ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the writ petition filed by the petitioner under
Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable before this Court.
In the instant case, very evidently the fundamental rights of the victim have been infringed by the respondents.
Article 226 is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it confers a wide power on the High Court to remedy
injustice wherever it is found.1 The right of judicial review granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended by even a constitutional amendment. When
by any constitutional amendment, remedy of writ before a High Court cannot be barred, same cannot be done
by any Parliamentary legislation or by State enactment.2
WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
It is most humbly pleaded that in the instant case there has been breaches of mandatory duty by the
respondents.
The applicant must have a legal right to the performance of a legal duty.3 The duty to be enforced by a writ
mandamus could arise by a provision of the Constitution4 or of a statute5 or of the common law.6 The legal
duty must be of a public nature.7 All three ingredients are present in the instant case. It will not issue where to
do or not to do an act is left to the discretion of the authority.8
Thus, a writ of Mandamus can be granted in such cases where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the
officer concerned, and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.9
LOCUS STANDI.
It is most humbly stated that the traditional rule of locus standi that a petition under Art 226 can only be filed
by a person whose fundamental right is infringed has now been considerably relaxed by the Supreme Court in
its recent rulings.10 The Court now permits public interest litigations or social interest litigations at the instance
of “public spirited citizens” for the enforcement of Constitutional and other legal rights of any person or group
of persons who because of their poverty or socially or economically disadvantaged position are unable to
approach the court for relief.
In the present case,

Alternative remedy does not bar filling of writ petition under art. 226:

1
T.C. Basappa v. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440
2
L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others., 1997 (3) SCC 261.
3
Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v, Governing Body of the Nalunda College, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1210
4
Chintaman Rao v. Slate of M.P., A.l.R. 1951 S.C. 118:(1950) S.C.R. 759; Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, A.l.R. 1950 S.C. 163:
(1950) S.C.R. 566
5
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Subba, A.l.R. 1960 S.C. 610.
6
Juggilal Kamalapat v. The Collector of Bombay, A.l.R. 1946 Bom. 280
7
Saraswati Industrial System Ltd. V Union of India, AIR 1975 C 46; Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 13. p. 106
8
Controller of Monghyr v. Keshav Prasad, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1694; State of U.P. v. Manbodhanlal, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 912: (1958)
S.C.R. 533. T.G. Gaokar v. R.N. Shukla, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1050; Rajalakshmiah v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 993.
9
A.T. Markose, Judicial Control of Administrative Action in India, p. 364
10
S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W. B., (2004) 3 SCC
349 23, Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhari, (1992) 4 SCC 305; A.B.S.K Sangh(Rly.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981SC 298; State of W.B. v.
Ashutosh Lahiri, (1995) 1 SCC 189; Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988.
When a breach of fundamental right is made in the petition there the provisions of other remedies do not stand
in the way of exercising power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jasveer Singh11 held that the
observation of Supreme Court cannot be construed as restricting or limiting the exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and observed:
“It is wholly erroneous to assume that before the jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked the applicant
must either establish that he has no other remedy adequate or otherwise or that he has exhausted such
remedies as the law affords and has yet not obtained proper redress, for when once it is proved to the
satisfaction of the High Court that by state action the fundamental right of a petitioner under Art. 226 has
been infringed, it is not only the right but also the duty of the High Court to afford him by passing appropriate
order in that behalf.”
The mere existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot per se be a good and sufficient ground for
throwing out a petition under Art.226 if the existence of fundamental right and breach, actual or threatened,
of such right and is alleged prima facie established on the petition.12
Instances are numerous where a writ had been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other
adequate legal remedy.13 Also, the existence of an alternate adequate remedy is, however, no bar to the
exercise of writ jurisdiction where the relief is invoked in case of infringement of fundamental rights, 14 or
where there is complete lack of jurisdiction,15 or where the order has been passed in violation of natural justice
by the subordinate Court.16 Existence of alternative remedy is also no ground to refuse to issue writ where the
action is being taken under any invalid law or arbitrarily without sanction of a law.17
Mandamus is not refused because there is an adequate alternate remedy where the petitioner complains that
his fundamental right is infringed.18 The courts are duty bound to protect the fundamental rights and therefore
mandamus is issued. It is only when mandamus is issued "for any other purpose" that the existence of an
alternate remedy bars its issuance.19Mandamus will not, however, be refused when ordinary civil proceedings
or administrative appeals or revision do not provide an equally effective and convenient remedy. Thus, if the
alternative remedy imposes a heavy financial burden on the petitioner, it will not be regarded as a ground for
refusing mandamus.20
The remedies available in the relevant laws are insufficient and ineffective
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the dispute resolution method that is mentioned in
relevant and concerned laws are insufficient and inefficient. Where there is urgent need for any matter of
public importance or involves the substantial question of law, Hon’ble High Court has power to entertain the
writ petition. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in the instant case there is violation of
Fundamental Rights which is the substantial question of law and that when it is violation of Fundamental
Rights then it is an urgent matter which needs to be entertained by Hon’ble Court.

11
(2011) 4 SCC 288.
12
KK Kochunniv. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725
13
State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86.
14
Himmat Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 403
15
A. V. Venkateswaram v. R.S. Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506.
16
Mohd. Nooh Supra
17
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, AIR 1967 SC 1401.
18
State of Bombay v. United Motors, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 252: (1953) S.C.R. 1069.
19
Veerappa Pillaiv. Raman Rtimin Ltd.. A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 192: (1952) SCR 583.
20
Himmatlal v. State of M.P., AIR. I954 S.C. 403: (1954) S.C.R. 112.
In V. Vellaswamy v. I.G. Police, Madras,21 the Supreme Court held that the review-petition was not an
alternative efficacious remedy and, therefore, held that the High Court was wrong in dismissing the petition
because an alternative remedy was available.
Relief is being sought against the state
It is submitted that the relief claimed by the petitioner is not a relief claimed against a private party only. The
petitioner is aggrieved by inadequacy of law laid down by the Parliament and ineffectiveness of the machinery
for enforcement of such laws in the circumstances of the present case as the law and machinery are not
ensuring protection of fundamental rights of the petitioner as submitted in foregoing paragraph. The petitioner
has a grievance against the State of Prajasthan for its Anti- Corruption Bureau did not perform the investigation
in proper manner and both these institutions are ‘state’ within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution.
The High Court has enough powers and precedents to grant relief in the present case
Art.226 itself is a fundamental right and the High Court, as guardian of fundamental rights, has the powers for
enforcement of those rights through issue of writs. This Hon’ble Court has inherent powers to issue orders to
do complete justice under Art. 226. This constitutional provision empowers the court to frame remedies for
ensuring justice in particular cases and ordinary law does not and cannot place constraints on its constitutional
powers. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Court that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution
is discretionary remedy.22
The High Court in exercise of its constitutional powers can overcome inadequacies and weakness of law and
procedure, coin new remedies and add parties to case where need be. It can issue writs for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.23 They can exercise this power keeping in view the
broad fundamental principles of these writs followed in English law.24
The High Court can also issue directions, orders or writs other than prerogative writs.25 The power of High
Court is not confined only to issuing of the writs, it can issue a suitable ‘direction’ or ‘order’ to any person or
authority within its jurisdiction. Thus, Art. 226 enables the High Court to examine the action of administrative
and executive officials and to give relief to an aggrieved person26 and enables High Courts to mould the reliefs
to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of the country. The High Court will not go into the disputed
question of fact in exercise of its writ-jurisdiction.27 But, no question or issue would be beyond the
adjudicatory jurisdiction under Art.226 even if such adjudication would require taking of oral evidence.28
All these rights are granted by constitutional provisions of Art.19, 20, 21 and 226; they would also determine
the scope of Art. 19(1)(a) and of Art. 19(2), inherent powers of the High Court under Art.226. The petitioner
is seeking enforcement of fundamental rights, setting aside of restrictions and invokes jurisdiction of the High
Court vested in it under Art. 226 and other provisions of the constitution. In the instant matter as already stated
the cause of action arises within the territorial bounds of the State and therefore the High Court has sufficient
jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain this petition and issue the appropriate writ to the authority for
redressing the grievance of the appellant.29

21
AIR 1982 SC 82.
22
Techspan India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2006] 283 ITR 212 (Del); D.D BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 448 (21st
Ed. 2013).
23
3 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA (4th Ed. Vol.3 Reprint 1999, Universal Law Traders, Delhi)
24
Dwarkanath v. I.T.O, AIR 1966 SC 81.
25
3 DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (14th Ed. Reprint 2011, Lexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur)
26
M.P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW (6th Ed. Reprint 2012, Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur)
27
Bumrah Construction Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1962 SC 1320.
28
Real Estate Agencies v. Government of Goa, AIR 2012 SC 3848; ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation
of India, (2004) 3 SCC 533; Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, AIR 1970 SC 802; Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v.
Ulhasnagar Council, AIR 1971 SC 1021.
29
Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., (2006) 3 SCC 658 at page 669¶ 26; Rashid K.s. v Income tax investigations
commn. (1954) SCR 739;Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 567.
The Writs are thus maintainable.

II. WHETHER THERE IS ANY ABUSE OF PROCESS INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATION

CONDUCTED AGAINST X & Y OR NOT?

III. WHETHER THE FIR’s REGISTERED AGAINST X & Y ILLEGAL AND

UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?