You are on page 1of 19






Fatehpal Singh Singh

R/o Panchkula



1. Union of India
Through its
Secretary Govt. of India New Delhi

2. Bar Council of India

Through its
Chairman New Delhi.

Article 14 read with Article 19 (1) G


Article 246 read with entry 77 lists 1, 7th schedule.


Denial of the right to practice as provided in the Advocates Act, 1961 provisions: Section
2 (1) A, Section 24 (1), Section 24 (3) and Sections 29, 30 and 33.


Civil writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India Challenging the arbitrary
and unreasonable actions of the Bar Council of India in laying down rules to conduct the
Bar Exams to grant the Right to Practice of enrolled Advocates.

The petitioner above named most respectfully S H E W E T H:-

1. The petitioner is a citizen of India. He was born on 24th October 1983 ( Twenty Forth
October Nineteen Eighty Three).
2. The Petitioner has passed his B.A., LL.B Degree from Nalsar Law University, Hyderabad
on May 25th, 2010. He has further been admitted to the rolls of the Bar Council of
Punjab and Haryana (Check name) on 1st of June 2010. The true copies of the
provisional certificates and marks statement of the petitioner in respect of his B.A., LL.B
Degree are marked as Annexure-A. His certificate of enrollment is marked as Annexure
3. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Law and
Justice, responsible under the Constitution for lay down legislation related to the practice
of law and the conduct of advocates.
4. Respondent No. 1 appoints Commission and Committees to advise it on the national
pattern of legal education general policies for the development of legal education, legal
petition and law as a whole in all stages.
5. Respondent No. 1 is also responsible under the Constitution for the administration of the
Union Territories and has executive and legislative authority for all subjects including
reforms and legal education.
6. Respondent No. 2 is a body created in furtherance of the provisions of the Advocates Act,
1961. Its primary responsibility is to the determine and co-ordinate the stands of legal
education in the Country and law down qualifications and conditions necessary for
enrollment to the State Bar Councils in the Country.
7. It is respectfully submitted the all the above name Respondents have to Act in
coordination with each other in order to ensure fair an uniform system for the legal
profession as envisaged by national policies and National Knowledge Commission.
8. That around 14 December 2009, the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bonnie
Foi Law College and Ors., SLP No 22337/2008 had asked the Union of India about the
conducting of such Bar Exam. The Honble Chairman of the Bar Council of India, then
acting as the Solicitor General of India for the Union of India, had submitted that a three
member panel had been formed to see the viability of the exam and the manner in which
it ought to be conducted. He also submitted to Court that a Directorate of Legal
Education would come into force by the 31st of December 2010. A copy of the Order of
the Supreme Court is marked as Annexure C.
9. Respondent No. 2 adopted a resolution on 10th April 2010 to conduct an All India Bar
Exam. The exam was to be conducted so that the passing of the same would entitle an
advocate to practice law in India. No official news of the same resolution was published
until and around the 2nd of June 2010 where in the news of the resolution and the draft
rules were put up on the website of Respondent No. 2. A copy of the draft rules and
resolution as available on the Bar Council of India website as late as 27th June 2010 is
marked as Annexure D
10. That on the 2nd of June, 2010, newspapers reported that an All India Bar Exam would be
conducted and that private legal consulting firm Rainmaker would be in-charge of
conducted the exam. That presentations were also made by the firm as to how the exam
would be conducted. A copy of the newspaper items is marked as Annexure E. A copy
of the presentation made by consulting firm Rainmaker about the conduct of this exam is
marked as Annexure- F.
11. Till the 12th of June, 2010, no official notification was passed regarding the conduct of
the exam and the petitioners future along with other law students was left hanging till
such time. On the 12th of June, the said draft rules on the website of Respondent No. 2
were notified.
12. As the delayed notification of the exam came as a sudden shock to the Petitioners future,
he was further informed that he wouldnt be able to practice or appear in Courts till such
time he passed the exam. In effect, he would be unemployed or under a senior without a
source of income till the passing of such exam. The source of such information was the
website of respondent No. 2 that in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) page
categorically stated that all those persons graduating in the academic year 2009- 2010
have mandatorily to pass the bar exam before they will be permitted to practice the
profession of law. Moreover, that the qualification of passing the Bar Exam shall not
apply to those persons who have graduated prior to 2009-2010. A copy of the same is
attached herewith as Annexure G
13. That the petitioners herein have graduated from one of the premier law institutes in the
country. Moreover, that throughout the course in law school, the petitioners have
mandatorily been made to undergo several internships at law firms, corporate house, and
14. In view of the enrollment procedure provided by the State Bar Council and the Advocate
Act, The petitioner enrolled as an Advocate on the state rolls on 01 June 2010.
15. The Petitioner met the qualifications prescribed to be enrolled and entail a right to
practice under the Advocates Act, 1961 and paid the required fees for the purposes of
enrollment which was completed on 2nd June 2010. The petitioners name was
subsequently entered on the state rolls of Punjab and Haryana Bar Council.
16. The present petition raises vital questions of public as well as private importance for
determination by this Honble Court. The vital question of law involved concerns the
career of a large number of young students who in spite of economic and financial
difficulties have obtained their education.
17. This petition also raises the question of the definition of an Advocate as per the
Advocates Act, 1961.
18. The present petition also raises a cry on the ground of restriction of the Right to Practice
which is adversely oppressing his Right to Work. 19. The impugned rules of the Bar
Council of India is ultra vires the Constitution and the Advocate Act, 1961, arbitrary,
discriminatory, unreasonable, unjust, invalid and unfair and following amongst others


A. That Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act) deals with enrollment of Advocates,
and that Section 24 of the Act is further subject to other provisions of the Act and the
Rules framed there under.
B. That as per the three member Committee report submitted by the Chairman of
Respondent No. 2 to the Honble Supreme Court, at page no. 54, the Chairman has
categorically stated that the requirement to clear the Bar Exam shall be introduced only
by means of a statutory amendment.
C. That Respondent No. 2 is not empowered under its constituent statute to conduct a Bar
Exam. As such, only the Law Ministry may prescribe the requirement of an All India Bar
Exam, and not Respondent No. 2. The object and purpose of the establishment of
Respondent No. 2 is to deal with only those classes of persons qualified as advocates, and
not those who are in the process of qualifying.
D. That the Rules issued by Respondent No. 2 are arbitrary and devoid of any logic,
inasmuch as they specify that only those graduating in the academic year 2009-2010 are
required to pass the Bar Exam. As such, the object of the Act and the Notice is to regulate
and raise the level of those persons permitted to practice law. Adopting this stance, the
Petitioner has passed his B.A., LL.B Degree from Nalsar Law University, Hyderabad on
May 25th, 2010. He has further been admitted to the rolls of the Bar Council of Punjab
and Haryana on 01 June 2010. The true copies of the provisional certificates and marks
statement of the petitioner in respect of his B.A., LL.B Degree are marked as Annexure-
A. His certificate of enrollment is marked as Annexure B.
E. That the Respondents have willingly delayed the issuance of the notice. The Ministry of
Law and Justice and Respondent No.2 have been in talks since January 2010 regarding
the possibility of holding an All India Bar Exam, but an official statement was only
released as late as June 2010. Moreover, the Rules were released as a draft on June 2,
2010, specifying that the date of the exam is scheduled for December 5, 2010. As such,
those graduating in 2009-2010 will be denied the right to perform official legal work by
virtue of the notice. Such draft rules were notified only on the 12th of June 2010.
F. That several persons graduating in 2009-2010 have already enrolled themselves at several
State Bar Councils. Though Section 30 of the Act is subject to other provisions and Rules
framed under the Act, there exists no post enrollment qualification to be fulfilled prior to
which such persons will be allowed to practice law.
G. That having once cleared the requirements of Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the
Petitioner has a right to practice as laid down under Section 30 of the said Act and there
can be no further qualifications prescribed. The process of prescribing a post enrollment
Bar Exam without having a corresponding Section in the Act would have the effect of
denying any vested rights that would have accrued to those persons already enrolled.
H. That the right to practice and conditions pertaining thereto are contained in Chapter IV of
the Advocates Act, 1961, whereas the rule making power of the Respondents is contained
in Chapter VI of the said Act. Moreover, that Chapter IV is an exhaustive, exclusive code
in itself, being more specific in character, and thus cannot be governed by the provisions
of Chapter VI of the said Act.
I. That the conduct of Respondent No. 2 has been haphazard inasmuch as all the notices and
clarifications have been issued, in June 2010, which is a mere month prior to the
commencement of work for most 2010 graduating law students, and considering this,
none of them will be allowed to work in the capacity of advocates, but will be put in the
same position as interns.
J. That on enrollment, one of the rights that accrues to a person is the right to practice.
Thus, the notice cannot have retrospective effect of denying any such rights that may
have accrued to those persons enrolled.
K. That Section 30 of the Advocates Act gives a right to all registered under S.24 of the act
with their names on the state rolls to practice though out the territory to which the act
extends thus vesting a right upon those registered as advocates nemo potest mutare
consilium suum in alterius injuriam therefore no one is allowed to change his mind to the
injury of other. So the legislature should also not change its mind to prejudice of a vested
right. This can only be taken away by amending the act by the legislature.
L. That the Petitioner has passed his B.A., LL.B Degree from Nalsar Law University,
Hyderabad on May 25th, 2010. He has further been admitted to the rolls of the Bar
Council of Punjab and Haryana on 01 June 2010. The true copies of the provisional
certificates and marks statement of the petitioner in respect of his B.A., LL.B Degree are
marked as Annexure-A. His certificate of enrollment is marked as Annexure B.
M. Whereas the power of a rule making authority is conferred for promoting the policy and
purpose of the act and the power cannot be used for any extraneous or irrelevant purpose
such a over ridding the provisions of the parent act. This power cannot be exercised in
such a way as to bring into existence substantive rights or disabilities not contemplated
by the parent act itself.
N. Further the Bar exams were expressly excluded from the preview of the Act in 1973.
Clearly a rule including them again is beyond the rule-making power of the Ba Council.
Whereas in the final report of the 3 member committee on reform of legal education it
has been submitted in its conclusion and recommendation on page 54 that The
Committee is therefore, of the opinion that qualifying a bar examination should be made
a requirement prior to admission to the Bar by all State Bar Councils across the country.
In light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the V. Sudeer case, such a requirement
may be introduced in the Advocates Act, 1961 by means of a statutory amendment.
O. Whereas the Supreme Court has in several cases has restricted a rule making body from
making rules with retrospective effect.
P. Whereas Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council India Rules bare the intent of being
rules governing misconduct and discipline and not enrollment conditions as advocates as
they law no bearings to S.24 and S.30. The intent of the act under s.49 1(ah) is to provide
penal authority to the bar council for disciplinary proceedings and not powers to evaluate
the educational quality.
Q. Whereas the standard of education under S.49 1(j) can be affected only if they have been
approved by the Chief Justice of India.
R. That the role of examinations can be to the academic/intellectual/physical capability of
the person undergoing it for which had been provided for in S.24 sub-section 1 clause (d)
which has been omitted by Act 60 of 1973,S.18(w.e.f. 31-1-1974).
S. That such a discrimination is only put against students joining the profession and not
other class of people such as judicial officers who also are permitted to join the
profession. Taking an exam for the right to practice whereby making an exclusive right
for the students graduating in the year 2009-2010 or making it mandatory for anyone who
wishes to join the profession this year. Thereby giving preferential treatment to judicial
officer retiring this year or who wish to join the profession.
T. That if the Bar exams are to take place it shall change the definition of Advocate under
S.2(a) of Advocates Act,1961 also will have change S.24 Person who may be admitted as
advocates on State roll.
U. Whereas the role of the State roll under S.30 and Enrolment under S.24 of the Act shall
be omitted by the Right to practice by the Bar Council Rules 9 to 11 in Part VI, Chapter
III of the Bar Council of India Rules Conditions for Right To Practice under Section
49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961] giving it authority over the Advocates Act, 1961.

17. The Petitioner has no other efficacious remedy except to approach this Honble Court.
18. The Petitioner has not filed any other similar petition either before this Honble Court or
before the Supreme Court of India.
19. The Petitioner craves leave of this Honble Court to amend or add to the grounds if so
20. The Petitioner is a resident in the State of Punjab and his name is on the roles of the Bar
Council of Punjab and Haryana. This Honble Court has therefore jurisdiction to entertain
and try this petition.
21. There has been no undue delay in filing of this petition.
22. The requisite court fees of -----------has been affixed on this petition.


The Petitioner most humbly prays that this Honble Court may be please to:
a) Declare the impugned rules framed by Respondent No. 2 as invalid, unconstitutional and
b) Issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to grant the
Right to practice to the Petitioner; and
c) Issue any other further order/orders or direction/directions as this Honble Court may
deem fit and appropriate on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.






CWP No. 3087 of 2011

Ritesh Sinha son of Sh. Rabindra Narain Sinha, aged 36 years,

Resident of H. No. 1122, New Housing Board, Karnal (Haryana).



1. State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary.

2. The Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh through its Registrar General.

3. The District and Session Judge, Karnal.


Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the respondent
no. 3 vide which the service of the petitioner a 100% disable has been terminated arbitrarily as
the petitioners services who was appointed as a Clerk against the reserved post for the disable
has been terminated just by passing a non speaking order whereas the other non disable persons
who were appointed along with the petitioner are still working with the respondent no. 3 and thus
the action taken by the respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner is violative of the
Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of the India and also in violation of the provisions of
Disability Act, 1995.

Further for directions to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take back the
petitioner in service from the date he was removed / terminated i.e. 05.02.2011 with all
consequential benefits.

Or to issue any other appropriate writ, order or directions which this Honble High Court may
deem fit and proper under the peculiar circumstances of this case in favour of the petitioner.

Respectfully States:-

CWP No. 3087 of 2011

Present: Ms. Veena Kumari, Advocate for the petitioner


Notice of Motion

Mr. R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 3, to whom two copies of the writ petition have been handed over
by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Let respondent No. 2 be served for the date fixed.

The petitioner is a physically challenged person who successfully competed and

was appointed as a Clerk by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karnal against the post
reserved for Physically Disabled persons.

Notwithstanding the fact that due to the nature of disability the petitioner
cannot write with his own hand and was statedly provided assistance of a writer in the
examination conducted for the selection of the subject posts, his services have been terminated
apparently due to his inability to perform the duties as a Clerk who is expected to write the office
notes / maintain records in his own hands. The petitioner is not only Post Graduate in
Information Technology with various additional distinguished qualifications, he is well
conversant with the computer operations also. There can be plenty of work to be done on
computers in a Sessions Division, like preparation of daily cause lists of all the Courts, certified
copies of the judgments / order etc., which can be conveniently assigned to a computer savvy
like the petitioner.

Listed on 10.5.2011

Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order dated 5.2.2011 (Annexure P-11)

shall remain stayed. Respondent No. 3 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith
all the continuity benefits.

Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal as well as the

Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R), Karnal are directed to immediately constructed a
ramp / smooth slope to ensure that the petitioner can enter his office room on wheel chair at his
own without the aid of others. If any dismantling is required for this purpose, the same shall also
be done.

A compliance report in this regard be submitted on the date fixed.

All concerned to see that a congenial atmosphere is created at the work place
so that the petitioner feels himself as an integral part of the mainstream.

All concerned to see that a congenial atmosphere is created at the work place
so that the petitioner feels himself as an integral part of the mainstream.

Let a copy of this order under the signatures of the Bench Secretary be
supplied free of cost to the learned Counsel for the parties during the course of day for
information and necessary compliance.



(Surya Kant)


(Original Civil Jurisdiction)
Writ Petition No_________of _________20_________
AA., son of _________resident of _________Petitioner;
1. Collector, _________.District
2. State of _________. Respondents.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus.

The Honble the Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the Honble High Court of
Judicature at _________.

1. The above named Petitioner begs to submit as under:

that the Petitioner is the owner of a plot of land numbered _________in _________at
_________detailed in Annexure A to this petition.
2. That on _________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 _________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 _________the State Government made the declaration under Section 6 of the
7. That on _________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 _________the Petitioner filed his claim to compensation claiming
Rs_________as compensation for the acquisition of his plot.
9. That on _________the Collector gave his award determining a sum of only
Rs_________as compensation for the Petitioner plot.
10. That the award was filed in the Collector Office and notice of the same was given to the
11. That the compensation awarded by the Collector for the Petitioner plot was grossly
inadequate and the Petitioner did not accept it. On _________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.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that a writ, direction or order in the nature of
mandamus be issued to Respondent No. 1 directing him to refer the matter of
compensation for the Petitioner plot for determination to the District Judge . . . . . . .
Dated _________.
(Counsel for the Petitioner)
Writ Petition No. / 20.

Cause Title

Petitioner: The name, age, father/husbands name, occupation

and complete address and fax number with S.T.D.
Code and e-mail address, if any;


Respondent: The name, age, father/husbands name, occupation,

and complete address and fax number with S.T.D.
Code and e-mail address, if any;
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

1. Particulars of the cause/order against which the petition is made:

1) Date of Order / Notification / Circular / Policy / Decision etc: N. A.
2) Passed in (Case or File Number): N. A.
3) Passed by (Name and designation of the Court, Authority, Tribunal etc.): N. A.
4) Subject-matter in brief:
The petitioners are final year law students pursuing LLB (3 Year Degree Course, Semester
System) from Govt. Law College, Indore, which is affiliated to Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya
(referred hereinafter as DAVV in brief) and they intend to pursue LLM in academic session
2009-2010. They also intend to appear in Civil Judge Class II Examination, which is being
conducted by Honourable High Court of M. P. in September 2009.
This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging
a. the inaction of DAVV and its inordinate delay in conducting LLB 6th semester exam,
which was to be held in May 2009 and the result of which was to be declared in June
b. the arbitrary and illegal award of marks in one practical subject named Moot Court, Pre-
trial Preparation and Participation in Trial Proceedings.
As these actions are preventing the petitioners from
a. pursuing LLM in the academic session 2009-2010
b. appearing in Civil Judges Class II Examination to be conducted by Honourable High
Court of M. P. in September 2009.
2. A declaration that no matter pending: Petitioners declare that no matter relating to the
subject matter of this petition has been previously instituted or is pending in any Court, authority
or tribunal at the instance of the petitioners.

3. Details of remedies exhausted:

Petitioners have given written representation to Registrar, DAVV as well as to Vice Chancellor,
DAVV on 03/06/2009. They have also personally met with the Registrar as well as the Vice
Chancellor seeking redressal to their grievances. However, no attempt has been made to
safeguard the future of the petitioners and other similarly placed students.

4. Delay, if any, in filing the petition:

Petitioners declare that there is no delay in filing of this petition.

5. Facts of the case:

(Give a concise statement of facts in chronological order in separate paragraphs)

6. Grounds urged :
6.1 Because the petitioners future is at stake as they are unable to take admissions in other
colleges and universities of India for LLM courses due to late conduction of examinations.
Complete one year of petitioners is being wasted because of this inaction and irresponsible
attitude of Respondent No. 1.
6.2 Because even School of Law Respondent No. 3, which is run by DAVV, is not allowing the
petitioners to appear in their entrance exam for LLM.
6.3 Because due to low marks awarded to the petitioners in the practical subject, they have
been rendered uncompetitive to secure admission in LLM courses in colleges affiliated to DAVV
on the basis of merit. The low marks awarded in the practical subject also look bad on the
petitioners resume and adversely affect the petitioners chances of securing a job or other career
related activities.
6.4 Because the Petitioners are unable to appear in Civil Judge Class II examination which is
being conducted in September 2009 for no fault of theirs.
6.5 Because petitioners are being denied their fundamental right to work due to delay in
obtaining Sanad.
6.6 Because it is a duty of DAVV to conduct exams fairly and on time, which it has failed to
6.7 Because it is a duty of Respondent No. 2, to evaluate the students fairly in Practical
subjects, which it has failed to perform.

7. Relief Prayed for:

Petitioners pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:
7.1 By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate write, order, or direction, direct the
Respondent No 1 and 2 to conduct the exams of 6th semester of LLB course and declare the
result without further delay.
7.2 Respondent No. 3, be directed to permit the petitioners to appear for their entrance
examination for LLM and be given provisional admission if they are successful in the entrance
7.3 Respondent No 1 and 2 be directed to either
a. Ignore the marks in this subject for calculation of aggregate percentage for LLB Degree. It is
worth mentioning that that DAVV already does ignore the marks for Paper 5 of Semester 5,
which is also a practical subject.
b. Rationalise the marks given in the practical subject of Moot Court, Pretrial Preparation, and
Participation in Trial Proceedings.
7.4 Cost of this petition be awarded to the petitioners.
7.5 Any other relief, which this Honourable Court deems fit in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
8. Interim Relief:
The petitioners pray that Respondents 1 and 2 be directed to conduct LLB 6th semester exam and
declare the result without any further delay.

9. Documents relied on but not in possession of the petitioner:

9.1 List of marks obtained by students of all Law colleges affiliated to DAVV in the practical
subject of Moot Court, Pretrial Preparation, and Participation in Trial Proceedings in March
9.2 Submissions of students who scored above 80 marks or below 60 marks of Respondent No.
2, as well as other colleges affiliated to DAVV made towards the subject of Moot Court (Paper 4
of 5th semester).

10. Caveat:
That no notice of lodging a caveat by the respondents has been received by the petitioners.

Place: . (Signature)
Date: .. Counsel for Petitioner(s)

I, ______, do hereby verify that the contents from paras 1 to 10 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 Indore this 4th Day of September 2009.




(Original Criminal Jurisdiction)

Writ Petition No_________of _________20 _________

A _______aged about _________ son of __________________., resident _________ Petitioner;


1. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance,

Government of_________.

2. The Superintendent, _________ Jail _________

3. The State of_________ Respondents.




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 _________. and he was living peacefully at his
residence at the place aforesaid.
2. That on _________. Respondent No. 1 made an order under Section 3 of the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by
which he directed that the Petitioner shall be arrested and detained for a period of three
months. A copy of the order is annexed herewith as Annexure A.
3. That the Petitioner was arrested the same day and was detained in _________Jail. The
grounds of detention were not supplied to the petitioner on that day. The grounds were
actually supplied on_________. A copy of the grounds supplied is annexed herewith as
Annexure B.
4. That on _________. 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 _________. . . .
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:


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
2. Because the order has been passed by an officer not duly authorised.
3. Because the grounds were supplied after undue delay.
4. Because the grounds are in English which language the Petitioner does not know and this
has prevented him from making an effective representation.
5. Because the grounds are irrelevant to the object of the Act.
6. Because the grounds are vague.
7. Because there was undue delay in the disposal of the representation submitted by the

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.

Date _________ Advocate for the Petitioner.