a margin of 7-6, the court held that while the

Parliament has "wide" powers, it did not have the power to

destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental

features of the constitution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. R.

Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, while

discussing the concept of secularism, held:-

 “146. These provisions by implication

prohibit the establishment of a theocratic

State and prevent the State either

identifying itself with or favouring any

particular religion or religious sect or

denomination. The State is enjoined to

accord equal treatment to all religions

and religious sects and denominations.”

“Secularism is a part of the basic

structure of the Constitution. The acts of

a State Government which are calculated

to subvert or sabotage secularism as

enshrined in our Constitution, can lawfully

be deemed to give rise to a situation in

which the Government of the State

cannot be carried on in accordance with

the provisions of the Constitution.”

The Act has been passed by the government with a

sheer motive of discriminating against the muslim

community with respect to the citizenship given to the

migrants or refugees and it is entirely unconstitutional as it

is against Article 14 of the Constitution of India and

therefore, should be held unconstitutional.

 LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

1955 The Citizenship Act of 1955 was enacted with

the provisions regulating citizenship for the

migrants who have come to India.

2016 The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill was

presented in the LokSabha, but could not be

presented in the RajyaSabha.

09.12.2019 The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill was

presented in the LokSabha and passed with

a majority of 311 to 80 on 09.12.2019.

11.12.2019 The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill was

presented in the RajyaSabha and passed

with a majority of

.12.2019 The President of India signed the bill on

Hence the present Writ Petition

 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

(ORDER XXXVIII, S.C.R, 2013)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019

[A Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

read with order XXXVIII, Rules 1 & 2 of Supreme Court
Rules, 2013]

IN THE MATTER OF:

EHTESHAM HASHMI & ORS …PETITIONERS

Vs

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

[PAPER BOOK]

[For Index: Kindly See Inside]

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: AKBAR SIDDIQUE

 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

(ORDER XXXVIII, S.C.R, 2013)

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

EHTESHAM HASHMI & ORS …PETITIONERS

Vs

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

AND IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. EhteshamHashmi S/o

M. S. Hashmi R/o A-

28, Jangpura B, New

Delhi-110013

2. Ziya Us Salam

3. Muneeb Ahmed Khan S/o

Masroor Ahmed Khan

R/o ShareefManzil, Ballimaran

Delhi-110006
 4. Appurva Jain

D/o Subodh Kumar Jain

th
5 Year Law Student

R/o A-107, Shehnai- 2 Residency,

Indore, Madhya Pradesh- 452016

5. AdeelTalib

S/o TanvirTalib

R/o AizazManzil, Thakur Dwara

Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh- 250609 …PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1) Union Of India

Ministry of Law & Justice

Through Secretary

4th Floor, A- Wing, ShastriBhawan

New Delhi- 110001 …RESPONDENT

AND IN THE MATTER OF:-

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING A WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DECLARING “THE CITIZENSHIP
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019” AS ILLEGAL,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 14, ARTICLE 15, & 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, AND TO PASS SUCH
FURTHER ODERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM
APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT LIFE, PERSONAL LIBERTY
AND DIGNITY OF THE MUSLIM MEN.

To,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. This is a writ petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India praying for a writ or order or

direction seeking a writ or order or direction in the

nature of mandamus declaring the entire Citizenship

(Amendment) Act, 2019 as illegal, unconstitutional for

being violative of Articles 14 of the constitution of

India, and to pass such further orders as this Hon’ble

Court may deem appropriate to protect life, personal

liberty and dignity of the muslimcommunity. This

petition is filed by the petitioners in their individual

capacity.

2. The present Writ Petition is being filled by the

Petitioners, wherein Petitioner No. 1 is a lawyer

practising in the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High

Court and various other courts and is well versed with

the law of the country. The petitioner No. 1 has been

involved with social work and legal aid societies in the

past and understands his moral duty towards the

citizens of this country. Petitioner No. 2 is a veteran

Journalist, associated with The Hindu for the last 20

years. He is now the designated Associate Editor also

he is an author and an activist. Petitioner No. 3

belongs from the family of the illustrious Hakeems of

Delhi, the family has had several freedom fighters

rightfrom the first struggle of Independence in 1857 to

1947. The petitioner no. 3 is an activist and volunteer

th
for many social causes. Petitioner No. 4 is a 5 Year

Law student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida and

belongs to the Jain community and understands the

law, but also understands her morale duty of brining

the arbitrariness of the government to notice of this

Hon’ble Court. Petitioner No. 5 is a practicing advocate

in Delhi and belongs from the family of Nawabs of

Baghpat and his family has contributed immensely in

the freedom struggle before Independence of

India.The respondent in the present petition has

passed the Impugned Act, 2019 in the parliament. The

provisions of the Act are arbitrary and immensely

discriminating against Muslim community. The

provisions of the Act clearly make an exclusion of the

Muslim community in any sort of citizenship rights for

the migrants and refugees. Any discrimination against

 any person is against the Fundamental rights given

under the Constitution of India. It is humbly submitted

that it is the duty of the petitioner to bring to notice of

this Hon’ble Court the arbitrary and unconstitutional

provisions of the Act passed by the parliament with a

sheer intention of being anti- muslim and anti-

minority.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

1.1 That the present petition has been filed by the

petitioner against the respondent for completely

ignoring the constitution which is the basis for any

law made in the country and making a law which is

in hole arbitrary and biased and unconstitutional.

1.2 That the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was

passed by the LokSabha on 09.12.2019 by a

majority of 311 to 80 and was further presented in

the RajyaSabha, where the bill was passed on

11.12.2019 by a majority of ___ to ___. The

president gave his consent and signed the bill on

__.12.2019.

1.3 That the first citizenship act was passed in the year

1955 which laid down the provisions concerning the

policy of the government in giving citizenship to the

migrants who have come to India and have been

settled here for a particular time as laid down by

 the act. It included people of all the religion without

any bias and discrimination.

1.4 The Act in question has made a clear exclusion of the

muslims in any citizenship rights for the migrants

and refugees. The present Act in proviso to section

1 clearly states that any person belonging to Hindu,

Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community

from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan would not

be treated as illegal migrants under the Act, which

means that any person belonging to the Muslim

community who comes to India from these states

would be treated as Illegal migrants and this

categorisation is only excluding the Muslim

community from the citizenship rights for the

migrants. The copy of the Impugned Act is marked

and annexed as ANNEXURE- P/1.

1.5 That there has been no steps taken by the

government in changing the very controversial

provisions of the Act and cater to the demands of

the public.

2. That in order to prevent this government from going

against the Constitution and enacting the Act, the

Petitioner has no other alternative remedy except to

invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this

Hon’bleSupreme Court under Article 32 of the

 Constitution of India, on the following grounds

amongst other:

GROUNDS:

2.1 BECAUSE the provisions of the present Act in

question are against the basic structure theory as

pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The

preamble of the constitution has laid down the basic

structure for the constitution and overrides anything

and everything done in violation of the principles

laid down by the preamble. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court has laid down the basic structure theory,

which says that any law in violation of the basic

structure of the constitution is unconstitutional. The

very same preamble gives the principle of

secularism, which means that India is a secular

state. Secularism means that every religion is

respected and treated in the same way and the

people of every religion stays together without any

discrimination. The Act in question excludes only

the Muslim community from any citizenship rights

to the migrants, which is violative of the principle of

secularism as it is discriminative of one religious

community.

2.2 BECAUSE the constitution under Article 14 gives a

fundamental right of equality to its people. It states

that there will not be any discrimination on the

basis of caste, religion, creed, etc. Fundamental

right of any person given by the constitution cannot

be violated or infringed by other person or by any

government as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

at various occasions. The provisions of the Act

clearly set a platform for discrimination against the

muslim migrants in proviso to section 1 of the Act.

That the provisions of the Act are violative of the

right to equality given under the constitution as it

does not adhere to the condition set under the

article to treat every person equally, wherein, under

this Act there is a huge discrimination against the

Muslims. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

E P Royappavs State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 555in

1973 observed that “equality is a dynamic concept

with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be

cribbed, cabined and confined within the traditional

and doctrinaire limits. From the positivistic point of

view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact,

equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies…

where the act is arbitrary, it is implicit that it is

unequal both according to political logic and

constitutional law and is therefore violative of

Article 14.”
2.3 BECAUSE the fundamental rights are rights given to

the citizens of the country as well as the foreigners

under the constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

has established with the help of a judgment that the

fundamental rights are also the rights of the

foreigners and applies to any and every person who

is in India. That the contention of the government

that the fundamental rights are not given to the

foreigners and thus the provisions of the Act are

unconstitutional is entirely wrong. The provisions of

the Act apply to the migrants and as established by

the Supreme Court the fundamental rights are also

the rights of the foreigners and the provisions of the

bill violate the right to equality given under the

constitution, therefore, the provisions of the Act are

unconstitutional.

2.4 BECAUSE Articles 5 to 11 of the constitution give

details of various categories of persons who are

entitled to citizenship. Article 11 empowers

Parliament to regulate citizenship. But this power

given to the parliament does not mean that

Parliament through an ordinary law can destroy the

fundamental values or the basic structure of the

constitution. The religious basis of citizenship would

be a negation not only of secularism, but also of

 liberalism, equality and justice. This Act in whole

surpasses the entire preamble.

2.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

KesavanandaBharatiSripadagalvaru and Ors. v.

State of Kerala and Anr, (1973) 4 SCC 225 outlined

the basic structure doctrine of the constitution. The

13-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court

deliberated on the limitations, if any, of the powers

of the elected representatives of the people and the

nature of fundamental rights of an individual. In a

sharply divided verdict, by a margin of 7-6, the

court held that while the Parliament has "wide"

powers, it did not have the power to destroy or

emasculate the basic elements or fundamental

features of the constitution.

2.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. R.

Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, while

discussing the concept of secularism, held:-

“146. These provisions by implication prohibit the

establishment of a theocratic State and prevent the

State either identifying itself with or favouring any

particular religion or religious sect or denomination.

The State is enjoined to accord equal treatment to

all religions and religious sects and denominations.”

 “Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the

Constitution. The acts of a State Government which

are calculated to subvert or sabotage secularism as

enshrined in our Constitution, can lawfully be

deemed to give rise to a situation in which the

Government of the State cannot be carried on in

accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”

2.7 BECAUSE this Act has already attracted a lot of

criticism from all around the country and makes the

inhabitant of India and the muslim citizens of the

country fear the action of the ruling government.

This Act even before coming into action had created

a sense of fear amongst the Muslims community of

the country and a diverse country like ours where

hundreds of religions reside in one country does not

have any place for discrimination against one

particular community. For centuries India has been

a country of all religions and it should remain like

that without any fear for any community. This Act in

question is not unconstitutional but dangerous, as it

will surely damage India’s standing in the comity of

nations.

2.8 BECAUSE the Respondent cannot override the

constitution which has given them power in the first

 place and cannot ignore the precedence set by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2.9 BECAUSE many governments since the

Independence of India and since the time the

Constitution has been adopted and enacted have

worked long and hard and had played a major role

in the formation and betterment of our democracy.

That by bringing this act, the present governance is

dematerialising the development of our democracy.

2.10 BECAUSE India is a democracy and not an

autocracy that the government can work on its own

without looking out to the citizens of the country.

The democratic form of government makes it a duty

of the government to abide by its constitution and

no act can be validated by any justification if it is

against the very constitution of the country.

3. That the Petitioner is left with no other alternative

remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way

of filling this present Writ Petition under Articles 32 of

the Constitution of India.

4. That this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to

entertain the present petition, as this Hon’ble court

has extra ordinary power of judicial review of the acts

passed by the parliament.

 5. That the present Petitioner has not filed any other

petition in any High Court or the Supreme Court of

India on the subject matter of the present petition.

6. That the annexures attached with the present Petition

are true copies of their respective originals.

7. That the present Petition is being filed in the most

bona fide manner, as advised by law.

8. That the petitioner has not filed any other similar

petition before this Hon'ble Court or any other courts

for the similar relief.

9. That the petitioner will bear the costs of the petition if

this Hon’ble Court directs any imposition of costs in

this regard.

PRAYER:

In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances and

in the interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in

nature of mandamus declaring that “The

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019”

unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the

constitution of India and hence unconstitutional

and unenforceable or;

B. Pass any such further order or direction as this

Hon’ble Court may in the facts and circumstances

 deem fit against the respondents in the facts and

circumstances of the present case;

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL

EVER PRAY

Date

Place Through

AKBAR SIDDIQUE
Counsel for the Petitioner
C-15, BASEMENT, NIZAMUDDIN EAST
DELHI-110013, 981010736
 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

EHTESHAM HASHMI & ORS …PETITIONERS

Vs

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, EhteshamHashmi, S/o M.S. Hashmi, aged about 36

years, R/o A-28, Jangpura B, New Delhi-110013,do hereby

solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I am one of the petitioners in the above matter and I

am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances

of the case and competent to swear the present

affidavit.

2. I have read and understood the contents of the

accompanying writ petition Synopsis and List of Dates

from Page No. ___ to ____ and also the

accompanying writ petition (page No. ___ to ___)

which have been drafted under my instructions and I

say that the contents of the same are true and

correct.

3. I say that the contents of the petition are based

through the knowledge derived by various newspaper

and from personal sources of the petitioner.

4. I say that the Annexure P-1 annexed with the petition

is true and copy of its original.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at ________ on this day of , 2019 that

the contents of the para 1 to 9 of this affidavit are true to

correct to my knowledge and belief and nothing material

has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 INDEX
S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE
NO.
Court Fee
1.

2. Listing Performa

3. Cover Page of Paper Book

4. Index of Record of Proceedings

5. Limitation Report prepared by the

Registry
6. Synopsis & List of Dates

7. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) UNDER

ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ALONG
WITH AFFIDAVIT

8. Appendix
Article 14 of the Constitution of
India
ANNEXURE P-1
9.
The copy of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill, 2019

10. F/M

11. Vakalatnama
 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(ORDER XXXVIII, S.C.R, 2013)

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

EHTESHAM HASHMI & ORS …PETITIONERS

Vs

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

COURT FEES

Petitioner

Date

Place

EHTESHAM HASHMI C-15,

BASEMENT, NIZAMUDDIN EAST
DELHI-110013, 981010736
 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(ORDER XXXVIII, S.C.R, 2013)

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

EHTESHAM HASHMI & ORS …PETITIONERS

Vs

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR

STAY AND IN THE MATTER OF:

To,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH-

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners against

the respondent for passing the Citizenship

(Amendment) Act, 2019 which is entirely against the

 mandate of Article 14, 15 & 21 of Constitution of India

and therefore unconstitutional and illegal.

2. That the entire facts have already been stated in the

are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The

petitioners crave leave and permission of this

Hon'ble Court to refer and rely upon the same at the

time of hearing of the present application as well.

3. That the present Impugned Act should not be

implemented until the question of the constitutionality

of the Act is decided by this Hon’ble Court.

4. That the present application is being filed bona fide

and in the interested of justice.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Pass a Stay order for the Citizenship

(Amendment) Act, 2019.

(b) pass any other order/orders that this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of this case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS PETITIONER IS

IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVERY PRAY.

FILED BY:

New Delhi AKBAR SIDDIQUE

Filed on: ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
The Case Pertains to

1. Central Act: (Title) Constitution Of India

2. Section Article 14

3. Central Rule: (Title) N/A

4. Rule No(s). N/A

5. State Act: (Title) N/A

6. Section: N/A

7. State Rule: (Title) N/A

8. Rule No(s): N/A

9. Impugned Common Final Constitutional Validity

Order: (Date) of Citizenship
(Amendment) Act,
2019

10. Impugned Common Final N/A

Order/ Decree: (Date)

11. High Court: (Name) N/A

12. Names of Judges: N/A

13. Tribunal/Authority N/A

1. Nature of Matter:- Constitutional

2. (a) Petition/Appellant No.: EhteshamHashmi&Ors

(b) Email Id:- N/A

3. (a) Respondent Union Of India

(b) Email Id:- N/A

(c) Mobile No:- N/A

4. (a) Main Category Classification:

(b) Sub Classification

5. Not to be Listed Before: N/A

6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with N/A

citation, if any and case details;

(b) Similar pending matter with case N/A

details:

7. Criminal Matter: NO

a. Whether Accused/Convict has N/A

surrendered
b. F.I.R No. N/A

c. Police Station N/A

d. Sentence Awarded N/A

e. Period of Sentence undergone N/A

including the period of
detention/custody undergone

8. Land Acquisition Matters:- No

a. Date of Section 4 Notification: N/A

b. Date of Section 6 Notification: N/A

c. Date of Section 17 Notification: N/A

9. Tax Matter: State the tax Effect N/A

10. Special Category (First Senior Citizen > 65

Petitioner/Appellant Only) years: N/A
SC/ST: N/A
Women Child: N/A
Disabled: N/A
Legal Aid Case: N/A
In Custody: N/A

11. Vehicle Number (in case of N/A

Motor Accident Claim matters):

FILED BY:-
[ AKBAR SIDDIQUE]

Filed On:- __________ Code no 2785

Advocate for the Petitioner

akbar.sidd1984@gmail.com