MOOT COURT FILE

Submitted To:-

Prof. Anand singh

(Faculty of law)

Submitted By-

Avijeet Makvana IUU15BBL035

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[S.C.R. ORDER XXI RULE 3 (1) (A)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28 OF 2020

[Arising out of the impugned final judgment and order dated 08.12.2019 passed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New- Delhi in R.F.A. (O.S.) No. 9567/ 2018]

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARTAR SINGH …PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

WITH
I.A. NO. 56 OF 2019
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY IN THE
ANNEXURES
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARTAR SINGH …PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Office Report of Limitation
2. Listing Proforma
3. Synopsis/List of Dates
4. Memo of Parties
 5. Special Leave Petition under Article 136
of the Constitution of India along with
supporting affidavits.
6. Annexure P-1: Impugned Final
Judgement and Order dated 08.12.2019
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi at New-Delhi in R.F.A. (O.S.) No.
9567/ 2018.
7. IA No. 56 of 2019: Application for
exemption from filing certified copy of
the Annexures.
8. Vakalatnama

THROUGH

Avijeet Makvana
(ADVOCATE ON RECORD)

PLACE: New-Delhi
DATED: 06.03.2020

COURT FEES
 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
e-court Fee

DATE & TIME: 02-FEB-2020 11:33:11

NAMES OF THE ACC/. REGISTERED USER: SCHLLED

LOCATION: SUPREME COURT

E-COURT RECEIPT NO : DLCT0458B1632l841

E-COURT FEE AMOUNT: 1500/-

(Rupees Fifteen Hundred Only)

DLCT0458B1632L841

Statutory Alert: The authenticity of this e-Court fee receipt should be

verified at www.shcilestamp.com. Any discrepancy in the details on this
receipt and as available on the website renders It invalid. In case of any
discrepancy please inform the Competent Authority. This receipt is valid
only after verification & locking by the Court Official.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARTAR SINGH …PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The petition is within time.

2. The petition is not barred by time and there is no delay in filing the same
against the final judgment & order dated 08.12.2019 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi, Single Bench in R.F.A. (O.S.) No. 9567/2017.
3. There is no delay in refilling the petition.

BRANCH OFFICER

PLACE: New-Delhi
DATED
 PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION-XII
The case pertains to (Please tick/ check the correct box):-
□ Central Act: (Title) N/A

□ Section: N/A
□ Central Rule: (Title) N/A
□ Rule No(s): N/A
State Act: (Title) N/A
□ Section N/A
State Rule: Title: N/A
□ Rule No(s): N/A
□ Impugned Interim Order: (Date) N/A
Impugned Final order/ Decree: 08.12.2019
Date
□ High Court: (Name) High Court of Delhi at
New-Delhi
□ Names of Judges: The Hon’ble Justice Rawal
Kumar
□ Tribunal/ Authority: (Name)
1. Nature of matter: Civil

2.(a) Petitioner/ appellant No. 1: Kartar Singh

(b) e-mail ID: N/A

I Mobile phone number: N/A

3.(a) Respondent No.1: Union of India

(b) e-mail ID: N/A

I Mobile phone number: N/A

4.(a) Main category classification: 18

(b) Sub classification: 1807 Others

5. Not to be listed before: N/A

6. Similar/Pending matter: N/A

7. Criminal Matters: No

(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: [

]
 (b) FIR No. Date:

I Police Station:

(d) Sentence Awarded: N/A

(e) Sentence Undergone: N/A

8: Land Acquisition Matters: N/A

(a) Date of Section 4 notification: N/A

(b) Date of Section 6 notification: N/A

I Date of Section 17 notification: N/A

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N/A

10. Special Category (first Petitioner’s brother/appellant only): N/A

(i) [ x ] Senior citizen > (X) years (ii) [ x ] SC/ST

(iii) [ x ] Woman/child (iv) [ x ] Disabled

(v) [ x ] Legal Aid case (vi) [ x ] In

custody
11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor N/A
Accident Claim matters):
12. Decided cases with citation: N/A

Date: 06.03.2020
 SYNOPSIS

That the Petitioner’s brother above named prefers the present Special Leave
Petition before this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
against the impugned final judgment and order dated 08.12.2019 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Single Bench in R.F.A. (O.S.) No. 9567/ 2018,
whereby the single bench of the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the petition by
the Appellant/Petitioner’s brother and has done grave injustice to the Petitioner by
going against the settled principles of law.

That the Petitioner’s brother, Mr. Bhullar Singh, was born and brought up in India,
but later in his life settled in Canada, in the hopes of a promising life and income
settling his family here in India.

That on the date of 8th May, 2017 Bhullar Singh was denied his Visitor’s visa, on
the onset of his mother being on her death bed and wanting to her oldest son one
last time before her death. He was mercilessly denied his visa, without any
consideration to his circumstances.

Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.

 LIST OF DATES
31.03.2017 The Petitioner’s brother, Kartar Singh applied for a visiting visa
to the Indian Embassy in Canada.
08.05.2017 The visa was denied by the Indian Embassy on the frivolous
ground of Bhullar Singh being involved in some anti-Indian riot
that took place infront of the Indian Embassy regarding the
Operation Blue star.
10.11.2017 After being denied once Bhullar Singh again applied for a
visitor’s visa, as his mother’s health was onwards to becoming
extremely ill, and she desperately wanted to see her eldest son.
15.01.2018 After being left with no response from the Indian embassy,
Bhullar Singh wrote several letters to the Indian Embassy, The
then Home minister, and foreign Minister of India.
1.02.2018 With the demise of his mother, and his elder brother not being
able to see their dying mother one last time, Mr. Kartar Singh
started writing letters to the Indian Government on his brother’s
behalf from India.
06.09.2018 After having no reply from any of the organisations, and having
no response from the embassy,
10.12.2018 The Petitioner Kartar Singh, along with his counsel, filed a writ
petition in the high court.
08.12.2019 The Ld. Single Judge vide order dated 08.12.2019 framed the
following issue:
I. Whether the Home Minister has the ambit of the power to
blacklist a certain community from being allowed into the
country?
II. Whether the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution
fall under the scope of this case, is it absolutely
enforceable?
III. Whether the Respondent can address the petitioner’s
brother, Mr. Bhullar Singh, a “foreigner”?
08.12.2019 In the light of the arguments raised and facts interpreted the
High Court finally denied the petition. The impugned order has
been annexed and marked as “Annexure P1”
06.03.2020 Hence the present Special Leave Petition.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 28 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARTAR SINGH …PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES

Kartar Singh,
S/o Lt. Munshi Singh,
R/o 7/65, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi …Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner

Versus

Ministry of Home Affairs

Union of India,
New-Delhi 110024 ...Respondents/Appellant/Respondents

FILED THROUGH
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[S.C.R. ORDER XXI RULE 3 (1) (A)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28 OF 2020

[Arising out of the final judgment and order dated 08.12.2019 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi, in R.F.A. (O.S.) No. 9567/2018]

BETWEEN POSITION OF PARTIES

In the High In this
Court Hon’ble Court

Kartar Singh,
S/o Lt. Munshi Singh, Appellant Petitioner
R/o 7/65, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi

AND

Ministry of Home Affairs,

Union of India
New-Delhi 110024 Respondent Respondent

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA

TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER

ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the Petitioner abovenamed files the present Special Leave Petition before
this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the
impugned final judgment dated 08.12.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi, Single Bench in R.F.A. (O.S.) No. 9567/ 2018, whereby the Hon’ble
High Court had dismissed the Writ filed by the abovementioned Appellant.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:-

1. Whether the Ministry of Home Affairs has the power to take such actions, as
to banning an entire community from entering in India?

2. Whether such a step of Ministry of Home Affairs is violating the provisions

of Article 21 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the Respondent can address the petitioner’s brother, Mr. Bhullar
Singh, a “foreigner”?

2. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3 (2)

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to appeal has been
filed by it against impugned judgment dated 08.12.2019 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi, Single Bench in R.F.A. (O.S.) No. 9567/
2018.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5

The Annexure P-1 filed along with the Special Leave Petition is true copy of
the documents which formed part of the records of the case in the court below
against whose orders the Leave to Appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS

Leave to appeal is sought for on the following, amongst other grounds:

A. BECAUSE the impugned order dated 08.12.2019 is perverse, totally beyond

the pleadings and documents placed by the parties and hence liable to be set
aside.
B. BECAUSE Hon’ble High Court has completely ignored that the Respondent
was not able to prove the case on the basis of any substantial evidence on his
part except by making hollow statements and taking frivolous defences and
dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner’s brother arbitrarily without giving a
detailed reasoning.

C. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court has failed to acknowledge the basic right
to life which falls as the most vital part of our fundamental rights, the denial
of entry to one, into his own motherland is a grave infringement to ones Right
to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam A.P.O, New

Delhi, (1993) 1 SCC 539 the Court by a majority decided that the expression
'personal liberty' in Article 21 takes in, the right of locomotion and travel
abroad.

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 1978 AIR 597

In this case, it was held by the Supreme Court that “the right to travel and go
outside the country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21. The Court ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law
was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also be “just, fair
and reasonable”.

D. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court has overlooked the fact that Bhullar
Singh did not necessarily need to be physically present to become blacklisted
from entering his own country, there are other 200 approximate names on the
list, who have just been blacklisted for being Sikh, and with no other validity
of their names being present there was explained. That the Ministry had
refused to disclose any such solid reasoning for why Bhullar Singh has been
blacklisted from his own motherland.

E. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court has completely turned a blind eye into the
inconsideration and inhumanity shown to Bhullar Singh, whilst he was denied
to see his dying mother one last time before her demise, and that is the gravest
sin on behalf of anybody. The fact that one shall not be barred from visiting
 his family under such circumstances, let alone barred from coming back to the
country of one’s birth, shall be looked very discretely by the Hon’ble Court.

F. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High court failed to acknowledge that Bhullar Singh
is not a “foreigner”, he is an NRI, fundamental rights are applicable to him,
and it be wrongful to call him a foreigner, he was born and brought up in
India, and only settled abroad to provide a better living for his family in India.

6. MAIN PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:

a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the impugned final order and judgment
dated 08.12.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in R.F.A. (O.S.)
No. 9567/ 2018; and

b) Pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN ON: 26.12.2019

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 28 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARTAR SINGH …PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Kartar Singh (aged about 55 years) S/o Lt. Munshi Singh, R/o, 7/ 65, Defence
Colony, New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above case and therefore, well conversant of
the case and hence, am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That I have read and understood the accompanying Special Leave Petition,
against the impugned order dated 08.12.2019, which has been drafted by the
counsel on my instructions and say that the facts stated therein are true and
correct to my knowledge and belief and the same are not being reproduced
herein for the sake of brevity.
3. That the annexures filed along with the petition are true copies of their
respective originals.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at New-Delhi on this _________day of ________ January, 2020 that the

contents of my aforesaid Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief
and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 28 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARTAR SINGH …PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before
the Court whose order is challenged and the other documents relied upon in those
proceedings. No additional facts, documents, or grounds have been taken therein or
relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of
the documents/annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition and to make out
grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble
Court. This certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the
Petitioner/person authorized by the Petitioner whose affidavit in filed in support of
the Special Leave Petition.

DRAWN ON: 26.12.2019

 Annexure P-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW-DELHI

R.F.A (O.S.) NO. 9567 OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARTAR SINGH …APPELLANT

Versus

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

Date of Decision: December 08, 2019

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE RAWAL KUMAR

JUDGMENT
1. The present petition arises out of the decision of Embassy of India, by
which the Petitioner’s brother Bhullar Singh has been denied visitor’s visa.
The Petitioner has filed this petition on behalf of his brother through their
constituted attorney challenging the decision of Embassy of India which is
administered by the Indian Home Ministry, by which the Petitioner’s
brother has been denied the visitor’s visa, which he has applied for visiting
his ailing mother in India. The learned Counsel for the Union of India has
objected that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. With the consent of the
parties the Writ Petition is taken for final hearing today.
2. The Petitioner’s brother Bhullar Singh was born in Delhi and presently
holds the citizenship of Canada. Bhullar Singh applied for Indian Visa on
31.3.2017 however his visa was denied. Bhullar Singh has vehemently
submitted that the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs has unscrouplessly
banned NRI SIKHS on account of supporting the anti national activities for
which there is no reasonable grounds to be justified.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that undoubtedly the
rejection order is passed at Canada, but since the order of rejection of the
visa is issued by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs the Petitioner’s
brother cannot file any proceeding at Canada challenging the decision
 against Indian Embassy in that country, the petition is filed in the Indian
Court.
4. It is the submission of the Petitioner that the Ministry had arbitrarily used
the power and has unduly banned the Petitioner’s brother from entering the
Country of his origin without any valid reasons.
5. The Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner vehemently submits that
such arbitrary use of power has resulted in denial of visa to the Petitioner’s
brother thereby resulting in a violation of Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. In Arguendo, it has been Petitioner submission that Right to
Life and Personal Liberty is a legal entitlement granted to every person and
any policy in violation of this would result in grave violation of the
Constitution and thus should be declared as ultra vires the Constitution.
6. It is the Petitioner’s submission that his brother was denied entry on such a
crucial stage wherein their mother was in her death bed and wanted to see
her oldest son one last time, he was mercilessly denied entry to his own
motherland.
7. The counsel on behalf of the Union of India has objected to the institution of
this Petition by contending that the Petitioner’s brother is a fellow supporter
of anti-national activities. The Learned Counsel further contends that there
has been no arbitrary use of power since the Country of India is a sovereign
nation and has absolute authority to enforce any regulations as required by
the Indian Ministry to ensure national security and promote peace and
tranquillity in the country at all times.
8. The Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondents further submit that the
Petitioner’s brother is not a citizen of India and can only be termed as a
foreigner which does not entitle him to institute any proceeding. It is further
submission of the Respondents that has although no criminal record
however this does not impair the Indian Government to make any
anticipatory steps for ensuring complete peace and harmony in the Country.
Further creation of the blacklist and prohibiting entry of suspicious persons
is a matter of policy decision which restricts the power vested by this Court
to interpret or pass any order over this subject matter.
9. We have heard the learned Counsel at length. We have also gone through
the petition and annexure with the same which is also placed for hearing
with the petition.
10.We agree that the Petitioner’s brother is not a citizen of India but a Person
who was born in India and now is settled in Canada. The question with
respect to holding dual passports is not determined which entitles the
Petitioner’s brother as a matter of right to file for any Judicial Proceeding in
the Indian Territory.
11.It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner’s brother had applied for visitor’s
visa by applying to the Indian Embassy at Toronto, Canada. His application
was rejected by the Indian Embassy on 8th May, 2017. It is no doubt true
that a decision for rejecting his Visa is taken by the Indian Embassy on the
basis of the policy framed by the External Ministry which is located in
Delhi, this Court can be said to have territorial jurisdiction to decide the
issue in question. However, the real question which requires consideration is
whether the respondent as Indian Ministry has power to Blacklist or deny
permission on entering the territory, whether there has been any abuse of
power and position in implementing the same and whether the issue in
question can be said to be justiciable issue or not.
12.We are in agreement with the Respondents Claim that though the
Petitioner’s brother does not have any Criminal record and has not been
shown to be a prior convict in any of the Country still the Indian
Government is entitled to protect and promote peace and harmony by
ensuring there is no question over the national security of the country.
13.In the light of the arguments raised and facts interpreted we deny the
petition.
14.Hence, the petition is denied in part. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

Announced in the Open Court on 08.12.2019

JUSTICE RAWAL KUMAR

//True Copy
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. 56 of 2019
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 28 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARTAR SINGH …PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR EXEMPTION

FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ANNEXURES

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and his
Companion Judges of Supreme Court of India.

The humble Application of the Petitioner’s brother

abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner’s brother abovenamed files the present Special Leave
Petition before this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India against the Impugned Final Judgment dated 08.12.2019 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Single Bench in R.F.A. (O.S.) No. 9567/2018
That the contents of the Special Leave Petition may be read as a part and
parcel of this application too, as the contents of which are not being repeated
herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.
2. That the Petitioner/applicant has only filed the true copy of the Annexures,
because the certified copy of the same is not available and the same may
kindly be taken on record.
3. That the applicant/Petitioner has to prefer this petition immediately without
certified copy due to the necessity to obtain urgent orders and also due to the
 non-availability of the certified copy. The Petitioner/Applicant undertakes to
provide the certified copy as and when made available to the Applicant/
Petitioner.

PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that:
a) The Petitioner/ Applicant be exempted from filing the certified copy of the
impugned order dated 08.12.2019; and
b) Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems, fit and proper,
under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY
AS DUTY-BOUND

Avijeet Makvana
FILED ON: 06.03.2020 ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 28 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARTAR SINGH …PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT
I, Kartar Singh (aged about 55 years) S/o Lt. Munshi Singh, R/o, 7/ 65, Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi 110019 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above case and therefore, well conversant of
the case and hence, am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That I have read and understood the accompanying Application for
exemption, which has been drafted by the counsel of the Petitioner on my
instructions and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief and the same are not being reproduced herein for the
sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION
Verified at New-Delhi on this _________day of ________ January, 2020 that the
contents of my aforesaid Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief
and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 28 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

KARTAR SINGH …PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

VAKALATNAMA

I, Kartar Singh, R/o 7/65, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110019, do hereby appoint and
retain;

Avijeet Makvana (ADVOCATE ON RECORD)

To act and appear for me/us in the above Petition/Suit/Appeal/Reference and to
conduct and prosecute (or defend) the same on my/our behalf and all proceedings
that may be taken in respect of any application connected with the same or any
decree or order passed therein, including proceedings in taxation and application
for Review, to file and obtain return of documents, and to deposit and receive
money on my/our behalf in the said Suit/Appeal/Petition/Reference and in
applications for Review, and to represent me/us and to take all necessary steps on
my/our behalf in the above matter. I/we agree to ratify all acts done by the
aforesaid Advocate in pursuance of this authority.

Dated this the-----------day of--------------2018

IDENTIFIED, ACCEPTED & CERTIFIED

Avijeet Makvana
ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT
Petitioner(s)/Appellant (s)/Respondent(s)
 MEMO OF APPEARANCE

To,
The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.

Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner’s brother(s)/
Appellant(s)/Respondent(s) in the above matter.

Dated:

(___________________)
Advocate, Supreme Court of India