Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
THE PETITIONER
VERSUS
1)
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
SHASTRI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110001
2)
RESPONDENT NO. 1
3)
RESPONDENT NO. 2
4)
RESPONDENT NO. 3
RESPONDENT NO. 4
To,
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION
JUDGES OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Humble Petition of the
Petitioner above-named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1)
The Petitioner herein is Mr. Prashant Bhushan. He is an advocateon-record of this Honble Court and is practicing since 1983. He is
also the convenor for Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Reform
(CJAR) and a member of Committee on Judicial Accountability
P. Ltd. v. Makhija Developers P. Ltd. & Ors., were shown at Sl. No.
79 before Court No. 4, presided by the Justice B.S. Chauhan along
with Justice J. Chelameshwar and Justice M.Y. Eqbal in the Weekly
List No. 7 of 2014 from 18 th February to 20th February, 2014. This
was an appeal filed by Mistry Constructions against the judgment of
the Honble Bombay High Court which had made severe findings
against Mistry Constructions and directed a re-tender. The High
Court held that CIDCO acted in a mala fide manner in dA copy of the
relevant pages of the said judgment dated 20.01.2010 passed by the
Honble Bombay High Court is annexed as Annexure P1 (Pg
___________).
3)
4)
5)
6)
counsels for the parties Mr. Pratap Venugopal and Mr. Anirudh P.
Mayee that none of the parties/counsels had mentioned about the
Civil Appeal Nos. 9454-9455 of 2010, much less as having a bearing
on the SLP (Crl). 7232/2013. They informed Shri Dave that, Justice
Prasad on his own stated that according to him there was a similar
matter pending and accordingly the aforesaid order was made.
7)
8)
presided by the Honble Justice Prasad, (Court No. 9 Item No. 2).
9)
The above order was passed despite the fact that the same
10)
11)
with its severe findings has been set-aside without a debate, as well
as its directions for a re-tender. In effect, Mistry Constructions gets
the tender and 35 hectares of prime land at throwaway price. A copy
of letter dated 26.02.2014 sent by Shri Dushyant Dave, senior
advocate of this Honble Court, to the then Chief Justice of India
complaining about the conduct of Justice Prasad is annexed as
Annexure P6 (Pg ___________).
12)
The above facts show that Justice Prasad abused his position
13)
Chairperson of the Press Council. The needful was not done and the
petitioner also did not receive any response to the said letter. A copy
of the letter sent by the petitioner to the Prime Minister on
27.11.2014 is annexed as Annexure P7 (Pg ____________).
14)
The petitioner has made detailed complaint to the CBI and the
15)
appointed as the CBI Director. Later the petitioner learnt that Mr.
Sinha has a serious conflict of interest in the complaint filed by the
petitioner since his wife Mrs. Kirti Sinha is the former associate/
junior of Justice Prasad. Petitioner also learnt that the in-laws of Mr.
Sinhas either son or the daughter are the owners of Mistry
Constructions, i.e. the company that benefitted from Justice Prasads
orders. Moreover, his wife was the one of the lawyers for Mistry
Constructions in the same case which was disposed of in favour of
Mistry Constructions by Justice Prasad. Therefore, the petitioner
wrote a letter to the CBI Director on 08.01.2015 asking him to recuse
himself from the case. A copy of the said letter dated 08.01.2015 is
annexed as Annexure P10 (Pg ___________). The petitioner
therefore requests this Honble Court to direct an SIT investigation
into the matter, or at the very least, direct Mr. Sinha to recuse himself
from the CBI investigation.
16)
The petitioner has not filed any other writ petition or application
GROUNDS
A. That the non-registration of a First Information Report (FIR) or
Regular Case (RC) by the CBI is in violation of the Constitution
Bench of this Honble Court in Lalita Kumari case (2014) 2
SCC 1 that states that registration of FIR/RC is mandatory
once a law enforcement agency receives information of the
commission of a cognizable offence.
the
CVC
Act
2003
including
its
power
of
Prevention
investigation.
of
Corruption
Act
and
needs
through
PRAYERS
In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Honble Court in public interest may be
pleased to: -
a.
b.
directing the Union of India to remove or initiate steps for the removal
of Respondent No. 4 as the Chairperson of the Press Council of
India.
c.
d.
court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of
the case in the interest of justice.
Petitioner
Through