Mr.

“A” petitioner is a resident of one Town, Vijayawada on 12-08-

2020, was arrested by SHO of One Town, Vijayawada according to
the orders of The Superintendent of Police, VIJAYAWADA under
Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention
of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by which he directed that the
Petitioner shall be arrested and detained for a period of three
months. The Petitioner was arrested the same day and was
detained in the custody of . The grounds of detention were not
supplied to the petitioner. He is neither produced before the
nearest magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest.

On 13-8-2020, the Petitioner submitted a representation against

his detention through one of the family members but the same
was considered by the Advisory Board after one month and was
rejected on 13-9-2020. On 12-9-2020, the grounds of detention
were supplied to the Petitioner were in English which language the
Petitioner does not know.

ADVICE HIM TO DRAFT A PETITION TO FILED BEFORE HIGHH

COURT OF AP

HINT: WRIT OF HEBEAS CORPUS

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF AP

WRIT PETITION (CRMINAL) NO. OF 2020

A ___aged about _____son of _____ resident of One Town, Vijayawada........

…………………………………………… ………………………………..Petitioner;

Versus

1. The Superintendent of Police, VIJAYAWADA

2. SHO, One Town, Vijayawada

3. The State of AP……………………………….…………………………………… Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT FILED FOR THE ISSUE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

I Mr. “A” aged____ R/o A ___aged about _____son of _____ resident of One Town,
Vijayawada, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as follows:

1. I am the resident of one Town, Vijayawada and he was living peacefully at his residence at
the place aforesaid.

2. I submit that I was arrested on 12-08-2020 by Respondent No. 1 made an order under
Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,
1974 by which he directed that the Petitioner shall be arrested and detained for a period of
three months.

3. I submit that I was detained in the custody of Respondent 2 . The grounds of detention
were not supplied. I was neither produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of
the arrest.

4. I further submit that on 13-8-2020, I have presented a representation against his

detention through one of the family members but the same was considered by the Advisory
Board after one month and was rejected on 13-9-2020

5.Moreover the grounds of detention were supplied to the me were stated in English I don't
know.

6. That the orders of detention of the Petitioner are illegal, improper.

 
  

7. I further submit that it is reliably learnt that the respondent with an ulterior motive
and malafide intention arrested the petitioner

In the light of foregone facts and submissions, the Plaintiff humbly prays that the
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass orders directing the Respondent to release
him form Police custody which is illegal

Filed by Be pleased to consider

Advocate for Petitioner / Plaintiff DEPONENT

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me on this day of March ……….. 2020

ADVOCATE
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF AP

WRIT PETITION (CRMINAL) NO. OF 2020

A ___aged about _____son of _____ resident of One Town, Vijayawada........

…………………………………………… ………………………………..Petitioner;

Versus

1. The Superintendent of Police, VIJAYAWADA

2. SHO, One Town, Vijayawada

3. The State of AP……………………………….…………………………………… Respondents.

PETITION FOR THE ISSUE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER

ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The above-named Petitioner most respectfully sheweth:

1. That the petitioner is a resident of one Town, Vijayawada and he was living peacefully at his
residence at the place aforesaid.

2. That on 12-08-2020, Respondent No. 1 made an order under Section 3 of the Conservation
of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by which he directed
that the Petitioner shall be arrested and detained for a period of three months.

3. That the Petitioner was arrested the same day and was detained in the custody of
Respondent 2 . The grounds of detention were not supplied to the petitioner. He is neither
produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest.

4. That on 13-8-2020, the Petitioner submitted a representation against his detention

through one of the family members but the same was considered by the Advisory Board after
one month and was rejected on 13-9-2020

5. On 12-9-2020, the grounds of detention were supplied to the Petitioner were in English
which language the Petitioner does not know.

6. That the orders of detention of the Petitioner are illegal, improper and without jurisdiction
on the following:

GROUNDS

1. That he is neither produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest.

2. Because the grounds were supplied after undue delay.

3. Because the grounds are in English which language the Petitioner does not
know and this has prevented him from making an effective representation.
4. Because the grounds are irrelevant to the object of the Act.
5. Because the grounds are vague.
6. Because there was undue delay in the disposal of the representation
submitted by the petitioner

PRAYER:
Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the opposite parties quashing
the order of detention and directing that the Petitioner be set at liberty
forthwith.

Date _________ Advocate for the Petitioner.

 56

PROBLEM
The petitioner is a citizen of India residing at Vijayawada. The petitioner is
of 27 yrs of age and was working as a daily wage worker, when on 1.2.2020
his services were terminated without notice/prior intimation. The Petitioner
during his service worked to the satisfaction of his superiors. The respondent
has appointed Sh. Ompal, Sh. Ram and Smt Maya in deviance of the said
notification M.C.D./LF/01-/03 at 01.02.2020 as all the three person namely
Om Pal, Sh. Ram and Smt. Maya are more than 30 years of age as on
01.1.2020 . The about named persons were appointed in utter disregard of
Notification. The respondent,however, removed the petitioner from service
although petitioner met the requirements.. That the Petitioner made
representation to the respondent vide letter dated 12.2.2020, 12..3.2020 and
also met the commissioner personally and apprised them of his grievance,
however nothing materialized .

That the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal appointments of daily wage

workers by the M.C.D. office in deviance of Notification No. MCD/LF/01-
103 dated 1.2.2020 which requires the M.C. of Vijayawada. to appoint only
those person as Daily wage worker who are below the age of 30 years as an
01.1.2020 on the ground that the said Notification was issued after it was duly
approved.

ADVICE HIM TO DRAFT A WRIT PETITION to be filed before AP HIGH

COURT……………

HINT: WRIT OF MANDAMUS

 56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AP HIGH COURT

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF :
X S/o R/o PETITIONER

VERSUS
Muncipal Corporation of … RESPONDENT
Vijayawada
AFFIDAVIT FILED WITH WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF PREROGATIVE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS
OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
Iam Mr “ X” , a citizen of India residing at Vijayawada , do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely
state on oath as follows
1. Iam the petitioner of 27 yrs of age and was working as a daily wage worker in Municipal
Corporation , Vijayawada.
2. I submit that on 1.2.2020 my services were terminated without notice/prior intimation. The
respondent has appointed Sh. Ompal, Sh. Ram and Smt Maya in deviance of the said notification
M.C.D./LF/01-/03 at 01.02.2020 as all the three person namely Om Pal, Sh. Ram and Smt. Maya
are more than 30 years of age as on 01.1.2020 . The about named persons were appointed in utter
disregard of Notification. The respondent,however, removed the me from service although
petitioner met the requirements..
3. I further submit that the Petitioner made representation to the respondent vide letter dated
12.2.2020, 12..3.2020 and also met the commissioner personally and apprised them of his
grievance, however nothing materialized .
3. That in spite of oral and written representations the respondent have not cared to act and are
maintaining stoic silence on the whole issue.
4. I further submit that it is reliably learnt that the respondent with an ulterior motive and malafide
intention removed him from the service.

In the light of foregone facts and submissions, the Plaintiff humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to pass orders directing the Respondent issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to cancel the illegal appointment made in disregard of
Notification No. MCD/LF/01-103 dated 1.2.2020

Filed by Be pleased to consider

Advocate for Petitioner / Plaintiff DEPONENT

56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AP HIGH COURT

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF :
X S/o R/o PETITIONER

VERSUS
Muncipal Corporation of … RESPONDENT
Vijayawada
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
FOR ISSUANCE OF PREROGATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
Respectfully showeth :
1. That the petitioner is a citizen of India residing at Vijaywada. The respondent is
Muncipal Corporation of Vijayawada
BRIEF FACTS :-
2. That the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal appointments of daily wage workers by the
M.C.D. office in deviance of Notification No. MCD/LF/01-103 dated 1.2.2020 which
requires the M.C. of Vijayawada. to appoint only those person as Daily wage worker who
are below the age of 30 years as an 01.1.2020. The said Notification was issued after it
was duly approved.
3. That the petitioner is of 27 yrs of age and was working as a daily wage worker, when on
1.2.2020 his services were terminated without notice/prior intimation. The Petitioner
during his service worked to the satisfaction of his superiors. The respondent has
appointed Sh. Ompal, Sh. Ram and Smt Maya in defiance of the said notification
M.C.D./LF/01-/03 at 01.02.2020 as all the three person namely Om Pal, Sh. Ram and
Smt. Maya are more than 30 years of age as on 01.1.2020 . The about named persons
were appointed in utter disregard of Notification. The respondent,however, removed the
petitioner from service although petitioner met the requirements.. That the Petitioner
made representation to the respondent vide letter dated 12.2.2020, 12..3.2020 and also
met the commissioner personally and apprised them of his grievance, however nothing
materialized .
4. That in spite of oral and written representations the respondent have not cared to act and
are maintaining stoic silence on the whole issue.
5. That the petitioner have thus approached the Hon‟ble court on amongst others the
following grounds
GROUNDS:
(a) Because the action of the respondent is contrary to law and good conscience.
 57

(b) Because the action of the respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and
unconstitutional.
(c) Because respondent have no right to play with the career of the petitioner.
(d) Because the petitioner was removed from job inspite of the fact that he was below age
and fulfilled all requirements.
(e) Because respondent appointed. Sh. Ompal, Sh. Ram and Smt Maya despite their being
overage and not meeting requirements of Notification No. MCD/LF/01-103 dated
1.2.2020 .
(f) Because the action of the respondent is bad in law
(g) That the Petitioner craves, leave of this Honorable Court to add, amend, alter the grounds
raised in this petition.
6. That the cause of action in present case arose on 1.2.2020 when the respondent brought
out the Notification No. MCD/LF/01-103 dated 1.2.2020., it further arise when on the
same day when the petitioner was removed from job inspite of the fact that he was below
age and fulfilled all requirements, it further arose when respondent appointed. Sh. Ompal,
Sh. Ram and Smt Maya despite their being overage and not meeting requirements of
Notification No. MCD/LF/01-103 dated 1.2.2020, it further arose when representations
were made to respondent orally and in writing on 12.2.2020, 12..3.2020. The cause of
action further arose when respondent did not act inspite of the fact having brought to
their notice. The cause of action is continuing one.
7. That the Petitioner has no other alternative efficacious remedy except to approach this
Hon‟ble Court by way of this writ petition
8. That the petitioner has not filed any other similar writ petition either before this Hon‟ble
Court or before the Supreme Court of India.
9. That there has been no undue delay in filing of this petition.
10. That the honorable court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
11. That the requisite court fee of Rs. 50/- has been affixed on this petition.
PRAYER :
The petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to :-
(a) issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing
the Respondents to cancel the illegal appointment made in disregard of Notification No.
MCD/LF/01-103 dated 1.2.2020 : and
(b) issue necessary directions to appointment of petitioner and
(c) issue any other further order/orders or direction/directions as this Hon‟ble Court may
deem fit and appropriate no the facts and the circumstances of this case.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED SHALL EVER
PRAY.
Andhra Pradesh PETITIONER
Date THROUGH
ADVOCATE
[NOTE : The petition will be supported by an affidavit]
WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Certiorari
Literally, Certiorari means to be certified. The writ of certiorari can be issued
by the Supreme Court or any High Court for quashing the order already
passed by an inferior court, tribunal or quasi judicial authority.

There are several conditions necessary for the issue of writ of certiorari .

There should be court, tribunal or an officer having legal authority to

determine the question with a duty to act judicially.
Such a court, tribunal or officer must have passed an order acting without
jurisdiction or in excess of the judicial authority vested by law in such court,
tribunal or officer.
The order could also be against the principles of natural justice or the order
could contain an error of judgment in appreciating the facts of the case.

Prohibition

The Writ of prohibition means to forbid or to stop and it is popularly known

as 'Stay Order'. This writ is issued when a lower court or a body tries to
transgress the limits or powers vested in it. The writ of prohibition is issued
by any High Court or the Supreme Court to any inferior court, or quasi
judicial body prohibiting the latter from continuing the proceedings in a
particular case, where it has no jurisdiction to try. After the issue of this writ,
proceedings in the lower court etc. come to a stop.

Difference between Prohibition and Certiorari:

While the writ of prohibition is available during the pendency of

proceedings, the writ of certiorari can be resorted to only after the order or
decision has been announced.
Both the writs are issued against legal bodies.
 PROBLEM
Mr. Christopher is a stockist and dealer in drugs and carries on his business in the
name and style SAVIOUR DRUGIST Co. Ltd at Ranga Reddy dist., Hyderabad With
licence No 2609 dated 2014 and has been carrying on this business for the last six
years. On 2-2-2020 the Petitioner received a notice from Controller of Drugs,
Telangana, to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled for selling
substandard and spurious drugs. On 15-2-2020, 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. That without giving
proper consideration to the pleas raised by the Petitioner, Controller of Drugs,
Telangana passed an order dated 19-6-2020, cancelling the Petitioner’s licence.

There on……. he made an Appeal to Higher Authority which was dismissed……

He then wishes to approach the High Court of Telangana for Issue of Writ against
Controller of Drugs, Telangana……Prepare a draft Writ Petition

HINT: Writ of Certiorari

Along with this Petition “AFFIDAVIT” HAS TO BE FILED…………..

 57

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT TELANGANA

Writ Petition No_________of _________ , 20 _________

Christopher ___________________________________________________ Petitioner;

Versus

1. State of Telangana

2. Drug Controller, Telangana

3. Appellate Authority ______________________________________________Respondents.

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

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 and style at
Ranga Reddy dist., Hyderabad

2. That the Petitioner held a drug dealer’s licence No 2609 dated 2014 and has been carrying on this
business for the last six years.

3. That on 2-2-2020 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 15-2-2020, 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 19-6-2020, cancelling the Petitioner’s licence.
 57

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

7. That by order dated 27-8-2020, 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 _________ 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 19-6-2020 and the order of
Respondent No. 3 dated 27-8-2020
______________

(Petitioner.)

Dated_________ Counsel for

Petitioner