ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING - E35YM660
Shantanu Panigrahi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
from: Shantanu Panigrahi <email@example.com>
date: 21 Mar 2021, 22:55
subject: ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING - E35YM660
Mr Ravi Patel
Government Lawyer for the Prime Minister
Please find herewith the adjourned Particulars of Claim for your kind attention and the appropriate response.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Kent ME8 0S
CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSION FOR HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARFITT ON CLAIM E35YM660 AT THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT’S ADJOURNED HEARING OF 19 JANUARY 2021 (10.00 -10.15 AM)
His Honour HHJ Parfitt
1. Appeal Arguments relating to the two Orders dated 14 January 2020 and 30 September 2020 were specifically submitted to the Defendant in my Updated Particulars of Claim on 24 March 19.31 hours by agreed email and updated since. This was made clear to the Court prior to 3 April 2020 Hearing presided over by Judge Backhous on which the 12 May 2020 Order attached was based.
2. The preliminary Hearing with His Honour HHJ Parfitt on the reconsideration of the permission to Appeal took place on 19 January 2021 (10.00 am – 10.15 am) and an adjournment was sought by the Claimant in order for him to have the time to see the Court File that would contain the Defendant’s updated Defence to these revised Particulars of Claim. The Claimant asked the Court and Government Lawyer for the Defendant Mr Ravi Patel on 21 March 2021 by email at 22.55 pm hours whether the Claimant’s understanding derived from the lack of any further communications from the Central London County Court, nor the Defendant or any other interested parties (coming under the umbrella of Victims of Panigrahi Association (VOPA) with an unknown postal or email address but which objectionably thrust itself into the E35YM660-proceedings without a stated cause) since this last Hearing took place meant that in law the adjournment sought by the Claimant has already been granted by the Court or was in the process of being considered, but no reply has yet been received from the Duty Judge nor from any of the Defendants.
Summary of Claimant’s petition submitted afresh
1. I wished to do something positive for national development of the United Kingdom so that it can contribute to World Conservation in order to improve global society and initiated the following petitions. Some were approved for hosting whereas others were inexplicably turned down and disabled by 38 Degrees and Liberty. I resorted to Action-network in view of this lack of cooperation. This is what my Appeal is all about. Please refer to the following links in administering your decision on whether I am justified in voicing these concerns or not. If I am not, you may turn down my reconsideration of permission to Appeal the 14 January 2019 dated Order of the Court on E35YM660 (Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs Mrs Theresa May; nay the present Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr Boris Johnson as the Defendant singly).
2. The petitions in question were:
38 Degrees websites:
3. Further evidence for my petitions may be examined at the following websites which have stood the test of time in that they were beyond criticisms from the general public because they are factual representations of the investigations that I have conducted in arriving at the petitions:
Claimant’s Personal publications and websites:
(a) 35 scientific Journal Papers (1980-1998)
4. The evidence in these websites support the Particulars of Claim in the Claim Form and the Appellants Notice of a concerted national and international conspiracy against me to obstruct justice and pervert the course of justice by the States concerned. The government is therefore obliged to take these petitions seriously or give its reasons for not considering them through the normal processes of Parliamentary scrutiny. The functioning of the Parliament and the Monarchy must be subject to the due process of scrutiny through the Courts to outline individual responsibilities to society and hence this Claim that I am pursuing. Otherwise there is no hope for the nation that I love.
5. Your Honour, a Judge of Her Majesty’s Establishment is the law of the nation. Please therefore advise me if I am right or wrong in bringing this to your attention.
6. As you must be aware, I have only asked for a nominal £3000 in damages and compensation for what I have suffered over 22 years that led me to my published petitions because I am only progressing this Appeal proceedings in in sincere belief that it is in the public interest nationally and globally.
7. Please therefore advise me if a Judgement or Order can be considered now appropriately to bring a closure to this long-standing (22 year-old) saga.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi (Claimant)
3 Hoath Lane
Kent ME8 0SL
Last Updated: 22 March 2021, 08.08 am hours (UK Time).