Legal Desire Online Workshop on ‘Legal Drafting’

WRIT OF QUO-WARRANTO

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Original Civil Jurisdiction)

Writ Petition No 123 of July 2014

A. Ram, aged about 25 Years, S/o Kumar,

R/o 456, Ram Nagar, Chennai ………… Petitioner.

Versus

1. State of Tamil Nadu

2. Krishnan, Inspector-General of Police, Poondamalle Police Station

3. Arjun, Inspector of Police, Karur Police Station ………… Respondents.

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE ISSUE OF A WRIT OF
QUO-WARRANTO.

To

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the Hon’ble High Court.

The above named Petitioner begs to submit as under:

1. That he was applied for a Sub-Inspector selection in the State of Tamil Nadu on 01/08/2013.

2. That he quailed in all the aspects and he scored high marks in written exam as well as interview.

3. That the respondent no. 1 (State-Selection Commission) selected candidates and put a list on their
websites on 01/01/2014.

4. That they sent an appointment letters to those candidates listed in their websites. The appointment
letters were sent to the respondents 2 and 3. But the respondent no. 1 did not send any appointment
letter to the petitioner. But, the petitioner was getting more marks than the respondents 2 and 3.

5. That the petitioner sent a petition to the respondent no. 1 through a right to information regarding
the appointment. But the respondent no. 1 did not respond that. Instead, the respondents 2 & 3 were
appointed in post on 02/03/2014.

6. That the aforesaid appointment was illegal and ultra vires. Respondents 2 and 3 had been
appointed without any merit by the respondent no. 1.

© Copyright Legal Desire 2014 www.leg aldesire.com

 Legal Desire Online Workshop on ‘Legal Drafting’

8. That the selection commission also did not answer the quarries send by the petitioner.

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that a writ direction or order in the nature of quo-warranto be
issued to the respondents no. 1, 2, and 3 to question under which authority that the respondents no. 2
and 3 were appointed by the respondent no 1and at the same time that the petitioner requested to
quash the order of appointment made by the respondent no. 1 to the respondents 2 and 3 who did not
possess any merit than the petitioner.

DATED: 15/03/2014 PETITIONER

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

© Copyright Legal Desire 2014 www.leg aldesire.com

 Legal Desire Online Workshop on ‘Legal Drafting’
WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, MADRAS

(Original Civil Jurisdiction)

Writ Petition No 123 of July, 2014

Kumar ……… Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Tamil Nadu

2. Drug Controller, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

3. Appellate Authority, Chennai .…....... Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE ISSUE OF A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI.

To

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature.

The abovenamed Petitioner begs to submit as under:

1. That the Petitioner is a stockist and dealer in drugs and carries on his business in the name of
Assent Proforma.

2. That the Petitioner held a drug dealer’s licence No 3456, dated 12/02/2007 and has been carrying
on this business for the last six years.

3. That on 09/12/2013 the Petitioner received a notice from Respondent No. 2 to show cause why his
licence should not be cancelled for selling substandard and spurious drugs. He was also required by
the notice to produce his licence before Respondent No. 2.

4. That on 02/01/2014 the Petitioner submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice submitting
that he did not sell any substandard or spurious drugs and that he sold only drugs in their original
containers obtained from reputed drug manufacturers. He expressed his inability to produce the
licence as the same had been submitted to the Civil Surgeon for renewal.

5. That without giving proper consideration to the pleas raised by the Petitioner Respondent No. 2
passed an order dated on 12/02/2014 for cancelling the Petitioner’s licence.

© Copyright Legal Desire 2014 www.leg aldesire.com

 Legal Desire Online Workshop on ‘Legal Drafting’

6. That, thereupon, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of Respondent No. 2 to
Respondent No. 3.

7. That by order dated on 25/03/2014 respondent No. 3 dismissed the appeal.

8. That the Petitioner has no other remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court.

9. That the orders of Respondents No. 2 and No. 3 are void and illegal for the following amongst other
-

REASONS

(i) Because the orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are vitiated as they have acted in violation of the
principles of natural justice.

(ii) Because both respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have placed great reliance on the report of the Central
Drugs Laboratory dated 06/11/2013 which report was never disclosed to the Petitioner and which the
Petitioner was not given any opportunity to meet.

(iii) Because the authorities have been influenced by the failure of the Petitioner to produce the
licence but have themselves failed to consider the Petitioner’s explanation that the licence had been
submitted to the Civil Surgeon for renewal.

(iv) Because respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have not applied their minds to the facts and circumstances of
the case.

(v) Because the impugned orders violate the fundamental right of the Petitioner to carry on his trade
and business guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari be
issued quashing the order of Respondent No. 2 dated on 12/02/2014 and the order of Respondent No.
3 dated on 25/03/2014

DATED: PETITIONER

ADVOCATE FOR THE COUNSEL

© Copyright Legal Desire 2014 www.leg aldesire.com

 Legal Desire Online Workshop on ‘Legal Drafting’
WRIT OF PROHIBITION

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Original Civil Jurisdiction)

Writ Petition No 123 of JULY 2014

A. Ram, aged about 25 Years, S/o Kumar,

R/o 456, Ram Nagar, Chennai ………… Petitioner.

Versus

1. State of Tamil Nadu

2. Krishnan, Inspector-General of Police, Poondamalle Police Station

3. Arjun, Inspector of Police, Karur Police Station ………… Respondents.

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE ISSUE OF A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION.

To

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the Hon’ble High Court.

The above named Petitioner begs to submit as under:

1. That he was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu on 01/01/2013.

2. That he served in various places of the State, to worked as Sub-Inspector in Navalur at Viluupuram
and as Sub-Inspector in at Poondamalli Police Station, Chennai.

3. That while he was stationed at and serving as Sub-Inspector, he was served with a charge-sheet
dated 12/12/2013 a copy whereof is filed herewith.

4. That enquiry into the said charges was made by Respondent No. 3 from the beginning to end who
submitted a report dated 12/02/2014 to Respondent No. 2 finding the charges mentioned in the
charge-sheet above-mentioned to be proved.

5. That according to the Rule the charges aforementioned could not be enquired into except by an
officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police of same Division or with the approval of Respondent No.
2 of another Division in the State of Tamil Nadu.

6. That on 15/02/2014 the Petitioner received a notice from Respondent No. 2 to show cause why he
should not be dismissed from service.

© Copyright Legal Desire 2014 www.leg aldesire.com

 Legal Desire Online Workshop on ‘Legal Drafting’

7. That the aforesaid enquiry was illegal and ultra vires. Respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to take
into consideration the said enquiry or pass any order on the basis thereof. The so-called inquiry was
held by a person not duly authorised to do so.

8. The holding of a departmental inquiry by a Superintendent of Police is a condition precedent, a fact

which must exist before Respondent No. 2 can assume jurisdiction or authority for the purpose of
passing the final order of dismissal against the Petitioner.

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that a writ direction or order in the nature of prohibition be
issued to the respondents prohibiting them from proceeding further with the disciplinary
proceedings on the basis of the enquiry report of Respondent No. 3.

DATED: 15/03/2014 PETITIONER

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

ASSIGNMENTS:

1. Draft any one type of Writ Petition based on any imaginary situation as per writ.

© Copyright Legal Desire 2014 www.leg aldesire.com