AP High Court HC fines woman for misleading petition on name change

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad,June 17: The AP High Court on Thursday imposed a fine on a woman petitioner for misleading the court by filing a purported affidavit with regard to change of her name.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy while dismissing a petition filed by Ms Y. Swapna of Ranga Reddy district, directed the registrar (judicial) to initiate action against her under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The judge directed the petitioner to pay Rs 10, 000 to the AP Legal Service Authority within four weeks.
The petitioner had approached the court challenging the disqualification of her application for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd dealership at Shabad in RR.
HPCL had rejected her application as she did not submit a copy of her marriage certificate or an affidavit in support of her maiden name and name after marriage along with her application.
During the course of the hearing, the petitioner pleaded that she had filed a notarised affidavit pertaining to change of her name and a copy of the affidavit before the court.
But HPCL opposed her plea by contending that she never filed any affidavit with regard to change of her name.
The court pulled up the petitioner and asked her whether she has proof of filing the affidavit. She replied in the negative.
The judge pointed out that the petitioner had not only failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of filing personal affidavit for change of her name, but also made a false averment and tried to mislead the court by filing a copy of the purported affidavit.
The judge observed that the corporation and its officials have not committed any illegality in rejecting her application.


Zee petitions against SHRC ban on Aata

Zee Entertainment Enterprises and OAK Enterprises approached the High Court on Thursday against the orders of the State Human Rights Commission prohibiting the telecast of Aata-5, a reality show for children. Zee Entertainment Enterprises contended that the SHRC had passed order without conducting inquiry under Sections 13 and 14 of the Protection of Human Rights Act. The petitioners argued that the SHRC order was violative of Section 16 of the Act, which mandates the commission to hear, at any stage of the inquiry, the persons likely to be prejudicially affected by its order. OAK Enterprises, the production house, contended that the SHRC had no power to issue interim directions, that too ex parte, even before the inquiry was over.