Dismissed

Nagothu Satyanarayana, v. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC14 Jul 2017WP/15239/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a Writ Petition seeking cancellation of the Padma Bhushan awarded to the second respondent. The petitioner argued that the second respondent misused the award title. The Court found no merit as the citation merely listed achievements without misrepresentation and rejected the claim for cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Nagothu Satyanarayana, Vs The Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15239 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner, who is appearing in-person, preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the first respondent i.e., Union of India in awarding “Padma Bhushan” to the second respondent, as illegal, improper and incorrect.

¶5

The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would shows that the petitioner is maintaining a Flex Printing business at Vijayawada, in the name and style of Satya Digitals. The averments show that respondents 2 to 5 and others lodged a false report against the petitioner on 31.07.2010 at Patamata Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The police registered a case and after completing the investigation filed a charge-sheet, which was taken on file as C.C.No.706 of 2010 before the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. After a fullfledged trial, the case ended in an acquittal. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have filed a private complaint vide C.C.No.180 of 2016 before the very same court against the respondents 2 to 5 for an offence punishable under Section 499 IPC. Challenging the same, the respondents 2 to 5 preferred, Crl.P.No.5798 of 2016 before this Court. The present Writ Petition came to be filed questioning the action of the third respondent in misusing ‘Padma Bhushan’ awarded to

¶6

CPK, J W.P.No.15239 of 2017

¶7

¶8

him by referring himself to be an awardee in paragraph (h) in page No.4 of the petition, filed before this Court. It is said that since the awards are never meant to be given for advertising them; and in view of the judgment of the Apex court in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India¹ , the petitioner herein, who appeared in person, submits that, it is a fit case to cancel the “Padma Bhushan” awarded to the second respondent.

¶9

On 26.04.2017 this Court adjourned the matter directing the petitioner to produce circulars/guidelines for withdrawal of the awards conferred on the persons. It appears that no such circulars or guidelines have been filed inspite of the directions of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner himself is not clear as to the circumstances under which the “Padma Bhushan” award given to the second respondent has to be cancelled. While describing the avocation and also describing as to what the second respondent is, it was stated in the Criminal Petition that the second respondent is the head of Bajaj group of companies, which is a leader in making two and three wheelers, home appliances, electrical lamps, wind energy, special alloy and stainless steel, cranes, forgings, infrastructure development, material handling equipment, travel, general and life insurance and investment, consumer finance & asset management etc. He further stated that the second respondent has received many prestigious

¶10

1 (1996)1 Supreme Court Cases 361

¶11

CPK, J W.P.No.15239 of 2017

¶12

¶13

awards and recognitions, notable being the award of Padma Bhushan by the Government of India in 2001 apart from Harvard Business School and Life Time achievement Awards from Economic Times, Ernst & Young and CNBC TF 18 etc. It is also stated that the second respondent has been conferred Doctorates by 7 universities including IIT Roorkee and he was also appointed Knight in the order of the Legion of Honour by the President of the French Republic.

¶14

It is to be noted that the description which is found fault

¶15

with is not an affidavit filed by the second respondent in Crl.P.No.5798 of 2016. Apart from that the cause title in the petition does not anywhere described the petitioner as an “Padma Bhushan” awardee. He was only described as Chairman, Bajaj Finance Limited.

¶16

In Balaji Raghavan’s case (one supra) the Apex Court

¶17

while dealing with “Bharat Ratna” and “Padma” awards observed that they are not titles within Article 18. These awards can be given to the citizens for exceptional and distinguished services rendered in art, literature, science and other fields. These awards are national in character and only those who have achieved distinction at national level can be considered for these awards.

¶18

It has been held that they are not titles and one should

¶19

not use the same while portraying himself in any Forum or describing himself in any advertisement. But this is not a case where the second respondent has portrayed himself or tried to get any advantage by

¶20

CPK, J W.P.No.15239 of 2017

¶21

¶22

claiming himself to be an awardee. Only the achievements to the credit of the second respondent are mentioned in the paragraph (h) of page 4 of the Criminal Petition. This being a notable one, was also referred to along with other distinctions. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the argument of the petitioner, who appeared in person, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶25

closed.

¶26

___________________
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Dt:14.07.2017.
GM

Nagothu Satyanarayana, v. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagothu Satyanarayana, v. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boddireddy Srinu, S/o.late Kondarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Barigela Andalu , P.Andalu, Vs The State of Telangana

LyagalaSudhakar, Vs The State of Telangana

Keshav Memorial Technical Educational Society, Vs The Convener

Thamba Raghu Vs v. Rama Murthy Reddy

Thamba Raghu, Vs v. Rama Murthy Reddy