Search

Why Mr Michael Gove is not fit to become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom


I have something to say about the process of the current leadership election in the Conservative Party in order to bring some facts before the electorate concerning one of the candidates, Mr Micahel Gove who treats ordinary citizens with utter contempt as evidenced by the following incident.

I had sent Mr Michael Gove an email on 23 July 2015 asking him as Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor to consider my request for a Public Interest Litigation Scheme to fund legal proceedings that are judged to be in the public interest. I reproduce the email sent and received back on auto response to show that I did not receive any reply from Mr Gove to my representation.

This was a matter that had gone through the Cabinet Office of the United Kingdom under Mr David Cameron’s Prime Ministership and shows that Mr Gove is not fit to be in charge of the Ministry of Justice let alone being in charge of the country as Prime Minister.

Auto response from the Office of the Rt. Hon. Michael Gove MP GOVE, Michael To Shan Panigrahi 07/27/15 at 8:34 AM Thank you very much for your email. This is an auto-reply to confirm your email has been received.

For Non-Constituents (those who do not reside in Surrey Heath): If you are not a constituent of Surrey Heath, and are writing to me in my capacity as Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice, then please forward your email to the Ministry of Justice – general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk – as I am unable to respond to non-constituents from my parliamentary email address.

If you are a Constituent of Surrey Heath, and would like me to take up a matter on your behalf, I will need your full name, full postal address, phone number, a short summary of the issue, and a very clear request of what you would like me to do. If these details were not already included in your email, please re-send your email to me, including this information (as my office is unable to deal with any correspondence without these details).

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

With every good wish,

Michael

The Rt. Hon Michael Gove MP Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Reply Reply to All Forward More

Auto response from the Office of the Rt. Hon. Michael Gove MP GOVE, Michael To Shan Panigrahi 07/23/15 at 12:54 PM Thank you very much for your email. This is an auto-reply to confirm your email has been received.

For Non-Constituents (those who do not reside in Surrey Heath): If you are not a constituent of Surrey Heath, and are writing to me in my capacity as Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice, then please forward your email to the Ministry of Justice – general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk – as I am unable to respond to non-constituents from my parliamentary email address.

If you are a Constituent of Surrey Heath, and would like me to take up a matter on your behalf, I will need your full name, full postal address, phone number, a short summary of the issue, and a very clear request of what you would like me to do. If these details were not already included in your email, please re-send your email to me, including this information (as my office is unable to deal with any correspondence without these details).

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

With every good wish,

Michael

The Rt. Hon Michael Gove MP Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Reply Reply to All Forward More

The email that I sent Mr Micahel Gove was as follows:

Public Interest Litigation Scheme at the Royal Courts of Justice

Shan Panigrahi To michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk office@shca.org.uk general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk 07/23/15 at 12:54 PM

To Right Hon Michael Gove Parliamentary House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA Tel: 020 7219 6804 Email: michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk Constituency Curzon House, Church Road, Windlesham, GU20 6BH Tel: 01276 472468 Email: office@shca.org.uk Departmental Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3555 Email: general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Mr Gove

I forward to you my communications with the Court of Appeal concerning the need for the institution of a public interest litigation scheme which will enable matters of public interest to be funded by the Royal Courts of Justice in the interests of the nation, as no such scheme currently exists.

I should be grateful if you would take the trouble of assessing the contents and making a decision that the nation would be better served by changing the provisions of justice in this regard.

Yours sincerely

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

On Thursday, 23 July 2015, 12:42, Shan Panigrahi wrote:

Dear Mr Memon

In that case I am left with no choice but to ‘stay this case’ pending a representation that I shall now make to Parliament for the immediate institution of the public interest litigation scheme that I have just described.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 23 July 2015, 12:33, Civil Appeals – Registry wrote:

Dear Mr Panigrahi,

Further to your email below, there is no scheme so far as Court of Appeal registry is concerned where fee’s is waived on public interest litigation basis. There is a fee remission form available for pensioners, job-seekers and low income litigants (please find form attached). So far as hiring barristers on this basis, RCJ runs no such scheme so far as our offices are concerned.

You can contact the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulatory Authority to find out details of Direct Access Barristers and Solicitors / Pro Bono solicitors and contact them directly.

Yours Sincerely

Ali Memon Court of Appeal | Civil Division Registry Office Rm. E307, Royal Courts of Justice Strand| London WC2A 2LL DX 44450 Strand T: 020 7947 6533 | F: 020 7947 6740 civilappeals.registry@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk ________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 23 July 2015 12:17 To: Civil Appeals – Registry Subject: Re: Judicial Review of Government decision * OFFICIAL *

Dear Mr Memon

Is there a scheme at the Royal Courts of Justice amounting to public interest litigation or proceedings in which the subject is of such importance for the welfare and future direction of the nation that all court fees can be waived and legal aid for the hiring of barristers to argue the case be made available?

If so would you please subject this matter to the consideration of the committee that would decide on the application of such a scheme?

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 23 July 2015, 8:51, Civil Appeals – Registry wrote:

Dear Mr Panigrahi,

Further to your Email below, the court fee for permission to appeal is £ 235 (if you have already been granted permission to appeal the fee is £465). Please see attached appeal pack for guidance and forms and minimum requirements sheet to assist you with lodging your appeal/ permission to appeal.

Thank you,

Ali Memon Court of Appeal | Civil Division Registry Office Rm. E307, Royal Courts of Justice Strand| London WC2A 2LL DX 44450 Strand T: 020 7947 6533 | F: 020 7947 6740 civilappeals.registry@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk ________________________________________ From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 22 July 2015 10:41 To: Civil Appeals – Registry; Civil Appeals – Listing Subject: Fw: Judicial Review of Government decision * OFFICIAL *

To Ali Memon Court of Appeal | Civil Division Registry Office Rm. E307, Royal Courts of Justice Strand| London WC2A 2LL DX 44450 Strand T: 020 7947 6533 | F: 020 7947 6740 civilappeals.registry@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sir

1. I am hereby lodging with you my preliminary appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court (please see the forwarded emails below) that you had directed me to in light of a letter that I have received this morning from Sir John Brigstocke KCB, the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (It’s Ref 15-2359) that clarifies that the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO) does not have the remit to investigate the criminality of judges or refer the reported criminality of Judges in their processing of civil matters to the Police, so that the government’s decision in this matter was manifestly incorrect and it requires a Court to issue this judgement to the government so that it reviews the matter. Similarly, the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman has been unable to take any action against any of the other Judges that I had reported to it for disciplinary action in relation to the processing of the Shell Tribunal matter.

2. Please let me know what Court Fee will be necessary for the processing of this Appeal so that I may submit this Fee with the Appeal papers as outlined here.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 26 June 2015, 10:54, “Administrative Court Office, Case Progression” wrote:

Dear Sir,

I am not sure how your misreading of my response given below can have arisen, but for the avoidance of any confusion, I state here that the information I gave below does not give any such confirmation that you have ‘arrived at the correct Court of HMCTS for an adjudication on the validity of [whichever] governmental decision’.

As such, please also note further that this correspondence is now closed. It remains for you to seek legal advice on this matter, as previously advised, should you so wish.

Yours sincerely,

Ms Clodagh O’Neill ACO Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office |Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2A 2LL Telephone: 020 7947 6655- option 6 administrativecourtoffice.caseprogression@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk Please note that as I am part of the above email group, there is no need to send duplicate emails to me individually.

===========

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 25 June 2015 18:12 To: Administrative Court Office, Case Progression Subject: Re: Judicial Review of Government decision * OFFICIAL *

Dear Sir/Madam

1. Thank you for confirming to me that I have now arrived at the correct court of HMCTS for an adjudication on the validity of this governmental decision.

2. Please send me the appropriate Court Application Form and the Fee Remission Form to my following home postal address to enable me to proceed with this challenge through the postal system, as you require:

3 Hoath Lane, Wigmore, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 0SL, United Kingdom

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Thursday, 25 June 2015, 17:31, “Administrative Court Office, Case Progression” wrote:

Dear Sir,

You would need to seek independent legal advice on this matter (as I see you have been advised below). The Court does not give what would, in effect, be legal advice as to what action any putative claimant or appellant may wish to take. As such, it remains up to you to consider any action you may wish to take, within whichever section of HMCTS may be relevant to whichever matter you seek to challenge . The Court would not, in any event, accept any application by email.

Yours sincerely,

Ms Clodagh O’Neill ACO Case Progression Officer | Administrative Court Office |Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2A 2LL Telephone: 020 7947 6655- option 6 administrativecourtoffice.caseprogression@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk Please note that as I am part of the above email group, there is no need to send duplicate emails to me individually.

===========

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 25 June 2015 14:10 To: Administrative Court Office London, Skeleton Arguments Subject: Judicial Review of Government decision

To High Court Administrative Court London

Dear Sir/Madam,

1. I have been asked to contact you for a decision on whether the following issue of a government statement can be subjected to a judicial review:

On Monday, 18 May 2015, 9:46, “CLPU, Correspondence” wrote: Dear Dr Panigrahi, I have been asked to reply your email of 16 April addressed to Mr Vara. We can only reply to your further query about making misfeasance into a criminal offence. We had replied to you by email on 8 April 2014 about this (ref TO14/1417). Misfeasance in public office is a tort and is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power. The claimant must establish that specific loss or damage has been suffered. Should you wish to consider bringing such a civil claim I would suggest that you seek legal advice on the options which may be available. Your letter calls for misfeasance in public office to become a criminal offence, or alternatively, for a special body to be set up to investigate cases and make recommendations to the Crown Prosecution Service as to the appropriate disposal of a complaint. There are a number of offences that may be applicable where the holder of a public office is alleged to have committed misconduct. These include the criminal offences of fraud and bribery, and the common law offence of misconduct in public office. As there are already offences available, I can confirm that the Government currently has no plans to change the law in this area. Yours sincerely Julia Fulcher CRIMINAL LAW AND LEGAL POLICY UNIT

2. Please let me know if I may proceed, and send me the forms to be completed by email along with the Court Fee Remission form that I require.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. =========== 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.

Comment: The Conservative Party needs to ask Mr Micahel Gove for a reply to this blog post. If a reply is not forthcoming he should withdraw his application to become the leader of the Conservative Party and therefore a potential Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

July 2, 2016 Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | 1 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'