Search Results

HC Writ Disability Pension  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CWP No.:______ of 2004 Petitioner  Versus Respondents List Of Events Dates:______ Events :______ Chennai Petitioner :______ Through, Advocate  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CWP No.::______ of 2004 Petitioner  Versus Respondents  Civil Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 Of The Constitution Of India For Appropriate Writ, Order Or Directions To The Respondents  Chennai  Petitioner ______  Through, Advocate Respectfully Sheweth;  1. That your Lordship's humble petitioner is a citizen of India and on the grounds hereinafter mentioned is entitled to file and maintain the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. 2. ________________________ 3. That the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on _______________ as a ________________. The petitioner was allotted Army No. ________________. The petitioner was initially engaged for _______ years of service and with the passage of time the petitioner would have earned promotion upto the rank of Subedar Major and Honorary ranks and he would have thus served upto 32 years of service in the Army. 4. That the petitioner was undergoing very hard and strenuous basic training successfully and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and the instructors. The petitioner had all the traits and capabilities of becoming a good soldier and serving the nation. The petitioner had very successfully completed _____ months basic training. 5. That the medical authorities after carrying out investigations diagnosed the disease of the petitioner as _________________ and placed the petitioner in the lower medical category ______ on ______ vide Annexure P-_____________________ and as a result of which the petitioner was invalided out of the Military Service, without offering him an opportunity either to give his willingness or unwillingness for retention in the Army against the sheltered or alternative appointment and show cause against his invalidment out of the service in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the subject matter. 6. That thereafter the petitioner was invalided out of service w.e.f. _________________________ barely after _____ months _____ days of service without paying any invalidment benefits, ie; invalid/disability pension to the petitioner, which is admissible to him under the rules and regulations. The petitioner was intimated to his utmost surprise and dismay by the respondent vide Annexure P-____________________ that he is not entitled to the Disability Pension. The petitioner has thereafter preferred an appeal against the said rejection vide Annexure P-_______________________ which has been acknowledged as having been received by the respondents vide Annexure P-________________. But, unfortunately, the respondents do not seem to be paying any heed towards the representation of the petitioner even after more than _________________________ months have elapsed. 7. That the medical authority vide Annexure P-________________________ has advised the petitioner to take medicines up to ________________ years of service, meaning thereby that the petitioner was fit to be retained in the service and his disease was curable within the period of three years. 8. That the petitioner not feeling satisfied with the findings and recommendations of the military medical authorities got himself checked up at ________________________. The medical authorities has opined that the petitioner has ___________________________, meaning thereby that the petitioner has been cured of the disease and is thus fit to be taken back and retained in the Army. The report of the Medical Authorities of is Annexed as Annexure P-__________________________.  GROUNDS 9. That Your Lordship's humble petitioner is invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court and seeking indulgence on the following grounds amongst others, each one of which is without prejudice to and independent of other :- (a) That the impugned action of the respondents whereby _______________ is arbitrary, malafide, illegal, unjust, against the Art 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India as well as against the natural justice and dehors the rules and regulations.  (b) __________________________That it would not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner had no similar type of episode either before or thereafter or during the course of admission in the military hospital for investigations for about 66 days.  (c) That the petitioner was found fit to join the Army at the time of his enrollment by the military medical authorities. Now it does not lie in their mouth to say to the contrary. ____________________Moreover there is no history of the disease in the family or relation of the petitioner.  (d) That otherwise also the percentage of disability as assessed by the military medical authorities is of moderate degree, meaning thereby that the petitioner should have either been placed in category BEE or at the most in category CEE in accordance with the Army Order No. 146 of 1977 and retained him by giving him the Sheltered Appointment or the alternative appointment as provided for under the provisions of Army Order No. 46 of 1980 which provides that the efforts should be made to provide alternative employment in their own trade/category commensurate with their medical categorisation. And the Order further provides that ordinarily, permanent low medical category personnel will be retained in service till completion of 15 years service in the case of JCOs and 10 years in the case of OR [including NCOs]. The respondents have taken no efforts to provide the alternative sheltered appointment to the petitioner. This provision has been made with the intention so that the soldier can earn a normal service pension after 10 years of service. Here it would not be out of place to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered sheltered appointment even to the blind persons in the case Anand Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn reported in AIR 1991 SC 1003 and in another case titled as Kishan Lal Vs Union of India reported in 1988 [3] SLJ [CAT] 272 the sheltered appointment was ordered to the blind persons.  (e) That as per para 143 of Regulations for the Army 1987, an ex-serviceman who has been medically boarded out without any disability pension or those whose disability pensions have been re-assessed below 20% by the Re-survey Boards, will be eligible for re-enrollment. Since the medical authorities were well aware that the disability of the petitioner is below 20% and the petitioner will not be paid any disability/service pension consequent to invaliding out of service, there was no reason for invaliding out the petitioner. Notwithstanding, the respondents deserves to be issued directions for re-enrollment of the petitioner w.e.f _____________________, ie; the date of invaliding out with all the consequential benefits and rectify their wrong actions.  (f) That the medical authorities have based their view on imagination, conjectures and surmises rather than on sound and substantial medical grounds and findings. The placing of the petitioner in medical category ____________________ EEE was based on the extraneous considerations, ie, the petitioner was a recruit, even though the petitioner had completed substantial period of training. Had the petitioner not been a recruit the recommendations of the medical authority would have been quite different and favourable. The respondents can not draw distinction for granting alternative sheltered appointments on the basis of ranks, which otherwise will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.  (g) That the respondents have acted in a mechanical manner and have not cared to apply their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has been reduced to non-entity by the action of the respondents and the petitioner has been rendered a pauper by depriving him of his livelihood just because of arbitrary, discriminatory and unmindful action of the respondents at the prime of his age. The petitioner has been denied his rights of life, liberty and livelihood. (h) That assuming but not admitting or conceding that the petitioner has correctly been invalided out of service, then the petitioner is entitled for the invalid/disability pension along with the service pension as the disease of the petitioner is attributable to military service and aggravated by the military service. The disease of the petitioner has a direct causal connection with the service conditions as the disease has been precipitated by the hard and strenuous training of the military and the same is directly responsible for on-set of the disease.  (i) That the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensioner Awards, 1982 provides for the invalid/disability pension. The Rule 4 of the Rules of 1982 lays down that invaliding from service is a necessary condition for grant of a disability pension. An individual who, at the time of his release under the Release Regulations, is in a lower Medical category than that in which he was recruited will be treated as invalided from service. JCOs/ORs and equivalent in other services who are placed permanently in a medical category other than 'AYE' and are discharged because no alternative employment suitable to their low medical category can be provided, as well as those who having been retained in alternative employment but are discharged before the completion of their engagement will be deemed to have been invalidated out of service.  (j) That the rule 5 of the Rules of 1982 further provides that the approach to the question of entitlement to casualty pensioner awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be based on the presumptions that a member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance and in the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health which has taken place is due to service. Here it would not be out of place to mention that the petitioner was thoroughly medically checked up by the respondents before enrolling him into the Army.  (k) That the Rule 9 of the Rules of 1982 provides that the onus to prove the conditions of entitlement shall not lie upon the claimant. The claimant shall receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The Rule 14 amplifies and clarifies that the cases in which it is established that the conditions of military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent courses of the disease, will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation, ie; the disease in the case of the petitioner has been aggravated by the service conditions. The rule further clarifies that a disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service. Here it would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner was thoroughly medically checked up by the respondents before enrolling him into the Army. Now it does not lie in their mouth to say to the contrary.  (l) That the law with regard to causal connection of disease with the service has been laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case ----------------- Vs Union of India reported in 1995 [2] Sim LC 118. It is also settled law that the disease on the basis of which a sepoy was discharged is normally deemed to be attributable to Army Service if no note of it was made at the time of enrollment in Army vide 1992 (3) SLR (P & H) 662. This position of law has further been confirmed in the following judgments, ie; -------------------------- Vs UOI reported in 1992 [3] SLR (P&H) 758, ------------------------ Vs UOI reported in 1992 (6) SLR (P&H) 749, ----------------- Vs UOI reported in 1991 (5) SLR (P&H) 476, Ex ------------------------ Vs UOI reported in 1991 (5) SLR (P&H) 459, ----------------- Vs UOI reported in 1991 (6) SLR (P&H) 468, ----------- Vs UOI 1991 (5) SLR (P&H) 190 etc.  (m) That it is settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court that the pension is a property of a government servant and is of a recurring nature and denial of pension is a recurring injury. The action of the respondent is thus violative of the provision of the Art 300-A of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner has been deprived of right without due process of law and in grave violation of the principles of natural justice.  (n) That the whole action of the respondents have been taken in hot haste simply with a view to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate rights just because he was a recruit. 3. That the petitioner has no other speedy and efficacious remedy available except to approach this Hon'ble court by way of the present writ petition. 4. That the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition on same or similar grounds either before this Hon'ble court or before the Supreme Court of India. 5. That the petitioner, therefore, prays that an appropriate writ, order or directions be issued for the following reliefs :- (a) Quash the impugned orders P ________________________.  (b) Direct the respondents to re-enroll the petitioner in the Army w.e.f ________________, ie, the date of invaliding out with the full salary and other consequential benefits as the petitioner has been invalided out arbitrarily, discriminately and in utter violation of the constitutional rights and natural justice and for no fault of his; OR;  (c) Direct the respondents to grant to the petitioner Disability Pension as well as the Service Pension as admissible under the law/rules, as the petitioner has contacted the disease which has become cause for his invalidment, during the course of training and service and is attributable to and aggravated by the service conditions, with interest @ 18% p.a. and other consequential benefits;  (d) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant records, more particularly the medical records, for perusal by this Hon'ble court;  (e) Allow the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner, and;  (f) Allow such other relief or pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and justice be done.  AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE HUMBLE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY. Chennai Petitioner ______ Through, Advocate  THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CWP No.:______ of 2004 Petitioner  Versus Respondents  Affidavit in support of the Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. I, _______________________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under : 1. That the accompanying writ petition has been prepared under my instructions.2. That the contents of paras 1 to _________ of the accompanying writ petition are correct and true to the best of my knowledge. 3. That I further solemnly affirm and declare that this affidavit of mine is correct and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein. Affirmed at Chennai this the ______. Deponent  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CMP No.:______ of 2004 in CWP No.: ______ of 2004 Petitioner/Applicants  Versus Respondents/Non-Applicants  Application Under Rule 2 of the Writ Rules for dispensing with Seven days notice of motion Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the petitioner/applicant has filed the above mentioned writ petition in this Hon'ble court. 2. That on perusal of the allegations made in the writ petition and the documents attached therewith it is evident that the matter is of urgent nature and dispensing with of seven days notice is essential in the interest of justice. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that this application may be allowed and seven days notice of motion dispensed with and writ petition be listed immediately. Chennai Petitioner/Applicant ______ Through, Advocate  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CMP No.:______ of 2004 in CWP No.:______ of 2004 Petitioner/Applicant  Versus Respondents/Non-Applicants  Affidavit in support of the application under Rule 2 of the Writ Rules. I, ______, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :- 1. That the accompanying application has been prepared under my instructions. 2. That the contents of paras 1 to 3 of the accompanying application are correct and true to the best of my knowledge. 3. That I further solemnly affirm and declare that this affidavit of mine is correct and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein. Affirmed at Chennai this the ______. Deponent  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CMP No.:______ of 2004 in CWP No.:______ of 2004 Petitioner/Applicant  Versus Respondents/Non-Applicants  Application Under Rule 4 of the Writ Rules for Ad interim orders Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the petitioner/applicant has filed the above mentioned writ petition in this Hon'ble court. 2. That on perusal of the allegations made in the writ petition and the documents attached therewith it is evident that the petitioner/applicants have prima facie a very good case in their favour and the writ petition is likely to succeed. The Balance of Convenience is in favour of the petitioners/applicants. 3. That the interest of justice demands that during the pendency of the writ petition  4. It is, therefore, prayed that this application may be allowed and in the interest of justice. Such other orders may also be passed in favour of the petitioners as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Chennai Petitioner/Applicant ______ Through, Advocate  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CMP No.:_____ of 2004 in CWP No.:______ of 2004 Petitioner/Applicant  Versus Respondents/Non-Applicants  Affidavit in support of the application Under Rule 4 of the Writ Rules. I, ______, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :- 1. That the accompanying application has been prepared under my instructions. 2. That the contents of paras 1 to 4 of the accompanying application are correct and true to the best of my knowledge. 3. That I further solemnly affirm and declare that this affidavit of mine is correct and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein. Affirmed at Chennai this the ______. Deponent  Under Order 7 Rule 13 (1) CPC List of Documents Filed By Petitioner In The Court of: Hon'ble High Court of TN at Chennai Versus  Date of Hearing: ______ Suit For : CWP Date of Production : ______ Date: ______ Counsel for Plaintiff/Defendant  In the High Court of TN at Chennai Mention Memo 1. Number & Nature of case: ______ ______ Vs ______ 2. Party seeking posting: Petitioner/Appellant 3. Name of Advocate of : ______, Advocate party seeking posting. 4. Name of Advocate : ______ appearing for the opposite party 5. Mention for: Motion/Admission/Orders. 6. Reason for the mention:______ 7. Date on which posting is sought:______ Chennai ______ Advocate  Download Word Document In English. (Rs.70/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.70/-)

Writ Civil  WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT_______________________________  (Original Civil Jurisdiction) Writ Petition No_____________________ of _________ , 20 _________ A _________ Petitioner;  Versus  1. State of ____________________________  2. Drug Controller _________________  3. Appellate Authority ____________________________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 and style of _________________at ________________________  2. That the Petitioner held a drug dealer’s licence No__________________. dated _____________ and has been carrying on this business for the last six years.  3. That on ___________________________ 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 ___________________ 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 _______________ cancelling the Petitioner’s licence.  6. That, thereupon, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 3.  7. That by order dated ______________________ 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 ___________ and the order of  Respondent No. 3 dated_________ ____________________  (Petitioner.) Dated_________  _______________________ Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.10/-)

HC Reply Writ Petition  BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ----AT ------I CWP No.: _____ Petitioner  Versus Respondents  Reply on behalf of the respondent No. _____________________ to the Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Submissions/Objections: 1. That no fundamental or constitutional right whatsoever of the petitioner has been infringed and as  such the writ petition is not maintainable. ______ _________________________2. That the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has no locus stand to file the Writ  Petition. _____________________________________________ Reply on Merits 1. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are not denied to the extent that the petitioner is a  citizen of India. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to file or maintain this writ  petition before this Hon'ble Court.   ___________________________________2. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied.   ___________________3. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied.  4. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied.  5. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied.  6. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied.  7. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied.  8. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied.  9. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied.  10. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied.  11. That the contents of this para of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied. __ 12. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition is lacking of material substance and is  false, frivolous and vexatious and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and may be dismissed in  the interest of justice with costs. Chennai Replying Respondent No._____ ____________________ Through, Advocate  BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CWP No.: ______ Petitioner  Versus Respondents  Affidavit in support of reply on behalf of the replying respondent No. _______________ to the Writ Petition I,_________________________________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That the accompanying reply has been drafted under my instructions. 2. That the contents of paras 1 to _____ of preliminary submissions and paras 1 to _____ of the reply on  merits are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and contents of paras _____ to ______ are  correct as per the legal advice. 3. That I further solemnly affirm and declare that this affidavit of mine is correct and true, no part of it is  false and nothing material has been concealed therein. Affirmed here at Chennai this ______. Deponent  Download Word Document In English. (Rs.20/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.20/)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ----------AT ---------  (EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)  WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ______OF 2019  IN THE MATTER OF: POOJA MAHAJAN … PETITIONER  V E R S U S  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS  IN THE HIGH COURT OF -------AT-   (EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)  WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ______OF 2019   IN THE MATTER OF:  POOJA … PETITIONER  V E R S U S  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS  I N D E X S.NO .  PARTICULARS PAGES  Notice of Motion  A 2. Urgent application  B 3. Court Fee  4. Memo of Parties  C 5. List of Dates & events 6. Writ petition with affidavit  7. Stay application with affidavit  8. ANNEXURE – A Colour photocopy of YouTube material  9. ANNEXURE - B Copy of cinematography act  10. ANNEXURE - C Copy of Guidelines  11. ANNEXURE - D Copy of policy on impersonation  12. ANNEXURE - E Copy of trailer of the film  13. ANNEXURE - F Copy of pages of the Book The Accidental Prime Minster  14. Exemption Application with Affidavit  15. Vakalatnama  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ______OF 2019  IN THE MATTER OF:  POOJA … PETITIONER  V E R S U S  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS  NOTICE OF MOTION TAKE NOTICE  that the accompanying writ petition and stay application will be listed before the Hon'ble High Court on ______at 10.30 O'clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as may be convenient to the Hon'ble Court.  To,  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ______OF 2019  IN THE MATTER OF:  POOJA … PETITIONER  V E R S U S  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS  TO, The Registrar, ------ URGENT APPLICATION  Sir, Would you kindly treat the accompanying Writ Petition and Application as Urgent because urgent relief has been prayed for.  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI  (EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ______OF 2019  IN THE MATTER OF: POOJA … PETITIONER  V E R S U S  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS  MEMO OF PARTIES  POOJA D/O … PETITIONER  V E R S U S  1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI  2. GOOGLE (INDIA) THROUGH  3. YOUTUBE  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ______OF 2019  IN THE MATTER OF:  POOJA MAHAJAN D/O SH. S.K. MAHAJAN SHOP NO.-37, FASHION STREET SHAHPUR JAT NEW DELHI … PETITIONER  V E R S U S  1. UNION OF INDIA-----  2. --------------  3. -------------- 4.         …RESPONDENTS  PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT,  ORDER OR DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 & 4 (CBFC) TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO STOP/SUSPEND THE DISPLAY TRAILER OF “THE ACCIDENTAL PRIME MINISTER” ON YOUTUBE AS THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 5B OF CINEMATOGRAPH ACT AND READ WITH RULE 38 OF CINEMATOGRAPH (CERTIFICATION) RULES, 1983 TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI A HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:  1. The Petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and the Petitioner is not guided by any self-gain or by any other motive in fling the present writ petition.  2. The Petitioner is being motivated to file the present writ petition as provisions of Section 5-B of Cinematography Act & Rule 38 of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 are being misused besides that under the garb of the certificate under Section 5-B of the Act producer has released “Trailer” which is affecting, harming the image of the Constitutional post of Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and giving a bad name at the national as well as at the international level.  3. It is submitted that the Prime Minister of India is a Constitutional post and is protected under the Constitution of India and under no set of circumstances any company, individual, film producer can enjoy any such liberty to defame the said post / August Office.  4. The need and necessity for filing the present writ petition has arosen as the Respondent No. 2 and 3 have allowed, permitted the Trailer of film “the Accidental Prime Minister” on its YouTube channel and consequently thereof the post of Prime Minister is getting defamed on day to day basis in public domain before the public at large.  5. The Petitioner carries utmost respect for the Constitution of India as all Constitutional functionaries are working under the framework of Constitution of India and at present the Trailer released on YouTube is causing unaccountable damage to the name and fame of the office of Prime Minster of India.  6. That Dr. Manmohan Singh (Ex-Prime Minister) enjoys a national and international repute in the public at large as being the Prime Minister of India from 2004-14. That Dr. Manmohan Singh is a Honorary fellow of St. Jones College, Cambridge University.  7. That Dr. Manmohan Singh got a doctoral degree from Oxford University and also remained member of the National Security Advisor Board from 1998-2001.  8. That Dr. Manmohan Singh is well-known Economist of International frame and repute and also remained Governor of Reserve Bank of India. 9. That on dated 20.04.2014 a book named “The Accidental Prime Minister” authored by Sanjaya Baru, was published.  10. That on dated 06.06.2017 the first look of the film named The Accidental Prime Minister, based upon the above-mentioned book was released through cine-star/actor Anupam Kher’s Official Twitter Account.  11. That on dated 08.06.2017, Mr. Pehlaj Nihlani, Chairman of CBFC warned the makers of the film that No-Objection Certificates from Ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi are required to obtained to release the film.  12. That on dated 27/28.12.2018 the official Trailer of the film was released on YouTube channel for viewers of India and abroad. That as per Trailer it was announced that film “The Accidental Prime Minister” will be released on 11th January, 2019.  13. That as per the Disclaimer in Trailer the Film “The Accidental Prime Minister” is based on the Book written by Sanjaya Baru but the real facts are totally different. That in fact disclaimer given in Trailer is untrue, false, fake. 14. The Trailer also conveys that the film has been produced by Bohra Brothers under Rudra Production in association with Jayanti Lal Tada under the banner of PAN India Ltd. 15. That as per the media reports casting of the said film is as under: • Anupam Kher as Dr. Manmohan Singh, Ex-Prime Minister of India • Akshay Khanna as Mr. Sanjaya Baru • Suzanne Bernert as Mrs. Sonia Gandhi • Arjun Mathur as Mr. Rahul Gandhi • Abdul Quadir Amin as Mr. Ajay Singh … … … … … … … … … 16. The Petitioner do say that as per the Petitioner’s information Respondent No. 4 has given the certificate under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act to the said film. It is submitted that the permission / approval / certification given to this film under Section 5-B of the Act is in contravention of Section 416 of Indian Penal Code wherein offence “impersonation” has been defined. 17. That by performing the character of Dr. Manmohan Singh, (Ex-Prime Minister), Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi the performing actors/artists have committed offences punishable under Section 416 of IPC and therefore the Respondent No. 4 / CBFC could not have given the certificate for screening / exhibiting of the above said film. Section 416 of IPC is as under: “416.Cheating by personation – A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. Explanation – The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person. 18. That even dictionary meaning of the word “impersonation” shows that producers, makers, cine-stars could not hacve committed offence of “impersonation” as it is punishable under Section 416 IPC: “to intentionally copy another person’s characteristics, such as their behavior, speech, appearance, or expressions, especially to make people laugh. To attempt to deceive someone by pretending that you are another person.” 19. That as per the provisions of Cinematograph Act only such film can be certified/given certificate if it is not against the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or involves defamations or contempt of Court or likely to incite the commission of any offence. 20. It is a known fact that film producers have not taken any consent/permission from Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi to perform their characters or to perform their political life or to dress up in the same way as they had been doing in their normal life or to copy their voice in any manner. 21. That besides that, the film producers had no authority to violate the mandate of Constitution of India which provides respect towards the Constitutional functionaries. It seems that film makers, producers have made an attempt to make commercial gains and the act of “impersonation” have been committed deliberately to defame the office of Prime Minister just to hype the excitement amongst the prospective viewers. 22. The Petitioner do say that the Respondent No. 1 to 4 could not have permitted, allowed or could not have allowed the Trailer of the said film as it is against the decency, morality and involves spoiling of Ex- Prime Minster of India. It is a fact that office of Hon’ble Prime Minister of India is getting defamed, insulted in social-media. 23. The Petitioner do say that trailer of above said film is also spoiling relations with a foreign states and ultimately affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India. 24. That the Respondent No. 2 and 3 have also violated their own policy on impersonation wherein YouTube itself categorizes, specifies that the “impersonation” will not be permitted on their channel. 25. That by allowing the Trailer of the said film the Respondent No. 2 and 3 have permitted the act of impersonation to perpetuate therefore Petitioner is praying for appropriate relief against the Respondent No. 2 and 3 also and seeking direction to stop, suspend, remove the Trailer of the above said film from their channel / Web Forum. 26. The Petitioner do say that the right of privacy has been recognized as a Fundamental Right by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declared as under: “The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. 27. The Trailer being exhibited on YouTube is being motivated and trailer shows that various inputs have been added in the said Trailer. That in other words, the Trailer is not based on the book of Sanjaya Baru. 28. The Trailer being viewed on YouTube channel shows the following titles besides “The Accidental Prime Minister”: (i) This Election Season (ii) The Nuclear Deal (iii) The Kashimir Issue (iv) Of the PM and the Party (v) Witness an inside story (vi) Based on the controversial book 29. That all these titles clearly shows that the Trailer is motivated and an impression is being given through the Trailer that during the regime of Dr. Manmohan Singh there was a confrontation on the above said issues. 30. It is submitted that Ex-Prime Minister functioned as a Constitutional authority and at no stage of time it can ever be said that there was a confrontation on the above said issues because as the then Hon’ble Prime Minister himself was abided by the Cabinet Decisions and was implementing the policy of the Ruling Party - UPA-I & II. 31. The Petitioner do say that procedures/makers ofTrailer have deliberately against the Dr. Manmohan Singh, Ex- Prime Minister in the mind of viewers, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Rahul Gandhi. That while as a matter of fact in the book written by Sanjaya Baru there are no such things which shows any suspicion on the part of these persons. 32. That as by the Trailer, the people are being misled including Petitioner but later on when the Petitioner discovered that it was a wrong propaganda being done as a political stunt at behest of some political party so the Petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court for bringing on record that such kind of Trailer on YouTube cannot be permitted or cannot be allowed by the YouTube itself. 33. It is submitted that even as per YouTube no impersonation is permissible but still the Trailer has been allowed to be viewed by thousands of millions of people every minute every day showing acts of impersonation in name of Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, Mr. Rahul Gandhi and others. The said policy of the YouTube is as under: “Impersonation of an individual A user creates a channel or video using another individual’s real name, image, or other personal information to deceive people into thinking they are someone else or YouTube. If you feel that you are being impersonated, report it using our webform. Note: This form is not for removal of accounts that you can no longer access.” 34. It is submitted that the above said Trailer carrying the following Disclaimer but the said disclaimer is insufficient and do not condone the acts of impersonation which have been committed deliberately in the Trailer of the above said Film: “This film is based on the book “the accidental prime minister” by Mr. Sanjaya Baru. all characters, events and incidents are based on the book and have been fictionalised for dramatization. utmost care has been taken to keep the screenplay accurately aligned to the book. Nothing in the film is intended to defame any person dead or alive. neither the contents of the film, nor the makers of the film and any other person(s) associated with the film, intend to disgrace, offend or hurt any religion or religious sentiments, beliefs or feelings of any persons, community or class of person(s) and /or a political party in any manner, whatsoever. no animals were harmed during the making of this film. 35. The Petitioner do say that Trailer violates Section 416 of the IPC as impersonation of the living character, living persons is impermissible in law as the same is being displayed without their consent of Dr. Manmohan Singh (Ex-Prime Minister of India) and others. 36. It is submitted that Disclaimer coming on promo-trailer of the film “The Accidental Prime Minister” is manipulated, twisted and promoters are knowing it well that it is misleading. Disclaimer normally appears wherein Certification U/s 5B is given: “None of the characters therein is based on any living or dead person and the resemblance if any is unintentional.” Disclaimer appearing in Trailer – “this film is based on the book “The Accidental Prime Minister” by Mr. Sanjaya Baru. all characters, events and incidents are based on the book and have been fictionalised for dramatization. utmost care has been taken to keep the screenplay accurately aligned to the book. Nothing in the film is intended to defame any person dead or alive. neither the contents of the film, nore the makers of the film and any other person(s) associated with the film, intend to discrace, offend or hurt any religion or religious sentiments, beliefs or feelings of any persons, community or class of person(s) and /or a political party in any manner, whatsoever. no animals were harmed during the making of this film. 37. The Petitioner do submit that Trailer released on YouTube is misleading and is factually incorrect. The above said submission is made without prejudice to say that promo-Trailer released on YouTube is in violation of Section 5B of the Cinematography Act as well as in violation of Rule 38 of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983. 38. That trailer being played on YouTube is misleading: - that it is not based on Book of Sanjaya Baru as being claimed. - that theme of Trailer is different from the Book. - that the book as well as the Trailer is based on presumptions. - That as per CBFC guideline regarding films based on real life characters, NOC is required but for Trailer no NOC was ever obtained. 39. That it seems Respondent No. 1 to 4 is deliberately closed its eyes over the Trailer/video being played on YouTube and this way it has been causing unaccountable damage, harm to the High- Office of “Prime Minister” as well as affecting the image of Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. 40. That even name given to trailer “The Accidental Prime Minister” is misleading. The book written by Sanjaya Baru itself shows that the Author never took any consent from Dr. Manmohan Singh or Dr. Manmohan Singh never endorsed the contents of the said book. The said part of the Book is: Page XX of Book Finally. I have not shared the contents of this book with dr Singh prior to its publication. Indeed, he may not approve of many of my observation in these pages and may even disapprove of my decision to write this book 41. It is submitted that Dr. Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister because UPA coalition as a whole accepted his name as a Prime Minister and book written by Sanjaya Baru do accept this fact, therefore name-title of Trailer is misleading. The said part of the book is: Page 64-65 of Book Handling the delicate equation with Sonia was Dr. Singh’s first and biggest political challenge. How a CM is perceived at the state level is different from the way a PM is perceived at the national and international levels. The prime minister is a national leader and the international face of a country. He negotiates with other heads of government and must be seen to be his own man. Moreover, Dr. Singh was PM because the UPA coalition as a whole was willing to accept him. In, 1999 Mulayam Singh Yadav had refused to support Sonia when she claimed she had the numbers to form a government. So I, at any rate, saw my job as one establishing Dr. Singh’s credibility as PM while ensuring that the relationship with Sonia and the party was on even keel. 42. The Trailer is giving an impression that Office of PM Dr. Manmohan Singh was controlled by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, while Sanjaya Baru’s book never said so. Page 69-70 of the Book I had no reason to doubt that Dr Singh and Sonia implicitly trusted each other. Reports appearing in the media about differences between the two were often planted by disgruntled Congressmen and mischievous journalists, some of whom would then point a finger in my direction. That did not mean the two had no differences on policy issues. But any such differences between them would have been aired only in their private meetings and the PM almost never allowed any of this trickle into the public realm. The PM never questioned Sonia’s right, as party president, to influence portfolio allocations though, over time, he became quite forthcoming in giving his opinions, and she did accept his advice. 43. That the impugned trailer is in contravention of “Preface” of the Book, wherein author Sanjaya Baru has warned the viewers:- • That the movie is adapted from the book and may well not be fully loyal to its contents. • The author of the Book was not associated with the making of the movie. • The author said those who have not yet read the book but intend to watch the movie will read the book as well. • The said part of preface of the Book is as under Preface This edition, with a new afterword, is being published against the backdrop of the movie adaptation. It is important for readers to note that the movie is “adapted” from the book and may well not be fully loyal to its contents. That is in the nature of the two very different media. As the author of The Accidental Prime Minister, I have not been associated with the making of the movie. The book was written for English-language readers, through translation in Hindi, Marathi and Tamil have been published as well. The movie will target a wider audience. I hope those who have not yet read the book but intend to watch the movie will read the book as well. 44. That the Trailer is being shown on You Tube in a selected manner and it clearly shows that it’s a Political Propaganda with some other motives. Trailer is showing some documents of official files also in utter violation of Official Secret Act while Author-Writer never dealt with this kind of issue. 45. The Petitioner do say that this kind of promo has been simply planned to damage the image of Dr. Manmohan Singh, Hon’ble Ex-Prime Minister of India. The picture-photo of official file is being shown simply to malign the Ex PM of India, that too without any justification. 46. The promo –trailer of the film is showing following visual image of following titles: “THIS ELECTION SEASON” This visual is totally misleading as: i. That the book written by Sanjaya Baru was not written for any elections. ii. That book is not written for any Political Agenda as claimed by the author. iii. The producer makers of trailer are misusing the said book simply for political purpose. And this fact shows their hidden motive. That no such words “This Election Season” appears anywhere in Trailer these words have been deliberately added for using the Trailer for forthcoming General Elections 2019. 47. That promo-Trailer of the film is also showing following visual image “THE NUCLEAR DEAL” That by this visual makers of Trailer- are trying to give an impression as some wrong was done by Ex PM Dr Manmohan Singh. The above said misleading information becomes relevant in the present comtext because makers of Trailer- are repeatedly claiming that it is based on Sanjaya Baru’s book “The Accidental Prime Minister” 48. The contents of said book shows a positive side of Ex PM Dr. Manmohan Singh on Nuclear Deal Page 199 of the Book President George Bush was the first US President to recognize, publicly at least, that this was unfair discrimination against India. He appreciated the fact that it was incongruous for the US to be doing more business in high-technology areas with communist China that democratic India. China managed to avert restrictions because it was an NPT signatory as a “weapon power’. The meeting in New York between Dr. Singh and President Bush went off better than expected. Page 208 of the Book News channels were able to report it in their early morning bulletins on 19th July. While The Hindu’s conservative desk staff gave the story a bland headline that said ‘ Manmohan Expresses Satisfaction over Talks’, Ravi ‘informed’ report said it all: In a significant development after the meeting that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had with American President George Bush at the White House, the United Stated, acknowledging India as a nuclear weapons power, agreed to cooperate with it in the area of civilian nuclear energy. This formulation was part of the joint statement to be issued following the talks, according to a highly-placed official source. Page 208 of the Book The US had agreed to help develop India’s nuclear power industry and, to this end, would seek Congressional approval of the required changes to US laws that would enable US companies to export nuclear fuel and technology to India. Apart from easing restrictions on the sale of fuel for the Tarapur atomic power station, the US also agreed to work with other countries to help India get access to uranium. This meant changing the existing restrictions imposed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Page 216-217 of the Book On the evening of 1 March, President Bush was received at Palam airport by Dr Singh. As he got into his car, Bush turned to M.K. Narayanan and, placing his hands on Narayanan’s shoulder and making direct eye contact with him, he said, loud enough for others around to hear, ‘ I want that deal!’ The negotiating teams on both sides got the message. President Bush was making it clear to everyone, on his side and ours, that whatever differences were still holding up an agreement should be resolved overnight so that by the next morning, when he sat down with Dr Singh for the formal summit meeting, the agreement would be ready for the two leaders’ signature. Page 222 of the Book It was a rare act of courage and political grandstanding that won him applause in Parliament and from across the country. The media finally came to accept that the PM knew what he was doing and that this was an important project that deserved support. A series of public-opinion polls conducted by TV channels and newsmagazines showed overwhelming support for the PM, for the deal and for good Indo-US relations. In the weeks to come, negotiations proceeded apace. Page 230 of the Book Division within BJP came to the fore even at Dr Singh’s briefing of the party’s leaders on the 123 Agreement. Advani was not in Delhi, but the meeting, at 7 RCR, was attended by Vajpayee, Jaswant Singh, Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Brajesh Mishra. Sinha and Shourie asked the scientists, diploats and PMO officials many searching questions, expressing their sceptisim about what had been secured. Jaswant Singh, on the other hand, complimented the officers with his usual gravitas, saying, ‘Gentlemen, you have done the nation proud!’ Vajpayee remained silent. Page 236 of the Book In his first public reference to the nuclear deal after the Hindustan Time Summit, Dr Singh told the AICC on 17 November 2007, referring to the problem of power shortage at home and the need to increase power generation capacity. 49. That as per author Sanjaya Baru Nuclear Deal was a success story of Ex PM Dr Manmohan Singh. The said part of the book is Page 271 of the Book The Nuclear deal was the crowning glory of Manmohan Singh’s first term. As Narasmiha Rao’s finance minister, he had made history by opening up the economy. Now, he had made history once again, by giving India a new status as a world power. 50. That the Trailer is also showing visual title and by this visual a wrong and incorrect message is being given: THE KASHMIR ISSUE That Sanjaya Baru’s book praised about Dr. Manmohan Singh’s skill regarding “Kashmir Issue” Page 134 135 of Book Dr. Singh had a different view. He believed the time had come for everyone in the state to freely express their opinion. After all, the Hurriyat and separatists did not represent the majority in the state, nor was ‘azadi’ really on the cards. The separatists were a vocal and an important minority. Let them speak openly in a gathering of fellow Kashmiris and representatives of Jammu and Ladakh, he felt, and let there be an open discussion. In the end it would have to be India and Pakistan that would have to arrive at a settlement of the issue, keeping in mind the welfare of the Kashmiri People. The rond-table was a great success inasmuch as it was the first dialogue process of its kind and allowed a wide cross-section of opinion to be freely expressed. The Hurriyat boycotted the meeting but they seemed impressed by the PM’s sincerity, because soon after, they agreed to meet him for a direct dialogue. He opened the day-long round table saying: A round- table is a dialogue. No one preaches and one on just listens. This is dialogue of equals who promise to work together. Today’s meeting is a significant event. It will, however, achieve historical importance if we are able to unleash a process by which we can arrive at a workable blueprint that can help to create a new chapter in Kashmir’s history. Not by compromising on one’s ideals, but in a spirit of mutual tolerance, understanding and accommodation. 51. That another visual title appearing in Trailer of YouTube OF THE PM AND THE PARTY Sanjaya Baru writes in his book Page 121-122 of the Book The PM’s reply was candid and assertive. ‘Well , Madam, I believe our government is going to last for full five years, and let there be no doubt or ambiguity about this. Therefore, this misconception that I can be pressured into giving up is simply not going to materialize.’ Newspapers also highlighted his assertion that ‘The insinuation that there are two separate centres of power is not true’. Chandigarh’s Tribune, a newspaper that Dr Singh grew up with and which was his first morning read with a cup of tea, opened its report with ‘Prime Minister Manmohan Singh…dismissed as’ “without foundation” the Opposition charge that Congress president and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi is the “super Prime Minister”.’ The Hindu’s headline summed it up pithily: ‘I am in charge, and will last.’ 52. That the following visual title in Trailer is also misleading WITNESS AN INSIDE STORY While author writes in his book regarding his ignorance Page xvii of Book With regard to the relationship between Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, I do not claim deep knowledge of how the two dealt with each other in closed-door meeting; my account is based only on what I saw and came to reliably know. However, I hope this book will help readers understand, at least in part, the, the complex relationship between the PM and the party president. 53. The another visual title appearing in Trailer BASED ON THE CONTROVERSIAL BOOK This visual is also misleading because makers of Trailer are claiming that it is based on Sanjaya Baru’s book . But this visual shows that makers, producers have produced the film on the basis of the controversial Book but in disclaimer it is being claimed that film is based on Sanjaya Baru’s book. 54. The petitioner do say that “Trailer” of the film released on Youtube is in violation of Rule 38 of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983. Rule 38 specify that Advertisement, Trailer of a film should show, advertise the “Certified Title” of a film. Rule 38 is as under: Advertisement of Films.- Any person advertising a film granted ‘UA’, ‘A’ or ‘S’ certificate or the exhibition of such film by means of insertions in newspapers, hoardings, posters, handbills or trailers shall, after the date of its handbills or trailers that the film has been certified for such public exhibitions.[such advertisement shall indicate only the certified title of a film.] 55. That a back look of Trailer on YouTube shows: -- Dialogue of Ex PM (impersonated by Anupam Kher) -- Dialogue of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (impersonated by Suzanne Bernet) -- Dialogue of Akshaye Khanna -- Dialogue of Mrs. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (impersonated by Aahana Kumra) -- Some pictures are being shown -- Oath of secrecy taken by Dr Manmohan Singh is being shown -- Some pictures of official meetings, official functions are being shown. 56. The Petitioner submits that display of above mentioned titles in Trailer is in violation of Rule 38 of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983, as Rule 38 allows the permission for Title of the film only. 57. That the Respondents are well aware of the above said violations but till this date no steps have been taken and the above said Trailer is being viewed 24/7 by millions of viewers. And this way violation of Rule 38 is being continued and being perpetuated day by day. This is the utter violation of Rule 38 of Act and Rules. 58. The Petitioner submits that Rules are being flouted, violated only on account of hidden agenda of political groups/parties and it is implicitly clear from the Trailer where it specify -------THIS ELECTION SEASON. 59. That the Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 4 /CBFC is under statutory obligation under Cinematograph Act 1952 and Rules to judge the entire Trailer in its entirety from the viewpoint of its overall impact and should have examined in the light of country’s sovereignty and integrity , country’s image before entire world, as regarding unaccountable damage to the office of Prime Minister. 60. That Petitioner do say that Trailer is having the propensity of inculcating hatred, amongst the person who believe in democratic set up, who believe in constitution of India. The Petitioner do say that trailer is not based on pure work of fiction. 61. That the Petitioner submits that every reasonable prudent man including the petitioner has carried a wrong impression regarding our country’s democratic set up, regarding Highest Office of Hon’ble Prime Minister. 62. That Petitioner is challenging the impugned Trailer on the basis of following grounds amongst others: 63. That Petitioner is a regular Youtube viewer and when the Petitioner noticed the Trailer of the above said film, the petitioner was perturbed as a wrong image of the country’s high office was being projected. That out of anxiety and for verifying the truth, petitioner read the book written by Sanjaya Baru. That by reading the book, Petitioner realised that makers of Trailer have added various inputs unauthorizingly without the consent of the author Sanjaya Baru. That Petitioner noticed various other violations which shows that Trailer is not based on Fiction, Petitioner also noticed that voice, looks, dress of high profile politicians were copied simply for upsetting the entire democratic set up. 64. That the Petitioner has previously filed WP ( C) 11099/2016 (Against Demonetization) as a Public Interest Litigation and that petitioner filed WPC 7337/2018 & 9569of 2018 ( against price hike of Petrol and Diesel) as a Public Interest Litigation. 65. The facts and circumstances narrated herein above have necessitated the filing of the present writ petition. 66. That the Petitioner has not filed any other petition before this Hon’ble Curt or any other Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the same subject matter and for same relief. 67. That petitioner do say that petitioner has no alternative effective remedy except to file the present writ petition for redressal of her grievances. PRAYER In view of the submissions made above and in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner most respectfully prays that in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass necessary and appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) To pass necessary directions directing Respondent No. 1 and 4 to take steps to stop the exhibition, display of Trailer of “The Accidental Prime Minister” on YouTube channel and other web forums as the same is in violation of Section 5-B of Cinematograph Act read with Rule 38 of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 (ii) To pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. PETITIONER THROUGH (ARUN MAITRI; RADHIKA CHANDRASHEKHAR & ANANYA ROY) ADVOCATES P-57, NDSE, PART II NEW DELHI DATED: 05.01. 2019 PLACE: NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ______OF 2019 IN THE MATTER OF: POOJA MAHAJAN … PETITIONER V E R S U S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying writ petition. It is submitted that averments as stated in writ petition may kindly be considered as part of this application. 2. The Petitioner is being motivated to file the present writ petition as provisions of Section 5-B of Cinematography Act & Rule 38 are being misused and under the garb of the said certificate producer has released “Trailer” which is affecting, harming the image of the Constitutional post such as Prime Minister of India and giving a bad name at the national as well as at the international level. 3. It is submitted that the Prime Minister of India is a Constitutional post and is protected under the Constitution of India and under no set of circumstances any company, individual, film producer can enjoy any such liberty to defame the said post / August Office. 4. The need and necessity for filing the present writ petition has arosen as the Defendant No. 2 and 3 have allowed, permitted the “Trailer” of film “the Accidental Prime Minister” on its YouTube channel and consequently thereof the post of Prime Minister is getting defamed on day to day basis in public domain before the public at large. 5. The Petitioner carries utmost respect for the Constitution of India as all Constitutional functionaries are working under the framework of Constitution of India and at present the Trailer released on YouTube is causing unaccountable damage to the name and fame of the office of Prime Minster of India. 6. That Dr. Manmohan Singh is well-known Economist of International repute. 7. That on dated 06.06.2017 the first look of the film named The Accidental Prime Minister, based upon the above-mentioned book was released through Actor Anupam Kher’s Official Twitter Account. 8. That on dated 08.06.2017, Mr. Pehlaj Nihlani, Chairman of CBFC warned the makers of the film that No-Objection Certificates from Ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi are required to obtained to release the film. 9. That on dated 27/28.12.2018 the official Trailer of the film was released in which the release date of the film has been announced on 11th January, 2019. 10. The Petitioner do say that it seems that CBFC/ Respondent No. 4 has given the certificate under Section 5B to the Cinematograph Act and the permission/approval/certification under Section 5-B is in contravention of Section 416 of Indian Penal Code which defines that what amounts to impersonation. 11. It is a known fact that film producers have not taken any consent/permission from Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi to perform their characters or to perform their political life or to dress up in the same way as they had been doing in their normal life or to copy their voice in any manner. 12. That simultaneously Respondent No. 2 and 3 have also violated their own policy on “impersonation” also wherein YouTube itself categorizes, specifies that the “impersonation” will not be permitted on their channel. 13. The petitioner do say that “Trailer” of the film released on YouTube is also in violation of Rule 38 of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983. Rule 38 specify that Advertisement, Trailer of a film should show, advertise the “Certified Title” of a film. Rule 38 is as under: Advertisement of Films.- Any person advertising a film granted ‘UA’, ‘A’ or ‘S’ certificate or the exhibition of such film by means of insertions in newspapers, hoardings, posters, handbills or trailers shall, after the date of its handbills or trailers that the film has been certified for such public exhibitions.[such advertisement shall indicate only the certified title of a film.] 14. That a bare look of “Trailer” of the above said film on YouTube shows: -- Dialogue of Ex PM (impersonated by Anupam Kher) -- Dialogue of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (impersonated by Suzanne Bernet) -- Dialogue of Akshaye Khanna -- Dialogue of Mrs. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (impersonated by Aahana Kumra) -- Some pictures are being shown -- Oath of secrecy taken by Dr Manmohan Singh is being shown -- Some pictures of official meetings, official functions are being shown. 15. That besides the above said dialogues of above said Public personalities the following titles are also being shown in the said “Trailer”: (i) This Election Season (ii) The Nuclear Deal (iii) The Kashimir Issue (iv) Of the PM and the Party (v) Witness an inside story (vi) Based on the controversial book 16. The Petitioner submits that audiovisual of above mentioned titles and dialogues is in violation of Rule 38 of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983, as Rule 38 allows the permission for Title of the film only. 17. The Respondent No 1 & 4 are well aware of the above said violation but till this date no steps have been taken and the above said Trailer is being viewed 24/7 by millions of viewers. 18. That this way violation of Rule 38 is being continued and being perpetuated day by day. This is the utter violation of alleged certificate given by CBFC. 19. The Petitioner do say that petitioner has a good prima facie case and balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Petitioner. 20. That Petitioner do say that Petitioner and all others are suffering an irreparable loss and injury as misleading information is being circulated on social media through Trailer of film “The Accidental Prime Minster” on YouTube and name and fame of our own country is getting defamed on day to day basis. PRAYER It is most humbly and respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice the Hon’ble Court may please pass an order: (i) Restraining / directing the respondent No. 2 & 3 to suspend the display of Trailer of film “The Accidental Prime Minster” during the pendency of the present writ petition. (ii) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is prayed accordingly. PETITIONER THROUGH (ARUN MAITRI; RADHIKA CHANDRASHEKHAR & ANANYA ROY) ADVOCATES P-57, NDSE, PART II NEW DELHI DATED: JAN. 2019 PLACE: NEW DELHI LIST OF DATES & EVENTS 20.04.2014 : That on dated 20.04.2014 a book named “The Accidental Prime Minister” authored by Sanjaya Baru, was published. 06.06.2017 : That on dated 06.06.2017 the first look of the film named The Accidental Prime Minister, based upon the above-mentioned book was released through Actor Anupam Kher’s Official Twitter Account. 08.06.2017 : That on dated 08.06.2017, Mr. Pehlaj Nihlani, Chairman of CBFC warned the makers of the film that No-Objection Certificates from Ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi are required to be obtained for releasing the film namely “The Accidental Prime Minister”. 27/28.12.2018 : That on dated 27/28.12.2018 the official Trailer of the film has been released. 28.12.2018 to 02.01.2019 : The Petitioner do say that as per the Petitioner’s information Respondent No. 4 has given the certificate under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act to the said film. 02.01.2019 : The trailer released on YouTube channel is in violation of Rule 38 of Cinematography (Certification) Rules, 1983. Rule 38 specify that Advertisement, Trailer of a film should show, advertise the “Certified Title” of a film only. Rule 38 is as under: Advertisement of Films.- Any person advertising a film granted ‘UA’, ‘A’ or ‘S’ certificate or the exhibition of such film by means of insertions in newspapers, hoardings, posters, handbills or trailers shall, after the date of its handbills or trailers that the film has been certified for such public exhibitions.[such advertisement shall indicate only the certified title of a film.] The trailer of the film is showing following titles: (i) The Accidental Prime Minister (ii) This Election Season (iii) The Nuclear Deal (iv) The Kashimir Issue (v) Of the PM and the Party (vi) Witness an inside story (vii) Based on the controversial book That a bare look of Trailer on YouTube shows: -- Dialogue of Ex PM (impersonated by Anupam Kher) -- Dialogue of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (impersonated by Suzanne Bernet) --Dialogue of Akshaye Khanna --Dialogue of Mrs. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (impersonated by Aahana Kumra) -- Some pictures are being shown -- Oath of secrecy taken by Dr Manmohan Singh is being shown -- Some pictures of official meetings, official functions are being shown. The Petitioner submits that display of above mentioned titles is in violation of Rule 38 of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983, as Rule 38 allows the permission for “Title” of the film only. That the “Titles” mentioned in trailer are misleading and besides that it violates Rule 38 of the said Rules. 02.01.2019 : The Petitioner has gone through the Book and do say that promo-Trailer of the Film is giving a wrong message at social media. The image of the High-office of Prime Minister (a constitutional post) is being damaged on account of this Trailer. The authority Sanjay Baru has himself said in “Preface” of the Book that viewers who intend to watch the movie should read the Book as well. 02.01.2019 to 04.01.2019 : The author of the Book has himself acknowledge in the Book that NO CONSENT was ever obtained from Dr. Manmohan Singh (EX PM of India) regarding the contents published in the said Book. Disclaimer in Trailer shows a contradiction: ➢ In disclaimer it is being claimed that Film – The Accidental Prime Minster is based on Sanjaya Baru’s book. ➢ In Trailer it is being claimed that film is based on “Controversial Book” 04.01.2019 : Petitioner being viewer of YouTube was misled and promoters deliberately violated the provisions of law. Petitioner herself was also misled and then Petitioner red the entire Book of Sanjaya Baru and find out the truth. Petitioner do say that in trailer, actors have committed act of impersonation also punishable under section 416 IPC. 04.01.2019 : Petitioner also checked up the policy of YouTube also regarding uploading of videos on YouTube. As per policy of YouTube impersonation of any individual is impermissible – but still YouTube has allowed the uploading of Trailer of Film namely “The Accidental Prime Minister” in contravention of their own policy knowing it fully well that offences of impersonation have been committed in the said trailer. 05.01.2019 : Hence the Writ petition. 17. The Petitioner(s) reside at Delhi. Consequently, this Hon’ble Court is conferred with the requisite territorial jurisdiction.The Petitioner(s) have not filed any other Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court or any other Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, assailing / or raising the contention(s) as raised herein. The Annexure(s) appended to this Petition are true copies of their respective originals. 18. Because since, the CBFC has not followed the guidelines prescribed under Section-5B, Cinematograph Act 1952 without confirming the NOCs which were to be obtained from Ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi, the Petitioner(s) have no other alternative / or efficacious remedy but to seek the kind indulgence / intervention of this Hon’ble Court.Hence, this Petition under Article(s) 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. IT IS THEREFORE MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE MOST GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO: PRAYER a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice /; b) c) pass such other and further order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity. PETITIONER(S). THROUGH: Advocate Place: New Delhi. Dated:___.01.2019. & ORS. …RESPONDENT INDEX Sl. No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Urgent Application. 2. Notice of Motion. 3. Memo of Parties. 4. List of Dates & Events. 5. Writ Petition (Criminal) under Article(s) 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India r/w 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Affidavit(s) in support of above. 7. Annexure A-1: 8. Annexure A-2: 9. Annexure A-3: 10. Annexure A-4 (Colly): 11. Application for and on behalf of the Petitioner(s) seeking stay of further 12. Affidavit in support of the above. 13. Application for and on behalf of the Petitioner(s) seeking exemption from filing certified copies / fair typed copies / dim Annexures with supporting Affidavit. 14. Affidavit in support of the above. Sl. No. Particulars Page Nos. 15. Vakalatnama. 21. Court Fees Rs.200/-. PETITIONER(S). THROUGH: Advocate Place: New Delhi. Dated:___.01.2019. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)No.______OF 2018. IN THE MATTER OF: …PETITIONER(S). V E R S U S UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT NOTICE OF MOTION Reg: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. _____ / 2019 versus Union Of India & Ors. Sir, Please take notice that the aforesaid Petition is likely to be listed in the next few days, before the Hon’ble High Court. Kindly, acknowledge receipt of the Paper Book. PETITIONER(S). THROUGH: Advocate Place: New Delhi. Dated:___.01.2019. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)No.______OF 2018. IN THE MATTER OF: …PETITIONER(S). V E R S U S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT. MEMO OF PARTIES. 1. … PETITIONER(S). V E R S U S UOI … RESPONDENT(S). PETITIONER(S). THROUGH: Advocate Place: New Delhi. Dated:___.01.2019. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)No.______OF 2018. IN THE MATTER OF: …PETITIONER(S). V E R S U S UOI …RESPONDENT URGENT APPLICATION. The Registrar, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi . Sir, Kindly treat the accompanying Petition as an urgent one, in accordance with the High Court Rules & Regulations. The Petitioner(s) are seeking stay of. Hence, the urgency. PETITIONER(S). THROUGH: Advocate Place: New Delhi. Dated:___.01.2019. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)No.______OF 2018. IN THE MATTER OF: …PETITIONER(S). V E R S U S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT LIST OF DATES & EVENTS. 20.04.2014 A Book named The Accidental Prime Minister: The Making and Unmaking of Manmohan Singh, authored by Sanjaya Baru, was published. 06.06.2017 First look of the film named The Accidental Prime Minister, based upon the above-mentioned book was released through Actor Anupam Kher’s Official Twitter Handle. 08.06.2017 Pehlaj Nihlani, Chairman of CBFC warned the makers of the film that No-Objection Certificates from Ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi are required to release the film. 27.12.2018 Official Trailer of the film was released in which the release date of the film has been announced on 11th January, 2019. PETITIONER(S). THROUGH: Advocate Place: New Delhi. Dated:___.01.2019. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)No.______OF 2018. IN THE MATTER OF: …PETITIONER(S). V E R S U S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION UNER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF NECESSARY WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO ……………….. TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI A HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That on dated 20.04.2014 A Book named The Accidental Prime Minister: The Making and Unmaking of Manmohan Singh, authored by Sanjaya Baru, was published. 2. That on dated 06.06.2017 the first look of the film named The Accidental Prime Minister, based upon the above-mentioned book was released through Actor Anupam Kher’s Official Twitter Account. 3. That on dated 08.06.2017 , Mr. Pehlaj Nihlani, Chairman of CBFC warned the makers of the film that No-Objection Certificates from Ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi are required to release the film. Copy of the ENewspaper of INDIAN EXPRESS is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- A. 4. That on dated 27.12.2018 the official Trailer of the film was released in which the release date of the film has been announced on 11th January, 2019. 5. That consequently, the Petitioner(s) submit that the said…………………………………………… by an appropriate writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper on the following amongst other grounds, taken without prejudice to one another – GROUNDS A. Because the Respondent has erred in law while certifying the film which leads to a violation of Section-5B of The Cinematograph Act, 1952. The abovesaid provision says : Principles for guidance in certifying films. 5B. (1) A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of 1 [the sovereignty and integrity of India] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. (2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition. B. Because on dated 08.06.2017, clear instructions vide news report from Mr. Pehlaj Nihlani, Chairman of CBFC was published which clearly said that the makers of The Accidental Prime Minister have to take No-Objection Certificates from Ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi. C. Because, no such NOCs from the EX-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi have come on record since 08.06.2017. Only a routine disclaimer of being the adaptation of the book, The Accidental Prime Minister: The Making and Unmaking of Manmohan Singh is being shown in the trailer released on 27.12.2018 on every visual media. Copy of the screen shot of the disclaimer showed in Youtube is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-B. D. Because, the Author of the book Mr. Sanjaya Baru had served the Ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh as his media adviser and chief spokesperson from Many 2004 to August 2008. The Trailer itself gives an impression that Mr. Baru witnessed the encounters between the Ex-PM Dr. Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi during all the alleged scams. Hence, the authenticity of the information given in the book is not beyond any reasonable doubt. In such case, the film adapting the same storyline shall lead to disgrace and defamation of the characters depicted in the movie whereas most of them are very much alive. E. Because, Dr. Manmohan Singh and the other living political personalities who have been depicted in this film, have not given their consent to portray them in this film. Hence, the release of the film amounts to serious invasion of their privacy. F. Because, the Constitution of India in Article 21, explicitly recognises that – “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.” According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.” Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as “the procedural magna carta protective of life and liberty. This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws. G. Because, in the recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on dated 31.08.2018 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy ( Retd.) & Anr. V. UOI & Ors. , it has been upheld that right to privacy is an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty. H. Because, the release of the film named The Accidental Prime Minister, does not even cover the “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” as mentioned in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy ( Retd.) & Anr. V. UOI & Ors. I. Because, publishing a book and releasing a film is altogether a different concept. The book by Sanjaya Baru possibly has been read by a particular niche, who happen to be well read and well educated well off class. But a film makes an impact on the larger population. Being a motion picture it may have a very adverse effect on the larger population. J. Because, the characters depicted in the book and subsequently in the film are very much alive. Moreover, PMO is a Constitutional Establishment. Any disruption from the fact is a disrespect towards the Constitutional Establishment hence towards the Constitution. And from the duration when Sanajay Baru served the EX-PM and the duration about which the film is giving an impression, creates a larger amount of discrepancy. K. Because, the conversations shown in the trailer are of “Kitchen Cabinet” level which means serious confidentiality at the Ministerial Level. Thus public trust shall be affected, to be precise, adversely. 17. The Petitioner(s) reside at Delhi. Consequently, this Hon’ble Court is conferred with the requisite territorial jurisdiction.The Petitioner(s) have not filed any other Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court or any other Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, assailing / or raising the contention(s) as raised herein. The Annexure(s) appended to this Petition are true copies of their respective originals. 18. Because since, the CBFC has not followed the guidelines prescribed under Section-5B, Cinematograph Act 1952 without confirming the NOCs which were to be obtained from Ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi, the Petitioner(s) have no other alternative / or efficacious remedy but to seek the kind indulgence / intervention of this Hon’ble Court.Hence, this Petition under Article(s) 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. IT IS THEREFORE MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE MOST GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO: PRAYER a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice /; b) c) pass such other and further order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity. PETITIONER(S). THROUGH: Advocate Place: New Delhi. Dated:___.01.2019. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.______OF 2018. IN THE MATTER OF: M/S Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan …PETITIONER(S). Through Lalit Mohan(Proprietor) V E R S U S THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,NEW DELHI. …RESPONDENT APPLICATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S) SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPIES/FAIR TYPED COPIES/DIM ANNEXURES WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the accompanying Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner(s), aggrieved by the illegal and unlawful initiation of proceedings against them under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. That the Petitioners herein alongwith the instant Petition have also filed and relied upon certain Documents/ Annexures, that are relevant and germane for a proper and complete adjudication of the accompanying Petition. 3. That the Charge-Sheet(s) filed by the Petitioner(s) stand filed before the Competent Court, where proceedings arising from such Charge-Sheet(s) are pending before the ACMM at Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi. The Petitioner(s) have already applied for certified copies of the Charge-Sheet(s), which they shall file after they are received by them. 4. That some of the Annexures are dim, whose typed copies are filed. The said Documents/Annexures are extremely necessary for the adjudication of the instant Petition. The Petitioner(s) herein seek the liberty from this Hon’ble Court to file and rely on the said Documents / Annexures. 5. That the Petitioner(s) herein seek the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court, to grant exemption from filing certified and dim copies of such Annexures/Documents. IT IS THEREFORE MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE MOST GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO - PRAYER a) grant exemption from filing certified and dim copies of the Annexures/Documents with the accompanying Petition; and b) pass any other order(s)/direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice / equity. PETITIONER(S). THROUGH: Advocate Place: New Delhi. Dated:___.01.2018. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)No.______OF 2018. IN THE MATTER OF: M/S Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan …PETITIONER(S) Through Lalit Mohan(Proprietor) V E R S U S THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,NEW DELHI. …RESPONDENT APPLICATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S) SEEKING STAY OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION / PROCEEDINGS ARISING FROM / IN ECIR NO. 4/DLZO/2014 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the Petitioner(s) have filed the accompanying Writ Petition aggrieved by the registration of ECIR Case No. 4/DLZO/2014 by the Respondent under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Petitioner(s), are equally aggrieved by the investigation conducted and pursued by the Respondent pursuant to the aforesaid ECIR. 2. That it is the specific case of the Petitioner(s), that such proceedings initiated by the Respondent are without jurisdiction, incompetent, unlawful and beyond the purview / scope of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 3. That in particular, the Petitioner(s) contend that Section(s) 120B, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were incorporated / introduced in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, by an amendment with effect from 01.06.2009. 4. That on the contrary, the offence(s) alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner(s) are evidently prior to 02.04.2007. Understandably, on the alleged date of commission of offence(s), the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 did not recognise them as an offence. 5. That consequently, under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner(s) cannot be charged with an offence which did not exist on the alleged date of occurrence / or commission. Likewise, the Petitioner(s) are already facing trial for the same offence(s) before the ACMM at Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi – arising from / in Charge-Sheet(s) dated 02.04.2007 and 21.12.2011. 6. That resultantly, the registration of the aforesaid ECIR and all consequent investigation conducted pursuant thereto are unlawful and without the authority of law. The Petitioner(s) have a very good prima-facie case, wherein the balance of convenience tilts exclusively for and in their favour. The Petitioner(s) will suffer irreparable harm and injury, if such investigation and proceedings are not stayed pending adjudication / disposal of the accompanying Writ Petition. 7. That recognising the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the primary contention that the ECIR itself is unlawful, illegal and without jurisdiction, the Petitioner(s) pray that urgent ad-interim directions be passed in their favour pending adjudication / disposal of the present Writ Petition. IT IS THEREFORE MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE MOST GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO - PRAYER a) grant an ad-interim ex-parte order / direction staying all / any further investigation/ No coercive step and proceedings arising from / in Enforcement Case Information Report No. 4/DLZO/2014 filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner(s) pending adjudication / disposal of the present Writ Petition; b) pass any other order(s)/direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice / equity. PETITIONER(S). THROUGH: Advocate Place: New Delhi. Dated:___.01.2018. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)No.______OF 2018. IN THE MATTER OF: M/S Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan …PETITIONER(S) Through Lalit Mohan(Proprietor) V E R S U S THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, NEW DELHI. …RESPONDENT AFFIDAVIT I, Lalit Mohan Goyal, Aged 47 years, S/o Mr. Roshan Lal R/o 6, Alipur Road, Civil Lines do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That the deponent is the petitioner in the aforesaid case, and is thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, and is competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That the accompanying Petition has been drafted by my counsel at my instructions and I have gone through the same and find it true and correct as per my knowledge. 3. That the accompanying Petition may please be read as part & parcel of this affidavit and the contents of the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 4. That the annexure to the accompanying Petition are true copies of their respective originals. Deponent Verification: Verified at New Delhi on this______ the day of ___, 2018 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. Deponent IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)No.______OF 2018. IN THE MATTER OF: M/S Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan …PETITIONER(S) Through Lalit Mohan(Proprietor) V E R S U S THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, NEW DELHI. …RESPONDENT AFFIDAVIT I, Lalit Mohan Goyal, Aged 47 years, S/o Mr. Roshan Lal R/o 6, Alipur Road, Civil Lines do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That the deponent is the petitioner in the aforesaid case, and is thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, and is competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That the accompanying Petition has been drafted by my counsel at my instructions and I have gone though the same and find it true and correct as per my knowledge. 3. That the accompanying Petition may please be read as part & parcel of this affidavit and the contents of the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 4. That the annexure to the accompanying Petition are true copies of their respective originals. Deponent Verification: Verified at New Delhi on this______ the day of ___, 2018 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. Deponent IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)No.______OF 2018. IN THE MATTER OF: M/S Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan …PETITIONER(S) Through Lalit Mohan(Proprietor) V E R S U S THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, NEW DELHI. …RESPONDENT AFFIDAVIT I, Lalit Mohan Goyal, Aged 47 years, S/o Mr. Roshan Lal R/o 6, Alipur Road, Civil Lines do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That the deponent is the petitioner in the aforesaid case, and is thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case, and is competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That the accompanying Petition has been drafted by my counsel at my instructions and I have gone through the same and find it true and correct as per my knowledge. 3. That the accompanying Petition may please be read as part & parcel of this affidavit and the contents of the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 4. That the annexure to the accompanying Petition are true copies of their respective originals. Deponent Verification: Verified at New Delhi on this______ the day of ___, 2019 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. Deponent IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ______OF 2019 IN THE MATTER OF: POOJA MAHAJAN … PETITIONER V E R S U S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS APPLICATION U/S 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRUE TYPED COPIES DIM ANNEXURES MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1) That the Petitioner has filed the above titled Writ Petition and have enclosed certain Dim/Hand-written/Under-lined Copies of the Annexures. 2) That the Petitioner undertakes to place on record the clear copies of the said Annexures as and when ordered by the Hon’ble Court. P R A Y E R : It is therefore respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to accept the Dim Annexures. PETITIONER THROUGH NEW DELHI ( A. MAITRI ) COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER P-57, SOUTH EXTN.-II DATED : ______, 2019 NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ______OF 2019 IN THE MATTER OF: POOJA MAHAJAN … PETITIONER V E R S U S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS A F F I D A V I T I, Ms. Pooja Mahajan D/o Shri S.K. Mahajan, aged about ____ Shop No. 37, Fashion Street, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1) That I am the Petitioner in the above noted case and being well conversant with the facts of the case, I am competent to swear and file this affidavit. 2) That the accompanying application has been drafted under my instructions, the contents of which have been read over to me and are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Download Word Document In English. (Rs.150/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.125/-)

HC Writ Ex service man extended benefits  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CWP No:_____ of 2004 Petitioner  Versus Respondents  CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS  Chennai Petitioner ______ Through, Advocate Respectfully Sheweth; (1) That your Lordship's humble petitioner is a citizen of India and on the grounds hereinafter mentioned is entitled to file and maintain the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. (1) That __  GROUNDS (2) That the petitioner is invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court and seeking indulgence on the following grounds amongst other each one of which is without prejudice to and independent of other: - (a) That such an act of omission and commission on the part of the respondent whereby they have __________, is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory, and against the well-established principles of natural justice as well as violative of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution of India.  (b) That   ________________ (c) That the impugned act of the respondent is against the well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble court in catena of cases. (3) That the petitioner has no other speedy and efficacious remedy available except to approach this Hon'ble court by way of the present writ petition. (4) That the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition on same or similar grounds either before this Hon'ble court or before the Supreme Court of India. (5) That the petitioner, therefore, prays that an appropriate writ, order or directions be issued for the following reliefs:- (a) Quash the impugned order ; (b) Direct the respondents  (c) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant records along with reply for perusal by this Hon'ble court; (d) Allow the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner, and; (e) Allow such other relief or pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and justice be done.  AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE HUMBLE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY. Chennai Applicant ______ Through, Advocate  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CWP No:_____ of 2004 Petitioner  Versus Respondents  Affidavit in support of the Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. I, _____ , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That the accompanying writ petition has been prepared under my instructions.2. the contents of paras 1 to ______ of the accompanying writ petition are correct and true to the best of my knowledge. 3. That I further solemnly affirm and declare that this affidavit of mine is correct and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein. Affirmed at Chennai this the _____ . Deponent  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CMP No.:_____ of 2004 in CWP No:_____ of 2004 Petitioner/Applicants  Versus Respondents/Non-Applicants  Application Under Rule 2 of the Writ Rules for dispensing with Seven days notice of motion Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the petitioner/applicant has filed the above mentioned writ petition in this Hon'ble court. 2. That on perusal of the allegations made in the writ petition and the documents attached therewith it is evident that the matter is of urgent nature and dispensing with of seven days notice is essential in the interest of justice. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that this application may be allowed and seven days notice of motion dispensed with and writ petition be listed immediately. Chennai Applicant ______ Through, Advocate  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CMP No.: ______of 2004 in CWP No:______ of 2004 Petitioner/Applicant  Versus Respondents/Non-Applicants  Affidavit in support of the application under Rule 2 of the Writ Rules. I, ______, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: - 1. the accompanying application has been prepared under my instructions. 2. the contents of paras 1 to 3 of the accompanying application are correct and true to the best of my knowledge. 3. I further solemnly affirm and declare that this affidavit of mine is correct and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein. Affirmed at Chennai this the ______. Deponent  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CMP No.: ______of 2004 in CWP No: ______of 2004 Petitioner/Applicant  Versus Respondents/Non-Applicants  Application Under Section 151 of CPC for Ad interim orders Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the petitioner/applicant has filed the above mentioned writ petition in this Hon'ble court. 2. That on perusal of the allegations made in the writ petition and the documents attached therewith it is evident that the petitioner/applicants have prima facie a very good case in their favour and the writ petition is likely to succeed. The Balance of Convenience is in favour of the petitioners/applicants. 3. That the interest of justice demands that during the pendency of the writ petition  4. It is, therefore, prayed that this application may be allowed and in the interest of justice. Such other orders may also be passed in favour of the petitioners as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Chennai Applicant ______ Through, Advocate  IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI CMP No.: _____ of 2004 in CWP No:_____ of 2004 Petitioner/Applicant  Versus Respondents/Non-Applicants  Affidavit in support of the application Under Section 151 of CPC I, _____, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: - 1. That the accompanying application has been prepared under my instructions. 2. That the contents of paras 1 to 4 of the accompanying application are correct and true to the best of my knowledge. 3. That I further solemnly affirm and declare that this affidavit of mine is correct and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein. Affirmed at Chennai this the _____. Deponent  BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TN AT CHENNAI Case No: _______ of 2004 Petitioner  VERSUS Respondents  KNOW ALL TO whom these presents shall come that I/We ____________ the above named PETITIONER/RESPONDENT do hereby appoint: - ____________________________ to be the advocate for the ______________________________________ PETITIONER/RESPONDENT in the above mentioned case, to be all following acts, deeds and things or any of them that is to say: 1. To act, appear and plead in the above mentioned case in this Court or any Court in which the same may be tried or heard in the first instance or in Appeal or Letters Patent Appeal or Review or Revision or execution or in any other stage of its progress until its final decision.  2. To present Complaints, Pleadings, O.A., M. A. Appeals, Letters Patent Appeals, Petitions for Appeal to High Court/Supreme Court, Cross-objections or Petition for execution, review, revision withdrawal compromise or other petitions or affidavit or other documents as may be deemed necessary or advisable for the prosecution of the said case in all it's stages.  3. To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any difference or disputes that shall arise touching or in any manner relating to the said cause.  4. To receive moneys and grant receipts thereof and to do all other acts and things which may be necessary to be done for the progress and in course of the prosecution of the said case. 5. To employ and instruct any other Legal Practitioner authorizing him to exercise the powers and authorities hereby conferred on the Advocate whenever he may think fit to do so. AND I/We hereby agree to ratify whatever the advocate or his substitute shall do in the premises. AND I/We hereby agree not to hold the advocate or his substitute responsible for the result of the said cause in consequence of his absence from the court when the said cause is called up for hearing. AND I/We hereby agree that in the event of the whole or any part of the fee agreed by me/us to be paid to the advocate remaining unpaid he shall be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the said cause until the same is paid.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF I/We here up to set my/our hands to these presents the contents of which have been explained to me/us and understood by me/us the _______________________.  Accepted Advocate Client  Download Word Document In English. (Rs.50/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.50/- )

Specimen Form of a Writ Petition  In the High Court of…………………… at……………………  Civil Original (Extra-ordinary) Jurisdiction  Civil Writ Petition No…………………… of 2018  In the matter of:  JKL S/o………………  R/o…………………… former employee (Inspector Grade-I)  in the Respondent-Company. …Petitioner  1. XYZ Company Ltd., a company wholly owned by the Govt. of India and having its registered office at…………………… through its Chairman.  2. Managing Director of the above Company …Respondent Civil Writ Petition against the order dated…………………… passed by the Managing Director, respondent No. 2 herein, by which the services of the petitioner as an employee of the respondent-company have been terminated. May it please the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of ………… and His Lordship’s companion Judges.  The Petitioner MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:  1. That the petitioner is a citizen of India and is therefore entitled to enjoy all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.  2. That respondent No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at…………………… The respondent-company is wholly owned by the Government of India and is, thus, an instrumentality of State is given in Article 12 of the Constitution.  3. That the petitioner was an employee of the respondent-company, having been appointed as a Sub Inspector Grade-I on…………………… 2018 and he continued to work, earning one promotion also.  4. That on…………………… 2018 respondent No. 2 herein abruptly issued the impugned order dated………………  terminating the services of the petitioner and the petitioner came to be relieved of his duties the same day. A copy of the impugned order is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-1.  5. That on a bare reading of the impugned order it becomes clear that the order has been issued on the basis of some alleged misconduct on the part of petitioner, but no inquiry under the relevant rules has been held before the passing of the order.  6. That the petitioner has not committed any act that could be termed to be an act constituting misconduct.  7. The impugned order is being assailed on the following, amongst other,  GROUNDS  7.1 That the petitioner being a permanent employee of the respondent-company, his services could not be terminating without holding an enquiry under the rules applicable to the employees of the company.  7.2 That the principles of natural justice have been contravened by the respondents in not giving to the petitioner any opportunity of being heard. 7.3 That the impugned order is otherwise also erroneous and unsustainable, as it does not contain any reason and is a non-speaking order.  7.4 That the impugned order is arbitrary and contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution.  7.5 …………………………………………  7.6 …………………………………………  8. That the petitioner has not filed any petition other proceedings relating to the matter at this petition in any other court.  PRAYER  In the facts and circumstances stated above the petitioner prays that a direction in the form of a writ of quo warranto and mandamus or any other appropriate writ be issued quashing the impugned order and reinstating the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages. It is further prayed that the respondent be burdened with costs.  PETITIONER  THROUGH DATED……………………  COUNSEL MR.……………………  The Writ petition must be supported by an affidavit of the petitioner Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.10/-)

Writ Petition seeking Writ of Certiorari in High Court under Article 226 of Constitution to quash order of an order. Format of Writ Petition seeking Writ of Certiorari in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.   A writ of certiorari is a direction to an authority to produce before the Court the records on the basis of which a decision under challenge in the writ petition has been taken. By looking into those records, the Court will examine whether the authority applied its mind to the relevant materials before it took the decision. If the Court finds that no reasonable person could come to the decision in question, it will set aside (quash) that decision and give a further direction to the authority to consider the matter afresh. Sample format of Writ of Certiorari to High Court is given below. This is only body of the Writ Petition. Please include other details also: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 20__(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Mr. ____________ son of _________Resident of _________                                                     PETITIONERVERSUS1. State of _____Pollution Department                                                      RESPONDENT NO. 1Through its Secretary 2. South Delhi Municipal CommissionerNew Delhi                                                                     RESPONDENT NO. 23. Pollution Control DepartmentNew Delhi                                                                     RESPONDENT NO. 3WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH ORDER DATED___ PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3.To ,The Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court,And His Companion Judges of theHon'ble High Court of Delhi. The humble petition of thePetitioner above named. THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the Petitioner is filing the present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of India Praying for direction or order in the nature of Certiorari to the respondents and quash order dated ______ passed by respondent No. 3.   2. That, the Petitioner is a Law abiding Citizen of India and residing the above address.   3. That the Petitioner runs a Coffee Shop in the name and style of Sit and enjoy at ______, New Delhi. 4. The Petitioner has obtained all necessary licenses and permission from the State and local authorities according to the applicable laws of India for conducting his business. 5. That Petitioner held a ______ License No. ______dated____, and has been carrying on this business for the last ten years and has gained a good reputation for his service in India. A copy of the ____ License has been annexed hereunder as ANNEXURE P1. 6. The Petitioner on _____ received a notice from the Respondent No. 3 to show cause and give explanation that why should not his license be revoked for polluting the environment through effluents from Coffee House. The notice also required the Petitioner to produce the license before the Respondent No. 3. A copy of the notice has been annexed hereunder as ANNEXURE P2. 7. The Petitioner pursuant to the notice dated____, submitted his explanation, wherein he stated that he did not pollute the environment from running the coffee shop and effluents from coffee shop is very limited and directly processing it.   8. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3, cancelled the ________ license of the Petitioner without giving proper consideration to the submission of the Petitioner by order dated ___.   8. The Petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order of the Respondent has approach this Hon'ble Court.   9. The Petitioner submits that the order dated ______by Respondent No. 3 are arbitrary and void amongst other.  GROUNDS8. That the present Writ Petition is being filed on the following, amongst other, grounds without prejudice to each other; A. Because Respondent No. 3 have issued cancellation order in violation of the principle of natural justice. B. Because Respondent No. 3 have not applied their minds to the facts of the case. C. Because order dated____ by issued by Respondent No. 3 is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.PRAYERSIn view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to the Respondents and quash order dated ____ passed by Respondent No.3; b) Any other relief, order or direction this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY. FILED BY:(________________)ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER DRAWN ON:Drawn by: New DelhiDate:    OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE ATTACHED WITH WRIT OF CERTIORARI PETITION 1. Notice of motion 2. Urgent application 3. Court fee 4. Certificate 5. Synopsis & list of dates 6. Memo of parties 7. Annexure to the Petition including impugned order and relevant other orders 8. Application for exemption from filing certified copies, dim and small font annexures with affidavit. 9. Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner. Download Word Document In English. (Rs.25/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.20/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.20/)

WRIT OF PROHIBITION  IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT_________ (Original Civil Jurisdiction) Writ Petition No_________. of _________20 _________  Mr …………………………………………..Resi …………………………………………….………………Petitioner.  Versus 1. State of _________ 2. ………….., Inspector-General of Police _________ 3. ……………….., Inspector of Police _________ 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 _________on _________ 2. That he served the State in various capacities, to wit as _________. in _________at _________and as _________in _________at_________ 3. That while he was stationed at _________and serving as _________, he was served with a charge- sheet dated _________a copy whereof is filed herewith. 4. That enquiry into the said charges was made by Respondent No. 3 from _________to _________who submitted a report dated _________to Respondent No. 2 finding the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet above-mentioned to be proved. 5. That according to Rule _________of _________the charges aforementioned could not be enquired into except by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police of _________Division or with the approval of Respondent No. 2 of another Division in the State of _________ 6. That on _________the Petitioner received a notice from Respondent No. 2 to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. 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 under Rule _________of _________ 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 _________ _________ _________ (Petitioner) (Advocate for the Petitioner.)  Download Word Document In English. (Rs.10/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.10/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.10/-)

WRIT OF CERTIORARI  IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT_________ (Original Civil Jurisdiction) Writ Petition No_________of _________ , 20 _________ A _________ Petitioner;  Versus 1. State of _________ 2. Drug Controller _________  3. Appellate Authority _________ 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 and style of _______________at ______ ___________________2. That the Petitioner held a drug dealer’s licence No___________________. dated _____________ and has been carrying on this business for the last six years. 3. That on ____________________ 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 _____________________ 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 ______________________ cancelling the Petitioner’s licence. 6. That, thereupon, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 3. 7. That by order dated ____________ 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 ____________________ and the order of Respondent No. 3 dated_________ ____________________________ (Petitioner.) Dated_________  Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.15/-)

Introduction Fundamental Rights are contained in Part III of the Indian Constitution including the right to equality, right to life and liberty etc. Merely providing for Fundamental Rights is not sufficient. It is essential that these Fundamental Rights are protected and enforced as well.  To protect Fundamental Rights the Indian Constitution, under Articles 32 and 226, provides the right to approach the Supreme Court or High Court, respectively, to any person whose Fundamental Right has been violated. At the same time, the two articles give the right to the highest courts of the country to issue writs in order to enforce Fundamental Rights. What is a writ? Fundamentally, a writ is a formal written order issued by anybody, executive or judicial, authorised to do so. In modern times, this body is generally judicial. Therefore, a writ can be understood as a formal written order issued by a Court having authority to issue such an order. Orders, warrants, directions, summons etc. are all essentially writs.  A writ petition is an application filed before the competent Court requesting it to issue a specific writ. What are the kinds of writs? Articles 32 and 226 specifically provide for five kinds of writs. These writs are issued in different circumstances and have different implications. They are: Habeas Corpus ‘Habeas Corpus’ literally means “to have a body of”. This writ is used to release a person who has been unlawfully detained or imprisoned. By virtue of this writ, the Court directs the person so detained to be brought before it to examine the legality of his detention. If the Court concludes that the detention was unlawful, then it directs the person to be released immediately. Examples of unlawful detention are: The detention was not done in accordance with the procedure laid down. For instance, the person was not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours.  The person was arrested when he did not violate any law. An arrest was made under a law that is unconstitutional.  This writ can be filed by the detained person himself or his relatives or friends on his behalf. It can be issued against both public authorities and individuals.   Mandamus ‘Mandamus’ means ‘we command’. It is issued by the Court to direct a public authority to perform the legal duties which it has not or refused to perform. It can be issued by the Court against a public official, public corporation, tribunal, inferior court or the government. It cannot be issued against a private individual or body, the President or Governors of States or against a working Chief Justices. Further, it cannot be issued in the following circumstances: The duty in question is discretionary and not mandatory.  For the performance of a non-statutory function.  Performance of the duty involves rights of purely private nature. Where such direction involves violation of any law.  A writ petition seeking mandamus must be filed by the person who has an interest in the performance of the duty by the public authority. Quo Warranto ‘Quo Warranto’ means ‘by what warrant’. Through this writ, the Court calls upon a person holding a public office to show under what authority he holds that office. If it is found that the person is not entitled to hold that office, he may be ousted from it. Its objective is to prevent a person from holding an office he is not entitled to therefore preventing usurpation of any public office.  It cannot be issued with respect to a private office.  Certiorari ‘Certiorari’ means to ‘certify’. Certiorari is a curative writ. When the Court is of the opinion that a lower court or a tribunal has passed an order which is beyond its powers or committed an error of law then, through the writ of certiorari, it may transfer the case to itself or quash the order passed by the lower court or tribunal.  Prohibition A writ of prohibition is issued by a Court to prohibit the lower courts, tribunals and other quasi-judicial authorities from doing something beyond their authority. It is issued to direct inactivity and thus differs from mandamus which directs activity. Who can file a writ petition? A writ petition can be filed by any person whose Fundamental Rights have been infringed by the State.  Under a Public Interest Litigation, any public-spirited person may file a writ petition in the interest of the general public even if his own Fundamental Right has not been infringed.   Where can a writ petition be filed? Under Article 32, a writ petition can be filed in the  Supreme Court . The Supreme Court can issue a writ only if the petitioner can prove that his Fundamental Right has been infringed. It is important to note that the right to approach the Supreme Court in case of a violation of a Fundamental Right is in itself a Fundamental Right since it is contained in Part III of the Constitution.  Under Article 226, a writ petition can be filed before any  High Court  within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises, either wholly or in part. It is immaterial if the authority against whom the writ petition is filed is within the territory or not. The power of the High Court to issue a writ is much wider than that of the Supreme Court. The High Court may grant a writ for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose such as violation of any statutory duties by a statutory authority. Thus, a writ petition filed before a Supreme Court can be filed against a private person too.  Where a fundamental right has been infringed, either the Supreme Court or the High Court can be resorted to. It is not necessary to go to the High Court first and only thereafter approach the Supreme Court. However, if a writ petition is filed directly in the Supreme Court, the petitioner has to establish why the High Court was not approached first. Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.15/-)

1 Drafting of petition under Article 226/227   The importance of the drafting vis a vis oral arguments has been vividly discussed by the Supreme Court in P N Eswara Iyer v. Registrar AIR 1980 SC 808 while considering the constitutional validity of the exclusion of oral arguments in the context of the review jurisdiction;  For good drafting one should possess:  ∙ Good command of language  ∙ Clarity of facts ∙ Clarity of law  ∙ Ability to arrange facts in sequence of time or date  ∙ Ability to arrange bare facts (without mixing the facts and legal submissions) ∙ Ability to discard or exclude the facts that are not remotely relevant to the controversy, however, at the same time taking care of not suppressing material facts ∙ Ability to frame the prayer clause succinctly- what your client wants and what is absurd to demand.  2. Importance of drafting skill: ¬  Drafting of petition is a skill on which the fate of your case depends to a large extent. One must, therefore, possess the skill of drafting the petition. It is like painting a picture. One must take as much care in drafting of a petition which an artist takes while painting a picture. 2 ¬ Most of the judges in High Courts and the Supreme Court read on the previous day the cases/petitions to be listed for admission/hearing on the next day. Good drafting helps them in understanding the problem/legal issues involved in the case. ¬ You might feel that judge is not going to read your entire petition so why should you take much care in drafting a petition, but you must remember that your every oral submission of the fact and law in court room should be part of the petition. If relevant facts and legal submissions do not form part of the petition, the court will not be able to help you and your petition might be dismissed for the want of sufficient facts. Your opponent will also raise an objection that the petitioner should not be allowed to travel beyond his pleading. ¬ The prayer clause must be meticulously drafted since the court will refuse to grant any relief not prayed for in the petition. ¬ If relevant facts are not stated or legal submissions are not made in the petition, it gives an opportunity to the opponent to get your case dismissed on such grounds.  3. Pre-Drafting Stage (Discussion with client and collection of information)  ¬ Drafting of a plaint or petition depends on the effective collection of facts and information from the client. 3 ¬ Treat your client with your curtesy -ask your client to tell his problem in brief – allow him to open up and vent his grievances for some time. ¬ Ask questions to your client for gathering facts of his case and tell him to show relevant documents – try to ascertain correct facts and all important details. ¬ Ask your client whether he had taken out any legal proceeding in the past in respect of the problem he has brought before you. ¬ Arrange the facts and relevant documents in chronology ¬ Don’t jump to any conclusion – don’t give your judgment – you are a lawyer not a judge. ¬ Find out which is the most appropriate remedy [civil suit, criminal complaint, approaching special tribunal, filing appealrevision or review etc] for the redressal of the problem brought before you. ¬ Find out whether it is advisable to bypass the alternative remedy and approach the high court directly - discuss this aspect clearly with your client. ¬ Ask your client if he was missing any relevant fact to be mentioned and relevant documents to be produced – explain him the consequences of suppression of material fact or documents from the court – opponent will expose your suppression when he is called upon to answer your petition.4 ¬ Finally ask your client what he wants from the court – note down the relief clearly which your client wants- arrange the relief in sequence in anticipation that if the court is not to grant the first relief prayed for what is the next relief by which your client would be satisfied – lastly discuss the minimum relief which you might get for your client – never tell your client that he has no case – he comes for the solution of his problem and not to hear from you that his case is worthless- you can broadly say to your client that he has a legally strong case or a little weak case or not a very strong case. ¬ After the aforesaid discussion if your client is willing to file a petition, you may start drafting the petition. Else, charge your client for the consultation and for giving a true advice. Be truthful and honest to your client. Never give guarantee of success in the case to your client.  4. Difference between plaint and petition: ¬  Civil Procedure Code does not apply to petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India [Refer to S.141 CPC] ¬ Civil Procedure code serves as a guide (State of Punjab Vrs. Puran Singh AIR 1996 SC 1092). ¬ Pleading and Plaint are governed by Order VI and Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Your petition must also be in tune with these rules not strictly but as far as possible. ¬ In the petition before high court you are entitled to quote the relevant statutory provision, extract from relevant case 5 law, legal submissions etc. which is not permitted in drafting a plaint. ¬ There is no specific format provided for petition under Article 226/227 except PIL. You are free to evolve your own style of drafting keeping in mind the parameters discussed above.  5. Parts of Petition and reply: ¬  Index ¬ List of Events ¬ Memorandum of Petition ¬ Affidavit ¬ Annexures-Documents ¬ Reply affidavit to the petition ¬ Rejoinder, if any 6. Petition has following parts: General Title of petition “In the High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad” INDEX List of Events ¬ Title of the Petition “In The High Court of_______ at________” ¬ “District” is relevant to ascertain the fact from which district the case has come to the high court-service of court process is done through the District Court- the reference of the district would also help the Registry of the High Court in 6 finding out whether there is any caveat against a particular decision. ¬ Nature of proceeding: Special Civil Application No:______ of 2016,  Writ Petition (PIL) No:______ of 2016 or Special Criminal Application No:_____ of 2016 ¬ In the matter of : Articles of the Constitution of India  Relevant laws to be stated Relevant rules to be stated  iv) The decision under challenge in the petition The part is very relevant for deciding before which bench the case will be listed. You as a lawyer can do some planning in deciding this part within the framework of law. ¬ Details of petitioners:  Individual petition [CPC O.1 R.1]  Petitioner by more than one person [ CPC O.1 R.1] Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 1975 GLR 368, Umesh Chand v. State of UP AIR 1984 ALL 46(FB)  iii) Petitioner by partnership firm or a proprietary firm or HUF  [O.30 R. 1,10]  iv) Petitioner by Company, Association person or Cooperative Society [ CPC O. 29] 7  v) Petitioner by Trust or other Society [ CPC O.31] vi) Suit by or against minor or unsound person [CPC O.32]  vii) Petition in representative capacity [ CPC O.1. R.8, Rule 175 GHC Rules,1993] A separate application to be filed.  viii) Intervention application  [ CPC O.1 R.8A]  ¬ Details of respondents: i) The State Government or Central Government as the case may be is required to be joined as respondent no: 1 usually. The description of the State Government should be for example “The State of Gujarat”. The description of the Central Government should be “The Union of India”. This description is sufficient under Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. [Refer to also O.27 and O.27A of CPC] ¬ The litigants are not supposed to know the department which is concerned with the case. A copy of the petition to be served upon the Government Pleader or the Central Government Counsel as the case may be. ¬ When writ in the nature of Mandamus is prayed for, the concerned authority or officer is also required to be joined as a respondent. 8 ¬ When writ in the nature of certiorari or prohibition is prayed for, the authority or tribunal is required to be joined as a respondent. [now in view of the judgement of SC in Sh. Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinhji v. State of Gujarat (2015) 9 SCC 1 and M.S.Kazi v. Muslim Education Society, SC Judgment dated 22/8/2016 (para 8,9) the tribunal is not required to be joined as party respondent] ¬ When writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus is prayed for, the person who has illegally confined the person is required to be joined as a respondent. ¬ When writ in the nature of Quo Warranto is prayed for, the person who has usurped the public office is required to be joined as a respondent. ¬ Where allegations of mala-fide are made against any officer or person, such a person or officer is also required to be joined as a respondent. To, Hon’ble Chief Justice and other Hon’ble Judges Of The High Court of________ The petitioner(s) most respectfully submit(s): 1. Challenge in the petition 9 2. Facts to be divided in to small sub-paragraphs- if violation of the fundamental right given to citizens of India only is alleged- make statement that the petitioner is a citizen of India. 3. Legal Grounds/Submissions  4. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss  5. No other alternative remedy  6. Details of the legal proceeding, if already undertaken on the subjectStatement to be made that no other case filed on the subject matter in any other forum and how it was disposed of. [Rule 174 GHC Rules,1993] 7. No delay and laches/ Give reasons for delay-details of the cause of action 8. Statement about territorial jurisdiction only when there is any doubt about the High Court’s jurisdiction  9. Prayer clause  10. Affidavit- Oath/affirmation-facts based on the personal knowledge, facts based on information and belief – no material fact or document concealed.  11. Documents-Annexures ( Annexures to the petition should be given consecutive cardinal numbers prefixed by word ”P” as P-1, P2,…., annexures to the reply should be given cardinal numbers prefixed by the word ”R” as R-1, R-2….. and annexures to rejoinder should be given cardinal numbers prefixed by the word “RJ” as RJ-1, RJ-2 ….) 10 12. The Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 Chapter XVII Rule 174 to 194 for petition under Article 226 and 227 and Chapter XXVIII Rules 378 to 386 (Petition for Habeas Corpus) 7. Broad analysis of Article 226 and Article 227: ¬ Article 226 is invoked for the enforcement of the fundamental rights; or ¬ For seeking judicial review; or ¬ For enforcing the rule of law in all governmental actions. ¬ Article 227 can be invoked against judicial orders of subordinate courts and tribunals- for correcting jurisdictional errors only-power of superintendence- no other 8. The following types of cases are filed before high court usually: ¬ Judicial review of executive/administrative action or decision; ¬ judicial review of a quasi-judicial decision or judicial decision; ¬ Judicial review of legislative action and vires of law or constitutional amendments; ¬ Judicial review of prerogative power; ¬ Judicial review in contractual matters; ¬ Judicial review of policy decision While drafting the petition you must keep in mind the nature of the order which you are challenging before the high court. Your pleading must make out a case for high court’s intervention. 11 ∙ Administrative decision can ordinarily be challenged on the ground of Wednusbary unreasonableness as also on the doctrine of proportionality. ∙ Quasi-judicial or judicial decision can ordinarily be challenged on the ground of jurisdictional error, error apparent on the face of the record, perversity, violation of substantive or procedural law or principle of natural justice. ∙ Legislative action can be challenged on the ground of violation of any fundamental right or legislative competence. Subordinate legislation can in addition to above grounds be challenged on the ground of it being contrary to the parent law or beyond the permissible limit. ∙ Constitutional amendment can be challenged on the ground of violation of the basic structure doctrine only. ∙ Policy decision, prerogative powers and contractual matters can be judicially reviewed on very limited grounds only. 9. Drafting of petition also depends the nature of direction or order sought for in the petition: ¬ Order/Direction in the nature of Certiorari ¬ Order/Direction in the nature of Prohibition ¬ Order/Direction in the nature of Mandamus ¬ Order/Direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus ¬ Order/Direction in the nature of Quo Warranto Your pleading must contain necessary averments for invoking the powers of the High Court. 12 10. Drafting of petition under Article 227: While drafting the petition under Article 227 one must bear in mind that this article confers simply the power of superintendence and empowers the High Court to correct the jurisdictional errors only. Therefore one must make an averment as to how the judgment or order of the subordinate court or tribunal is without jurisdiction so as to call for the interference by the High Court. Please refer to Waryam Singh V. Amar Nath AIR 1954 SC 215, Mohmmad Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaquim AIR 1984 SC 38. In the petition under Article 227 the subordinate court or tribunal should not be joined as respondent. In the petition under Article 227 you cannot ask for any of the prerogative writs. Asim Pandya Advocate, High Court of Gujarat Download Word Document In English. (Rs.30/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.30/)

Will in Favour of Minor Son I, AB, etc. execute this my last will this the ____ day of ___________ in the city of _________voluntarily out of my own free will without any compulsion or pressure from any person and having a second disposing mind. Whereas I had made a will dated ________ in favour of my wife CD bequeathing all my properties to her ; And Whereas the said wife died ON _________ leaving EF, aged 12 years as our only son. 1.     I hereby revoke the will made in favour of my wife CD on ____________. 2.     I hereby declare and bequeath all my properties, movable and immovable, belonging to me or which may belong to me and remain indisposed of during my life-time unto EF, my son aforesaid. 3.     In case I should die before the said son EF attains majority, I appoint GH, etc., as an executor under this will, who shall realise all my to outstanding and administer the estate left by me for the benefit of EF, of the said legatee after defraying all expenses of such administration. The said executor shall be entitled during such administration to charge Rs. ______ per month as remuneration for his service till the aforesaid EF attains majority. When the said EF attains majority, the said GH shall handover all the estate then in existence unto the said EF. During the minority of the said EF, the executor shall act as guardian of the said EF and shall look after his education and training in a be fitting and useful manner so as to earn a decent living either as an engineer or as a member of some other noble profession. However, if the said EF attains majority during my life-time and survives me, this provision relating to appointment of the executor shall not be operative and the said EF shall be entitled to receive and appropriate as owner all and every part of the estate left IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have signed this will in the presence of witnesses hereunder who have attested the same in my presence. Sd. _________ (AB) Testator Signed by the abovenamed AB in our presence at the same time and each of us has in the presence of the testator signed his name hereunder as an attesting witness. Witnesses : 1. ________________ 2. ________________ I have examined the testator and found him in sound disposing mind and as having fully understood the contents of this will. Sd. _______ Dr. _________ Download Word Document In English. (Rs.5/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.5/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.5/-)