Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 13 (TS)

Y. Sridhar v. Union of India

2019-01-22

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J. 1. This writ petition (PIL) is filed to declare the inaction of the 1st respondent in not taking action in recommending to his Excellency the President of India to cancel or annul the award of the decoration "Padma Bhushan" awarded to the 3rd respondent in the year 2012 and further direction to the 3rd respondent not to use the award of the decoration as a prefix to his name, as use thereof prefixing his name violates Article 18 (1) of the Constitution and also contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, 1996 (1) SCC 361. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the 1st respondent. 3. Petitioner stated to be practicing lawyer purportedly seeks to champion the cause of public order filed this writ petition on the premise that the 3rd respondent being an awardee of "Padma Bhushan" prefixed the award of the decoration before his name and such a nomenclature was manifestly made known to the petitioner and the general public at large, by virtue of publication in a popular Telugu daily newspaper (Eenadu) on 24-07-2016 on the occasion of inauguration of Symbiosis International University, Hyderabad Campus, the 3rd respondent being the Chancellor thereof. The petitioner also states that such propagation of the award of the decoration by the 3rd respondent is in clear violation of Article 18 of the Constitution as also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in BALAJI RAGHAVAN's case (supra). Feeling conscious of the violation, the petitioner seems to have made a complaint in that behalf to the 1st respondent to annul the award of the decoration conferred on the 3rd respondent. Feeling conscious of the violation, the petitioner seems to have made a complaint in that behalf to the 1st respondent to annul the award of the decoration conferred on the 3rd respondent. In response to the complaint of the petitioner, the 1st respondent, as could be seen from the counter affidavit filed in the mater, vide letter dated 12-08-2016 sought for comments of the Vice Chancellor of the Symbiosis International University, which was promptly replied vide letter dated 25-08-2016, a copy thereof is filed herewith in the writ material paper, informing that the prefix of award of the decoration to the name of the 3rd respondent was not intentional or deliberate and the awardee was not a willful defaulter and the contents of the invitation so published in the Telugu daily newspaper was neither under his instruction nor with the consent of the 3rd respondent. The Vice-Chancellor of the Symbiosis International University also tendered unconditional apology for the act and assured that the same will not recur and they would strictly follow the guidelines issued in that behalf and the binding the law laid down by the Supreme Court in BALAJI RAGHAVAN's case (supra). 4. It is provided under Regulation 10 of the revised Regulations that the Hon'ble President of India 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. But it shall be competent for the Hon'ble President to restore the decoration and Sanad and to withdraw the orders of cancellation and annulment. 5. In this case, it is to be seen that the publication in daily newspaper was issued by the Vice Chancellor of the Symbiosis International University, Hyderabad campus, as seen from the advertisement issued and filed as material papers at page 33. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, which referred to the letter of the Vice Chancellor of the University, the official in unequivocal terms stated that the paper publication was issued at their own instance and it has no reference muchless the consent of the 3rd respondent and he has apologized for that lapse. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, which referred to the letter of the Vice Chancellor of the University, the official in unequivocal terms stated that the paper publication was issued at their own instance and it has no reference muchless the consent of the 3rd respondent and he has apologized for that lapse. 6. The averments of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent goes to show that explanation of the Vice Chancellor of the University was called for and considered as such the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed. We hope that the 3rd respondent will see that such things will not repeat again in future. However, the 3rd respondent can use the award of the decoration as part of his name to the extent permitted under the regulations framed on subject matter. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.