Habeas corpus was the proper remedy where the challenge concerned arrest and continued custody, not mandamus or certiorari.

A writ petition framed as one for mandamus and certiorari was held not maintainable where the real challenge concerned arrest, detention and remand, which are ordinarily addressed through habeas corpus. The Court treated the reliefs as misconceived because the grievance was directed at continued custody rather than a fit case for the writs sought. It also noted that the High Court rules require a habeas corpus petition to be placed before a Division Bench, reinforcing that the proper remedy and forum were different from those invoked. The petition was therefore not entertained in its present form, and the requested reliefs were declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus and certiorari was maintainable when the challenge essentially related to arrest, detention and remand, for which habeas corpus was the appropriate remedy.

Analysis: The reliefs sought were found to be misconceived because the challenge was directed against arrest and continued custody, matters which are ordinarily examined through a habeas corpus petition. The order also noted that the High Court rules require a habeas corpus petition to be placed before a Division Bench. In light of the constitutional and procedural framework, and the view taken on the proper forum and form of remedy, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition in its present avatar.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the form presented and the reliefs under mandamus and certiorari were declined.

---