Writ Petitions can be filed either in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court and the High Courts can even be moved by a letter or a post card in theory. The letter should not be addressed to any judge by name. The following are the types of Writ Petitions

1. Habeas Corpus: If there is a complaint by any person that he/she is being detained illegally or improperly, the law has provided means to set him/her at liberty. One of them is by writ of Habeas Corpus. It is therefore a process by which a person who is in illegal confinement may secure his/her release from such confinement. It can also be filed by a family member/friend to secure the release of the person detained.

2. Mandamus: It is, in form, a command directed to some Corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty specified therein which duty results from the official position of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation of law. Mandamus can be granted only when there is a right to the applicant to compel the performance of some duty cast on the respondent.

   Mandamus can be issued when there is refusal to perform a public duty- The Writ of Mandamus is a very wide remedy available against public officers to see that they do their public duty as ordained by the statute. A member of public can draw the attention of the Court and enforce public duty by invoking this discretionary remedy.. The remedy allows an application to be made by any member of the public, though the Court will not permit use of it to a mere busy body who is interfering in things, which do not concern him. [Alphonse v. State of Kerala, 1986 KLT 1376, Varghese Kalliath (J)]

3. Prohibition: This writ is issued to prevent judicial or quasi-judicial authority or authorities amenable to writ jurisdiction from acting in excess of authority. If such person passes an order or is about to pass an order which it has no jurisdiction to pass or which does not conform to the basic principles of natural justice, a writ can be issued against it.

   /LI>

4. Quo-Warranto: A prerogative writ which can be granted by the Supreme Court and High Courts in India to inquire from the other party by what authority he/she claimed or usurped the office, franchise or liberty in order to determine the right. The object is to restrain a person who is illegally holding an office from continuing in that office.

5. Certiorari: It is a command to an inferior court or tribunal/or a body acting in judicial capacity, or quasi- judicial, to transmit the records of a cause or matter pending before them to the superior court, when the inferior court acts in excess of authority or in disregard to the principles of natural justice.

6. Certiorarified Mandamus: This expression means a merger of two writs i.e. Certiorari and Mandamus. Mandamus comes in to help Certiorari, which can only quash the order. Therefore Mandamus is required to direct rectification or defect or for suitable direction.

If you require an urgent interim order like a stay order, an injunction preventing some act from being done, it can be done by a separate writ miscellaneous petition.

1. Writ Petition (Except Habeas Corpus) - Rs 100

2. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition - Rs 2

3. Vakalat - Rs 3

4. For Injunction Petition - Rs 5

5. Stay, Direction, Vacating Stay, Vacating Injunction - petitions - Rs 2

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers every High Court throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority, directions, orders, or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition and certiorari for the enforcement of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. However, the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the matter of application of Art. 226 where no fundamental right is involved is that a High court would not exercise its jurisdiction when an alternative, adequate and efficacious legal remedy is available and the petitioner has not availed of the same before coming to the High Court.

Article 226 reads as under:-

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in article 32, every High Court shall have the power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose,

1. -A) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority, or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, not withstanding that the seat of such Government authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories;

2. The power conferred on a High Court by Clause (1) or Clause (1A) shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32.

As per Sub-clause (1) of Article 216 the relief under writ powers of the High Court is available in respect of the following two contingencies:

1. For the enforcement of any fundamental right conferred by Part III of the Constitution, and

2. For any other purpose.

The relief in a writ proceeding can be claimed as a matter of right where infringement of fundamental rights and violation article 311(1) are concerned. In other cases contemplated by the words "for any other purpose" the relief is discretionary.

Part III of the Constitution guarantees the Fundamental Rights to the citizens and persons within India. The Supreme Court of India has been made the custodian of the fundamental rights by Article 32 of the constitution.

Article 32 states that the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the fundamental rights, is guaranteed. The Supreme Court has power to issue directions or orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights. The right guaranteed by Article 32 cannot be suspended except as otherwise provided for by the Constitution.

The Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court as per Article 32 of the Constitution of India reads as under:-

1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of rights conferred by this part is guaranteed.

2. The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions, orders, or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this part.

3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable y Supreme Court under Clause (2).

4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

While it is to open to the citizens to approach either the Supreme Court or the High Court having jurisdiction, it is always preferable to approach the high Court for quicker remedy and easy access.

What it cannot Provide?

1. The High Court in its Writ jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of Appeal against the orders of the State Governments or Union or other authorities.

2. It cannot go into disputed questions of fact and give a finding on the truth or otherwise of an allegation or a counter allegation. The questions whether there was bias, ill-will, malafide, or a due opportunity to be heard or to produce evidence in the course of departmental proceedings, are so largely questions of fact that it is difficult to decide them merely on conflicting assertions made by affidavits given by two sides, in a writ petition. It is not the practice of the Courts to decide such disputed facts in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution (Supreme Court - Kamini Kumar Das Choudhary vs. State of West Bengal, 1972 SLR 746)

3. There is no scope for oral evidence being adduced by any party on any disputed fact. Therefore the scope of writ is narrow and limited.

4. The High Court under Article 226 cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or inadequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion.

   "It is well-settled that when an alternate and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue the remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ; but, as observed by this Court in Rashid Ahmad vs. Municipal Board Kairana, [AIR 1950 S.C. 566,] the existence of adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs; Vide also [K.S.Rashid and son vs. The Investigation Commission(AIR 1954 SC 237)]. And where such remedy exists, it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226, unless there is good grounds therefor. [Union of India vs. T.R. Varma, 1957 SC 882]

5. High Court cannot interfere in writ petition in the quantum of punishment. If a number of penalties have been inflicted on an employee, this cannot be interfered in a writ petition, because the High Court cannot go into the severity of punishment. Even if a single charge out of several charges is ultimately held to have not been established the quantum of punishment cannot be reduced because it is not a matter for the High Court exercising Writ jurisdiction.

6. The parties cannot take new points in a writ petition. The normal practice is not to permit a point to be taken for the first time in the High Court, which was not earlier taken in the departmental enquiry. (Examples -

   • The objection that enquiry officer was biased cannot be taken in the writ petition for the first time.

   • It cannot be objected for the first time in a Writ petition that the enquiry officer was not appointed by a competent authority.

Where the Writ jurisdiction can effectively provide relief-

1. Though the relief under writ proceedings is discretionary "for any other purpose", it can be claimed as a matter of right where infringement of fundamental rights and violation of Article 311 (1) are concerned.

   Writs under Article 226 have to be issued in grave cases where the subordinate tribunal or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. (G.Veerappa Pillai vs. Raman and Raman Ltd.) AIR 1952 SC 192]

2. Though the proof required to sustain a conviction in a criminal case, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt, should not be insisted upon in a departmental enquiry still the proof should be capable of scrutiny and should stand the test of reasonableness consistent with human conduct and probabilities. Where the finding is totally perverse on erroneous view of the evidence, it would be a case for interference by High Court, for the finding arrived at such a basis is liable to be characterised as unreasonable and perverse.[(K.Sundara Rajan vs. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirapalli and others), 1972 SLR 723 Madras]

3. Adequacy or inadequacy of evidence to support a finding is not within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226; but when a complaint is made that there is no acceptable evidence at all to support the impugned conclusion of the Tribunal or that no Tribunal with a duty to weigh the evidence could possibly have come to the conclusion, it is the duty of the High Court under Article 226 to find out, whether the complaint so made is justified or not. (State of Madras vs. M.Kandaswamy,) 1972SLR 893, Madras]

4. Where during the departmental enquiry some evidence was let in respect of matters extraneous to the charge. Prejudicing the enquiry officer against the delinquent officer, and the enquiry officer based his conclusion on conjectures, the order of removal can be quashed by the High Court under Article 226 as there was no evidence to sustain the charge [State of Assam vs. Mohan Chandra Kalita and another) ,1973 (1) SLR 401 Supreme Court]

5. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held that the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some consideration extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. [(State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Shree Rama Rao ), AIR 1963, SC 1723 See also;(State of Orissa vs. Muralidhar ),AIR 1963 S.C 404]

6. Whenever an order of dismissal is challenged by a writ petition under Art. 226, it is for the High Court to consider whether the constitutional requirements of Article 311 (2) have been satisfied or not. The inquiry officer may have acted bonafide, but that does not mean that the discretionary orders passed by him are final or conclusive. Whenever it is urged before the court that as a result of such orders the Public Officer have been deprived of a reasonable opportunity, it would be open to the High Court to examine the matter and decide whether the requirements of Art 311(2) have been satisfied or not[(State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chintaman Waishampayan ), AIR 1961 SC 1623]

7. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court exercises it not as an Appellate Court. The findings of facts reached by an inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of the evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law, which is evident on the face of it, can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued, if it is shown that in recording the said finding the tribunal has erroneously refused to admit admissible evidence which was influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law, which can be corrected in a writ Certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can not be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inferences of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. [(State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Chithra Venkata Rao ), 1976(1) SLR 653-SC]

Whether Writ can be filed when a party has alternate remedies?

A writ is an extraordinary jurisdiction and normally a party is expected to avail of ordinary remedies. Though a High Court can entertain a writ even if alternate remedies are available, but the High Court will be reluctant except in special circumstances.

When an action against an employee is initiated under a certain Regulation, and the employee seeks to question the validity of the Regulation itself, then the Enquiry Officer appointed under the Regulation cannot decide the validity of the Regulation, because the Enquiry officer is appointed under the very regulations. The appropriate course would be to file a writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from holding the threatened enquiry.

No period of limitation has been prescribed for the institution of a petition for a writ, but it must be filed within a reasonable time. This is based on the principle of equity that delay defeats equity. Law is there to help only those who are alert, and not those who are carefree or negligent. It was held that unexplained delay of three months was fatal to the writ petition. The same principle is followed if the petition is filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of any period of limitation utmost expedition is the sin qua non for such claims. The party aggrieved must move the Court at the earliest possible time and explain satisfactorily all semblance of delay.

If necessary parties are not impleaded in the writ, then writ is bad [(Udit Narain Singh vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue) AIR 1963 SC 786]. If no relief is claimed against a party then he need not be made a party and if on the other hand relief is claimed from a party then he is necessary party. [(Sayyad Hussain vs. Sayyad Siddiqui) AIR 1959 RAJ 177. Necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. [(Udit Narain Singh vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue) AIR 1963 SC 786].

If an authority is required to act by the statute in a particular manner and if that authority does not act in that manner, then it can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to do so. Before a person requests the High Court for issue of a writ of mandamus he must first approach the prescribed authority to act in accordance with law and if that authority does not accept his request, he can go before the high Court. If such a person would go to High Court directly then the High Court would not generally issue the writ.

Mandamus is issued to enforce duties of public or quasi-public nature and the applicant must show he has a legal right or substantial interest to the performance of the legal duty by the party against whom mandamus is to be issued. Such a duty may arise out of Statute or common law or custom. The duty will not arise if the statute is only permissive, because the writ is not issued to control the manner in which the discretionary power is exercised but it may be issued to prevent abuse of discretion or a transgression of the limits of the discretion results in violation of constitutional guarantee. The right claimed and the corresponding duty of the party must be of a public nature. The writ must be preceded by a distinct demand for the performance of the duty and there must be a refusal either by words or conduct by the other party. The Court must be satisfied that writ will be effective and not futile and there is no other equally convenient and effective remedy open to the petitioners [(C.M.Srinivasan vs. State of Bihar) 1972 LAB IC 1325(Pat HC FB)