Home | Corporate Profile | Service Guide | E-business Solutions | Careers | Contact us | FA Qs | Search | Disclaimer | Site map

TrackDart - Tracking Details

Ente r your : W aybill Re f no

Logistics E-commerce initiatives Shipping Billing Schedule a pickup Track Tools Regulatory Dom e stic Inte rnational-Ex port Inte rnational-Im ports Banne d C om m oditie s Dange rous Goods Fuel Surcharge

Status updates on your shipments are provided below. For feedback on your shipments, select airway bills and click on the Contact Us button at the end of the page. To forward the details enter your Email ID, the recipient's Email ID and Send. Waybill No : 13227270932 Pickup Date From To Status Date of Delivery Time of Delivery Recipient Your Email ID Recipient's Email ID Message * Send If you wish to contact Blue Dart Customer Service to give feedback on your selected shipment(s) Contact Us Top 30 June 2011 Bangalore Chennai SHIPMENT DELIVERED 01 July 2011 16:20 Suresh

For m ultiple que rie s use com m as (,) e g: 321119864, 321119865, or click he re for a lte rna tive tra ck tool How to track

Login Registration

Home | Corporate Profile | Service Guide | E-business Solutions | Careers | Contact us | FA Q's | Search | Disclaimer | Site map Blue Dart Ex pre ss Lim ite d is the re giste re d proprie tor of the tra de m ark "BLUE DAR T". This site is prote cte d by copyright and trade m ark laws.

Home | Corporate Profile | Service Guide | E-business Solutions | Careers | Contact us | FA Qs | Search | Disclaimer | Site map

TrackDart - Tracking Details

Ente r your : W aybill Re f no

Logistics E-commerce initiatives Shipping Billing Schedule a pickup Track Tools Regulatory Dom e stic Inte rnational-Ex port Inte rnational-Im ports Banne d C om m oditie s Dange rous Goods Fuel Surcharge

Status updates on your shipments are provided below. For feedback on your shipments, select airway bills and click on the Contact Us button at the end of the page. To forward the details enter your Email ID, the recipient's Email ID and Send. Waybill No : 13227270943 Pickup Date From To Status Date of Delivery Time of Delivery Recipient Your Email ID Recipient's Email ID Message * Send If you wish to contact Blue Dart Customer Service to give feedback on your selected shipment(s) Contact Us Top 30 June 2011 Bangalore Chennai SHIPMENT DELIVERED 01 July 2011 17:55 Thiagarajan

For m ultiple que rie s use com m as (,) e g: 321119864, 321119865, or click he re for a lte rna tive tra ck tool How to track

Login Registration

Home | Corporate Profile | Service Guide | E-business Solutions | Careers | Contact us | FA Q's | Search | Disclaimer | Site map Blue Dart Ex pre ss Lim ite d is the re giste re d proprie tor of the tra de m ark "BLUE DAR T". This site is prote cte d by copyright and trade m ark laws.

Home | Corporate Profile | Service Guide | E-business Solutions | Careers | Contact us | FA Qs | Search | Disclaimer | Site map

TrackDart - Tracking Details

Ente r your : W aybill Re f no

Logistics E-commerce initiatives Shipping Billing Schedule a pickup Track Tools Regulatory Dom e stic Inte rnational-Ex port Inte rnational-Im ports Banne d C om m oditie s Dange rous Goods Fuel Surcharge

Status updates on your shipments are provided below. For feedback on your shipments, select airway bills and click on the Contact Us button at the end of the page. To forward the details enter your Email ID, the recipient's Email ID and Send. Waybill No : 13227270954 Pickup Date From To Status Date of Delivery Time of Delivery Recipient Your Email ID Recipient's Email ID Message * Send If you wish to contact Blue Dart Customer Service to give feedback on your selected shipment(s) Contact Us Top 30 June 2011 Bangalore Hyderabad SHIPMENT DELIVERED 01 July 2011 13:35 Kaliadas

For m ultiple que rie s use com m as (,) e g: 321119864, 321119865, or click he re for a lte rna tive tra ck tool How to track

Login Registration

Home | Corporate Profile | Service Guide | E-business Solutions | Careers | Contact us | FA Q's | Search | Disclaimer | Site map Blue Dart Ex pre ss Lim ite d is the re giste re d proprie tor of the tra de m ark "BLUE DAR T". This site is prote cte d by copyright and trade m ark laws.

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES The instant Petition raises profound questions of

constitutional significance touching upon Governmental relations under a federal Constitution - The States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are gravely injured by a decision of the High Court of another State the High Court of Judicature at Madras. It was never the intention of our founding fathers that a High Court of State A should determine the legal relations between State B and the Government of India even if that High Court were motivated by a bonafide belief that its intervention is in the best interests of State A. The facts before the Court below do not even remotely suggest that the interest of the residents of State of Tamil Nadu are best served by calling into question, the arrangement between the Government of India and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, before the Madras High Court. A Supreme Court vested with an exclusive jurisdiction to preside over the legal disputes between States in a Federal Constitution is necessarily invested with a power to determine whether a dispute agitated before another Court of law is of a nature exclusively reserved to the Supreme Court. This power is not limited to a mere review of the decision rendered by that other Court. The States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are necessary parties to the cause before the Court below. However, the jurisdiction of a High Court to preside over a dispute between the Union and one or more States is expressly barred by our Constitution under Article 131. Consequently, the Court below failed in its duty to dismiss the cause brought before it. The Madras High Court has committed a grave error in usurping jurisdiction not properly invested in it by the

Constitution of India. The Constitution of India does not vest the Madras High Court with any jurisdiction over the territories of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The Writ Petitioners claim before the Court below is utterly devoid of any purpose related to the proper function of a Court of Law or of equity. The existence of a right being the foundation of a petition under Article 226, the petition before the Court below is instituted to enforce rights that are unknown to the law governing Writs. The Madras High Court is forbidden by the express terms of the Constitution from exercising a declaratory or equitable jurisdiction in relation to the controversy before it as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction altogether. Accordingly, the impugned Order could not have been passed in mere exercise of a declaratory jurisdiction or an equitable jurisdiction as neither jurisdiction remains with a High Court because the Constitution of India has expressly excluded a High Court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over disputes of such nature. The States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka retain a justifiable right to compel the Government of India to not grant an exclusive privilege upon any language while excluding their language as long as their language meets the published criteria. Further, what should be the published criteria is not a question that may be entered into by a Court of law as the nature of the issue does not furnish judicially discoverable standards with which a Court may resolve the issue before it. Any judicial examination of the working of the committee specially constituted by the Government of India should necessarily involve the two States whose representations were the subject for the Committee. The impugned Order therefore fails to recognise the interest retained by the States

of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka in the functioning of the Committee. The harm stated before the Court below is not a recognised class of harm under the Law. The Writ Petitioner, Sri R.Gandhi simply failed to assert anywhere in the petition whether any legal interest was or could have been injured from the conclusion of the committee. The Committee in question is merely an advisory committee and the Law governing statutory committees is wrongly invoked upon this committee. The law concerning bias is not applicable to this committee, as it is not dealing with any dispute or rival claims. The Committee possesses no power other than to merely forward its opinion to the Government of India and in doing so, it does not affect any right vested in the petitioner. The committee in question has not been constituted under the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952. In effect, several claims made by the Writ Petitioner on the assumption that the instant committee has breached one or more standards are without a legal or statutory basis. The subject of the committee does not furnish any judicially discoverable or manageable standards by which its conclusion may be second-guessed by Courts. The authority to recognise a language as a classical language is non statutory, that is, such authority is not fettered by any statute. If only the impugned Order were to be treated as validly made and so constitutes a proper precedent, anomalous and absurd consequences could follow. The same petition before the Court below could be hypothetically reproduced before every other High Court in India by different local residents and should the impugned Order represent a proper precedent at all, the

Government of India could become burdened with 35 distinct and possibly, mutually opposing decrees issued by 35 distinct High Courts. (Given that India consists of 28 States and 7 Union territories and that 21 different High Courts exercise 35 territorial jurisdictions on an exclusionary principle). The jurisdiction of the Madras High Court does not extend to a committee that is constituted in New Delhi, assembles and performs its functions in New Delhi, makes visits to Andhra Pradesh or Karnataka when required and is finally dissolved in New Delhi at all relevant times, this Committee has no function whatsoever in relation to the State of Tamil Nadu. The jurisdiction of the Court below is not invoked with reference to the conduct of two of the members of the Committee who are domiciled in Tamil Nadu. What the two members did or failed to do are not the factors which are claimed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. LIST OF DATES Until 2004 The evolution of human intelligence is

measured by the evolution and antiquity of a language. Sanskrit, Telugu, Kannada and Tamil are languages of India that individually possess profound antiquity stretching beyond millennia. These languages are also referred to as Classical languages. There are tangible benefits and consequences that arise from the recognition by the Government of India of a language as a Classical language. Centers of higher learning are effectively under the supervision of the Government of India by reason of the power exclusively

conferred upon it by the Constitution Entries 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 of List I, Schedule VII. Scholars who seek to conduct research into the evolution and growth of a Classical language may stand in need of facilities or expertise available in institutions or Universities located outside the scholars State. Under circumstances where the Government of India accords a Classical Status to a particular language, scholars greatly benefit when they pursue resources scattered across various institutions in India. 2004 to 2005 By a Notification dated 12-Oct-2004 and 25Nov-2005, the languages of Sanskrit and Tamil have been rightly blessed with Classical status by the Government of India. The Government of India has further

expended substantial sums of money on research into Tamil language subsequent to the grant of Classical status to Tamil. Such spending effectively contributes to a greater interest and enthusiasm among scholars involved in research. The generous allocation of funds by the Government of India has drawn more talented scholars into research projects concerning the Tamil language. The Government of India was mindful of the entitlement of Telugu and Kannada languages to be similarly a classified committee as to Classical receive languages. The Government of India therefore constituted representation seeking such entitlement.

The States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka furnished scholarly representation to the Government of India seeking the conferment of Classical status upon the languages of Telugu and Kannada respectively. The Government to of the India forwards such

representation

committee

specially

constituted to receive the same. 03-Aug2008 Even while the deliberations of this committee are in progress, an attorney at the Madras High Court files a Writ Petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the said committee that was examining whether Telugu and Kannada be accorded the of Classical India. status Writ by the Government The Petition

numbered as W.P.18810 of 2008 says: with regard to the grant of classical

language status to Indian languages, now under consideration of the Government of India, there are many undue influences operating and hence the petitioner is filing this Writ Petition and Public Interest Litigation. The principal relief sought by the petitioner was the substitution of his wisdom to that of the Government of India. The petitioner, Sri R.Gandhi omits to implead as Respondents, the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. A copy of the said Writ Petition No.18810 of 2008 dated 04-Aug-2008 is produced

herewith and marked as Annexure P1. 05-Aug2008 A Division Bench of the Madras High Court presided by the Honble Chief Justice admits the Writ Petition No.18810 of 2008 by its Order dated 05-Aug-2008 and issues an interim Order directing that: In the meantime, any decision, taken by the Committee will be subject to the decision in the writ petition. The said Order shall be referred to hereinafter as impugned Order. A language that is spoken for a millennia or more offers an invaluable insight into the evolution of human thought. Such a language offers ample opportunity to scholars from diverse branches of knowledge to learn about how human skills or knowledge are related to the evolution of a language. For instance, a psychologist could study on how, at various points of time, emotions were expressed or conveyed. A psychologist could thereafter identify the progressive refinement attained by a language in relation to the socially accepted modes and means of conveying emotions. A legal historian could probe a language for evidence of how disputes were presented by aggrieved persons at various points of time and the the language used in for the resolution thinking. in of An disputes. A legal historian could then trace development could legal help inventory of terms used to express legal claims greatly formulating

principles of jurisprudence. A feminist could analyse the place accorded to women over the centuries by studying the language that was employed to address women by the society. Historians could derive boundless information on how language influenced one or more aspects of history. Artists and beauticians could learn on the evolution of the concept of art and beauty over time and the relative place accorded to it by people of different times. Defence strategists could learn invaluable information on how warfare was conducted, how warring factions communicated with each other and on the language employed for the purpose of enthusing and inspiring soldiers on the battlefield. Should a scholar in Telugu or Kannada wish to draw upon resources from centres of learning situated in a foreign country, he would find it difficult to persuade foreign entities to assist in the enrichment of a language that has not received any special status by its federal Government. The grant of classical language status by the Government of India to Telugu and Kannada helps foreign scholars to easily recognise the merit of Telugu and Kannada languages. 30-Aug2008 The Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Government of India submit their Counter-affidavit to the Madras High Court. In pertinent part, the Government of India states in its Counter-affidavit that: He (petitioner) is also seeking to generate a

language controversy and drag the Court onto it. He is projecting his own prejudices in the present PIL which does not purport to serve any public interest. this Honble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above Writ Petition with costs of these Respondents and thus render justice. A copy of the said Counter-Affidavit submitted by the Government of India to the Madras High Court on 30-Aug-2008 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure P2. 31-Oct-2008 The Committee in question proceeds to

recommend to the Government of India that the languages of Telugu and Kannada be conferred with the Classical status. The Government of India issues a Notification bearing No.2-16/2004-Akademies, the pertinent part of which reads: It is hereby notified that the Telugu Language and the Kannada Language satisfy the above criteria and will henceforth be classified as Classical Languages This Notification is subject to be decision in Writ Petition No. 18810/08 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras As is evident from the Notification itself, the said Notification is made subject to the decision of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.18810 of 2008. A copy of the said Notification dated 31-Oct-2008 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure P3.

November, 2008

The

Andhra

Pradesh

Official

Language

Commission is the statutory agency entrusted with the task of preserving and advancing the interests of Telugu language within and outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. Chaired by Dr. A.B.K.Prasad, a distinguished linguist who has documented service to the cause of Telugu language for well over 50 years, the Andhra Pradesh Official Language Commission sought to implead itself before the Madras High Court in W.P.18810 of 2008. Sri Deepak Thimaya, a scholar in Kannada and a household name on Kannada television also sought to implead himself before the Madras High Court in W.P.18810 of 2008. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court presided by the Honble Chief Justice allowed the impleading applications of both the parties (separate Andhra applications). Pradesh came to Consequently, Official be arrayed the as Language

Commission

Respondent No.16. Sri Deepak Thimaya came to be arrayed as Respondent No.15. The Andhra Pradesh Official Language

Commission, pursuant to impleadment, filed its Counter-Affidavit seeking a dismissal of the Writ Petition No.18810 of 2008 on diverse grounds. A copy of the same dated 30-Nov2008 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure P4. Sri Deepak Thimaya filed his Counter-Affidavit on grounds largely similar to that offered by

the

Andhra

Pradesh Both at a the all

Official Andhra

Language Pradesh times, Sri Sri

Commission. Thimaya

Official Language Commission and Sri Deepak were by relevant represented Affidavit common counsel, filed by

K.V.Dhananjay. A copy of the said Counterdated 30-Nov-2008 Deepak Thimaya is produced herewith and marked as Annexure P5. December, 2008 to October 2009. Numerous Language Respondents, Commission including Sri the

Government of India, Andhra Pradesh Official and Deepak Thimaya sought hearing upon the cause pending before the Honble High Court. The Honble Madras High Court declines to conduct any debate on the cause before it. In these months, several scholars implead themselves and similarly seek to be heard, notably, the Kannada Sahitya Academy, a body of Kannada scholars statutorily recognised by the Government of Karnataka and the Kannada Development Authority, a counterpart to the Andhra Pradesh Official Language Karnataka. In the month of August, 2009, the Andhra Pradesh Official language Commission and Sri Deepak Thimaya urged the Honble High Court to consider recall of its interim Order dated 05-Aug-2008. A copy of such application filed by the Andhra Commission in the State of

Pradesh Official Language Commission dated 02-July-2009 says: the grant of classical language status to Telugu has been made subject to the outcome of this Writ Petition. As a matter of fiscal prudence, the Government of India is restrained by the Order of this Honble Court dated 05-Aug-2008 from disbursing funds for the enrichment, development and research into the Telugu language. Therefore, the due grant of classical language status to Telugu, by the Government of India in response to the relentless efforts of the people and Government of Andhra Pradesh, has been of no practical significance at all by virtue of the said Order dated 05-Aug-2008. Further, the Order of this Honble Court dated 05-Aug-2008 was secured by the petitioner under circumstances where the Respondents had no opportunity to oppose the issue of such Order by this Honble Court 03-Dec2009 As of this date, the Madras High Court has accorded no hearing to the application filed by Andhra Pradesh Official Language Commission seeking Recall of the Courts Order dated 05-Aug-2008. The Honble Madras High Court has further committed an error in failing to resolve the dispute before it in a timely manner. Between is produced herewith and marked as Annexure P6. In pertinent part, it

01-Nov-2008

and

01-Nov-2009,

despite

repeated requests, the Court has not offered any opportunity for post-notice argument on the merits of the cause before it not even 1 minute months. Between 01-Nov-2008 and 01-Nov-2009, the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have witnessed two Rajyotsavas (State Formation Day on 01-Nov-2008 and 01-Nov-2009) and the impugned Order has unjustly deprived these States of all tangible benefits that are reasonably expected to flow upon the conferral of Classical Status to a language neither Telugu nor the Kannada language has received any sum of money whatsoever till date from the Government of India even while Tamil language has been bestowed, rightly so, with funds to the extent of several hundred crore rupees after the conferral of Classical Status upon Tamil. The Honble Madras High Court fails to note that an Order of a Court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is a sheer nullity in the eyes of the law and that a Court of law is under a duty to investigate, when properly challenged, to determine whether jurisdiction vests in it in a manner claimed by a party seeking its intervention. The Honble Madras High Court has failed to adjudicate upon critical challenges to its jurisdiction for well over a year and has, by worth of arguments have been witnessed in the cause for well over 12

such conduct, injured the interest of States in relation to which the High Court is not invested with any jurisdiction. The linguistic scholars in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have been burdened with severe frustration from developments chronicled above. Some scholars in the two States are now contemplating fast unto death in order to resolve the said situation. So filed, for the redressal of the impugned Order that improperly occasions the Madras High Court to determine linguistic relations between the Government of India and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka 03-Dec2009 Being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 05-Aug-2008 passed by the Honble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.18810 of 2008, the Petitioners file the present Special Leave Petition before this Honble Court for its immediate intervention.