IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

WP (CRI) NO._ OF 2021

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

In the matter of

Ram.........................................................................................................................Petitioner

Versus

NCT of Delhi & Ors...........................................................................................Respondents

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SUBMITTED BY:

AAKRITI
GUPTA 1766
 CLASS MOOT I-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................................vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................................viii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES......................................................................................................ix
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................x
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................1
CONTENTION 1: THAT THE PETITION OR HABEAS CORPUS ISN’T
MAINTAINABLE................................................................................................................1
1.1. That there is no deprivation of personal liberty..........................................................1
1.2. That there is no breach of Constitutional or Statutory Right......................................2
1.3. That Writ doesn’t lie Against a Private Person...........................................................2
CONTENTION 2: THAT AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE..............4
2.1. That remedy is available under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.........4
2.2. That an alternative remedy is available under Personal Laws....................................6
2.3. That Criminal Machinery has not been set into motion..............................................6
PRAYER...................................................................................................................................xi

ii
 CLASS MOOT I-

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

& And

AP Andhra Pradesh

Anr. Another

Art. Article

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Co. Company

Del. Delhi

HP Himachal Pradesh

Hon’ble Honourable

IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860

Ltd. Limited

CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Ors. Others

¶ Paragraph

CJJD Civil Judge Junior Division

§ Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Tech. Technology

UOI Union of India

V. Versus

Vol. Volume

iii
 CLASS MOOT I-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. Constitution of India
2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
3. The Code of Criminal procedure, 1973
4. Indian Penal Code, 1860

BOOKS, ARTICLES AND TREATIES

1. Constitution of India by Narendra Kumar
2. Family Law by Peeyushi Diwan and Paras Diwan
3. Hindu Law by Basant K Sharma
4. The code of Criminal Procedure by S.N. Misra
5. Indian Penal Code by S. N. Misra

ONLINE DATABASES
www.scconline.com
www.manupatra.com
www.indiankanoon.in
www.legalservicesindia.com
TABLE OF CASES

1. A. Joseph Louis v. District Welfare Fund Committee, 2005 SCC OnLine Mad 240....3
2. Abhay Shankar Sinha v. State of Bihar, AIR 2009 (NOC) 2797 (PAT).......................2
3. A-One Mega Mart P. Limited v. HDFC Bank, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 17328...........3
4. Bholanath v Commissioner of Police (1957) 61 Cal WN..............................................5
5. Bhonru Lal v State of Raj & Ors, LAWS(RAJ)-2010-11-215.......................................5
6. Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 628.............................................1
7. Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107...................................4
8. Harvinder Kaur vs Harmander Singh Choudhry, AIR 1984 Delhi 66...........................6
9. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39.........................................................2
10. Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1.......................................6
11. Lily Manna v State of WB, 2008 Cr LJ 625..................................................................6
12. Lokumal Kishinchand Manghnani v Vivek Arya, 1972 Cr LJ 1564 (Bom)..................5

iv
 CLASS MOOT I-

13. Mahesh Dayal v. State Of U.P. And Another, Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.
656/2019, decided on 17 March 2019............................................................................6
14. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597...................................................1
15. Manoj Lakhatakia v. Union of India, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 315................................3
16. Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1625............................5
17. N.K. Aggarwal v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4814...................................3
18. NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SC 742...............................................1
19. Rahul Mehra v. Union of India, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 837.........................................3
20. Rajeshbhai Nanjibhai Prajapati vs State of Gujrat, 2010 SCC OnLine Guj 13615.......2
21. Sadhu Varahala Babu v. Government of A.P., Co-operation Department, 2005 SCC
OnLine AP 356..............................................................................................................3
22. Seeta Devi v. Mata Pher, 1998 CriLJ 645......................................................................4
23. Smt Sudesh Kumari v. State of HP, AIR 2015 (NOC) 915 (H.P.)................................4
24. T Ramachandran v VK Kutton 1975 Cr LJ 1531 (Ker).................................................5
25. U/s Real Estate Agencies v. Govt of Goa, AIR 2012 SC 3848.....................................3
26. Ummu Sabeena v State of Kerela, (2011) 10 SCC 781.................................................1
27. Vijay Kumar Karwa v. Official Liquidator 2008 (3) SCALE 311................................1
28. Waseem Haider v. State of UP & Ors, 2003 SCC OnLine All 66.................................7
29. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1............4

v
 CLASS MOOT I-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF DELHI UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
1950 AGAINST THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or
authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (
1
), without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea
for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court
for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose
favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose
of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from
the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where
the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the
interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid
next day, stand vacated
vi
 CLASS MOOT I-

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32.

vi
 CLASS MOOT I-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Aparna is 18 years old and she is a Rajput from Rajasthan. She fell in love and got married
in secret to Ram who is 21 years old and belongs to dalit community in March, 2018.

2. They knew their families would not accept their marriage so they ran away to Delhi, where
Ram found a job while Aparna was searching for one and their married life continued
blissfully.

3. In Rajasthan Aparnas family was furious that she ran away with a boy from lower caste.
They asked her friends and also harassed and threatened Ram’s family to find about their
whereabouts.

4. Ram got worried when he found out about the threats made by Aparna’s family from his
father. He thought they might come and take Aparna away so he applied for and got a
protection order from Delhi High Court in July, 2018.

5. Ram’ family under pressure told Aparna’s family that they are residing in Delhi.

6. After casing their home in Delhi for few days Aparna’s brother nabbed her on her way to a
job interview in August, 2018.

7. They made her leave a text for Ram saying that she had come to her senses and decided to
return home. He tried to reach out to her but she didn’t respond.

8. Her parents persuaded her that she had no future with Ram and after deliberation she
agreed and filed for divorce in October, 2018.

9. On receiving divorce petition Ram filed a writ of habeas corpus in Delhi High court stating
that Aparna’s family took her illegally and then brainwashed her into filing divorce.

10. Aparna’s family stated that Ram had abducted her and after coming to her senses she has
now filed for divorce.

vi
 CLASS MOOT I-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE?

2. WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY ALTERNATIVE EFFICACIOUS REMEDY WHICH BARS THE
INSTANT WRIT JURISDICTION?

ix
 CLASS MOOT I-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

CONTENTION 1: THAT THE PETITION OR HABEAS CORPUS

ISN’T MAINTAINABLE
The humble submission before the hon’ble High Court of Delhi is that the writ petition of
habeas corpus is not maintainable in the present case due to the underlying principles for
Writ jurisdiction of a High Court. A writ of habeas corpus is issued for release of a person
who has been detained unlawfully by the State or by any private individual. In this case
Aparna is living with her parents by her own will and there is no illegal detention hence writ
is not maintainable.

Moreover, there is no violation of any constitutional or statutory right in the present case.
Also the writ does not lie in the present circumstances because the action lies against private
individuals (Aparna’s family) and the act so performed doesn’t relate to a public function,
the Writ is liable to be dismissed prima facie.

CONTENTION 2: THAT AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE

The humble submission is that the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India shall not be exercised if any alternate remedy is available to litigants. In
the present petition of habeas corpus the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under
section 97 of CrPC. or the restitution of conjugal rights remedy. Thus, the petition of habeas
corpus is liable to be dismissed on the ground that two alternative remedies are available to
the petitioner.

x
 CLASS MOOT I-

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1: THAT THE PETITION OR HABEAS CORPUS ISN’T

MAINTAINABLE

The humble submission before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is that the writ petition of
habeas corpus isn’t maintainable in the present case. Habeas Corpus literally means ‘to have
the body of’. It is generally used to regain the custody of the people who have been detained
or imprisoned unlawfully. It is generally understood as an extension of Article 22 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution). A writ of habeas
corpus is in the nature of an order upon the person who has detained another to produce the
latter before the court, in order to let the court, know on what ground he has been confined
and set him free if there is no legal justification for the imprisonment. The writ of habeas
corpus has been described as a writ of right and is grantable ex debito justitae. The writ has
been described as the first security of civil liberty.1

In the case of Ummu Sabeena v State of Kerela2 it was observed that “the writ of habeas
corpus is the oldest writ, evolved by the Common Law of England to protect the individual
liberty against the invasion in the hands of the executive and even private persons.”

In India, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable under Article 226 as well as Article 32 of
the Constitution. However, the relief under Article 226 does not lie in the light of the facts of
the present case.

1.1. THAT THERE IS NO DEPRIVATION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY

The humble submission is that the remedy of habeas corpus is an extension of Article 21.
Article 21 of the Constitution grants the right of life and personal liberty to all the citizens
and non-citizens3 of the State. Additionally, a person can be deprived of this right only by the
procedure of law.4 In the present case, Aparna, is willingly staying with her parents. The
same is evident from the fact that she has applied for a divorce from Ram on her own.
Aparna is 18

1
Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 628; Vijay Kumar Karwa v. Official Liquidator 2008 (3)
SCALE 311.
2
Ummu Sabeena v State of Kerela, (2011) 10 SCC 781
3
NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SC 742.
1
 CLASS MOOT I-
4
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

2
 CLASS MOOT I-

years old and an adult. Thus, she is entitled to stay wherever she wants. Since, she is
choosing to stay with her parents, it cannot be stated that her right to personal liberty has been
infringed.

Moreover in the case of Rajeshbhai Nanjibhai Prajapati vs State of Gujrat5 it was held that
in view of the statement made by corpus Mayakumari before the Court that she is not in
illegal detention of her parents and she wants to reside with them who are personally present
before the Court, since the corpus Mayakumari is more than 18 years of age, she is sui juris
and hence, no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she has to stay.
Therefore, the court permitted her to go with her parents.

1.2. THAT THERE IS NO BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHT

The humble submission is that in any application filed under Article 226, the petitioner must
establish breach of constitutional or statutory right. 6 Marriages in India are sacrosanct and co-
habitation is a right that goes hand in hand with it. However, in the present case, Aparna has
continued to stay with her parents according to her own will. The petitioner is trying to
impose the doctrine of coverture on Aparna. Doctrine of coverture states that upon marriage,
the wife loses her separate identity under the law, and her husband in effect had complete
legal and economic control over her.7 This doctrine was struck down in the case of Joseph
Shine v. Union of India8.

In the light of the above assertion, the humble submission is that the right so claimed by the
petitioner has been struck down by the Supreme Court and therefore, there is no violation of
any constitutional or statutory right.

1.3. THAT WRIT DOESN’T LIE AGAINST A PRIVATE PERSON

The humble submission is that a writ under Article 226 doesn’t lie in the present
circumstances. Even though the scope of the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 is much wider as
compared to the Article 32, it isn’t wide enough to include the action in the present
circumstances. A writ under Article 226 can lie against a “person” if it is a statutory body or
performs a public function or

5
Rajeshbhai Nanjibhai Prajapati vs State of Gujrat, 2010 SCC OnLine Guj 13615.

3
 CLASS MOOT I-
6
Abhay Shankar Sinha v. State of Bihar, AIR 2009 (NOC) 2797 (PAT).
7
https://amazingwomeninhistory.com/law-of-coverture-why-call-a-woman-by-her-husbands-name/
8
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39

4
 CLASS MOOT I-

discharges a public duty.9 Such functions are those which are closely related to the functions
of the State.

In the case of U/s Real Estate Agencies v. Govt of Goa10 it was held that since writ
jurisdiction is exercised by the High Court in public law domain, generally, court doesn’t pass
orders under Article 226 against private individuals. It isn’t because the court doesn’t have
power but because public law remedy should not be extended to private disputes.

Moreover, it was held by the Delhi High Court in the case of N.K. Aggarwal v. Union of
India11, that since the respondent which was a private body, didn’t perform a public function,
a writ petition couldn’t lie against it.

Thus, since in the present case, the action lies against private individuals (Aparna’s family)
and the act so performed doesn’t relate to a public function, the Writ is liable to be dismissed
on this score alone.

9
A. Joseph Louis v. District Welfare Fund Committee, 2005 SCC OnLine Mad 240; A-One Mega Mart P.
Limited v. HDFC Bank, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 17328; Sadhu Varahala Babu v. Government of A.P., Co-
operation Department, 2005 SCC OnLine AP 356
10
U/s Real Estate Agencies v. Govt of Goa, AIR 2012 SC 3848
11
N.K. Aggarwal v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4814; Rahul Mehra v. Union of India, 2004 SCC
OnLine Del 837; Manoj Lakhatakia v. Union of India, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 315.

5
 CLASS MOOT I-

CONTENTION 2: THAT AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE

The humble submission is that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
shall not be exercised if any alternate remedy is available to litigants. This alternate remedy
may be by way of normal forum of hierarchy of Courts or forum provided in a statutory
provision or may otherwise exists.

In the case of Smt Sudesh Kumari v. State of HP12, the petition was rejected on the ground
that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In the case of Seeta Devi v. Mata Pher13, the writ of Habeas Corpus was dismissed and the
court stated that the legal perspective that emerges is that a writ of habeas corpus should not,
as a matter of course, be given upon the request of a husband against his wife’s parents or
other close relatives. This exceptional remedy should only be used in extreme circumstances.
In most cases, the appellant should seek out the remedy given under Section 97 CrPC, or the
restitution of conjugal rights remedy.

Furthermore, in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai14

and the case of Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd.15, three exceptions to the
principle of alternative remedy were discussed. These exceptions are- (i) where the writ
petition seeks enforcement of any fundamental rights; (ii) where there is a failure of
principles of natural justice or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or vires of an act is challenged.

However, none of these conditions are fulfilled in the present case. Therefore, an action under
Article 226 isnt maintainable due to the principle of alternative remedy.

2.1. THAT REMEDY IS AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 97 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE.

The humble submission is that in the present case, the petitioner has an alternative remedy
under Section 97 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
CrPC). According to Section 97 of CRPC, if any District Magistrate, Sub- divisional
Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class has reason to believe that any person is
confined under such

12
Smt Sudesh Kumari v. State of HP, AIR 2015 (NOC) 915 (H.P.).
13
Seeta Devi v. Mata Pher, 1998 CriLJ 645
14
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1

6
 CLASS MOOT I-
15
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107

7
 CLASS MOOT I-

circumstances that the confinement amounts to an offence, he may issue a search- warrant,
and the person, if found, shall be immediately taken before a Magistrate, who shall make
such order as in the circumstances of the case seems proper. Thus, before seeking the high
court’s extra- ordinary jurisdiction, an aggrieved party must first exhaust all other legal
remedies accessible to him or her which, in the present case, is remedy under section 97 of
CrPC.

Also in the case of Bhonru Lal v State of Raj & Ors16, it was held that the petitioner has an
alternative remedy under Section 97 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the relief
sought in the present habeas corpus petition. In these circumstances, we do not intend to
entertain this habeas corpus petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner.

In the case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh17, the Supreme Court
reprimanded the petitioner for filing a writ of Habeas Corpus for restitution of conjugal
rights, and asked him to approach the authorities under Section 97 CrPC or file for a civil
remedy. The Court noted that, “exigence of the writ at the instance of a husband is very rare
in English Law, and in India the writ of habeas corpus is probably never used by a husband to
regain his wife”

In the light of above assertions, the humble submission is that in the present petition of
habeas corpus the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under section 97 of CrPC.
Therefore, petitioners should, be refrained from directly going to the high court with writ
petitions and must first exhaust other remedies. Having a remedy under S. 97 which fast-
tracks the process of ending wrongful confinement without the involvement of the Court is
very important in a country where the citizens do not have equal access to legal-mechanisms
and thus the present writ petition should be dismissed. However, Section 97 cannot be
resorted to:

(a) Where a woman is living voluntarily with her parents.18

(b) Where the woman is an adult and is not being confined against her will.19
(c) Being an adult desires to go back to the place from which she was brought.20

16
Bhonru Lal v State of Raj & Ors, LAWS(RAJ)-2010-11-215
17
Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1625

8
 CLASS MOOT I-
18
T Ramachandran v VK Kutton 1975 Cr LJ 1531 (Ker)
19
Lokumal Kishinchand Manghnani v Vivek Arya, 1972 Cr LJ 1564 (Bom)
20
Bholanath v Commissioner of Police (1957) 61 Cal WN.

9
 CLASS MOOT I-

The sine qua non of application of section 97 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that
there has to be prima facie finding that the person has been in wrongful confinement and that
wrongful confinement must amount to an offence.21

2.2. THAT AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE UNDER PERSONAL LAWS

The humble submission is that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as HMA 1955). Section 9 of HMA 1955
entitles a spouse for restitution of conjugal rights. It states that when either the husband or the
wife has without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved
party may apply, by petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

In Harvinder Kaur vs Harmander Singh Choudhry22, This high court held that this remedy
is aimed at preserving the marriage and not at disrupting it as in the case of divorce or judicial
separation. The remedy of restitution of conjugal rights provided by section 9 of the Act is
based on the assumption that the spouses have a reciprocal right to the society, company or
companionship of each other. If the assumption proves wrong, divorce is the only “escape
route out of a difficult situation.”23

In the light of the above assertion, the humble submission is that the petition of habeas corpus
is liable to be dismissed on the ground that two alternative remedies are available to the
petitioner.

2.3. THAT CRIMINAL MACHINERY HAS NOT BEEN SET INTO MOTION

The humble submission is that the petitioner has not filed any FIR against Aparna’s family
against alleged abduction. Ram alleges that Aparna’s family has abducted her however, his
conduct in the instant case does not supports this contention as the petitioner has not taken
recourse of any remedy. Instead he simply approached the high court A writ of habeas corpus
is maintainable only when it is a case of illegal detention. 24 Since in Lalita Kumari v.
Government of UP & Ors.25, it was held that upon receipt of information by a police officer
in-charge of a police station disclosing a cognizable offence, it is imperative for him to
register a case under Section 154 of the Code. An FIR must have been filed by the petitioner
so that the

21
Lily Manna v State of WB, 2008 Cr LJ 625
22
Harvinder Kaur vs Harmander Singh Choudhry, AIR 1984 Delhi 66
23
Ibid.
24
Mahesh Dayal v. State Of U.P. And Another, Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 656/2019, decided on 17
March 2019.
1
 CLASS MOOT I-
25
Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1

1
 CLASS MOOT I-

police could have inquired about the case and the matter could have resolved without
approaching high court.

The Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court in the case of Waseem Haider v. State of UP &
Ors.26, held that a complainant has statutorily engrafted remedies to ensure that his complaint
is taken to its logical end. Thus, he must first exhaust said remedies and cannot invoke extra-
ordinary writ remedy as a matter of course, even when crime is not registered and there is no
progress in the investigation.

On the basis of above assertions it is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble court
that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed considering present circumstances

26
Waseem Haider v. State of UP & Ors, 2003 SCC OnLine All 66.

1
 CLASS MOOT I-

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to kindly
adjudge and declare:

THAT THE PETITIONER ISN’T ENTITLED TO THE ORDER OF HABEAS

CORPUS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT

OR

Pass any other order or direction that the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the light of interest of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience and for this act of kindness the Counsel on behalf of the
Respondent as in duty bound shall forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

SD/-

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.