RESI. OFFICE. CHAMBER
B-16, SECTOR-14, NOIDA C-67, SECTOR-14, NOIDA 301, NEW LAWYERS CHAMBER
DIST. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR DIST. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(U.P.) - 201 301 (U.P.) - 201 301, FAX: 0120-4512694 NEW DELHI
PH : 0120-2512632, 2512693 PH: 0120-2512523, 2512695 PH: 011- 23070301,23070645.
MOB: +919811164068 E-MAIL: email@example.com
Dated: December 1, 2014
Central Bureau of Investigation
SUB: Complaint for investigation concerning abuse of office & criminal misconduct
by Justice C K Prasad, former Judge of Supreme Court
The instant complaint concerns the abuse of office and criminal misconduct by
Justice C K Prasad when he was the Judge of Supreme Court. Justice Prasad
has recently been appointed by the Government as the Chairperson of the Press
Council of India.
The following facts have come into public domain which shows that Justice
Prasad abused his position as a Judge to confer significant monetary benefit on a
Civil Appeal Nos. 9454-9455 of 2010, titled Mistry Construction 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 18th
February to 20th
2014. This was an appeal filed by Mistry Constructions against an order of the
Bombay High Court which had made severe findings against Mistry and directed
Justice Prasad’s former junior’s in-laws are the main owners of Mistry
Constructions. The lawyer appearing for Mistry Constructions Mr. A K Srivastava
(senior advocate) shares his chamber (90, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court)
with Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, the son of Justice Prasad. Thus Justice
Prasad was aware of this case and had an interest in the matter.
Another petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7232/2013, titled Neera
Saggi and Anr. v. Avinash Parshuram Naik and Anr. was before the Bench
presided by Justice Prasad who had issued notice on 05.09.2013. When the
aforesaid matter came up for further hearing on 20.01.2014 the Court passed
following order: “list the following matter along with Civil Appeal No. 9454-3455 of
2013 on 29.01.2014”. A copy of the order dated 20.01.2014 is annexed as
Senior Advocate Shri Dushyant Dave was informed by the 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. A copy of
letter dated 26.02.2014 sent by Shri Dushyant Dave to the then Chief Justice of
India is annexed as Annexure B.
Clearly the order had recorded incorrect Appeal Numbers, and therefore when
the matter came up on 29.01.2014, the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013 was not taken up
for hearing and was adjourned. It appears that on 20.02.2014 the SLP (Crl.)
7232/2013 was taken up by Justice Prasad on his own though it was not listed,
and the Court passed the following order: “By order dated 20.01.2014, this
Petition was directed to be listed on 29.01.2014 along with Civil Appeal No. 9454-
9455/2013. Due to inadvertent mistake, the year of the Civil Appeal No. 9454-
9455 was shown as 2013 instead of 2010. Resulting thereof, these Civil Appeals
could not be listed along with this Petition on 29.01.2014. List this Petition along
with Civil Appeal No. 9454-9455 of 2010 on 25.02.2014 at the top of the Board
subject to overnight part-heard.” A copy of the order dated 20.02.2014 is annexed
as Annexure C.
The matters were listed on 25.02.2014, and the Bench presided by the Hon’ble
Justice Prasad, (Court No. 9 Item No. 2). Justice Prasad, at the outset, accepted
the submission of Shri C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate, that the Civil Appeal No,
9454-9455 of 2010 was not connected with the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013 and passed
an independent order in the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013. However despite there being
no connection, the Civil Appeal No. 9454-9455 of 2010 was taken up, and in the
absence of any effective representation from CIDCO, a statutory body, the Civil
Appeal disposed of by an order dictated in open Court, in presence of many
lawyers sitting in the Court. Justice Prasad allowed the Writ Petitioner before the
High Court to withdraw the Writ Petition apparently in view of the settlement
between Mistry Constructions P. Ltd. and Makhija Developers. P. Ltd. A copy of
order dated 25.02.2014 is annexed as Annexure D.
The above order was passed despite the fact that the same settlement was
earlier rejected by a 3-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India of the
Supreme Court on 02.05.2013. A copy of order dated 02.05.2013 is annexed as
Shri C U Singh, senior advocate, informed Shri Dave about the events. He
stated: “This is to confirm that when Item 2 in Court 9 was called out today, I
pointed out to the court that the Civil Appeal which was tagged with the Criminal
Appeal in which I was appearing had no connection at all with my matter. The Ld.
Presiding Judge, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, immediately said that they too had
seen it was unconnected and that the only thing common was that CIDCO was a
party. He asked me to proceed with my matter which I argued and succeeded in.
I assumed the matter stood de-tagged and left the Court. I’m not aware of what
happened thereafter, but if the hearing of the Civil Appeal proceeded, even
though it was found to be wrongly tagged, then it’s a matter of disquiet.”
As a result of this order, the judgment of the High Court along 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.
The above facts show that Justice Prasad abused his position as a Judge of
Supreme Court in order to confer huge pecuniary advantage on a private party
(Mistry Constructions) and thus committed criminal misconduct under Section 13
(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Therefore, I request you to kindly get this matter thoroughly and impartially
investigated after registering an FIR. Please note that registration of FIR is
mandatory (after the constitution bench judgment of Supreme Court of 2014)
once there are allegations of cognizable offences having being committed.