It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

maintainable because there was a clear violation of fundamental rights by act of the police
men. The contention that the writ is not maintainable is not appropriate because respondent
can be sued under Article 300 of COI.

A. That petitioner is having locus standi

It is humbly submitted that petitioner is having locus standi to file the writ petition
under Article 32 as Supreme Court is having jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs for
enforcement of fundamental rights granted under COI. Petitioner can approach under
private law before the court as there is distinction between public and private law
which was considered in one of the landmark judgement Common Cause regd v.UOI
1
which clearly states the difference between public and private law in which it was
observed that SC under Article 32 has jurisdiction as aforesaid mentioned. To have
locus standi should have legal standing2 to file a writ petition. A petition could be
filed by a person who suffered violation of his rights and was an aggrieved person.3
Further, in the present case petitioner is rape victim which leds to violation of article
21 and ordinarily has the right to approach the Supreme Court under article 32 of
constitution of Somalia and also because of having interest in the subject matter4. The
expression cause of action has acquired a judicially settled meaning which states the
circumstances forming the infringement of the right or immediate occasion for the
reaction.5 Therefore it is crucial to note that cause of action has also been arose to that
of particular act on part of the respondent which gives the petitioner locus standi
before this hon’ble court.

B. That alternative remedy cannot resist

It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the existence of adequate
alternative remedy is not any part to hinder the application of Supreme Court
jurisdiction under Article 32 when relief if sought in case of Infringement of
Fundamental Rights. This stand has been proposed by the Supreme

1
Common Cause regd v.UOI (1999) 6 SCC
2
Prasar bharti broadcasting v. debyajoyti bose. AIR 2000.
3
Bokaro and ramgar ltd. V. State oif Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 516
4
Clacutta gas v. state of west Bengal AIR 1962 SC 1044.
5
Om Prakash Shrivastav v. UOI and ans (2006) 6 SCC 207
 Court in the precedent Rudul Shah v. state of Bihar6as well ie. However it cannot be
understood as laying a law that in every case of tortuous liability recourse must be had
to a suit. Hence the present petition is maintainable notwithstanding an alternative
legal remedy. Where public officials are involved and the case relates to violation of
fundamental rights the remedy would still be available under public law
notwithstanding that a particular suit has been filed for claiming the compensation in
private law therefore it sis pertinent to note that the same has been retiterated in the
case of railway board corp v. chandrima das 7.

Hence form the above stated precedents and the arguments advanced the petitioner is
having locus standi and writ petition filed before the apex court is maintainable.

6
AIR 1983 SC 1086
7
28 January, 2000 SC.