Search

Resumption of a Judicial Review at the Adminstrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice


I have had to resume proceedings at the Administrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice as follows:

Judicial Review of Kent Police’s Notice to Prosecute with regard to Notice of Intended Prosecution Number: 49350897 Shan Panigrahi To Case Progression Administrative Court Office 19 Dec 2016 at 13:10

To Administrative Court Royal Courts of Justice London

Dear Sir/Madam

1. Please conduct a Judicial Review immediately to investigate the legal validity of Kent Police’s decision this afternoon (from the evidence of its continuing silence) to prosecute me for an alleged offence despite the evidence that I have submitted of the circumstances relating to my innocence. This matter relates to earlier proceedings that I have had with you during the course of the past two years.

2. I confirm to you that I am fully entitled to Full Fee Remission for this application given that I am without any property of my own, live singly for all intents and purposes, and earn only £85 per week.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi 3 Hoath Lane Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 0SL

Reply Reply to All Forward More

The defence submitted was as follows:

The final nail in the coffin of the British State Shan Panigrahi To driver.diversion@kent.pnn.police.uk CC Enquiries Medway County 17 Dec 2016 at 20:29

To Mr David Currie Head of Central Process Unit Driver Diversion Team Kent Police Headquarters Sutton Road Maidstone Kent ME15 9BZ By email: driver.diversion@kent.pnn.police.uk

17 December 2016

Dear Mr Currie

Notice of Intended Prosecution Number: 49350897

1. Firstly, in the absence of any further communication from you your letter of 8 December 2016 represents the final nail in the coffin of the British State as we know it because I waited to see if the postman would deliver some document from any of the legal authorities of the United Kingdom up to this Saturday morning but nothing arrived and there had been no direct replies to my emails of 15 December 2016 from Kent Police and Medway County Court.

2. Secondly, you should know I was only following God with my activities – He wanted me to go through this experience of confronting and squashing evil. I have concrete proof of this that is well-documented in my Diaries which must be taken into account.

3. Thirdly and most importantly no one in the legal authorities have so far denied that the Queen personally ordered my persecution through the use of the apparatus of the State, as detailed in my Blog: https://shantanup.wordpress.com/.

4. Fourthly, I have no money or property because I chose to live minimally earning only £85 per week that is barely enough to buy my food necessities so I cannot pay you any money for the offence you say I have committed for which no proof has so far been sent to me. Fortunately, I would be homeless if it was not for the generosity of my wife who has permitted me to live in her house despite being at loggerheads with her on how to live; in this regard please note that we have been on the verge of divorce for years, ever since she referred me to the mental health authorities of the National Health Service who Sectioned me twice and enforced medication on me as a condition for permitting me to live in the community nowadays. When I point out to my wife that I am a free man she says that is only because they all know that you to be mentally ill. So there is no common ground for a good marriage but I survive on with my views and beliefs.

5. In light of the aforementioned when can I expect this matter to be resolved, please?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Reply Reply to All Forward More

23 December 2016 Update:

The following correspondence took place:

(a) The document: ToAdminCourt(JR)21Dec2016.docx:

RE: Legal Ombudsman CMP-048194 ABC:00522066 * OFFICIAL * (5)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Administrative Court Office, Case Progression

21 Dec 2016 at 16:52

Dear Sir

I had applied for an extension of time limit to apply for the Judicial Review.

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016, 16:39, “Administrative Court Office, Case Progression” <administrativecourtoffice.caseprogression@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Sir,

As soon as the court reference is provided, please re-send your query to the court.

Best Regards,

Leslie

Leslie Cousins Case Progression Officer I Administrative Court Office Office

Queen’s Bench Division | HMCTS | Royal Courts of Justice| Strand, London | WC2A 2LL

Phone: 020 7947 6655

Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 21 December 2016 16:26 To: Administrative Court Office, Case Progression Subject: Re: Legal Ombudsman CMP-048194 ABC:00522066 * OFFICIAL *

Dear Sir

I have asked the solicitor Terence Channer (copied to the Legal Ombudsman) for the Case Number.

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Tuesday, 20 December 2016, 11:47, “Administrative Court Office, Case Progression” <administrativecourtoffice.caseprogression@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Sir,

If your case has already been issued; please provide the case number. Otherwise this email inbox is not for use where there are pre-action correspondence between the parties. Where correspondence between parties is sent to this inbox and there is not a current case issued, the emails will be deleted as there no electronic filing available due to a case not existing.

Many thanks.

Regards,

Sahin Chowdhury

Senior Case Progression Officer | Room C315 | Administrative Court Office | T: 020 7947 6655 | F: 020 7947 7845

If replying by email, please use the following address:

administrativecourtoffice.caseprogression@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 19 December 2016 17:36 To: Enquiries Cc: Terence Channer; Administrative Court Office, Case Progression Subject: Re: Legal Ombudsman CMP-048194 ABC:00522066

Dear Sir

1. In your earlier email you stated an either-or procedure for my complaint to be registered with the Legal Ombudsman for investigation, as follows:

In order for this Office to be able to accept your complaint for investigation you need to either,

· make a complaint to the Firm and give them the required eight weeks to respond or

· complete the complaint form attached and provide the extenuating circumstances that you feel we should consider.

2. Why has this changed now? I took the option of making the complaint and gave the Firm the eight weeks (until 13 December 2016) to apply for my Judicial Review at the High Court (Administrative Court). This has not only not happened so far no reason has been provided to me by Scott Moncrief and Associates for its lack of action.

3. Kindly note that the proceedings at the High Court have been approved by that Court as being of legitimate concern and all it needs is for Mr Terence Channer to complete the formalities of submitting the necessary Form along with the Court Fee of £154 which I will reimburse and I will pay the required solicitors fees in due course for this action.

4. I am copying this email to the Administrative Court so that it is aware that the solicitors have been recruited and are responsible for the action that is required now given the 3-month time limit for action from the date of the decision (8 December 2016). Pending the decision of the Legal Ombudsman on this complaint, I am hereby applying to the Court for an appropriate extension of the time limit for bringing the Judicial Review by completing the Form completion formalities.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Monday, 19 December 2016, 15:17, Enquiries <Enquiries@Legalombudsman.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for your recent email dated 5 and 8 December 2016.

We apologise for the delay in our response however we are experiencing a large volume of work currently.

We would like to explain that the CMP number is the complaint reference number and this is very unlikely to change through the life of the complaint. The abc number is a tracking number for our IT systems and will be different for each communication.

You mention that the Firm name is not mentioned in the subject line of our most recent email to you dated 5 December 2016, this does not mean that the Firm’s name has been removed from the complaint simply that it is not necessary to repeat it in the subject line of every email.

It appears that you sent your expression of dissatisfaction to the Firm on 18 October 2016 and the eight weeks response period is calculated from the date of complaint. In this instance the expression of dissatisfaction was made 18 October 2016 so the eight weeks expired at close of business on 13 December 2016.

You may now bring this matter to our Office by completing the complaint form and returning it to us.

We look forward to hearing further from you shortly.

Yours sincerely

Assessment Centre Legal Ombudsman

Telephone: 0300 555 0333

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

***********************

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Legal Ombudsman. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

***********************

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

===========

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and are intended for the use of the correct recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please contact the author immediately. It is an offence to disclose or distribute the contents of this email and/or any attachments without consent of the author.

If your email has not been acknowledged or answered within 5 working days, or if you have difficulty reading this email or any attachment included, please contact the author on the number quoted above.

The author is not authorised to bind the Department contractually, or to make representations or other statements which may bind the Department in any way via electronic means.

===========

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

Reply Reply to All Forward More

(b)

Notice of Intended Prosecution Number: 49350897 (2)

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

driver.diversion@kent.pnn.police.uk

23 Dec 2016 at 12:58

Dear Sir

In your deliberations on how to resolve this matter kindly bear in mind that I shall be away in India from 17 January 2017 to 11 February 2017 so that the Court Hearing must take place either before or after this period.

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Monday, 19 December 2016, 22:43, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

To

Mr David Currie

Head of Central Process Unit

Driver Diversion Team

Kent Police Headquarters

Sutton Road

Maidstone

Kent ME15 9BZ

By email: driver.diversion@kent.pnn.police.uk

Dear Mr Currie

1. In your letter of 8 December 2016, you wrote to me: ‘If however you feel that you are not guilty of the offence and wish to contest the allegation you are advised to put your request in writing. This matter will then be referred for the issue of a Court Hearing and a summons will be issued in due course’.

2. As you must be aware, I have pleaded not guilty of the offence and wish to contest the allegation. Therefore, please advise me when the Notice of Prosecution, that is the summons, will be issued with your justification for it in light of all my submissions to you hitherto by email and letters in the post. This Notice of Prosecution will then be submitted by me to the High Court (Administrative Court) for a Judicial Review.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

Reply Reply to All Forward More

5 January 2017 Update:

I sent the following email today in view of the silence all round:

Application for extension of time limit to apply for a Judicial Review of Kent Police’s decision on prosecution of alleged offence

Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>

To

Case Progression Administrative Court Office

CC

Terence Channer; Enquiries; driver.diversion@kent.pnn.police.uk

5 Jan 2017 at 14:27

Dear Sir

1. Please advise me on the state of progress of the attached application – see the document ToAdminCourt(JR)21Dec2016.docx – for an extension of the 3 month time limit to apply for a Judicial Review of Kent Police’s decision on the prosecution of an alleged offence. This is because Kent Police has yet to give me its final decision on the nature of the unspecified offence despite requests for it to do so and the complaint lodged against Kent Police with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) on this account. IPCC has not even acknowledged the application made.

2. I am copying this email to the Solicitor concerned (Terence Channer of Scott Moncrieff and Associates) and the Legal Ombudsman who are the interested parties to the nature of the reason for the application for the time extension requested. I am also copying this email to Kent Police for information so that no action should be taken on the prosecution pending the outcome of this process in the application for Judicial Review.

3. You have not informed me as whether a Court Fee is payable for this application for extension of time limit. If this is required please let me know what the Court Fee is and who the cheque is to be made payable to.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

· Download

ToAdminCourt(JR)21Dec2016 .docx

Reply Reply to All Forward More

14 January 2017 Update:

An email came from the Administrative Court as follows:

RE: Application for extension of time limit to apply for a Judicial Review of Kent Police’s decision on prosecution of alleged offence * OFFICIAL *

Administrative Court Office, Case Progression <administrativecourtoffice.caseprogression@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk>

To

‘shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk’

13 Jan 2017 at 11:23

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email.

If you have lodged an application with the Court, please wait to receive the sealed form which will provide a Court reference. You may enquire once you have received the Court reference which will allow Court staff to advise you on the correct fee, if applicable.

I note that my colleague, Ms Cousins has already advised you of same.

Kind regards,

Momotaj

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 05 January 2017 14:28 To: Administrative Court Office, Case Progression Cc: Terence Channer; Enquiries; driver.diversion@kent.pnn.police.uk Subject: Application for extension of time limit to apply for a Judicial Review of Kent Police’s decision on prosecution of alleged offence

Dear Sir

1. Please advise me on the state of progress of the attached application – see the document ToAdminCourt(JR)21Dec2016.docx – for an extension of the 3 month time limit to apply for a Judicial Review of Kent Police’s decision on the prosecution of an alleged offence. This is because Kent Police has yet to give me its final decision on the nature of the unspecified offence despite requests for it to do so and the complaint lodged against Kent Police with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) on this account. IPCC has not even acknowledged the application made.

2. I am copying this email to the Solicitor concerned (Terence Channer of Scott Moncrieff and Associates) and the Legal Ombudsman who are the interested parties to the nature of the reason for the application for the time extension requested. I am also copying this email to Kent Police for information so that no action should be taken on the prosecution pending the outcome of this process in the application for Judicial Review.

3. You have not informed me as whether a Court Fee is payable for this application for extension of time limit. If this is required please let me know what the Court Fee is and who the cheque is to be made payable to.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

===========

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and are intended for the use of the correct recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please contact the author immediately. It is an offence to disclose or distribute the contents of this email and/or any attachments without consent of the author.

If your email has not been acknowledged or answered within 5 working days, or if you have difficulty reading this email or any attachment included, please contact the author on the number quoted above.

The author is not authorised to bind the Department contractually, or to make representations or other statements which may bind the Department in any way via electronic means.

======================

Reply Reply to All Forward More

The same afternoon, the following email came from the Administrative Court:

RE: Clarification – Legal Ombudsman CMP-048194 ABC:00522150 * OFFICIAL *

Administrative Court Office, Case Progression <administrativecourtoffice.caseprogression@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk>

To

‘Shan Panigrahi’

13 Jan 2017 at 12:51

Please refrain from sending or copying the court into correspondence without a valid Court ref. Your emails cannot be recorded as there is no record to save it on until proceedings have been issued.

Kind regards,

Momotaj

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 13 January 2017 11:45 To: Terence Channer Cc: Administrative Court Office, Case Progression; Enquiries Subject: Fw: Clarification – Legal Ombudsman CMP-048194 ABC:00522150

To

Terence Channer

ScottMoncrief and Associates including Lutomi Kasumu

Dear Mr Channer

1. Kindly take note of the following email from the Legal Ombudsman. I need your documentary report on the defence you will mount to my complaint against the Firm that it has engaged in systematic conspiracy to deny me access to justice. This document is required by the Legal Ombudsman before it will consider my complaint against your Firm.

2. As you are aware I have sought an extension of time to enable the Judicial Review of Kent Police’s decision to prosecute me for an unspecified offence pending the outcome of the Legal Ombudsman’s consideration of my complaint against your Firm. Your immediate attention will therefore be appropriate.

3. If you fail to acknowldge this email immediately on receipt, I would seek an immediate decision by the Ombudsman of your guilt to the charge of criminal conspiracy to deny me access to justice.

4. I am copying this email to the Administrative Court which is waiting for information on this Case.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 12 January 2017, 15:27, Enquiries <Enquiries@Legalombudsman.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

Thank you for your recent emails.

For clarification we believe that your expression of dissatisfaction to the Firm was made on 18 October 2016. The Firm had until close of business on 13 December 2016 to provide you with a full and final response to the issues raised in your complaint.

As you are aware that date has now passed so in order for this Office to complete an initail assessment of your complaint and potenially accept the matter for investigation we need to see a copy of your complaints correspondence with the Firm and if you complete a complaint form to send with your complaints correspondence we will have all the information that we need to complete our initail assessment.

Your complaint remains closed until such time as we hear from you further providing us with the above documents and information. Please be aware that you have 6 months from the date on the Firms final response to your complaint to bring the matter to this Office.

Yours sincerely

Assessment Centre Legal Ombudsman

Telephone: 0300 555 0333

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

***********************

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Legal Ombudsman. E-mail monitoring /blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

*********************** ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

===========

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and are intended for the use of the correct recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please contact the author immediately. It is an offence to disclose or distribute the contents of this email and/or any attachments without consent of the author.

If your email has not been acknowledged or answered within 5 working days, or if you have difficulty reading this email or any attachment included, please contact the author on the number quoted above.

The author is not authorised to bind the Department contractually, or to make representations or other statements which may bind the Department in any way via electronic means.

===========

Reply Reply to All Forward More

.

December 19, 2016 Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Information Received - Review Letter - OTP-CR-76/22 Inbox from: OTP InformationDesk <OTP.InformationDesk@icc-cpi.int> to: "shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com" <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com> date:

Your Reference: 22/444/CM/PCC Yahoo / Sent Shantanu Panigrahi <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.com> To: civil.claims@kent.pnn.police.uk Tue, 10 May at 20:22 To Civil Claim Officers Thank you for this morning'