IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF PANWAB, ANJANA

In The Matter Of
APPEAL NO: - ______/20

(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF ANJANA)

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHREMATI R. SHARMILA (PETITIONER)

VERSUS

MR. ARJUN DESHMUKH (THE GOVERNOR)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (RESPONDANT)

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CBI

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

NAME :- SAKHIYA KRUPALI RAMESHBHAI

PRN NO - 2016033800039655

Roll No – 201162 (LLB General)

1
 INDEX
Sr No Topics Page No

1 List of Abbreviation 3

2 Bibliography and Reference 4

3 Statement of Jurisdiction 5

4 Summary of Facts
6

5 Issues Framed
9

6 Summary of Arguments
10

7 Body of Pleading
11

8 Prayer 14

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

Sr No Abbreviation Full Form

1. Hon’ble Honorable
2. Art Article
3. HC High Court
4. Govt Government
5. CM Chief Minister
6. U.I.O. Union of India
7. NGO Non-Government Organization
8. v. Versus

3
 Bibliography and Reference

List of statute

1. The Constitution of India

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Special Court Act, 2010
4. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Book referred
1. Constitutional Law of India J. N. Pandey
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure S. C. Sarkar
3. Indian Penal Code K. D. Gaur

Internet sources
1. www.indiankanoon.com
2. www.livelaw.com
3. www.legalblog.com

Cases referred
1. J. Jayalalitha v. Her Excellency the Governor of Tamil nadu, Raj Bhavan,
Guindy, Madras & Others
2. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
3. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India case(2018)

4
 Statement of Jurisdiction

THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE WRIT PITITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF PANWAB, IN THE MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE PITITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO
JURISDICTION OF THE HON‟BLE COURT WHICH HAS BEEN INVOKED BY THE
RESPONDENT. HOWEVER, THE PITITIONER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
CHALLENGE THE SAME. THE PROVISION UNDER WHICH THE RESPONDENT
HAS APPROACHED THE HONORABLE COURT IS READ HEREIN UNDER AS

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
5
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.

6
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

 CM of the State of Anjana, Shrimati R. Sharmila is alleged to be a party to a conspiracy

as a result of which a large amount of ₹.700 cr. has been wrongfully withdrawn from the
State Treasury and misappropriated by several persons by submitting fake bills and false
certificates and vouchers.

 The HC of the State allowed a PIL and directed the CBI to investigate into the alleged
crime and take necessary action. After due investigation, the CBI filed the charge sheet
against the CM Shrimati R. Sharmila and more than 100 public servants and a few others.

 The concerned Special Court, by an order took cognizance of various offences committed
by the accused persons including Shrimati R. Sharmila, the CM. various political parties
have demanded the resignation of the CM.

 Several national dailies have written adversely commenting on the CM’s conduct in not
tendering her resignation from the High Office even after the Special Court has taken
cognizance of the serious offence. Many organizations, including NGOs have been
organising public demonstrations, mobilizing people from various parts of the State due to
which the normal life is adversely affected.

 offences involving a fraud on the State exchequer continuing in Office, the Governor of
the State issued an order placing Shrimati R. Sharmila, the CM under suspension for the
duration of the Trial and subject to the decision of the Special Court in the trial and
appointing Mr. Rajaswamy, the senior most Cabinet Minister as the Interim Chief Minister
till the members of the Legislative assembly belonging to the ruling party elected another
leader who could be appointed as acting CM. Within the few hours of the issue of the order
of suspension, the State Governor administered the oath of Office and secrecy to Mr.
Rajaswamy the senior most Cabinet Minister and made him Interim CM.

7
 Aggrieved by the said order of suspension as well as the appointment of Mr. Rajaswamy,
the Interim Chief Minister and the proposed election of another leader for the post of Acting
Chief Minister, Shrimati R. Sharmila, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Panwab,
challenging the said order and the action of the State Governor, impleading the Governor
Mr. Arjun Deshmukh by name as the first respondent and the State represented by the Chief
Secretary as the second respondent. In addition, she impleaded the CBI through its Director
General as the third respondent in a separate application held along with the writ petition.

 The CM Shrimati R. Sharmila has sought interim relief by way of operation of the
impugned order of the Governor as well an order injunction the Governor and the State
Government to permit the petitioner to function as the Chief Minister during the pendency
of the writ petition. Ensure that the government was carried in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution.

8
 ISSUES FRAMED

ISSUE 1

The Writ pitition in the present case in maintainable before the hobble high court of India or
not?

ISSUE 2

Whether Governor has acted as per his power or not?

ISSUE 3

Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of dissolution of order?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Whether the writ pitition in the present case in maintainable before the hobble high court
of India or not?

Yes, The petitioner, Society for Equality has litigation competence to submit the writ petition

before High Court of India. Further, Article 226 of the Constitution of Punwab gives power to the

Supreme Court of India to entertain the writ petition.

Whether Governor has acted as per his power or not?

No, As per Article 163 (1) There shall be a council of Ministers with the chief Minister at the head
to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under
this constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of dissolution of order?

Yes, the petitioner is entitled to get decree. It is humbly requested to the Hon’ble court that pass
the decree for dissolution of order passed by Governor in favour of petitioner because the act of
Governor is against the natural rule of juctice.

10
 BODY OF PLEADING

1. Whether the writ pitition in the present case in maintainable before the hobble high
court of India or not?

The petitioner, Society for Equality has litigation competence to submit the writ petition before

High Court of India. Further, Article 226 of the Constitution of Punwab gives power to the

Supreme Court of India to entertain the writ petition.

Article 226 is enshrined under Part V Chapter V of the Constitution. It empowers the High Courts
to issue certain writs. Article 226 gives discretionary power to the High courts to issue direction,
order, writs including the writs in nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto,
and certiorari. Article 226 is invoked not only to for the fundamental rights but also a violation for
other rights.

Article 226(1) states that in spite of Article 32, High court has power to issues direction, order or
writs, including the writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto,
and Certiorari to any person, authority, government or public officials for enforcement of
fundamentals right or any other rights under its local jurisdiction.

Mandamus – Mandamus literally means “We Command”. In this, court order the public authorities
directing them to perform their duty imposed by the law. The writ of mandamus can be issued to
the government, govt officials, public corporations, inferior courts or tribunals, etc. It cannot be
imposed on private persons. It is issued when public authority refused to perform an obligation
under law but it cannot be issued where duty is discretionary.

In the case of Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy And ... vs His Excellency, The Government Of ...

on 2 November, 1999, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that

provisions of Article 361 be read down in order to hold that the protection available to the

Governor is only limited to the municipal Courts. We fail to comprehend the distinction attempted

11
to be made between the municipal Courts and the High Courts. The word 'court' in the Constitution

has to be interpreted in the broad sense. No restrictions by implication can be put on the word

'court' used in Article 361. There are no grounds for reading down Article 361 or importing

limitation by interpretative law and restricting the broad umbrella given to high constitutional

executive functionary, which was thought of quite essential for the appropriate functioning of the

polity of the society free from fear, etc. Thus, we find no force in the submission of the learned

Counsel for the petitioner that Article 361 needs to be read down and the immunity provided to

the Governor has to be limited to the Municipal Courts alone. There are no bases that the

expression 'court' in Article 361 does not encompass this Court exercising powers of judicial

review. The contention is misconceived. There is no warrant to come to such a conclusion on the

constitutional text and context or any accepted principle of constitutional interpretation for such a

view. Categorical plain reading of constitutional provisions and scheme does ordain such a

conclusion. Hence in this case the writ petition is maintainable in High court.

2. Whether Governor has acted as per his power or not?

No, As per Article 163 (1) There shall be a council of Ministers with the chief Minister at the
head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by
or under this constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.

In J. Jayalalitha v. Her Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, Raj Bhavan, Guindy,
Madras & Others The Supreme Court in Jayalalitha’s case ruled that the Governor is a
functionary under the Constitution and cannot in exercise of his discretion do anything that is
contrary to the Constitution and the law. The situation as it prevails today is that a person
disqualified under the law has been in the CM’s chair for the last three months. It is now for the
Supreme Court to decide whether or not the discretion used by the Governor was constitutional
or was a matter of indiscretion.

12
 In the case of S R Bommai v. Union of India the Supreme Court said, “The office of the
Governor is intended to ensure protection and sustenance of the constitutional process of the
working of the Constitution by the elected executive.” The case, which would go on to become
one of the most cited whenever hung Assemblies were returned, and parties scrambled to form a
government, took almost five years to see a logical conclusion. On March 11, 1994, a nine-judge
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued the historic order, which in a way put an end to
the arbitrary dismissal of State governments under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of dissolution of order?

Yes, the petitioner is entitled to get decree. It is humbly requested to the Hon’ble court that pass
the decree for dissolution of order passed by Governor in favour of petitioner because the act of
Governor is against the natural rule of justice.

The natural rule of justice which guarantees “fair play in action” includes

1) Rule against bias -No one should be judge in his own cause.

2) Rule of fair hearing-No one should be condemned unheard.

Natural Justice principle incorporated in Indian Constitution. The constitution has passed the
golden thread of natural justice. The basic motive of principle of natural justice is to ensure fairness
in social and economical activities of the people and also shields individual liberty against the
arbitrary action. Natural justice encourages equity, fairness and equality. In the concept of common
law, natural justice constitute higher procedural principles introduced by the courts. These
principles must also followed by every judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative agency. It’s used
before taking any decision that may adversely affect the rights of a private individual. To maintain
trust of public in the country’s legal system. Therefore, natural justice forms important part of
constitution.

In the Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India case (2018) Then Chief Justice of India,
Dipak Misra, clarified that democracy and federalism are firmly imbibed in India’s constitutional
ethos while reiterating that democracy requires the constant affirmation of constitutional morality

13
 PRAYER
Whether, in the light of the facts, issued raised, Argument advanced and authorities cited; this
hon’ble court may be graciously pleased to adjudged and declares that

1. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable and need to be entertained
by the Court.

2. The order by the Governor is arbitrary and malafide. Hence, it is not valid.

3. The petitioner of the case should get interim relief from the impugned order.

4. Pass such other order as this hon’ble court may deems fit, just and proper in the
fact and circumstances of the case.

14