Padmasree etc., National Awards - Misuse of the same - should not be used as suffix or prefix before the names of Awardees as per the supreme court judgment - when violated , the president of India has jurisdiction to cancel the same - Since Brahmanandam has no personal knowledge about the use of awards no directions are given to concerned department to place before his Excellency - President where as Mohan Babu used himself as prefix before his name - directions are given to concerned department to place before his Excellency the President of India to take appropriate action against the forfeiture of award - pending order , Mohan Babu was restrained to use the same before his name and also directed to delete the same already done = Nallu Indrasena Reddy... Petitioner The Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs Represented by Secretary, New Delhi and others... Respondents = 2014 (Feb.Part)judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10832
Padmasree etc., National Awards - Misuse of the same - should not be used as suffix or prefix before the names of Awardees as per the supreme court judgment - when violated , the president of India has jurisdiction to cancel the same - Since Brahmanandam has no personal knowledge about the use of awards no directions are given to concerned department to place before his Excellency - President where as Mohan Babu used himself as prefix before his name - directions are given to concerned department to place before his Excellency the President of India to take appropriate action against the forfeiture of award - pending order , Mohan Babu was restrained to use the same before his name and also directed to delete the same already done =
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India1.
The relevant portion of the judgment relating to this subject, being paragraph
32 of the report, is quoted hereunder:
"...The National Awards do not amount to 'titles' within the meaning of Article
18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes. If this is done, the
defaulter should forfeit the National Award conferred on him or her by following
the procedure laid down in Regulation 10 of each of the four notifications
creating these National Awards."
counsel for the petitioner says, drawing our attention to the additional
documents filed along with the application (P.I.L.M.P. No.10 of 2014),
that it is a clear case of use of the award as title by the awardee himself and on
disclosure of the document he has not come to deny the same.
It is clear from above document that Mr. Mohan Babu himself has
used the award PADMA SHRI as prefix title to his name, and this was filed using
this award as prefix title with an intention to be circulated amongst the
members of the public.
"The President may cancel and annual the award of the decoration to any person
and thereupon his name shall be erased from the Register and he shall be
required to surrender the decoration and the Sanad....."
14. When we have found that this award has been used by him as prefix title
and no explanation has been put forward by him as to why it has been done, we
think that it is appropriate to refer this case to His Excellency The President
of India.
15. Accordingly, we direct appropriate department of first respondent to place
this subject along with copy of this judgment before His Excellency for taking
decision in terms of above notification dated 8th January, 1955 as amended on
1st January, 1969 read with above Supreme Court Judgment for forfeiture on
account of misuse of the award 'PADMA SHRI'. Because of the default,
consequential measure has to be taken by His Excellency The President of India.
This shall be placed within fortnight from the date of communication of this
order.
16. Till such decision is taken we restrain respondent No.4 - Mohan Babu and
his agents, servants, representatives, assignees from using the award "PADMA
SHRI" in any manner whatsoever or from holding himself out either publicly or
otherwise as awardee of PADMA SHRI. In addition thereto, he shall take all
measures to rectify deleting words "PADMA SHRI" carrying with his name wherever
used. This shall be done by him and he shall inform public at large by a
publication in newspaper/s that he has done so.
2014 (Feb.Part)judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10832
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Public Interest Litigation No.427 of 2013
04-2-2014
Nallu Indrasena Reddy... Petitioner
The Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs Represented by Secretary, New Delhi
and others... Respondents
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri K. Anthony Reddy
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 to 3 : Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud,
Assistant Solicitor General
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 : Not present
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.5 : Sri Madiraju Srinivasa Rao
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.6 :Sri Ancha Panduranga Rao
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?CITATIONS: AIR 1996 SC 770
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.427 OF 2013
ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
On 28.1.2014 on receipt of the application (P.I.L. M.P. No.10 of 2014) to
receive certain documents as additional material papers to this matter, we
passed an order directing that the affected party may file counter affidavit to
the said application. It appears in this matter the affected party would have
been Dr. M. Mohan Babu, fourth respondent. He has not filed any affidavit to
the application.
2. Mr. L. Srinivas Rao, learned Advocate, appears and asked for extension of
time to file an affidavit. On closer scrutiny of the record, we noticed that
said Srinivas Rao has not been engaged by fourth respondent, and one Mr. V.
Krishna Mohan has been engaged as Advocate to represent him. He is not present.
Though the name of Mr. L. Srinivas Rao has been mentioned as an Advocate in the
counters filed in the main matter, on scrutiny of the Vakalatnama, we find that
no Vakalatnama has been filed in his name authorizing to do anything in this
matter. In the circumstances, his prayer is absolutely unauthorized.
3. We record that there is no appearance for fourth respondent. We,
therefore, conclude that he is not willing to file any affidavit to the
application filed by the petitioner to receive the additional documents and not
to contest this application either. P.I.L.M.P. No.10 of 2014 is accordingly
allowed.
4. We accordingly hear this matter for its disposal. We have heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1,
5 and 6.
5. This case is filed alleging illegal use of the title 'PADMA SHRI' as
prefix to the name of the awardees in this matter (respondent Nos.4 and 5).
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing our attention to
the fact that respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are awardees of PADMA SHRI have used
the aforesaid award as prefix with their name and such use is absolutely
prohibited not only by the relevant Guidelines, but also by the pronouncement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India1.
The relevant portion of the judgment relating to this subject, being paragraph
32 of the report, is quoted hereunder:
"...The National Awards do not amount to 'titles' within the meaning of Article
18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes. If this is done, the
defaulter should forfeit the National Award conferred on him or her by following
the procedure laid down in Regulation 10 of each of the four notifications
creating these National Awards."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the revelation of the facts of this
case with regard to both the respondents - awardees, says that he is not
pressing the application as far as Mr. Brahmanandam - respondent No.5 is
concerned. Therefore, we do not intend to decide the matter against him.
Further, it is fairly admitted by respondent No.5 that the title PADMA SHRI has
been used as prefix to his name, however, this was not done by himself and this
was done inadvertently by a third party. To support his version, the Director
of respondent No.6 has come forward and he has said that this was done by the
company inadvertently. It is thus prayed that the title has not been used by
Mr. Brahmanandam.
7. On a perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court it appears
that the use of the award as title must be done by the awardee himself or by any
other person at his instance or approval or if such user is acquiesced by him in
order to apply default provision.
In this case, none of the cases has arisen.
If the word 'use' is taken on its face value it would be construed as being use
by even third party, and in that case if action is taken, it will work as great
injustice for an awardee not having any knowledge of use by third person. If
any third party without his approval and consent uses this award as suffix or
prefix then this default should not be attributed to the awardee himself.
However, if the awardee on detection of such use does not take step to prevent
it, then he/she shall be deemed to have acquiesced in the same.
8. In view of the above discussion, we think that no action in terms of the
aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court read with guideline is required to be
taken by this Court or by the Hon'ble His Excellency President of India against
respondent No.5. However, he must be careful in future so that the said award
is not used contrary to above prohibition. Accordingly, in order to prevent
future default, we restrain respondent No.5 and his agents, servants,
representatives and assignees from using the award as prefix or suffix title to
his name. We record also on detection of use by third party adequate
rectificatory measure has been taken by the respondent No.5.
9. Now, coming to the case of respondent No.4 - Mr. Mohan Babu, learned
counsel for the petitioner says, drawing our attention to the additional
documents filed along with the application (P.I.L.M.P. No.10 of 2014),
that it
is a clear case of use of the award as title by the awardee himself and on
disclosure of the document he has not come to deny the same.
10. In the context of the said submission, we have examined the document filed
along with P.I.L.M.P. No.10 of 2014. This has been collected by the petitioner
from the government officials under the provisions of the Right to Information
Act. We are satisfied that this document has been supplied by the Regional
Officer of Central Board of Film Certification, by letter dt.1.1.2014.
The
document which is supplied in Telugu language has been translated into English.
The document, which is relevant for our purpose is set out hereunder:
"PADMASHREE Dr. MOHAN BABU PRESENTS
Sri Lakshmi Prasanna Movies
JHUMANDI NADHAM
'Raking Star' Manchu Manoj Kumar
Kumari Thapsi (Newly introducing)
Sc. No.A BHADRACHALAM
333.09 Ft. Bhadrachalam atmosphere .............. in childhood
Titles follows
Story
Bhupathi Raju
Screenplay
Gopi Mohan
Ravi B.S.
Speech
Shashi Raja Simha
Songs
Chandra Bose
Suddala Ashok Teja
Vedavyas
Koriyography: Ashok Reddy - Suchitra Chandra Bose
Krishna Reddy, Papi (Poppi)
Audiography: E. Radha Krishna D.F. Tech
(Prasad Film Laboratories)
For SREE LAKSHMI PRASANNA PICTURES
Sd/-
(M. MOHAN BABU)
Sole Proprietor"
(emphasis supplied)
11. As we have already noted, no counter affidavit is filed denouncing this
document and in fact it cannot be denounced because it has been submitted by
respondent No.4 himself under his signature and this has been received by the
aforesaid authority. Thereafter copy there of on demand has been supplied from
their custody. It is clear from above document that Mr. Mohan Babu himself has
used the award PADMA SHRI as prefix title to his name, and this was filed using
this award as prefix title with an intention to be circulated amongst the
members of the public.
12. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the award has been used by
respondent No.4 as title deliberately and it invites forfeiture as mentioned in
the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.
13. Now, the question is what measure is to be taken?
We find, as rightly
contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General,
that there is a mechanism
for taking steps in such a situation and this mechanism has been published by
the Government in 'Statutes and Rules relating to the Awards of Bharat Ratna,
Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri' by the Notification issued on
8.1.1955, as amended upto 1.1.1969.
The relevant portion of this Notification,
which is appropriate for our purpose, is as follows:
"The President may cancel and annual the award of the decoration to any person
and thereupon his name shall be erased from the Register and he shall be
required to surrender the decoration and the Sanad....."
14. When we have found that this award has been used by him as prefix title
and no explanation has been put forward by him as to why it has been done, we
think that it is appropriate to refer this case to His Excellency The President
of India.
15. Accordingly, we direct appropriate department of first respondent to place
this subject along with copy of this judgment before His Excellency for taking
decision in terms of above notification dated 8th January, 1955 as amended on
1st January, 1969 read with above Supreme Court Judgment for forfeiture on
account of misuse of the award 'PADMA SHRI'. Because of the default,
consequential measure has to be taken by His Excellency The President of India.
This shall be placed within fortnight from the date of communication of this
order.
16. Till such decision is taken we restrain respondent No.4 - Mohan Babu and
his agents, servants, representatives, assignees from using the award "PADMA
SHRI" in any manner whatsoever or from holding himself out either publicly or
otherwise as awardee of PADMA SHRI. In addition thereto, he shall take all
measures to rectify deleting words "PADMA SHRI" carrying with his name wherever
used. This shall be done by him and he shall inform public at large by a
publication in newspaper/s that he has done so.
17. With the above observations and directions the public interest litigation
is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, P.I.L.M.P. No.668 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for
interim relief is closed.
18. The matter to appear fortnight hence for reporting compliance by
respondent No.4.
_______________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_______________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
04.02.2014
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India1.
The relevant portion of the judgment relating to this subject, being paragraph
32 of the report, is quoted hereunder:
"...The National Awards do not amount to 'titles' within the meaning of Article
18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes. If this is done, the
defaulter should forfeit the National Award conferred on him or her by following
the procedure laid down in Regulation 10 of each of the four notifications
creating these National Awards."
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the revelation of the facts of this
case with regard to both the respondents - awardees, says that he is not
pressing the application as far as Mr. Brahmanandam - respondent No.5 is
concerned. Therefore, we do not intend to decide the matter against him.
Further, it is fairly admitted by respondent No.5 that the title PADMA SHRI has
been used as prefix to his name, however, this was not done by himself and this
was done inadvertently by a third party. To support his version, the Director
of respondent No.6 has come forward and he has said that this was done by the
company inadvertently. It is thus prayed that the title has not been used by
Mr. Brahmanandam.
It appears in this matter the affected party would have
been Dr. M. Mohan Babu, fourth respondent. He has not filed any affidavit to
the application.
Now, coming to the case of respondent No.4 - Mr. Mohan Babu, learned case with regard to both the respondents - awardees, says that he is not
pressing the application as far as Mr. Brahmanandam - respondent No.5 is
concerned. Therefore, we do not intend to decide the matter against him.
Further, it is fairly admitted by respondent No.5 that the title PADMA SHRI has
been used as prefix to his name, however, this was not done by himself and this
was done inadvertently by a third party. To support his version, the Director
of respondent No.6 has come forward and he has said that this was done by the
company inadvertently. It is thus prayed that the title has not been used by
Mr. Brahmanandam.
It appears in this matter the affected party would have
been Dr. M. Mohan Babu, fourth respondent. He has not filed any affidavit to
the application.
counsel for the petitioner says, drawing our attention to the additional
documents filed along with the application (P.I.L.M.P. No.10 of 2014),
that it is a clear case of use of the award as title by the awardee himself and on
disclosure of the document he has not come to deny the same.
It is clear from above document that Mr. Mohan Babu himself has
used the award PADMA SHRI as prefix title to his name, and this was filed using
this award as prefix title with an intention to be circulated amongst the
members of the public.
"The President may cancel and annual the award of the decoration to any person
and thereupon his name shall be erased from the Register and he shall be
required to surrender the decoration and the Sanad....."
14. When we have found that this award has been used by him as prefix title
and no explanation has been put forward by him as to why it has been done, we
think that it is appropriate to refer this case to His Excellency The President
of India.
15. Accordingly, we direct appropriate department of first respondent to place
this subject along with copy of this judgment before His Excellency for taking
decision in terms of above notification dated 8th January, 1955 as amended on
1st January, 1969 read with above Supreme Court Judgment for forfeiture on
account of misuse of the award 'PADMA SHRI'. Because of the default,
consequential measure has to be taken by His Excellency The President of India.
This shall be placed within fortnight from the date of communication of this
order.
16. Till such decision is taken we restrain respondent No.4 - Mohan Babu and
his agents, servants, representatives, assignees from using the award "PADMA
SHRI" in any manner whatsoever or from holding himself out either publicly or
otherwise as awardee of PADMA SHRI. In addition thereto, he shall take all
measures to rectify deleting words "PADMA SHRI" carrying with his name wherever
used. This shall be done by him and he shall inform public at large by a
publication in newspaper/s that he has done so.
2014 (Feb.Part)judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10832
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Public Interest Litigation No.427 of 2013
04-2-2014
Nallu Indrasena Reddy... Petitioner
The Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs Represented by Secretary, New Delhi
and others... Respondents
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri K. Anthony Reddy
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 to 3 : Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud,
Assistant Solicitor General
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 : Not present
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.5 : Sri Madiraju Srinivasa Rao
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.6 :Sri Ancha Panduranga Rao
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?CITATIONS: AIR 1996 SC 770
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.427 OF 2013
ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
On 28.1.2014 on receipt of the application (P.I.L. M.P. No.10 of 2014) to
receive certain documents as additional material papers to this matter, we
passed an order directing that the affected party may file counter affidavit to
the said application. It appears in this matter the affected party would have
been Dr. M. Mohan Babu, fourth respondent. He has not filed any affidavit to
the application.
2. Mr. L. Srinivas Rao, learned Advocate, appears and asked for extension of
time to file an affidavit. On closer scrutiny of the record, we noticed that
said Srinivas Rao has not been engaged by fourth respondent, and one Mr. V.
Krishna Mohan has been engaged as Advocate to represent him. He is not present.
Though the name of Mr. L. Srinivas Rao has been mentioned as an Advocate in the
counters filed in the main matter, on scrutiny of the Vakalatnama, we find that
no Vakalatnama has been filed in his name authorizing to do anything in this
matter. In the circumstances, his prayer is absolutely unauthorized.
3. We record that there is no appearance for fourth respondent. We,
therefore, conclude that he is not willing to file any affidavit to the
application filed by the petitioner to receive the additional documents and not
to contest this application either. P.I.L.M.P. No.10 of 2014 is accordingly
allowed.
4. We accordingly hear this matter for its disposal. We have heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1,
5 and 6.
5. This case is filed alleging illegal use of the title 'PADMA SHRI' as
prefix to the name of the awardees in this matter (respondent Nos.4 and 5).
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing our attention to
the fact that respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are awardees of PADMA SHRI have used
the aforesaid award as prefix with their name and such use is absolutely
prohibited not only by the relevant Guidelines, but also by the pronouncement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India1.
The relevant portion of the judgment relating to this subject, being paragraph
32 of the report, is quoted hereunder:
"...The National Awards do not amount to 'titles' within the meaning of Article
18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes. If this is done, the
defaulter should forfeit the National Award conferred on him or her by following
the procedure laid down in Regulation 10 of each of the four notifications
creating these National Awards."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the revelation of the facts of this
case with regard to both the respondents - awardees, says that he is not
pressing the application as far as Mr. Brahmanandam - respondent No.5 is
concerned. Therefore, we do not intend to decide the matter against him.
Further, it is fairly admitted by respondent No.5 that the title PADMA SHRI has
been used as prefix to his name, however, this was not done by himself and this
was done inadvertently by a third party. To support his version, the Director
of respondent No.6 has come forward and he has said that this was done by the
company inadvertently. It is thus prayed that the title has not been used by
Mr. Brahmanandam.
7. On a perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court it appears
that the use of the award as title must be done by the awardee himself or by any
other person at his instance or approval or if such user is acquiesced by him in
order to apply default provision.
In this case, none of the cases has arisen.
If the word 'use' is taken on its face value it would be construed as being use
by even third party, and in that case if action is taken, it will work as great
injustice for an awardee not having any knowledge of use by third person. If
any third party without his approval and consent uses this award as suffix or
prefix then this default should not be attributed to the awardee himself.
However, if the awardee on detection of such use does not take step to prevent
it, then he/she shall be deemed to have acquiesced in the same.
8. In view of the above discussion, we think that no action in terms of the
aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court read with guideline is required to be
taken by this Court or by the Hon'ble His Excellency President of India against
respondent No.5. However, he must be careful in future so that the said award
is not used contrary to above prohibition. Accordingly, in order to prevent
future default, we restrain respondent No.5 and his agents, servants,
representatives and assignees from using the award as prefix or suffix title to
his name. We record also on detection of use by third party adequate
rectificatory measure has been taken by the respondent No.5.
9. Now, coming to the case of respondent No.4 - Mr. Mohan Babu, learned
counsel for the petitioner says, drawing our attention to the additional
documents filed along with the application (P.I.L.M.P. No.10 of 2014),
that it
is a clear case of use of the award as title by the awardee himself and on
disclosure of the document he has not come to deny the same.
10. In the context of the said submission, we have examined the document filed
along with P.I.L.M.P. No.10 of 2014. This has been collected by the petitioner
from the government officials under the provisions of the Right to Information
Act. We are satisfied that this document has been supplied by the Regional
Officer of Central Board of Film Certification, by letter dt.1.1.2014.
The
document which is supplied in Telugu language has been translated into English.
The document, which is relevant for our purpose is set out hereunder:
"PADMASHREE Dr. MOHAN BABU PRESENTS
Sri Lakshmi Prasanna Movies
JHUMANDI NADHAM
'Raking Star' Manchu Manoj Kumar
Kumari Thapsi (Newly introducing)
Sc. No.A BHADRACHALAM
333.09 Ft. Bhadrachalam atmosphere .............. in childhood
Titles follows
Story
Bhupathi Raju
Screenplay
Gopi Mohan
Ravi B.S.
Speech
Shashi Raja Simha
Songs
Chandra Bose
Suddala Ashok Teja
Vedavyas
Koriyography: Ashok Reddy - Suchitra Chandra Bose
Krishna Reddy, Papi (Poppi)
Audiography: E. Radha Krishna D.F. Tech
(Prasad Film Laboratories)
For SREE LAKSHMI PRASANNA PICTURES
Sd/-
(M. MOHAN BABU)
Sole Proprietor"
(emphasis supplied)
11. As we have already noted, no counter affidavit is filed denouncing this
document and in fact it cannot be denounced because it has been submitted by
respondent No.4 himself under his signature and this has been received by the
aforesaid authority. Thereafter copy there of on demand has been supplied from
their custody. It is clear from above document that Mr. Mohan Babu himself has
used the award PADMA SHRI as prefix title to his name, and this was filed using
this award as prefix title with an intention to be circulated amongst the
members of the public.
12. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the award has been used by
respondent No.4 as title deliberately and it invites forfeiture as mentioned in
the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.
13. Now, the question is what measure is to be taken?
We find, as rightly
contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General,
that there is a mechanism
for taking steps in such a situation and this mechanism has been published by
the Government in 'Statutes and Rules relating to the Awards of Bharat Ratna,
Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri' by the Notification issued on
8.1.1955, as amended upto 1.1.1969.
The relevant portion of this Notification,
which is appropriate for our purpose, is as follows:
"The President may cancel and annual the award of the decoration to any person
and thereupon his name shall be erased from the Register and he shall be
required to surrender the decoration and the Sanad....."
14. When we have found that this award has been used by him as prefix title
and no explanation has been put forward by him as to why it has been done, we
think that it is appropriate to refer this case to His Excellency The President
of India.
15. Accordingly, we direct appropriate department of first respondent to place
this subject along with copy of this judgment before His Excellency for taking
decision in terms of above notification dated 8th January, 1955 as amended on
1st January, 1969 read with above Supreme Court Judgment for forfeiture on
account of misuse of the award 'PADMA SHRI'. Because of the default,
consequential measure has to be taken by His Excellency The President of India.
This shall be placed within fortnight from the date of communication of this
order.
16. Till such decision is taken we restrain respondent No.4 - Mohan Babu and
his agents, servants, representatives, assignees from using the award "PADMA
SHRI" in any manner whatsoever or from holding himself out either publicly or
otherwise as awardee of PADMA SHRI. In addition thereto, he shall take all
measures to rectify deleting words "PADMA SHRI" carrying with his name wherever
used. This shall be done by him and he shall inform public at large by a
publication in newspaper/s that he has done so.
17. With the above observations and directions the public interest litigation
is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, P.I.L.M.P. No.668 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for
interim relief is closed.
18. The matter to appear fortnight hence for reporting compliance by
respondent No.4.
_______________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_______________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
04.02.2014
Comments
Post a Comment