Redstar Express Plc (REDSTA.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Transport sector has released it’s 2017 abridged results.For more information about Redstar Express Plc (REDSTA.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Redstar Express Plc (REDSTA.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Redstar Express Plc (REDSTA.ng) 2017 abridged results.Company ProfileRedstar Express Plc offers an air express service in Nigeria and provides transportation, warehousing and supply chain management services. Its services encompass international and domestic express delivery, freight forwarding, integrated logistics solutions, information and document management solutions, warehousing and e-commerce solutions. Domestic products include Red Star Express Domestic services for same day, priority and package collections. Domestic direct distribution streamlines the movement of shipments from the manufacturer to multiple end users; customer and address verifications services offer a streamlined express service for financial institutions and large corporations; bulk mail services are designed to move bulk items such as annual reports, share offer forms, share certificates, customer invoices and direct mail; special project services include product sampling, delivery and retrieval of promotional items. International products include a point-to-point delivery service, international inbound collections and direct distribution. Value added services include online tracking, signature proof of delivery, insurance, customs clearance, packaging and desktop software shipping solutions. Redstar Express Plc’s head office is in Lagos, Nigeria. Redstar Express Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange
Howard Lake | 19 October 2007 | News Christian Aid’s Head of Design and Production, Frances McConnell, will then share how her organisation makes an impact with its brand across publications and other communications. The event, at Baden-Powell House, 65-67 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5JS, begins with tea and coffee from 14.00 followed by a 14.30 start. There is no charge to attend. Tagged with: Individual giving AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis 19 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis CharityComms meeting to cover publishing law and brand The next seminar from CharityComms, the recently-formed professional body for charity sector communications, will feature speakers on the legal considerations of publishing, and getting the best from your brand.The event on 24 October will feature Cambridge-based lawyer Janet Turner, Head of Charity and Education Group at Taylor Vinters, talking about the legal considerations when publishing be it for an annual review or a website page. Tamsin Ford, Information Resources Manager at Macmillan Cancer Support, will describe the practicalities of using patient case studies and issues around consent and using material appropriately. Advertisement About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.
AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis 35 total views, 2 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis New Scotland-only lottery to launch this year Tagged with: Gaming Howard Lake | 23 October 2007 | News Tickets in the People’s Postcode Lottery will cost £2 each, with 40p (20%) from each going to charity. The National Lottery gives 28p per £1 ticket to charity and good causes. The People’s Postcode Lottery is to launch in Scotland in November with the aim to raise £120,000 a week for charities based in Scotland by the end of 2008.Like the National Lottery, the People’s Postcode Lottery will be promoted through a TV programme, ‘Postcode Challenge’, although this will not be a live draw. It will offer weekly cash prizes of up to £30,000 together with a monthly prize of a new car, according to Third Force eNews. The first draw will take place on 4 January 2008.The lottery is being run by European lottery specialists Novamedia, whose games have raised £2 billion for charity over the past 17 years. Advertisement About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.
Debbie Africa and Mike Africa Jr.East Lansdowne, Pa. — At a press conference in East Lansdowne, Pa., on June 19, MOVE 9 member Debbie Sims Africa made her first public appearance since being released from prison after nearly 40 years of incarceration. She had been imprisoned since Aug. 8, 1978, following the Philadelphia police attack on the MOVE Organization.Sims Africa was one of nine MOVE members, collectively known as the “MOVE 9,” who were convicted and sentenced to 30 to 100 years in prison following the altercation. She was eight months pregnant at the time and gave birth in jail to her son, Mike Africa Jr. She has been incarcerated for his entire life. Mother and son spent time together outside of prison for the first time on June 16, following her release.Flanked by her son and her attorney, Brad Thomson, Sims Africa said at the press conference: “I have not yet caught up with my emotions on how happy it makes me to see my family and to be united with my son for the first time in all those years. As happy as I was to be with my family, it is a bittersweet victory for me because my sisters Janet, Janine and the rest of the MOVE 9 are still in prison in the same situation that I was in. They deserve parole, too.”Mike Africa Jr. echoed this sentiment: “After being born in jail and never being with my mom or dad, I’m happy to be with my mom at home for the first time ever in almost 40 years. But my family is still incomplete because my dad is still in prison. The MOVE Organization has experienced so much hate and anger from the system that this is a victory, yet 40 years of separation is not over for our family.”Mike Africa Sr., one of the MOVE 9 still in prison, is scheduled to appear before the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) in September. Janet and Janine Africa’s next parole opportunity is in May 2019. Three other members of the MOVE 9 remain incarcerated. Two died in custody.Free all of the MOVE 9! Thomson, an attorney with the Peoples’ Law Office, represented Sims Africa throughout her parole proceedings. He noted: “This is an historic moment for Debbie, her family and the MOVE Organization. We consider this a big, important step towards freeing all of the MOVE 9.”Janet and Janine Africa appeared before the parole board on the same day as Sims Africa, but they were denied parole. Thomson said it was hard to understand the board’s rationale for not releasing the other two women, given that each has maintained Department of Corrections records as exemplary as and nearly identical to that of Sims Africa.Thomson said: “Based on statutes regarding parole in Pennsylvania, the board made the correct decision with Debbie, but they should have made the same ruling for Janet and Janine. The facts in all three cases and other members of MOVE 9 show that none of them should have been convicted in the first place. There is no rational basis for keeping them incarcerated.”All MOVE 9 members have been eligible for parole since 2008; each has gone through numerous hearings. Sims Africa’s May 10 hearing was her ninth.Carolyn Engel Temin, the Philadelphia district attorney’s office first assistant, wrote letters to Leo Dunn, PBPP chairperson, on behalf of DA Larry Krasner, saying that she was “confident” that Janet and Janine Africa “will not pose a threat to the Philadelphia community,” and that their “continued incarceration does not make our city safer.” However, the PBPP lied, claiming the “negative recommendation of the prosecuting attorney” was a basis for denial. (onamove.com, June 19)Thomson asserted: “We are hoping that moving forward we will be able to win release for the remaining six people.” When asked about the impact of calls on their behalf to the PBPP, he replied, “It is important that the parole board recognize that Debbie and the rest have people who support them, [and] that they are not a threat to the community.”When asked how the state’s bombing of the MOVE house and murder of 11 MOVE members on May 13, 1985, affected imprisoned MOVE members, Sims Africa recounted their profound disbelief when prison guards told them about the attack, refusing to accept that it had happened.Mike Africa Jr. said that Janet and Janine Africa had children who died in that fire. Now, the same state that killed their children refuses to grant the mothers parole. He read Janet Africa’s letter about Sims Africa’s release: “Everybody here, especially the lifers and long termers are lifted and motivated by Debbie leaving. Tell her she took a piece of our heart when she left, but it balances out because she left a piece of hers with us.”Events in Philadelphia will mark the 40th anniversary of the Aug. 8, 1978, police attack on MOVE. See onamove.com for information about the Aug. 5 Day of Resistance for the MOVE 9.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
Home of the Week: Unique Pasadena Home Located on Madeline Drive, Pasadena 0 commentsShareShareTweetSharePin it Community News Community News Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m. EVENTS & ENTERTAINMENT | FOOD & DRINK | THE ARTS | REAL ESTATE | HOME & GARDEN | WELLNESS | SOCIAL SCENE | GETAWAYS | PARENTS & KIDS Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * latest #1 Two Burglary Suspects Arrested for La CaÃ±ada Flintridge Theft Published on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 | 5:23 pm More Cool Stuff Make a comment Top of the News Business News Two burglary suspects wanted for taking valuables from homes in La CaÃ±ada Flintridge were arrested today in Pasadena, a sheriffâ€™s sergeant said.Crescenta Valley station deputies made the arrests while serving a search warrant, but refused to say where in Pasadena the arrests were made or what the names of the suspects were.No information was made available about when or where the burglaries occurred, said Sgt. Robert Galbraith of the sheriffâ€™s Crescenta Valley station, adding that more information would be made available when the investigation is in its final stages. Name (required) Mail (required) (not be published) Website Herbeauty7 Things A Man Will Do Only If He Really Loves YouHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeauty9 Of The Best Family Friendly Dog BreedsHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeauty6 Strong Female TV Characters Who Deserve To Have A SpinoffHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyStop Eating Read Meat (Before It’s Too Late)HerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyWhat’s Your Zodiac Flower Sign?HerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyIs It Bad To Give Your Boyfriend An Ultimatum?HerbeautyHerbeauty Pasadena’s ‘626 Day’ Aims to Celebrate City, Boost Local Economy Pasadena Will Allow Vaccinated People to Go Without Masks in Most Settings Starting on Tuesday First Heatwave Expected Next Week Subscribe faithfernandez More » ShareTweetShare on Google+Pin on PinterestSend with WhatsApp,Virtual Schools PasadenaHomes Solve Community/Gov/Pub SafetyPASADENA EVENTS & ACTIVITIES CALENDARClick here for Movie Showtimes
Top StoriesEligibility Of NBFCs On Loan Moratorium: SC Tags Plea With Matter Concerning RBI’s Levy Of Interest On Loans During Moratorium Sanya Talwar9 Jun 2020 12:01 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court on Tuesday tagged a plea seeking clarification on the eligibility of all Non Banking Financial Company’s (NBFCs) for loan moratorium or whether discretion lay with banks for providing benefit with Batch matters pertaining to the issue of levy of Interest on Loans by RBI during lockdown.A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah & V. Ramasubramanium tagged the matter with…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court on Tuesday tagged a plea seeking clarification on the eligibility of all Non Banking Financial Company’s (NBFCs) for loan moratorium or whether discretion lay with banks for providing benefit with Batch matters pertaining to the issue of levy of Interest on Loans by RBI during lockdown.A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah & V. Ramasubramanium tagged the matter with the aforementioned pleas which are to be taken up on June 12.On May 15, a bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and BR Gavai had issued notice on the plea after hearing Senior Advocate Harish Salve’s submissions who was appearing for The Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI). On the last date, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had informed the bench that he would take instructions from RBI, SEBI and the Finance Ministry. In light of the same, the Bench directed the SG to come back with complete clarity on the matter.Background:On March 27, in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent national lockdown, the RBI had issued a Circular, giving liberty to all banks to allow a moratorium period of three months on payment of instalments with regard to all term loans which were outstanding as on Match 1, subject to the borrower making such a request.Salve had submitted that was an entitlement to moratorium in terms of the aforementioned Circular and that some banks were refusing to give the benefit.While delving on conjectures, Salve had submitted that, ”The real problem lies with what is happening with RBI. When the matter came to Court, RBI said that the Circular was binding. But, some banks were not giving the benefit. While the RBI reply says that it is the discretion of the bank, the RBI Governor’s speech said that it was binding”.Further to this, Salve had also acknowledged that the new financial package that was recently announced by the Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman might resolve the issue.A plea had also been filed before the Delhi High Court regarding the applicability of the Circular to NBFCs like Indiabulls Commercial Credit Ltd. (ICCL). Justice Rekha Palli had directed the state-run Small Industrial Development Bank of India (SIDBI) to clarify the same before demanding further loan instalment from ICCL.Next Story
ColumnsThe Prevailing Uncertainty In Discharge In Summons Cases Yugansh Mittal25 Jun 2020 10:58 PMShare This – xThe present article discusses the law regarding discharge (on merits) in summons cases based on complaints (predominantly affecting, inter alia, Defamation and NI Act), once accused has been summoned and how conflicting decisions have caused this issue to crop up repeatedly. In summons trial, there is no specific power to discharge the accused post summons, except as provided…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe present article discusses the law regarding discharge (on merits) in summons cases based on complaints (predominantly affecting, inter alia, Defamation and NI Act), once accused has been summoned and how conflicting decisions have caused this issue to crop up repeatedly. In summons trial, there is no specific power to discharge the accused post summons, except as provided in section 258, Cr.P.C., which however does not apply in complaint cases. In warrant and session trials, the power is expressly provided in the form of Section 227/239/245 Cr.P.C. Judicial Examination: The issue first arose as back in K.M. Mathew v State of Kerala (AIR 1992 SC2 206), the Supreme Court answered in the affirmative and stated that no specific power is required for discharge and the magistrate has the power to drop the proceedings and discharge the accused. This view was considered in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 13 SCC 324 and overruling K.M. Mathew, a three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held: “The case involving a summons case is covered by Chapter XX of the Code which does not contemplates a stage of discharge like Section 239 which provides for a discharge in a warrant case. Therefore, in our opinion the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the Code the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed which is to take the trial to its logical conclusion” This position of law has been discussed and followed in a number of judgments by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, to name a few: R.K. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Madan Lal Nassa, 2016 VI AD (Delhi) 220, Asia Metal Corporation v. State 130 (2006) DLT 545, Joginder Kumar v. Shamsher Singh Malik, Crl. Rev. P. 437/2000 decided on 29.11.2006, R.P. Gupta v. The State NCT of Delhi, 2007(97)DRJ100, R.P.G. Transmission Ltd v. Sakura Seimitsu (I) Ltd 119 (2005) DLT 393. The Creation of Uncertainty: The confusion seems to have first arisen beginning in Krishna Kumar Variar v. Share Shoppe, (2010) 12 SCC 485, a two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India, in a case u/s 415/420 IPC, when a summoning order was challenged in the Delhi High Court on ground of territorial jurisdiction, against which the Supreme Court was approached. It was held: “Hence, instead of rushing to the higher Court against the summoning order, the concerned person should approach the Trial court with a suitable application for this purpose and the Trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case.” However, the Hon’ble court does not refer to the issue decided in Subramaniam Sethuraman or whether the magistrate has the power to discharge the accused or drop the proceedings against the accused. The judgment in Krishna Kumar Variar can certainly not be interpreted to clothe the Trial court with such powers. In Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 1747, a two judge bench of the Supreme court, in a police case (FIR u/s 420 IPC), has taken a view contrary to Subramanium Sethuraman (while not expressly noting the judgment of Subramanium Sethuraman), granting the power, and held: “17. It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when an accused appears before the trial Court pursuant to summons issued Under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused as per Section 239 of the Code.” This view appears to be contrary to the dictum laid down by the three judge benches of the Supreme court of India, particularly that in Subramanium Sethuraman which specifically noted that power under Section 239 CrPC is not available in summons case. This view that the accused can be discharged, in contradistinction to the view that the accused cannot be discharged as highlighted above, finds mention in a number of judgments of the Delhi High Court, to name a few: Gajender Nagpal v. Mahesh Kumar, (CRL. M. C. 993/2015, dated 13.3.2015), S.K. Bhalla v. State, 180 (2011) DLT 219, Raujeev Taneja v. NCT of Delhi (Crl. M.C. 4733/2013, decide on 11.11.2013), Urrshila Kerkar v. Make My Trip (Crl. M.C. 2598/2012, decided on 18.11.2013), R. Narayanan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2019 (1) JCC 628. Conclusion: While there are many conflicting decisions on the issue, the three-judge bench the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra should be followed, as the dictum in Bhushan Kumar can certainly not prevail over the view taken in Subramanium Sethuraman, the latter being three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the former being a two judge bench. The Supreme Court in Central Board Of Dawoodi Bohra v. State Of Maharashtra (2005) 2 SCC 673, a Constitution Bench judgment may be cited: “The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength.” The remedy under section 482 CrP.C. with the High court would still be available as noted in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, only the power of trial court to discharge the accused and consequently a revision petition against the same would be barred.The Author is a Lawyer practicing at the Delhi High Court. Views are personal. Next Story
Top StoriesPlea Before Supreme Court Seeks Setting Up Of National and State Mortal Remains Management Disposal Protocol Srishti Ojha6 Feb 2021 10:52 PMShare This – xA plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to Centre and the States to set up a National and State Mortal Remains Management Disposal Protocol for pandemic and non- pandemic times within a reasonable period. The plea has also sought directions to the State Governments to designate the District Medical Officer to be appropriate authority for implementation of this…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to Centre and the States to set up a National and State Mortal Remains Management Disposal Protocol for pandemic and non- pandemic times within a reasonable period. The plea has also sought directions to the State Governments to designate the District Medical Officer to be appropriate authority for implementation of this protocol and strict adherence to this protocol to avoid trauma and distress. The Petitioner, G. Manohar in this case is aggrieved by the callous action and negligence of Manipal Hospital, Dwarka (New Delhi), who without any respect to the him and his family, denied a decent burial to his mother by handing over the dead body of the Petitioner’s mother in the most undignified manner without any checking or verification, to a total stranger.”He now has to live with the hard and bizarre truth that his mother’s body was mistaken for some other Covid-19 victim and was given away for cremation by someone else denying him the sacred rights of doing the last rites to his mother. ” – the plea reads.The Petitioner has filed the present plea as he believes that this traumatic incident has happened due to the absence of a proper Mortal Remains Management Disposal Protocol in the country due to which such a disastrous and irreversible act has taken place. The complete lack of a proper system of checks and balances is leading to hospitals taking the excuse of being overburdened with dead bodies. The Petitioner’s experience has been the most harrowing and therefore he hopes that this is never repeated with anyone who has to bury or cremate their loved one.The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that his mother’s body was so carelessly stored without proper labelling or identification, with other highly infected Covid-19 bodies in the hospital’s mortuary and due to a mix-up of bodies, was handed over to a stranger and his family for cremation. As a result of the hospital’s complete disregard and negligence, the Petitioner and his family did not get to see or bury the mortal remains of his mother according to their religious rites and rituals.The plea has contended that the hospital’s act is clearly violative of the petitioner’s mother’s Right to Life including her Right to Dignity and dignity in death as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The hospital’s act is irreversible and with no possibility of closure for the Petitioner and his family as they not only lost their mother but also lost the right to bury her.Stressing on the need for a clear Mortal Remains Management Disposal Protocol, the plea has highlighted the callousness of hospitals during the time of Covid-19 pandemic with reputed hospitals charging heavy fees and charges for treatment with no basic protocols in place, leading to unbearable pain and lifelong agony to the relatives of the deceased.According to the petitioner, Manipal hospital has not shown any remorse for its act knowing fully well that such indignity in death was afforded to Petitioner’s mother due to their negligent actions and due to the lack of a proper Mortal Remains Storage and Management Protocol in the State of Delhi.When the hospital was approached, they grudgingly stated that there may have been a possible mix-up of bodies.” The utter casualness with which this sensitive issue was handled by the Respondent hospital authorities was proof of the fact that they felt they were above the law and that since there was no protocol that was in place, there was no violation and it was most harrowing for the Petitioner to watch the high-handedness of the Respondent hospital as it defended its callousness instead of feeling remorseful at their actions and had the audacity to ask the Petitioner to take the body that was ‘made available’ to him and to bury it accordingto their rites and rituals. The Respondent hospital then fabricated a story that another family that had come to collect the mortal remains of their mother, had given gangajal to that body both at the cremation site and at the Respondent hospital. This story was concocted by the Respondent hospital authorities to wash their hands of this grave error that could be not reversed and to foist the blame back on the Petitioner that it was he who was mistaken in identifying the body.” – the plea reads.The plea has cited the Supreme Court’s order in the case of Pt Parmanand Katara, Advocate vs UOI and Anor (1995) where it was held that even a dead person has a right to dignity and fair treatment in respect of his dead body under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Another judgement cited is the Top Court’s order in the matter of Common Cause vs Union of India (2018) holding that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right and therefore an integral part of Article 21.The plea has further stated that while there are various speciality and multi-speciality hospitals with separate departments putting all their energies to preserve life, there is no dedicated department to deal with the person once he has died. The body of the deceased ought to be treated with utmost dignity and not simply as a goods by the administrative authorities of an institution, and all care should be taken to ensure that there is a dignified burial, cremation or funeral arrangement based on the religious beliefs of the dearly departed.The plea has been drawn by filed by Advocate Shilpa Liza George and drawn by Advocates Manoj V. George and Renjith Philip, on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. G. Manohar. The plea has prayed for the following directions from the Court:Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other Writ or Direction to the Union of India to formulate a National Mortal Remains Management and Disposal Protocol for pandemic and non- pandemic times to be implemented across the country andIssue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other Writ or Direction to to all State Governments to formulate a State Mortal Remains Management and Disposal Protocol for pandemic and non- pandemic times within a reasonable period Issue a Direction to the State Governments to designate the District Medical Officer to be appropriate authority for implementation of the above mentioned protocol as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story