1.

Draft a petition under Article- 226/32 of the Indian

Constitution for the issue of a writ Mandamus.
A writ is a formal written order issued by a Court. Any warrant, orders, directions, and so on,
issued by the Supreme Court or the High court are called writs.

A writ petition can be filed in the High Court (Article 226) or the Supreme Court (Article 32)
of India when any of your fundamental rights are violated. The jurisdiction with the High
Courts (Article 226) with regards to a writ petition is wider and extends to constitutional
rights too

A writ can be filed only if your fundamental rights are being violated. Generally, you can file a writ
petition against state and government agencies.

Draft of a Writ Petition:

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._________ OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:-

DEEPAK AGGARWAL ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

MEMO OF PARTIES
1. DEEPAK AGGARWAL
S/O LATE OM PRAKASH AGGARWAL
R/O ………………, SEC 13, ROHINI, DELHI-110085
...PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, THROUGH ITS
JOINT SECRETARY,
NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001
…RESPONDENT NO. 1

2. PROF. YOGESH K TYAGI, VICE CHANCELLOR,

PATRON OF DUSU,
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI, DELHI -110007
…RESPONDENT NO. 2

3. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,

THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
(NDMC HEAD OFFICE)
PALIKA KENDRA, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001
…RESPONDENT NO. 3

4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE – DELHI

POLICE HEADQUARTERS, M.S.O BUILDING, NEW DELHI-110002
…RESPONDENT NO. 4

Hence, this present Writ Petition.

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._________ OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
DEEPAK AGGARWAL ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF

MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT ORDERS OR
DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO TAKE EFFECTIVE STEPS AGAINST THE
PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES OF DUSU ELECTIONS & STUDENT
POLITICAL OUTFITS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN DAMAGING,
DEFACING, SOILING OR DESTROYING THE BEAUTY OF PUBLIC
WALLS & DAMAGING AND DISRUPTION OF CLASSROOMS THUS
DEPRIVING THE CITIZENS OF CLEAN AND BEAUTIFUL
ENVIRONMENT AND SURROUNDINGS FREE FROM DEFACEMENT
AS WELL AS DEPRIVING THE STUDENTS OF THEIR RIGHT TO
EDUCATION.

To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE &
HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Writ Petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation. The
Petition is not guided by self-gain or for gain of any other person
/institution/body and that there is no motive other than of public interest in
filing the Writ Petition.

2. That the petitioner who is an advocate by profession is heart wrenched at

the defacement of public properties across all quarters of Delhi in the wake
of the upcoming DUSU elections as also owing to the manifest ineptness
of the concerned authorities to curtail the aforesaid menace was
constrained to undertake a painstaking direct and indirect research through
the internet from 2013 to present & field surveys of students in person with
a view to find out the measures taken by the concerned authorities to set
the law into motion.

However, astonishingly it has been found that the said nefarious practices
have been carried out inordinately with complete impunity, wherein the
concerned authorities have been only a mute spectator to the students’
grievances and public spirited citizens in every consecutive year. The same
also gets underpinned by the statements issued by the senior officers of the
concerned authorities to the Leading News, whereupon they have doggedly
cited their helplessness to put an end to the menace, instead passing the
buck onto the connected authorities. [The copies of newspaper reports are
appended as Annexure P-1]

3. That the petitioner upon noticing the blatant violation of the law by the
aforesaid candidates captured photographs of the defacements and
destruction of public property across various parts of the city. [The copies
of photographs are appended as Annexure P-2]

4. That the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking directions in the nature of writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to prohibit the candidates
participating Delhi University Student’s Election (hereinafter referred as
“DUSU”), 2017 from soiling the walls, Public properties, private shops
with the use of ink, chalk, paint and/or poster across the city as this does
not cohere with the surrounding have thereby strong bearing on the
appearance or beauty, further as the same is done in a public place, is an
eyesore to the viewers, and violates Fundamental Right under Article 21
by robbing the citizens of clean and beautiful environment and
surroundings free from any defacement further it also results in irrational,
arbitrary exercise of their student election candidature and thus, violation
of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
 5. That since the Respondents 1 to 4 have failed to discharge their statutory
and constitutional obligations the Petitioner does not have any other
alternative and equally efficacious remedy and is constrained to file the
instant Writ Petition in the nature of a PIL, on the following amongst other:

GROUNDS
A. Because the present writ petition is pro bono publico in which the
Petitioner has no personal interest in the matter or the reliefs sought herein.

B. Because the Respondents have manifestly failed to discharge their

statutory and constitutional obligations

C. Because the illegal acts of the prospective candidates of DUSU, 2017

soiling the walls, Public properties, private shops with the use of ink, chalk,
paint and/or poster across the city corrodes the entire surrounding having
strong bearing on the appearance or beauty, further as the same is done in
a public place, is utterly disruptive and an eyesore to the viewers violating
Fundamental Right under Article 21 by robbing the citizens of clean and
beautiful environment and surroundings free from any defacement.

D. Because inspite of the specific and categorical guidelines propounded by

the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations (LCR), 2006, (relevant
portion): “6.7.8. No candidate shall, nor shall his/her supporters, deface
or cause any destruction to any property of the university / college campus,
for any purpose whatsoever, without the prior written permission of the
college / university authorities. All candidates shall be held jointly and
severally liable for any destruction / defacing of any university / college
property.” The report was submitted with a view to curtail the aforesaid
menace the concerned authorities have exhorted their helplessness to
enforce the same bolstering the student outfits to carry the illegal activities
thus unfolding itself to a gigantic proportions.

E. Because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has from time to time been expanding
the definition of the right to life assured in Article 21 of the Constitution
of India and has in Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0286/1996
: (1996) 2 SCC 549, it was held that in any organized society, right to live
as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man
but is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself,
including a decent environment/surroundings.

F. Because the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, in Sunil

Pandharinath Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0537/2010 :
MANU/MH/0537/2010, dealing with the Bombay Provincial Municipal
 Corporation Act,1949 and the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of
Property Act, 1995, held that display of any poster/banner/hoarding which
does not cohere with the surrounding is bound to have bearing on the
appearance or beauty, in that case, of a public place, is an eyesore to the
viewers, thereby causing public nuisance (reference was made to Section
268 of Indian Penal Code, 1860) and violates Fundamental Right under
Article 21 by robbing them of clean and beautiful environment and
surroundings free from any defacement.

We may notice that under the municipal laws of Delhi also, as discussed
herein below, unauthorized putting up of posters etc. is a public nuisance.

G. BECAUSE the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.
(C) No. 6711/2013, Anil Bhatia and Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
Ors. MANU/DE/0427/2015 while clearly deprecating the practice of
defacing Private and Public properties in the garb of campaigning for
elections held with clinching authorities that:

29. We cannot also be unmindful of the realities of today's life in the city
as Delhi, where residents are on short fuse and altercations on issues,
earlier treated as trivial, like parking, traffic accidents, often turn fatal.
The possibility of unregulated political posters becoming a similar cause,
cannot be ruled out.

The Supreme Court, as far back as in Ramji Lal Modi Vs. The State of U.P.
MANU/SC/0101/1957 : AIR 1957 SC 620 held that if certain activity has
a tendency to cause public disorder, a law penalizing such activity cannot
but be held to be a law imposing reasonable restriction "in the interest of
public order". Not only so, the expression "decency" in Article 19(2) has
in Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo Vs. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte
MANU/SC/0982/1996: (1996) 1 SCC 130 been held to indicate that the
action must be in conformity with current standards of behaviour and
propriety. If the act of putting up posters, on own property but in view of
others, is a public nuisance, it will be an indecent act. Thus, the subject
law can be classified also under the said head of Article 19(2).

H. Because the distasteful display of ugliness spread across the city at public
places like Metros, subways, flyovers, overbridges and so on leads to a
negative impact over the environment as also dealing a body blow to the
reputation and dignity of our country before the foreign tourists inter alia
leading to commercial losses in the teeth of having an adverse fallouts upon
our tourism revenues.
 I. Because this unholy ritual of destruction of public and private properties
especially around the vicinity of University of Delhi happens consistently
during this time of the year and the public at large is forced to bear these
illicit activities as if they are some established norm. That the chutzpah of
these DUSU candidates has heightened with every passing year because of
the no implementation of civic laws by the concerned authorities.

J. Because the soiling of walls becomes indeed an abhorrent sight and

infringes the right to life of other students and public at large who expect
to see clean walls of public properties viz. Metro Station Walls, University
College walls, Bus Stops and Public streets.

K. Because disruption of the classrooms by the Prospective candidates and the

student outfits in the horrible shape painting even the classrooms deals a
striking body blow to the Right to life, liberty and education of DU
students.

L. Because the unwarranted and unassailable damage to the public property

engenders irreparable cost to the exchequer as well as unnecessary added
burden on the tax payer.

M. Because it is the fundamental duty of the petitioner as a responsible citizen

to: Protect and improve the natural environment and culture including to
safeguard public property in the context of article 51A (g) & (i) of the
Constitution. That the educated students who shall lay strong footing
towards the future of our country should have the cherished norms of the
constitution of our country deeply embedded in them. Sadly, the student
political organisations and their representatives are brazenly flouting the
fundamental duties entrusted on them by the Constitution of India.
Essentially, the Hon’ble Court must enforce the spirit of those duties as the
incessant violations shall have far reaching implications to the growth and
development of our nation.

N. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition seeking relief similar to
as is prayed for in the present petitioner. No other equally efficacious
remedy, other than preferring the present petition, is available to the
petitioner.

PRAYER
In the aforesaid premise, it is most respectfully and humbly prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a) Issue directions in the nature of writ of mandamus to Respondent 3and 4 to
refurbish and prevent further defacement and destruction of properties committed
by the DUSU Political outfits and aspiring Candidates 2017 including imposition
of a heavy fines from the expenses incurred in order to undertake the restoration;
and

b) Direct Respondent 3and 4 to impose a complete ban on the defacement and

soiling of properties by the use of spray paints, posters, banners, hoardings, etc.
both pre and post elections causing defacement encompassing congratulatory
messages by the winning candidates with prospective orders along with penal
measures; and

c) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the present petition.

PETITIONER IN PERSON
DATED:
NEW DELHI

THROUGH
DEEPAK AGGARWAL (ADVOCATE)
OFFICE:- ….., ………….,
PRASHANT VIHAR, DELHI-85
MOB: ……………..