Since, the subject matter of both the writ petitions are one and the same, the Honble High Court posted the matter for hearing before Honble Justice V. Bhaskar Rao and Honble Justice Sri B. Sudarshan Reddy.
The amount shall be deposited by the petitioner and the 8th respondent with A.P. State Legal Services Authority.
A1 has falsely stated through an affidavit before the Honble High Court of A.P. on 7 11 1997 that he himself filed WP No.6240 of 1997.
The GEQD has opined that the signature on WP No.6240 of 1997 was number that of Sri D. Premchand.
Sri N.K. Prasada, A2 has obtained this writ petition back from the Registrar of the High Court since some objections were raised by the Registrar and Sri K. Prasada also signed in return register maintained by the Registrar office in token of receipt of the petition back.
43/97 was questioned in the said writ petition.
Interestingly, during the said investigation the appellant companyld number be traced out.
I am also uncertain of the effect of the matter will have and I am companystrained, for my personal reasons, and for my personal safety to seek the permission of the Honble Court to withdraw the writ petition.
The material portions of the said report read as under On 17 3 1997 Sri N.K. Prasada met one Sri B. Kistaiah an Ex.
The aforementioned B. Kistaiah writ petitioner in W.P. No.6240 of 1997 made a solemn statement before the High Court wherein also he named the appellant herein as a person who was responsible for getting the writ petition filed through the advocate although he did number know him personally.
It is also just and necessary to find out as to 2 how and on what basis the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are made and the persons responsible for making or engineering the averments made in the affidavit.
Hence the charge sheet.
The appellant was number initially a party therein but despite the same an order of transfer passed against him and others dated 10.3.1997 bearing Establishment Order G.O. No.
5717 of 1997.
The appellant herein filed two applications on the same day one, to implead him as one of the respondents and the other to give effect to the said proceedings dated 8.5.1997 issued by the Chief Commissioner, Hyderabad.
Upon making an enquiry into the matter, a report was filed by the CBI on 19.9.1997 before the division bench of the High Court.
20,000/ by way of companyts.
243 980, located at Basheerbagh and other PCO telephone No.332917 located at Erramanzil Colony.
It is the 8th respondent who has acted from behind the scene and had set up the petitioner to file the writ petition making reckless and unfounded allegations against the respondents.
The document filed along with WP No.5717 of 1997 of Sri B. Kistaiah, Ex.
Sri S. Ramachander Rao, Sr.
The cause of action for filing writ petition No.
He further alleged that the requisite documents for filing the writ petition have been handed over to the learned Advocate by the appellant.
The writ petitioner filed an application dated 22.5.1997 for implementation of the said proceedings which was marked as WPMP SR No.
It appears that the Director General, NACEN and Chief Commissioner, Hyderabad by an order dated 08.05.1997 directed that the appellant should be taken back on the rolls of Hyderabad Commissionerate and furthermore should be handed over the cases for investigation.
The High Court while finding the said writ petitions to be without any merit opined that numberrelief can be granted to the writ petitioner.
In the said writ petition also the appellant herein was impleaded as a party and the main attack therein was directed against the said proceedings dated 10.03.1997 transferring the appellant.
He does number say that the writ petition was number filed at the instance of the appellant herein.
The appellant herein thereafter appeared before the Court on 17.10.1997.
It is number in dispute that although the appellant was number a party in the writ petition the order of transfer passed against him dated 10.3.1997 was the subject matter thereof and an interim order had been passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The CBI submitted a final report stating that a chargesheet under Section 120 B read with Sections 199, 200, 201, 416, 465 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 109 thereof had been filed by it against the writ petitioner, the appellant herein and one M. Kali Prasada who is his close relative.
Interestingly, the writ petitioner informed the Registrar Judicial that he would number be insisting for House Motion as his advocate would number be available but keeping in view the purported order passed by the Chief Justice, a Bench was companystituted in relation whereto admittedly numberdirection had been issued by the Chief Justice.
Surprisingly enough, the said application was purported to have been directed to be placed for House Motion before a Division Bench purported to be under the orders of the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which admittedly was found to be wrong.
MLA who had got close association with Sri B.P. Agarwal Textile Mill owner of Shadnagar with whom the said Sri N.K. Prasada also had acquaintance.
6240 of 1997 came to be filed by Digumarthi Premchand wherein the averments made, except for one paragraph were verbatim the same of those companytained in writ petition bearing No.
Advocate and Sri Seshagiri Rao, Advocate who filed the WP No.6240 of 1997 have also stated in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.
The respondents were also purported to be relying on or on the basis of the additional affidavit directed by the High Court to file their companynter affidavits and produce the records relating to setting up of the Special Investigation Team and its disbanding.
Investigpation disclosed that on the day of filing of WP No.6240 of 1997 i.e., 26 3 1997 Sri Kali Prasada was taken to the office of Sri S. Ramachander Rao by Sri N.K. Pramda and Sri B.P. Agarwal.
5717 of 1997 appeared in person and wanted to withdraw the writ petition but did number absolve him of his responsibility in the matter in filing the writ petition at the instance of the appellant herein.
The CBI was also directed by the High Court by an order dated 19.9.1997 to make investigation into the question as to 1 whether the petitioner, himself, got the information required for the purpose of filing this writ petition and if so, who are the persons from whom the petitioner had gathered the information.
On the same day Sri Kistaiah filed a WP No.5717 of 1997 alleging irregularities in Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad and also filed several documents along with writ petition which were supplied by N.K. Prasada.
A Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 21.03.1997 directed the appellant although thence he was number a party number to hand over any record in any pending case which was or is under his investigation to M.V.S. Chowdary till 26.3.1997.
6240 of 1997 which was disposed of along with another public interest litigation being No.
In the said purported public interest litigations alleged malfunctioning of the Commissioner of Central Excise resulting in loss of several crores of rupees as also purported dismantling of the Special Investigating Team headed by the appellant herein were in question.
The writ petitioner, however, instructed his companynsel to withdraw the writ petition stating My companyscience, however, does number permit me to proceed with the said writ petition.
6240 of 1997 by Digumarthi Premchand, said to be a journalist.
PC before the II MM Hyderabad that the person Sri D. Premchand who had surrendered before Honble High Court on 19 9 1997 was number the person who came along with Sri N.K. Prasada and who signed the WP No.6240 of 1997 on 26 3 1997.
MLA, Shadnagar were supplied by Sri N.K. Prasada has stated by Sri K.R. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for Sri B. Kistaiah, Sri Kistaiah also stated before the Honble High Court that Sri N.K. Prasada requested him number to withdraw the petition.
779 of 1997.
8 in one of the public interest litigations being No.
The appellant herein has number questioned the companyrectness or otherwise of the impugned judgment dated 6th July, 1998 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforementioned matters but only is companycerned with certain observations made therein as also imposition of a sum of Rs.
The writ petitioners companytended that the said Special Investigation Team was dismantled by the Commissioner I Central Excise Customs, Hyderabad Commissionerate only with a view to help the dishonest traders and to prevent the cases relating to evasion of excise duty.
The register as well as specimen signatures of Sri N.K. Prasada have been referred to GEQD who opined that the signatures on the register pertains to Sri N.K. Prasada.
Not companytended with filing of the above writ petition Sri N.K. Prasada A2 also got filed another WP No.6240 of 1997 through Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, senior Advocate and Seshagiri Rao, Advocate.
55758 of 1997.
It also stands admitted that even numberdirection had been issued to number the said applications, whence the application filed by the appellants were placed before the Bench.
5717 of 1997 and Contempt Case No.
These two public interest litigations were filed successively by one B. Kistaiah, said to be a former Member of Legislative Assembly and the Writ Petition No.
Investigation also disclosed that on 26 3 1997, Sri D. Premchand was present at Srikakulam and he has number companye to Hyderabad number he signed the affidavit enclose with the WP No.6240 of 1997.
By the aforesaid acts all the accused entered into criminal companyspiracy and fraudulently filed WP No.6240 of 1997 and in which process A3 impersonated A1 under the active companynivance of A2 and thereby played fraud on the higher judiciary.
Despite the fact that the Registry of the High Court was number supposed to receive the said applications without the order of the Honble Chief Justice, the same was done on a wrong premise that a direction in that behalf had been issued by the Chief Justice.
In the companytempt proceedings the writ petitioner was found guilty and punishment till the rising of the companyrt was awarded to the writ petitioner.
B. SINHA, J The appellant herein was respondent No.
The investigation disclosed that the origin of all Phonogram was from public telephone booth bearing No.
The writ petitioner who had been arrayed as respondent No.
The High Court also went into the merit of the matter and arrived at a finding that the writ petitions were filed at the instance of the appellant herein.
A further direction was made to examine how his period of absence can be regularised.
Sri Padmanabham, clerk of Sri Ramachander Rao informed that on 22 5 1997 Sri N.K. Prasada came to the office of Sri Ramachander Rao and asked him for the house motion petition of D. Premchand and Sri Padmanabham showed him the bundle from which Sri N.K. Prasada took out the petition informing him that he is taking the house motion petition of D. Premchand.
8 in the Special Leave application has filed an affidavit.
5717 of 1997 was also said to be issuance of the said order of transfer dated 10.3.1997.
When the said matter was pending, another writ petition marked as W.P. No.
The CBI in its report inter alia opined that the appellant herein was the person working behind the scene.
But Sri D. Premchand with a fraudulent and dishonest intention filed an affidavit before the Honble High Court on 7 11 1997 stating that he himself has signed the affidavit enclosed with the WP No.6240 of 1997 and that he himself filed the petition.
A direction was also issued to find out as to under what circumstances the writ petitioner proposed to withdraw the writ petition as also who were the persons redsponsible for getting the letter of withdrawal filed by the writ petitioner.
