Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
TYPES OF WRITS
(1)
(2)
Writ of Mandamus.
(3)
Writ of Prohibition.
(4)
Writ of Certiorari.
(5)
2. WRIT OF MANDAMUS:
Writ of Mandamus is used to compel a public functionary to do what he is under a legal duty to do
when he is refusing to do it.
3. WRIT OF PROHIBITION:
Writ of prohibition is also extended to prevent public functionaries from exceeding their powers,
when the act or proceeding is not completed.
4. WRIT OF CERTIORARI:
Certiorari is extended to prevent public functionaries from exceeding their power. Certiorari is used
when the act or proceeding has been completed.
www.leg aldesire.com
1. INDEX: This if the first page of the petition. Details of enclosures of writ petition has to be
arranged. Table of contents that contains particulars of petition and its page numbers.
2. PROFORMA: This page contains the presiding Judge Records important points that emerged
during course of hearing.
3. SYNOPSIS: Narrate date wise very briefly chronology of events Narrate date wise very
briefly chronology of events / important facts / important facts that led that led to the filing of
this Writ.
4. POINTS, AUTHORITIES & ACTS POINTS: State here (very) important points that you intend
to argue in the Court.
www.leg aldesire.com
(d) Reliefs prayed for the petitioner prays that this Honorable Court may be pleased to
issue the writ of Habeas Corpus or Mandamus or Prohibition or Certiorari or Quowaranto.
(e) Interim Reliefs if any- If there is any relief has to be prayed.
(f) If there is any documents relied on has to be clearly stated.
(g) Signature of the petitioner on the right side. Signature of the counsel is usually on left
side.
(h) Verification and signature of the petitioner.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Index
(vi)
Cover page
(vii)
(viii)
Available at http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/formats/writ%20format.pdf
www.leg aldesire.com
-------
Petitioner;
-------
Respondents.
Versus
PETITION FOR THE ISSUE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
To
The Honble the Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the Court aforesaid.
The humble petition of the above named Petitioner most respectfully sheweth:
1. That the petitioner is a resident of 456, Ram Nagar, Chenni and he was living peacefully at his
residence at the place aforesaid.
2. That on 15/05/2013 Respondent No. 1 made an order under Section 3 of the Conservation of
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by which he directed that the
www.leg aldesire.com
Petitioner shall be arrested and detained for a period of three months. A copy of the order is annexed
herewith as Annexure A.
3. That the Petitioner was arrested the same day and was detained in 15/05/2014 Jail. The grounds of
detention were not supplied to the petitioner on that day. The grounds were actually supplied on
17/05/2014. A copy of the grounds supplied is annexed herewith as Annexure B.
4. That on 25/05/2014 the Petitioner submitted a representation against his detention through
Respondent No. 2 but the same was considered by the Advisory Board after one month and was
rejected on 26/06/2014.
5. That the grounds of detention supplied to the Petitioner were in English which language the
Petitioner does not know.
6. That the orders of detention of the Petitioner are illegal, improper and without jurisdiction on the
following:
GROUNDS
1. Because the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, is
unconstitutional and void as it is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament.
2. Because the order has been passed by an officer not duly authorized.
4. Because the grounds are in English which language the Petitioner does not know and this has
prevented him from making an effective representation.
7. Because there was undue delay in the disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner.
www.leg aldesire.com
PRAYER
Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of Habeas Corpus to the opposite parties quashing the order of detention and directing that
the Petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
DATE 01/07/2014.
www.leg aldesire.com
________Petitioner;
Versus
1. RAMADURAI,
Collector, Vilupuram District, Tamil Nadu
2. State of Tamil Nadu
________Respondents.
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE ISSUE OF A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS.
To
The Honble the Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the Honble High Court of Judicature at
Madras.
1. That the Petitioner is the owner of a plot of land numbered 12/2013 in kumarn nagar,
Ulundurpet, at Vilupuram detailed in Annexure A to this petition.
www.leg aldesire.com
2. That on 09/09/2013 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was
published that certain land including the petitioners aforesaid plot was needed for a public
purpose.
3. That the petitioner filed objections to the proposed acquisition of his plot under Section 5-A of
the Act.
4. That the objections filed by the petitioner were heard by the Collector on 12/01/2014 and
thereafter he submitted his report with recommendations to the State Government.
5. That the State Government accepted the report and recommendations of the collector and
rejected the objections filed by the petitioner.
6. That on 25/02/2014 the State Government made the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
7. That on 15/05/2014 the petitioner received a notice under Section 9 of the Act, to state his
claim to compensation for his plot which was under acquisition.
8. That on 15/06/2014 the petitioner filed his claim to compensation claiming Rupees 5, 00, 00 as
compensation for the acquisition of his plot.
9. That on 25/06/2014 the Collector gave his award determining a sum of only Rupees 10,000 as
compensation for the petitioners plot.
10. That the award was filed in the Collectors office and notice of the same was given to the
petitioner.
11. That the compensation awarded by the Collector for the petitioners plot was grossly
inadequate and the petitioner did not accept it. On 28/06/2014 the petitioner made an
application under Section 18 of the Act to the Collector requesting that the matter be referred
for determination to the District Judge.
12. That though under Section 18 the Collector was bound to refer the matter of compensation to
the District Judge he has declined to do so.
www.leg aldesire.com
___________________
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
_______________________
PETITIONER
VERIFICATION
I, RANGARAJAN do hereby verify that the contents from paras 1 to 12 are correct and true to the best
of my knowledge and personal belief and no part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therein. Affirmed at Madras on 01/07/2014.
PETITONER
www.leg aldesire.com