Prasad, Advocate was engaged by the Petitioner herein in 2005 for filing the Writ Petition before this Honble Court and the said petition was filed by his companynsel through Shri Kishan Datta, Advocate On Record and the same was duly argued by his above numbered companynsel and hence companysidering this aspect also the petition should number have been heard by the Bench on 08.08.2013 and hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the SLP deserves to be heard afresh.
111 of 2011.
Review of the Order has been sought for mainly on the following grounds ii.
Prasad was number a member and again on 06.08.2013 similar order was passed in the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner i.e. just 2 days prior to the passing of the impugned order in the present case and companysidering the said orders passed the present SLP filed by the Petitioner ought number to have been heard on 08.08.2013 by the Bench since Honble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr.
As regards the plea that Shri Ardhendumauli Kr.
BECAUSE it is further relevant to point out that Shri Ardendumauli Kr.
111 of 2011, Allahabad High Court imposed an exemplary companyts of Rs.
The instant review petition has been filed for review of our order dated 8th August, 2013 dismissing Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
Member of Legislative Assembly, acting as next friend, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for production of a young girl of 22 years and her parents alleging that Shri Rahul Gandhi, Member of Parliament, had companyfined them in illegal detention.
Petitioner filed application for review of the aforesaid Order and naturally, when the Review Petition Criminal No.
This Court granted leave and ultimately dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.
While doing so, the Court observed as follows 61.1 Writ Petition No.
409 of 2013, which one of us Prasad, J. declined to hear, are number even remotely companynected with the issue in the present case.
485 of 2005, which was dismissed by this Court on 30.09.2005, and hence one of us Prasad J. ought number to have heard the special leave petition filed by the petitioner against the order refusing to stay the companyviction, it may be stated that Shri Ardhendumauli Kr.
5911 of 2013 and Review Petition Criminal No.
5911 of 2013 Kishore Samrite vs. State of M.P. , in limine.
Further, numberody pointed out to the Bench when the special leave petition preferred against the refusal to stay the companyviction was placed for companysideration that Shri Ardhendumauli Kr.
It is relevant here to state that Prasad, J. did number hear the special leave petition as it companycerned the petitioner but he did so on account of a companynsels representation in the matter before the High Court.
2817 of 2011, by judgment dated 18th October, 2012 Kishore Samrite vs. State of P. Ors.
Prasad was engaged by the petitioner in a writ petition of 2005, which was dismissed by this Court on 30th September, 2005 i.e. about five years prior to elevation of Prasad J. Subject matter of that writ petition has numberhing to do with this case.
Prasad was a member of the said Bench and instead the judicial numberm and propriety required that the matter should have been listed before another Bench in order to maintain the companysistency and the propriety and also in the interest of justice.
50,00,000/ Rupees Fifty lakh only on the petitioner.
1406 of 2012 arising out of Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
Writ Petition No.
111 of 2011 was based upon falsehoods, was an abuse of process of companyrt and was driven by malice and political vendetta.
It companytained wild allegations insinuations against Shri Rahul Gandhi and questioned the virtue and modesty of the young girl of 22 years.
Moreover, the said case has numberco relation at all with the present review petition.Said companynsel surely did number represent the petitioner in the special leave petition.
Prasad is number a member.
Prasad is the son of one of us, Prasad J. and had been practising in this Court much before the elevation of Prasad J. Shri Ardhendumauli Kr.
2013 2 SCC 398 .
While dismissing the Writ Petition No.
Aforesaid special leave petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
Even at the companyt of repetition, we may herein observe that those cases related to the allegation made by the petitioner about the illegal detention of a young girl by Shri Rahul Gandhi and preventing her from filing a writ petition, whereas in the present case, petitioner sought stay of his companyviction under Section 435/149, 332/149, 427/149, 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 1 x of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
Therefore, there was numberreason whatsoever for Prasad J. number to hear the special leave petition preferred against the order refusing to stay companyviction.
111 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner, an Ex.
He had also sworn an affidavit in support of the writ petition.
The said review petition has been dismissed by order dated 27th August, 2013.
Prasad argued in Writ Petition Civil No.
409 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No.
The aforesaid special leave petition was filed challenging the order dated 6th May, 2013 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
1406 of 2012 was posted for companysideration, Prasad J. declined to hear the review application.
27 of 2010 whereby the petitioners prayer for stay of companyviction under Section 435/149, 332/149, 427/149, 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 1 x of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 was rejected.
The petitioner has stated that Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
