Delhi High Court
Seema Sapra vs General Electric Co. & Ors. on 2 March, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 1280/2012
% Reserved on: 3rd February, 2015
Pronounced on: 2nd March, 2015
SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC for R-5/UOI.
Mr. N.Ganpathy with Mr.Manpreet
Lamba, Adv. for R-1, 6 and 7.
Mr. Om Prakash, Adv. with Ms.
Honey Kolawar, Adv. for Ministry of
` Railways.
Ms. Firdouse Qutbwani Adv. for R-
13.
Mr.Vikram Dhokalia, Advocate for
R-16.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
1. This writ petition, which is essentially in two parts qua the
causes of action and reliefs claimed, can be in one way disposed of by a very
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 1 of 100
short judgment, because, the first part/aspect and the reliefs claimed with
respect thereto of challenge to the 2010 tender process of Railways for
setting up manufacturing units for diesel and electric locomotive tenders has
become infructuous because the tender process has been cancelled by the
Ministry over one and a half years back, and the second part/aspect of the
related reliefs of petitioner's claim as a whistle blower for grant of security
to her by the State is without any basis whatsoever and hence cannot be
granted. The judgment however will have to be a bit prolix in view of the
aspect given below, including the aspect that petitioner has caused 28 judges
of this Court to recuse from hearing the matter and that there have been over
90 hearings in the writ petition and the interim applications mostly filed by
the petitioner.
2. Let us at this stage turn to the relief clauses of the writ petition:-
"1. Summon the records of Respondent Nos. 2,4 and 5 on whistle-
blower complaints made by the Petitioner and after examining the
records and hearing the Respondents, issue a writ of mandamus to
Respondent 4 directing that Respondent 7 be disqualified and
Respondent Nos. 1,6 and 7 be black-listed from the Diesel and
Electric Locomotive Tenders (Global RFQ No.2010/ME
(Proj)/4/Marhoura/RFQ and RFQ No. 2010/Elect. (Dev0 440/1(1).
2. Issue writs of mandamus to Respondent Nos. 2,4 and 5
directing them to respond to and act upon the said whistle-blower
complaints in accordance with law.
3. Direct that Respondent No.2 inquire into commission of
criminal offences (including forgery, bribery and public corruption)
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 2 of 100
arising out of the Petitioner's whistle-blower complaints and direct
prosecution of GE employees and government officials and public
servants found involved and complicit.
4. Enforce and protect the right to life of the Petitioner and direct
that the Petitioner be provided full protection and safety and be
immediately relocated to a safe house.
5. Pass such other and further orders as Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper."
3(i) The first three reliefs pertain to the 2010 tenders process of the
Railways for setting up diesel and electric locomotive manufacturing units at
Madhepura and Marhowra. A reading of the first three reliefs prayed shows
that the petitioner claims that respondent nos. 1,6 and 7, and which are the
G.E.Electric Company and its sister companies (hereinafter jointly referred
to as G.E); be disqualified from the subject tenders and G.E. be also black
listed. Petitioner seeks the related reliefs that respondent nos. 2,4 and 5 i.e
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC); Indian Railways, and ; Prime
Minister's Office (PMO) respectively, act upon the complaints of the
petitioner with respect to the petitioner's claims of forgery, corruption etc
with respect to the aforesaid tenders.
(ii) The fourth relief that the petitioner seeks is that the petitioner
alleges that her life is in danger on account of her acting as a whistle-blower
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 3 of 100
qua the aforesaid tenders, and therefore, she be provided full protection and
safety by the government including by immediate relocation to a safe house.
4. On 31.5.2013, the date fixed in the case, a Division Bench of
this Court recorded the statement made by Sh. Rajeeve Mehra, the then
Additional Solicitor General(ASG) that the tenders in respect of which the
main part of the writ petition pertained to had been cancelled and the entire
process has restarted from the beginning. The writ petition therefore at this
stage itself ordinarily ought to have been brought to an end, inasmuch as,
once the tender process itself had been cancelled, there did not survive any
major aspect or issue, except of course the self-serving claim of the
petitioner that G.E be black listed on account of allegations made by her of
forgery and corruption, but even after the statement of the ASG was
recorded on 31.5.2013, over 40 dates of hearings were still fixed in the writ
petition, and which really was because petitioner did not want that the
proceedings in this petition should come to an end.
5. A few salient features of the case are noted at the very outset
since these aspects will run as a golden thread through the entire case
discussion, and which are as under:-
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 4 of 100
(i) The petitioner's averments in the writ petition are basically only self-
serving allegations, and there is no independent corroborative basis of
documentary evidence to support the allegations which have been made by
the petitioner. The documentary evidence which the petitioner relies upon,
essentially for the major part pertains to but her own correspondence and
communications with different respondents, persons and bodies/entities.
(ii) Petitioner, who is an advocate, and claims to be a whistle blower, was
employed with the respondent no.1 as a legal consultant. The contract
between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 was for 11 months from
21.4.2010 to 20.3.2011, however, petitioner's services were prematurely
terminated in around September 2010. Petitioner therefore is not a dis-
interested person acting bonafidely in filing this Public Interest Litigation
(PIL), and the writ petition has been filed essentially to get even with her
employer for having terminated her contractual services.
(iii) Whenever the writ petition came up before any Bench, the standard
operating procedure of the petitioner was for some totally uncalled for
reason or the other to cause recusal of the Judges constituting the Bench by
expressing lack of confidence in the Bench or making false allegations
against the judges constituting the Bench or creating scenes in Courts etc,
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 5 of 100
and which modalities were adapted even before this Bench, and which had
to conclude the hearings by passing a judicial order for reserving the
judgment in this case.
6. At this stage, we would seek to reproduce the last order dated
3.2.2015 by which the arguments of the petitioner were closed by this Court,
and this order reads as under:-
"1. The petitioner states that she has moved an application for
transfer of this case because she has no faith in this Bench, however in
our opinion we are not bound to recuse ourselves as prayed by the
petitioner. It is noted, and which is seen from the perusal of the record
of this case, that twenty eight Judges of this Court have recused from
hearing this matter on account of similar stance of the petitioner
before those Benches, and against which Benches the petitioner has
made uncalled for remarks and allegations. There are over two
dozen order sheets of different Benches of this Court in this case
which show that inspite of hearings being given to the petitioner,
running into hours and hours, the petitioner has not concluded her
arguments and the case has thus remained pending. A litigant, and a
litigant who is a lawyer, cannot in effect seek change of Benches at
her asking. The prayer made for this Bench to recuse is thus rejected.
2. Though the petitioner states that the matter be adjourned because
the application which she has filed today praying for transfer of the
case from this Court is not on record, we again specifically decline the
request, and order that the petitioner should continue with her
arguments on merits on the writ petition, and for which purpose this
case was fixed today specifically at 3.00 PM vide order dated
22.1.2015.
3. Once again in spite of the repeated directions to the petitioner to
commence her remaining arguments on merits, the petitioner does not
argue the case on merits, and therefore the petitioner is once again
requested to commence her arguments on merits in the writ petition.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 6 of 100
4. At this stage, the petitioner insists that the orders passed by
earlier Benches of this Court be referred to, and reference is
particularly invited to the order of a Division Bench of this Court
dated 16.1.2013, however, in our opinion, since this Court has
commenced the hearing, no earlier order by the Division Bench could
or would have obviously made directions with respect to how this can
be heard on merits by a subsequent Bench. The petitioner is once
again directed to commence her arguments on merits in the writ
petition.
5. Petitioner has now commenced her arguments in the writ
petition.
6. Petitioner has been heard till 4.30 PM.
7. Petitioner states that she has not completed her arguments and
she would need at the very least around 15 to 20 more hearings to
complete her arguments, and even probably many more. We find this
unacceptable in a case like this and especially in view of the earlier
orders of this Court and particularly the last order dated 22.1.2015.
8. Judgment reserved."
7. Before we turn in detail to the conduct of the petitioner
including as noticed in the various orders passed by this Court, and that as
many as 28 judges of this Court had to recuse themselves from the matter,
we would like to set down the various observations of the Supreme Court
made in its different judgments with respect to parameters of entertaining
and deciding a PIL. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in sum and
substance a PIL litigation as is/was intended can be/is a bona fide litigation
and which is not/cannot be a private interest litigation or a politics interest
litigation or a paisa income litigation. Courts have come down with heavy
hands on the regular misuse of PILs by certain sections of the citizens of this
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 7 of 100
country whereby the entire objects of a PIL were being defeated, inasmuch
as the concept of PIL was created by judicial pronouncements with respect
to matters of essentially far reaching public interest and for those
circumstances where the downtrodden and weak sections of the community
could not approach the courts and therefore they were represented before
Courts by public spirited persons who filed PILs on their behalf. Wherever
underlining is given hereinafter in this judgment, the same is for showing
importance/emphasis to the relevant observations.
8. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Narmada
Bachao Andolan 2011 (7) SCC 639 Supreme Court has observed that in a
PIL petition not only there has to exist requisite pleadings, but also that such
pleadings have to be substantiated effectively. Supreme Court has further
observed that PILs should not be entertained so that the persons achieve
oblique motives through the beneficient route of a PIL. Supreme Court has
cautioned that a PIL should not be converted into a roving and fishing
enquiry and that very high standards of responsibility are expected from a
litigant who approaches this Court by filing a PIL. The aforesaid relevant
observations of the case along with the other related observations are
contained in the following paragraphs of this judgment of the Supreme
Court:-
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 8 of 100
"Public interest litigation
156. It has often been stated that PIL jurisdiction should be exercised
cautiously in matters that primarily require the attention of the
democratic process, or the State or those issues whose crevices and
complexities the court may not easily unravel, and comparatively
generously in cases involving public interest of sections of people
for whom the administration of justice and its reach are not effective
and the rights delivery processes, are shown to be weakened by
power and influence. (Vide: R. and M. Trust v. Koramangla
Residents Vigilance Group).
157. Where the cause of action is genuinely in the general public
interest, the court will relax the requirement of bona fides and
appoint an amicus curiae to deal with the matter and keep the matter
out of the power of the original applicant. [Vide: M/s Holicow
Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and A. Abdul Farook
(supra)].
158. The 'rights' of the public interest litigant in a PIL are always
subordinate to the 'interests' of those for whose benefit the action is
brought. The status of dominus litis could not be conferred
unreflectively or for the asking on a PIL Petitioner as that would
render the proceedings "vulnerable to and susceptible of a new
dimension which might, in conceivable cases be used by persons for
personal ends resulting in prejudice to the public weal". (vide:Sheela
Barse v. Union of India and Ors.).
159. The standard of expectation of civic responsibility required of a
Petitioner in a PIL is higher than that of an applicant who strives to
realise personal ends. The courts expect a public interest litigant to
discharge high standards of responsibility. Negligent use or use for
oblique motives is extraneous to the PIL process for were the litigant
to act for other oblique considerations, the application will be
rejected at the threshold. Measuring the 'seriousness' of the PIL
Petitioner and to see whether she/he is actually a 'champion' of the
cause of the individual or the group being represented, is the
responsibility of the Court, to ensure that the party's procedural
behaviour remains that of an adequate 'champion' of the public
cause. (Vide: The Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, Kapila Hingorani
(1) v. State of Bihar and Kusum Lata v. Union of India.)
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 9 of 100
160. The constitutional courts have time and again reiterated that
abuse of the noble concept of PIL is increasing day-by-day and to
curb this abuse there should be explicit and broad guidelines for
entertaining petitions as PILs. This Court in State of Uttaranchal v.
Balwant Singh Chaufal has given a set of illustrative guidelines,
inter alia:
(i) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the
correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(ii) The court should also ensure that there is no oblique motive
behind filing the public interest litigation, etc. etc.
Therefore, while dealing with PIL, the Court has to be vigilant and it
must ensure that the forum of the Court be neither abused nor used
to achieve an oblique purpose.
MISLEADING STATEMENT AMOUNTS TO CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT
161. A person seeking relief in public interest should approach the
Court of Equity, not only with clean hands but also with a clean
mind, clean heart and clean objective. Thus, he who seeks equity
must do equity. The legal maxim "Jure Naturae Aequum Est
Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem",
means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by
the loss or injury to another. The judicial process should never
become an instrument of oppression or abuse or means to subvert
justice.
162. "The interest of justice and public interest coalesce. They are
very often one and the same". Therefore, the Courts have to weigh
the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest. A petition containing
misleading and inaccurate statement(s), if filed, to achieve an
ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and
such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly. Thus, a litigant
is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts". The Court is not
a forum to achieve an oblique purpose.
163. Whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of
the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to
proceed further with the matter. This rule has been evolved out of
need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 10 of 100
Court by deceiving it. However, the concealed fact must be material
one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have an
effect on the merit of the case/order. The legal maxim "Juri Ex
Injuria Non Oritur" means that a right cannot arise out of wrong
doing, and it becomes applicable in a case like this. (Vide: Ramjas
Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India, Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L.
Anand, Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra, Sabia Khan v. State of U.P., S.J.S. Business
Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Union of India v.
Shantiranjan Sarkar.)
164. It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in
the Court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the Court and
obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends
to impede the administration of justice. It adversely affects the
interest of the public in the administration of justice. Every party is
under a legal obligation to make truthful statements before the Court,
for the reason that causing an obstruction in the due course of justice
"undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled stream of
justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one can be
permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity".
(Vide: Naraindas v. Government of M.P., The Advocate General,
State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries and Afzal and Anr. v. State
of Haryana)."
(underlining added)
9. In the case of State of Uttranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal
& Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402, Supreme Court has observed that PIL filed for
extraneous consideration must be discouraged and that it should be
entertained only where larger public interest is involved. Supreme Court has
observed that the matter urged through the PIL must be so grave and urgent
that it has to take precedents over other matters which have to be dealt with
by the Court. Supreme Court has observed that when the petitioner is a
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 11 of 100
lawyer then such a lawyer is expected to do research before filing PIL.
Supreme Court has also noted that credentials of the petitioner have to be
verified before entertaining the PIL and in the PIL there should not be an
issue of private motive for filing the PIL. The principles with respect to PIL
have been culled out in para 181 of this judgment and which read as under:-
"181. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL,
it has become imperative to issue the following directions:
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and
effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous
considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure
for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be
appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for
encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with
oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts
who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within
three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is
directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High
Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately
thereafter.
(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the
petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.
(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the
correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a
PIL.
(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public
interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger
public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over
other petitions.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 12 of 100
(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the
PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.
The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private
motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest
litigation.
(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by
busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be
discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar
novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed
for extraneous considerations."
(underlining added)
10 In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of West Bengal
& Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 349, Supreme Court has observed that PILs have to
be admitted with great care because duty of court is for redressal of a
genuine public wrong or a public injury, and PIL cannot be publicity
oriented or founded on personal vendetta or political disputes or further
disputes not relatable to public interest. Supreme Court has specifically
observed that there is value to be placed on the time of courts and
serpentine queues of genuine litigants should not be overlooked on account
of so called PILs, which results in wastage of precious judicial time.
Supreme Court has further observed that the petitioner in a PIL who
approaches the Court must approach the Court with a clean heart, clean
mind and a clean objective and courts should not allow some persons with
vested interests to indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 13 of 100
on account of improper motives. The relevant paras of this judgment are
paras 4,12, 14 and 15 and which paras read as under:-
"4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public
interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal
disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the
issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the
issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which
has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law
should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest
litigation". or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise
income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it
becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and
wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public
interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight
errant or poke ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a
person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or
satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should
not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to
the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will
alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out
violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory
provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political
motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted
by this Court in The Janta Dal case (supra) and Kazi Lhendup
Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, : (1992)ILLJ922SC . A writ
petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must
come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also
with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. See Ramjas
Foundation v. Union of India, : AIR1993SC852 and K.R.
Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, : (1994)6SCC620 .
12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with
great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely
careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly
private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It
is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering
social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public
interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 14 of 100
mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or
public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal
vendetta. As Indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body
of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting
bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political
motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its
process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with
vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process
either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are
actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions
of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the
threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the
applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information
given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The
information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has
to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should
be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the
character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid
mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable
executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be
liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of
redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere
reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The
Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy
bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy
men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in
the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the
public or even of their own to protect.
15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent
law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by
interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to
interfere where it is against the social interest and public good.
(See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, : (1995)ILLJ622SC ) and Andhra
Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and
Anr., : [1994]1SCR857 . No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on
the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the
manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a
licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B.K.
Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, : 1996CriLJ3983 ). Today people rush
to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 15 of 100
interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the
public."
(underlining added)
11. In the case of Dr. B.Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.
(2004) 3 SCC 363, Supreme Court has similarly observed that courts must
caution itself against petitions which are styled as public interest litigations
but are in fact not so. Supreme Court has observed that before admitting a
PIL Court must be satisfied about the credentials of the applicant, prima
facie correctness and information given in the petition, and the information
being not vague and indefinite. In the petition, there must be laid out a
concrete or credible basis for maintaining a cause before the court and the
petition cannot be an adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful
thinking. The credibility of a PIL should be adjudged on the
creditworthiness of the material averred. Supreme Court has also observed
in this judgment that public interest litigation should not become politics
interest litigation or private interest litigation or publicity interest litigation
or paisa income litigation.
12. In the case of Neetu Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2007) 10
SCC 614, Supreme Court has cautioned against use of PIL to unleash a
private vendetta or personal grouse.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 16 of 100
13. In the case of Kansing Kalusing Thakore & Ors. Vs. Rabari
Maganbhai Vashrambhai & Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 360, Supreme Court has
observed that PILs are not meant for persons to seek redressal of their
personal grievances or their personal vendetta. It has been observed in this
judgment that non-maintainable PILs must be thrown out at the
outset/threshold itself.
14. In the case of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union
of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333, Supreme Court has observed that every
matter of public interest cannot be a PIL and PIL is not a panacea for all
wrongs. Supreme Court has reminded that the entire intention with respect
to carving out of the doctrine of public interest litigation was to protect
basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and such process
was innovated with respect to public spirited persons on account of the fact
that persons who had to initiate the litigation, such persons on account of
poverty, helplessness or economic/social disabilities could not approach
the court. The relevant paras of this judgment are paras 77, 79 and 80 and
which paras read as under:-
"77. Public Interest Litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly
known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be
incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated
this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 17 of 100
was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and
other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or
economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek
legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be
adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative
effort of the parties and the Court so as to secure justice for the
poor and the weaker Sections of the community who were not in a
position to protect their own interests. Public Interest Litigation was
intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said
viz., "litigation in the interest of the public."
79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any
foundation that Public Interest Litigation is now tending to become
publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a
tendency to be counter productive.
80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially
meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the
disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a
public spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such
person who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and
social disabilities could not approach the Court for relief. There
have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL.
Therefore, there is a need to re-emphasize the parameters within
which PIL can be resorted to by a Petitioner and entertained by the
Court. This aspect has come up for consideration before this Court
and all we need to be is to recapitulate and re-emphasize the same."
(underlining added)
15. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the Supreme
Court as regards PILs, it is found that the facts of the present case show
that the present writ petition suffers from all the ills which the Supreme
Court has reminded time and again that PILs should not suffer from including
that they should not be a private interest litigation filed on account of
animosity/vendetta. The effect of the present PIL continuing in this
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 18 of 100
court for 90 hearings and over three years, is that the same has resulted in
gross and criminal wastage of judicial time, and, time being deprived for
the courts to look into cases of other litigants who have been waiting for
years together in queue for their cases to be heard in their normal turn.
The present writ petition, its filing, its unnecessary continuation in spite of
the 2010 tenders being cancelled by the government, unnecessary and
repeated applications being filed in the same (running into around 35 in
number most of which are only of the petitioner), petitioner levelling all
kinds of false allegations against different Benches of this court left right
and centre and petitioner making uncalled for allegations against almost
anyone and everyone who in some way have been remotely concerned
with the subject matter though not really related to the case in any manner,
shows that the present case is a classic case of the abuse of the PIL
process. In order to show such malafides of the petitioner, some orders
which have been passed by different Benches of this Court from time to time
would be required to be referred to and such orders would include orders of
recusal of different Benches of this Court and the same are as under:-
Order dated 7.3.2012
"1. On 05.03.2012, the petitioner, who appears in person, had
stated that she had filed an affidavit in the Registry on 02.03.2012.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 19 of 100
As the same was not on record, the matter was adjourned for
today.
2. A perusal of the file shows that in this duration, the petitioner
has filed three additional affidavits, the first one is dated
03.03.2012 and the other two are both dated 05.03.2012. In the two
affidavits filed by the petitioner on 05.03.2012, she has requested
this Court to recuse itself from hearing the present petition. The
averments made in both the affidavits are completely baseless and
the allegations levelled, a figment of the petitioner's imagination.
The same have been made only to overawe the Court. However, the
Court is neither overawed nor is it cowed down by the averments
made by the petitioner in the affidavits and it declines her request to
recuse itself in the matter.
3. It is relevant to note that the petitioner is a practicing
advocate. Simply because she is appearing in person does not mean
that she can claim the same latitude that an ordinary litigant
appearing in person can. She is well aware of the manner in which
a member of the Bar is expected to conduct herself in Court. She is
also expected to be aware of the fact that a certain decorum is
required to be maintained by counsels, while addressing arguments
in Court. The petitioner ought to be mindful of the tone and tenor of
the averments made by her in the affidavits filed on record. The
averments made by the petitioner in the first affidavit dated
05.03.2012, particularly, paras 30 and 37 thereof and in the second
affidavit of the same date, particularly, para 23 thereof as also many
of her utterances today are scandalous and on the face of it,
contemptuous. Despite the same, for the present, the Court is
refraining from initiating contempt proceedings against the
petitioner, while warning her to maintain decorum in Court and
behave in a manner that behoves a counsel while addressing
arguments and filing affidavits. In future, any misdemeanour on her
part shall be viewed seriously.
4. Coming to the writ petition, issue notice. For the present, it is
deemed appropriate to confine the notice to respondents No.1 to 7
and respondent No.12.
5. Counsels for respondent No.4/Indian Railways, respondent
No.5/UOI and respondent No.12/CBI accept notice. They state
that they have received copies of the paper book as filed by the
petitioner originally, but they have not been served with copies of
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 20 of 100
the additional affidavits filed by her subsequently. The petitioner
shall furnish copies of the additional affidavits to the counsels for
the respondents. Counter affidavits be filed within four weeks with
copies to the petitioner, who may file rejoinders before the next
date of hearing.
6. Process fee be filed by the petitioner for effecting service on
respondents No.1 to 3, 6 and 7 by Regd. AD post, through ordinary
process as also by courier, returnable before the Registrar on 25th
April, 2012, for completion of service and pleadings.
List in Court on 19th July, 2012.
CM 2770/2012 (for interim orders)
1. This application is filed by the petitioner for being provided
protection and for being relocated to a safe house. On being asked
if she is seeking any directions to respondent No.3/Delhi Police to
offer her protection, the petitioner states that she is being extended
threats by the police and therefore, does not want any directions to
be issued to Delhi Police for protection. Instead, she states that
respondent No.5/UOI be directed to provide her protection.
2. Counsel for respondent No.5/UOI submits that no such
arrangement for grant of protection as sought by the petitioner can
be made by respondent No.5/UOI.
3. Orders on the present application can be passed only after
perusing the replies of the respondents. Replies to this application
be filed within three weeks with copies to the petitioner, who may
file rejoinders, if necessary, before the next date of hearing.
List on 9th May, 2012.
HIMA KOHLI, J"
Order dated 9.5.2012
"On 07.03.2012, the request made by the petitioner to this
Court to recuse itself in the matter was declined for reasons
elaborated in the said order. However, yet another request to the
same effect is made by the petitioner today. Though the affidavits
relied upon by the petitioner in support of her submission for
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 21 of 100
recusal were found to be devoid of merits, to dispel the impression
of the petitioner that justice is not being dispensed to her by this
Court, the Court declines to hear the matter any further.
List before the appropriate Bench, on 14th May, 2012 subject
to the orders of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.
HIMA KOHLI, J"
Order dated 14.5.2012
" When respondent's counsel sought time to respond to this
petition, petitioner pressed for ex parte ad interim relief of stay of
the tender process and for immediate police protection.
Realizing the gravity of this matter, petitioner has been heard
for about two hours and still she complaints that she is not allowed
to address the Court. This is preposterous. The petitioner wants to
address the Court for hours together by going through the
documents which are indeed voluminous. Instead of answering the
Court queries, she speaks extempore and when called upon to
refer to the documents, she states that this petition has been
drafted in a hurry.
The adamant conduct of the petitioner, who claims to be a
practicing lawyer persuades this Court not to hear this matter any
further.
List before some other Bench on 16th May, 2012, after
obtaining orders from Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice.
SUNIL GAUR, J"
Order dated 16.5.2012
"This court is not inclined to hear this matter.
Subject to orders of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, put up
before another Bench on 25.05.2012".
INDERMEET KAUR, J"
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 22 of 100
Order dated 26.11.2012
"This application has been moved to seek clarification of the
order dated 19.11.2012. According to me, no clarification is
necessary.
The application is dismissed.
The Registry shall ensure that on steps being taken by the
petitioner, all unserved respondents will be served by all modes
which are permissible. Dasti as well.
Despite aforesaid directions having been issued, Ms Seema
Sapra did not permit the court proceedings to continue. Resultantly,
I had to rise from court. Even though the petitioner was repeatedly
requested, by my court staff to vacate the court, so that the
remaining matters on board could be taken up, she refused to
comply. On account of this behaviour of Ms Seema Sapra, I was
unable to resume the court proceedings for nearly forty minutes,
prior to lunch. Even post lunch, despite request by the court staff,
the petitioner has refused to vacate the court. I was constrained to
direct the Registrar General of this court to take necessary measures
for having the petitioner escorted out of the court.
I am informed by the registry that contempt proceeding in
CONT.CAS(Crl.) 3/2012 have been initiated by this court against
the petitioner on a suo motu reference. The Division Bench in the
said case has directed that the case file pertaining to the captioned
writ petition, alongwith OMP No. 647/2012, be placed before it, on
24.01.2013.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances; which prima facie
tantamount to willfully obstructing and interfering with conduct of
judicial proceedings, the registry is directed not to list any
application of the petitioner till such time further orders are passed
in CONT.CAS.(Crl.) 3/2012. The proceedings of today shall also
be placed before the Division Bench hearing the contempt petition
for appropriate orders.
List before the Division Bench IV on 30.11.2012 subject to orders
of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J"
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 23 of 100
Order dated 16.1.2013
"1. Learned counsel appears on behalf of Siemens Ltd. Learned
counsel states that appearance is being entered on account of the
reason that summons issued for respondent No.13 named
?Siemens India? have been received by 'Siemens Limited'.
2. We are noting as aforesaid and instructing petitioner to amend
the Memo of Parties by correctly describing respondent No.13.
3. Let Vakalatnamas be filed by counsel who have appeared
today in Court on behalf of respondents No.13 to 16.
4. None appears for respondent No.17. The petitioner who
appears in person states that said respondent be not proceeded ex-
parte today as she is hopeful that respondent No.17 would
certainly enter appearance and file a counter affidavit.
5. Counter affidavits be filed by respondents No.13 to 17 within
six weeks.
CM No. 2770/2012, 8677/2012, 19370/2012, 19501/2012,
19683/2012, 19820/2012, 105/2013, 428/2013 and 522/2013
1. Various issues have been raised in these applications and we
have requested the petitioner who appears in person to prioritize
the issues which the petitioner wants to argue and be decided by
this Court in seriatim.
2. As we direct, as afore-noted, the petitioner who appears in
person rises and states that it may be recorded in the order that as
she is being prevented from making submissions and the Court is
repeatedly threatening to transfer the matter.
3. Pointing out to the police officers present in Court, the
petitioner alleges an attempt being made by them to kill her. The
petitioner states that when she was living in Jangpura these police
officers had tried to poison her and kill her.
4. Since the petitioner insists that said facts be recorded in the
order-sheet, we have done so. The petitioner desires to file an
affidavit recording as to what transpired in the Court today.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 24 of 100
5. We may clarify that in the writ petition, above-noted civil
miscellaneous applications have been filed by the petitioner.
6. The record of the writ petition, as on today, has reached page
No.4999.
7. The writ petition raises an issue pertaining to 2 tenders floated
by the Indian Railways being on Global RFQ No.2010/ME
(Project)/4/Marhoura/RFQ and RFQ No.2010/Elect.(Dev/440/1(1)).
The petitioner who claims to be a whistle blower wants directions
to be issued against respondent No.2 i.e. Central Vigilance
Commission to inquire into the criminal offences which petitioner
claims are manifest from the complaints made by her against
employees of General Electric Company as also the government
servants. The petitioner also seeks protection and safety by being
immediately relocated to a safe house.
8. With reference to the substantive issues raised in respect
whereof we find that large number of sub-issues are being raised
with reference to vakalatnamas filed, counter-affidavits filed,
authority of the persons deposing to the affidavits or vakalatnamas
executed, meaning thereby even the right of a particular counsel to
represent a party is being questioned.
9. The hearing of the various issues in the multifarious form as
they are projected before us would require, even if day to day
hearing is held, at least 10 to 15 days. Considering the heavy Board
which we are currently dealing with, it will not be possible to
devote 15 to 20 days exclusively to the matter and thus we direct
the Registry to place the instant writ petition along with our order
before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the Administrative Side who
may consider to either constitute a Special Bench which could
devote daily hearing to the writ petition or grant at least 2 weeks
time to this Bench to exclusively hear the instant writ petition and
in that period the Board of this Bench be taken over by some other
Bench.
10. The matter should be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice
on the Administrative Side tomorrow.
11. The parties are requested to be in touch with the Registry to
ascertain what orders are passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on
the Administrative Side.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 25 of 100
12. Subject to orders which may be passed by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice the writ petition and the application would be listed on
January 23, 2013.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J."
Order dated 24.1.2013
"These matters cannot be heard by the present Bench.
List before another Bench in which one of us (Justice S.
Ravindra Bhat) is not a member, subject to orders of Hon'ble the
Chief Justice, on 30th January, 2013.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J"
Order dated 30.1.2013
"List before another Bench, of which, neither of us is a
member, on 04.02.2013, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
R.V.EASWAR, J"
Order dated 1.2.2013
"Subject to the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, list on
04.02.2013 before another bench of which one of us, namely,
Sanjiv Khanna, J. is not a member.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J"
Order dated 27.2.2013
"CM No.2477/2013
The petitioner who appears in person seeks an adjournment to
support her plea that this is maintainable in the present proceedings.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 26 of 100
List for hearing on this application on 18th April, 2013.
WP(C) No. 1280/2012
The petitioner has vehemently complained that she is
homeless and needs accommodation. Without going into any legal
issues, we have suggested to the petitioner that we could refer her
case to the authorities under the Ministry of Women and Child
Development to see if she can be given accommodation under any
scheme of Government. The petitioner has categorically refused the
suggestion. She submits that she would move an appropriate
application giving reasons as to why she does not want the facility
from the State and setting out the kind of protection and
accommodation which is appropriate for her based on evidence and
facts which are on record.
Dasti."
GITA MITTAL, J
J.R.MIDHA, J."
Order dated 18.4.2013
"1. The petitioner submits that she is in the process of drafting
and filing an application seeking transfer of the matter from this
court and prays for an adjournment.
2. The petitioner has also expressed the grave concern to her life
and security on the ground that she has been rendered homeless and
is living out in her own car.
3. When this was expressed before us on the 27th of February,
2013, we had proposed to examine the possibility of assistance
being given to the petitioner under any scheme which may be
under implementation by the Government. The petitioner had
expressed complete abhorrence to the suggestion which was
th
recorded by this court in the order dated 27 February, 2013. The
petitioner submits that she has rejected the proposal because
according to her the only facility available with the State is that of
the Nari Niketan and Nirmal Chhaya, which does not befit her
status as an advocate. This stand is unfortunate as there is every
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 27 of 100
possibility of some facility being available where the petitioner
could be accommodated.
Inasmuch as the petitioner is completely opposing the order
even calling for a report with regard to the possibility of any
reasonable facilities being made available to her by the Ministry
of Women and Child Welfare, we are unable to make any
directions on this issue. The petitioner submits that she is seeking
directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
4. The petitioner states that her only submission is that the
suggestion that she be sent to Nari Niketan or Nirmal Chhaya is
atrocious and that she has not said anything else. This court has not
made this suggestion at all.
5. The petitioner has vehemently complained that she is being
poisoned and running since mid May, 2010. It is her contention
that the respondents are actively conniving and conspiring against
her and trying to poison her. Allegations are made by the petitioner
that the Chief Medical Officer of the Delhi High Court Medical
Centre as well as doctors in the Max Hospital have tampered with
her medical records and she has made complaints against them. The
petitioner submits that she has placed such reports on record. She
submits that she has reported this matter to the highest in the
judiciary who are not helping her. The petitioner has submitted that
she has requested the Executive Members of the Delhi High Court
Bar Association who have refused to help. The petitioner submits
that yesterday her car was tampered with and broken into outside
the Delhi High Court premises.
Given the grave apprehensions being expressed by the
petitioner against almost every possible authority as well as the
fact that she submits that she is sleeping in public places in a
vehicle, we are deeply concerned about the life and property of the
petitioner. The petitioner certainly needs adequate protection.
6. In view of the above, we direct as follows: -
(i) List the writ petition on 22nd April, 2013, as requested by the
petitioner.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 28 of 100
(ii) A direction is issued to the Commissioner of Police, Police
Headquarters, New Delhi to ensure that adequate steps are
immediately taken to secure the life and property of the petitioner.
(iii) The Registrar General of this Court shall monitor the
compliance of our directions.
(iv) All pending applications be also listed on the next date of
hearing.
(v) The registry shall list any application which is filed by the
petitioner in accordance with the Delhi High Court Rules.
CM No.2477/2013
7. We had expressed reservation about the maintainability of the
application, inter alia, on the ground that the prayer made in this
application is way beyond the prayer made in the main writ
petition.
8. On request of the petitioner, list on 16th May, 2013.
9. On request of the petitioner, dasti copy under the signature of
the Court Master of this Court shall be delivered to the petitioner
at 11.00 a.m. on 20th April, 2013 (Saturday).
CM Nos. 2770/2012, 7175/2012, 8677/2012, 8856/2012 and
18642/2012
List on 16th May, 2013.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J"
Order dated 22.4.2013
"The petitioner who appears in person submits that an
application seeking transfer has been filed in the Registry today
morning and the same requires to be considered before
consideration of the writ petition. She proposes to file another writ
petition during the course of the day.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 29 of 100
On request of the petitioner, list on 16th May, 2012, the date
already fixed.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J"
Order dated 29.4.2013
" 1. Ms. Seema Sapra, petitioner appearing in person submits that
there is an error in recording the order on the 22nd April, 2013. She
submits that on that date that she had stated that she had filed an
application seeking directions against the doctors at the Max and
Apollo hospitals and an the application seeking directions against
officials of the respondent Nos. 1 and 6, and not an application
seeking transfer to the present writ petition. She submits that she
had proposed to file an application seeking recusal by one of us
(Gita Mittal, J ) from hearing the present writ petition during the
course of the day. It is pointed out that the order has erroneously
recorded that the application seeking transfer has been filed in the
Registry. According to Ms. Sapra, she does not wish to file another
writ petition but was making the reference to the application for
recusal.
2. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner before us
today, it is directed that the order dated 22nd April, 2013 shall
stand recalled and substituted by the following order:
"The petitioner who appears in person submits that she
has filed an application seeking directions against the
doctors at the Max Hospital and Apollo Hospital and
another application seeking directions against officials of
Respondent Nos. 1 and 6. She proposes to file an
application seeking recusal by one of us (Gita Mittal, J)
from hearing the present writ petition during the course
of the day.
On request of the petitioner, list on 16th May, 2013,
the date already fixed."
3. The petitioner submits that for the reason that order
dated 22nd April, 2011 was not made available to her on the
internet and that the court record was not made available to her
for inspection, she could not file the application for recusal.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 30 of 100
She states that her prayer for recusal has to be considered
before the writ petition or any other application could be
considered and prays for an adjournment to file such
application.
4. On request of the petitioner, list for directions on 1st May,
2013.
5. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master to the
petitioner.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J"
Order dated 1.5.2013
"1. The petitioner submits that she has not been able to file the
application because she is being harassed by the police and was
compelled to be at the Police Station till 2.00 A.M in the morning.
She submits that she wants to file an affidavit seeking initiation of
Contempt of Court against the police enclosing e-mails and a CD of
video and audio footage taken by her of the harassment she has
faced at the hands of the police.
2. She again submits that she will not file the affidavit till one
of us on this Bench (Gita Mittal, J) recuses from hearing this case
and she will be making an application for recusal.
3. The petitioner is an Advocate in person appearing before us
who submits that she has been rendered homeless. The petitioner
has stated that she is sleeping in her car on public streets which
necessitated the passing of our order dated 18th April, 2013.
4. On our query, the petitioner informs that she is enrolled with
the Delhi Bar Council. The petitioner refuses to answer the query as
to whether she is a member of the Delhi High Court Bar
Association.
5. We are deeply concerned about the welfare and security of the
petitioner in view of her homeless condition. Consequently a
direction is issued to the Secretary of the Delhi Bar Council to
urgently examine the petitioner?s case under any scheme that it has
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 31 of 100
available for the benefit and welfare of Advocates enrolled with
them and submit a report before us.
We note that we are making this direction despite the petitioner's
opposition to the making of this direction today.
Such report shall be placed by the Secretary, Delhi Bar Council
within one week from today given the urgency of the matter.
6. List for this purpose alone on 16th May, 2013.
7. This direction is being made suo moto and is without
prejudice to any prayer that the petitioner may have made in any
application filed so far.
8. So far as the main matter is concerned, the same shall be
listed and taken up after consideration of the petitioner's
application for recusal, as and when she chooses to file.
Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J"
Order dated 16.5.2013
"1. Pursuant to our order dated 1st May, 2013, Mr. Rajesh Jatain,
Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Murrari Tiwari, Secretary of
Delhi Bar Council and prays for time to place the report with
regard to our query recorded in the order dated 1st May, 2013.
The same shall be positively placed before us within one week
from today.
2. On the 18th of April, 2013, a direction had been issued to the
Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, New Delhi to ensure
that adequate steps are taken to secure the life and property of the
petitioner. We have not received any report with regard to the
compliance of our said order till date.
3. A direction is issued to Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Criminal) of the Government of NCT of Delhi
to appear in this matter and place compliance report of the
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 32 of 100
directions made by us on the 18th of April, 2013 within one week
from today. The Registry shall list the report as soon as it is
received.
4. An objection is taken by Mr. N. Ganpathy, learned counsel
appearing for respondents no.1,6 and 7 to the effect that inasmuch
as the contempt has been issued to the petitioner, she has first to
purge herself from contempt before she can address this Court.
This aspect of the matter would be examined when the writ
petition is taken up for hearing.
CM No.6096/2013
1. This application has been placed before us today. The
application runs into 192 pages. The petitioner submits that she
has made detailed averments of the reasons, premised whereon,
she calls upon this Bench (both members) to recuse ourselves
from hearing the writ petition. Before passing orders on this
application, it is necessary to examine the averments made therein
which is not possible within the available time.
2. So far as service of copy of this application on the parties in
this writ petition is concerned, the petitioner submits that she has e-
mailed a copy of this application to all parties/lawyers and has filed
proof thereof on record.
3. Our attention has been drawn to internal pages 186 to 192 (at
page 7087 to 7093 of the paper book) of the record which would
show that the application appears to have been sent to not only the
respondents but several other persons and authorities. The
petitioner submits that in view of her apprehension and the
averments regarding ongoing attempts to eliminate her, she has
applied for asylum and protection to the United States of America,
China and Switzerland and has therefore sent copy of this
application to authorities in these three countries as well as their
embassies. She states that she sends copy of every pleading in the
case to these countries. She further states that she sends all e-mails
in this matter to the media, members of media, embassies and
several persons she deems necessary as well as the respondents.
Without going to the propriety of the action of the petitioner in first
sending copies of pleadings being filed in the court to the media as
well as the every other authority/person detailed at pages 7087 to
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 33 of 100
7093 of the paper book, we grant liberty to the respondents to file
response to this application, if any, within one week from today.
4. The petitioner objects to grant of time to the respondents to
file reply on the ground that they have no locus so far as this
application is concerned. A perusal of the application would show
that serious allegations have been made by the petitioner against
the parties to this case as well as against the police in the
application and as such they would be entitled to respond to the
allegations made against them in this application respectively.
5. Given the averments made in this application and the nature
of allegations made by the petitioner, we appoint Mr. Arvind
Nigam, Advocate as amicus curiae to assist us in this matter.
4. The Registry shall ensure that complete paper book including
copies of order sheets are made available to amicus curiae before
the next date of hearing.
List on 18th July, 2013.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J"
Order dated 31.5.2013
"CM No.7197/2013
1. Issue notice to the non-applicants, returnable on the date
fixed.
Counsels for the non-applicants who are present in court today,
accept notice.
2. At this stage, the petitioner points out that before
commencing her submissions on this application, she had sought
recusal by this court from the present matter.
3. It may be noted that the petitioner has filed an application in
this regard being CM No.6096/2013 on which the following order
was recorded on 16th May, 2013:-
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 34 of 100
"CM No.6096/2013
1. This application has been placed before us today. The
application runs into 192 pages. The petitioner submits
that she has made detailed averments of the reasons,
premised whereon, she calls upon this Bench (both
members) to recuse ourselves from hearing the writ petition.
Before passing orders on this application, it is necessary to
examine the averments made therein which is not possible
within the available time.
2. So far as service of copy of this application on the
parties in this writ petition is concerned, the petitioner
submits that she has e- mailed a copy of this application to
all parties/lawyers and has filed proof thereof on record.
3. Our attention has been drawn to internal pages 186 to
192 (at page 7087 to 7093 of the paper book) of the record
which would show that the application appears to have been
sent to not only the respondents but several other persons
and authorities. The petitioner submits that in view of her
apprehension and the averments regarding ongoing attempts
to eliminate her, she has applied for asylum and protection
to the United States of America, China and Switzerland and
has therefore sent copy of this application to authorities in
these three countries as well as their embassies. She states
that she sends copy of every pleading in the case to these
countries. She further states that she sends all e-mails in this
matter to the media, members of media, embassies and
several persons she deems necessary as well as the
respondents. Without going to the propriety of the action
of the petitioner in first sending copies of pleadings being
filed in the court to the media as well as the every other
authority/person detailed at pages 7087 to 7093 of the paper
book, we grant liberty to the respondents to file response to
this application, if any, within one week from today.
4. The petitioner objects to grant of time to the respondents
to file reply on the ground that they have no locus so far as
this application is concerned. A perusal of the application
would show that serious allegations have been made by the
petitioner against the parties to this case as well as against
the police in the application and as such they would be
entitled to respond to the allegations made against them in
this application respectively.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 35 of 100
5. Given the averments made in this application and the
nature of allegations made by the petitioner, we appoint
Mr. Arvind Nigam, Advocate as amicus curiae to assist us
in this matter.
4. The Registry shall ensure that complete paper book
including copies of order sheets are made available to
amicus curiae before the next date of hearing.
List on 18th July, 2013."
4. It may be noted that this application runs into 192 pages and
is yet to be heard. Certainly recusal cannot be directed at the mere
asking of the parties especially when she has opted to make an
application running into so many pages.
5. The petitioner makes a submission that she presses for recusal
by this court (which application is to be heard on 18th of July,
2013) before any orders are passed on the present application. In
view of this submission, we hereby recall our order issuing the
notice thereon. List this application consequently after
consideration of the application for recusal.
6. It is submitted by Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, leraned ASG that
the tender in respect of which the main writ petition was filed,
stands cancelled and the entire process has re-started from the
beginning.
7. The petitioner would also therefore have to show as to how
the prayer in the present application would be covered in the
prayers made in this writ petition.
List this application on 18th of July, 2013.
Status report dated 22nd May, 2013 filed by the Delhi Police
8. Given the allegations which are made by the petitioner with
regard to the threat to her life and liberty, we were inclined to take
up the subject matter of the Status Report in camera proceedings.
The petitioner has vehemently objected to this and has insisted
that the status report be considered in open court. Our concern was
resting largely on the revelation of the petitioner's address or
location or discussion of her security measures in open court to the
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 36 of 100
public at large. Given the objections of the petitioner, the report is
therefore taken up in open court.
9. The petitioner submits that she wishes to file a reply to the
status report. The same may be filed within six weeks from today.
The Delhi Police is at liberty to respond to the reply filed by the
petitioner.
10. In the meantime, given the request by the South-East district
of the Delhi Police in this report, it is directed that in case the
petitioner is required to be protected in the South-East district,
Navjyoti Development Society, an NGO, shall assist the Delhi
Police (South-East district)
11. We may note that the petitioner insists that because of threat
and attempts to murder made on her by the police of South-East
district, she is not going within the boundaries of the South-East
district.
12. Despite repeated queries from the court as to the position
where she would require to be protected, she is not willing to give
an answer.
List this report for consideration on 18th July, 2013
13. The Delhi Police shall ensure compliance of the directions
made by us by the order dated 18th April, 2013.
Dasti to parties.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J"
Order dated 18.7.2013
"1. Status report dated 18th July, 2013 has been filed by Mr.
Dayan Krishnan, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi
Police in sealed cover in the court today. Copy of the same has
been handed over to the petitioner.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 37 of 100
The petitioner has objected to the report being kept in sealed
cover. The sealed cover is accordingly opened in the court and the
Status Report dated 18th July, 2013 is taken on record.
2. Amongst several others, the petitioner levels the following
allegations against the Delhi Police:-
(i) The petitioner lived in 'Ginger Hotel' at Vivek
Vihar, Delhi for fifteen days till the Police started
poisoning her in connivance with the Hotel staff, GE
and State using chemicals and pesticides. As a result,
she was forced to leave 'Ginger Hotel' and resumed
living in her car.
(ii) The General Electric Company, the State, the
Police are in a conspiracy to murder her and that
several efforts in this regard have been made.
(iii) They would use an NGO to physically over
power her or render her unconscious with an intention
to physically harm her. To support her contention, the
petitioner submits that one night, when she was
sleeping in her car, three unknown persons of an
NGO approached her and asked several questions
from her. This NGO claimed that they were working
for the welfare of homeless people.
(iv) The petitioner submits that the above NGO was
acting in collusion with her conspirators who are
trying to harm her by giving her harmful drugs for the
past many months. She states that she was made to
consume harmful drugs when she was working with
the GE.
(v) From July, 2010 to 2011, there were several
attempts to poison her. Therefore, she eats only such
food as is displayed in open counters. She does not
consume any food which has to be cooked in a place
out of her sight or food which can be tampered with.
(vi) In answer to a court query, the petitioner submits
that she has had no contact with her family members
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 38 of 100
since the year 2011 as her parents and family were
threatened to be killed if they help her.
(vii) In answer to another court query, the petitioner
states that she does not want to reside with her parents
and family as she apprehends danger to er life from
them and that as far as she is concerned her family is
dead.
(viii) In answer to a court query the petitioner states
that she can afford rented accommodation but
apprehends danger to her life from the above
authorities/persons in such premises and therefore she
expressed her inability to rent a permanent
accommodation.
(ix) The petitioner retracts from the statement when
the same is being dictated in the court. She submits
that she is not hiring a room because nobody rents a
room to her in view of the allegations levelled against
her by the State and Delhi Police
3. The petitioner makes a request to file additional written
submissions in respect of the Status report filed today in court by
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned additional Standing Counsel for
Delhi Police.
4. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
Delhi Police submits that the allegations made by the petitioner are
not accepted and disputed by the police. Ms.Seema Sapra submits
that she has objections to Mr.Dayan Krishnan appearing in the
matter on the ground that he is close to Mr.Gopal Subramanium,
Sr. Advocate, who is close to Mr.Montek Singh Ahluwalia against
whom also she has made allegations.
5. We find that the petitioner makes allegations about serious
apprehensions against every person who has been or is involved in
any capacity in this case. We have merely noted the petitioner?s
submissions without expressing any view thereon.
6. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
Delhi Police submits that he is aggrieved by various SMS?s being
sent at his personal mobile number by the petitioner at odd times.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 39 of 100
The petitioner also sends e-mails to him. He seeks time to place
these messages on record which are necessary for consideration
before passing of any orders.
7. Two of such messages sent to Mr. Krishnan have been read
over by the petitioner in the court to us which complain to Mr.
Krishnan about nuisance created by the barking of the dogs in the
night in Ravinder Nagar area, where the petitioner was sleeping in
her car. The petitioner suggests that this was also part of the above
noticed conspiracy against her.
8. We are informed by Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned additional
Standing Counsel for Delhi Police that the Delhi Police is ready to
provide adequate security to the petitioner but cannot do so as the
proper place of residence where the petitioner is putting up is not
known/ informed to the police. Therefore, security is being
provided by beat constables. The police is best placed to decide in
what manner to provide security and may take such steps as are
possible in the circumstances to ensure compliance with the court
orders.
9. In view of the requests made above by the petitioner, she is
permitted to file written submissions/additional affidavit within a
period of two weeks from today.
The matter has gone on from 2:30 pm to 3.30 pm.
10. List on 22nd August, 2013.
CM No. 6096/2013
The petitioner submits that she wishes to place additional
documents on record. We are informed that Mr. Arvind Nigam,
learned Amicus Curiae is unable to appear today as he is on his
legs in another matter.
List for consideration on 22nd August, 2013.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J"
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 40 of 100
Order dated 22.8.2013
1. We have been forced to rise from the court to dictate this
order in view of the conduct of the petitioner herein.
2. When the matter was called out, the petitioner opened by
making a request for adjournment to file an application in respect
of the second tender called by the respondents. She continued by
making submissions on the merits of the writ petition and
thereafter proceeded into lodging a personal attack on the court.
The petitioner presses for recusal of this Bench from hearing this
writ petition.
Several proceedings prior hitherto have been recorded by the
court with regard to the conduct of the petitioner before us.
Commencing with arguing on merits, she proceeds to level
unfounded and baseless allegations against the court. Previous
orders (including the orders dated 18th April, 2013, 29th April,
2013, 1st May, 2013, 16th May, 2013, 31st May, 2013 and 18th
July, 2013) in this case reflect the anxiety of the petitioner and the
apprehension she entertains of danger to her life as well as mala
fide against all and sundry.
3. We have borne such conduct with patience, only because of
our concern that the petitioner, a highly qualified lawyer, has
claimed that she has been rendered homeless and is residing in her
car. Such existence has to create pressures and leave an impact on
any person. The conduct of the petitioner recorded by us in the
previous orders manifest that the petitioner is in dire need of
assistance.
We have even ordered police protection for her.
4. It is noteworthy that notice for criminal contempt has been
issued against the present petitioner which is subject matter of
criminal contempt bearing Cont.Cas.(Crl.)No.3/2012 which was
listed prior to the present writ petition today and adjourned to 30th
September, 2013. The instant writ petition came to be taken up
thereafter.
In this background, we would not like to hear this petition any
further.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 41 of 100
Subject to orders of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this
writ petition be listed before another Bench.
CM No.6096/2013
5. By way of this application, the petitioner has prayed that this
Bench (both of us) recuse itself from hearing the matter. Therefore
orders thereon have to be recorded by us.
6. We are compelled to note that even in this application the
petitioner has made unfounded and false averments in respect of
court proceedings which would invite proceedings under the
Contempt of Court Act against her. We have desisted from taking
any action for the reasons noted in the order on the writ petition.
The application also contains vexatious and scandalous averments
which would require to be struck off from the record.
In view of the order recorded on the writ petition, the prayer
made in the application is satisfied.
The application is so disposed of.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J"
Order dated 30.9.2013
"In view of the fact that the Petitioner has expressed lack of
confidence in both members of this Bench, list before another
Bench subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 7th
October, 2013.
We note that the Petitioner has made a request that the present
Writ Petition and Contempt Case (Crl.) 3/2012 be listed before
different Benches and on different dates. Since we have recused
from the case, we have expressed our inability to pass any orders
in this regard.
REVA KHETRAPAL, J
V.P.VAISH, J"
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 42 of 100
Order dated 9.10.2013
" We have called upon the petitioner to make her submissions
but she wants an adjournment as she intends moving an
application for transfer of this matter to some other Bench of
which one of us (P.K. Bhasin, J.) is not a member.
Renotify on 07th January, 2014.
The petitioner says a short date may be given. However, since
the petitioner is not willing to argue the matter we are not inclined
to give a short date.
P.K. BHASIN, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J"
Order dated 11.10.2013
"CM APPL. 14194/2013
We have heard the petitioner appearing in person on this
application in which she has made a prayer that both of us
should recuse from this matter and it be heard by another
Bench. She has also submitted that since so many Judges have
refused to hear this matter the Chief Justice should be directed
to send this petition to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
After going through the averments made in this application as
well as the previous orders passed in this petition by different
Benches from day one refusing to hear the matter we feel that this
application is highly frivolous and vexatious and the same is,
therefore, dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J"
Order dated 8.1.2014
"The matter has been taken up today as 7th January, 2014 was
a Court holiday.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 43 of 100
Part submissions have been made by the petitioner. Due to
paucity of time, renotify on 10th January, 2014 for continuation of
hearing.
Today the petitioner had objected to the appearance and
authority of Mr. N. Ganpathy, Mr. R.N. Singh and Mr. R.V.
Sinha, advocates to represent the parties for whom they are
appearing. We shall consider this objection at an appropriate stage.
P.K. BHASIN, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J"
Order dated 10.1.2014
"Today, at the outset, the petitioner made a submission for
adjourning the matter as she has made a request to the Chief Justice
of India as well as to the Chief Justice of this Court for transfer of
this writ petition to the Hon'ble Supreme Court for hearing. We,
however, rejected the request for adjournment. So the petitioner
has made further submissions in the matter. Due to paucity of time
matter is adjourned to 24th January, 2014 for further submission.
Today Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned counsel for the Delhi
Police submitted that on an independent assessment of the
situation the police has come to the conclusion that there is no
immediate threat perception to the petitioner as she has been
projecting every now and then and therefore, now it should be left
to the discretion of the police authorities as to whether any
protection is to be provided to her or not depending upon the inputs
which the police may get. The petitioner strongly refutes this
submission. Considering all the facts and circumstances we are not
inclined to withdraw our earlier orders directing the police to
extend full protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner till
further orders of this Court.
P.K. BHASIN, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J"
Order dated 24.1.2014
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 44 of 100
"List the matter before another Bench of which one of us
(P.K.Bhasin, J) is not a member, after obtaining orders of Hon'ble
the Chief Justice, on 28th January, 2014.
P.K. BHASIN, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J"
Order dated 28.1.2014
"List the matter before some other Bench, subject to order of
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 30th January, 2014.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
SUNITA GUPTA, J"
Order dated 30.01.2014
"The petitioner, who appears in person, prays that the matter
be not taken up by this Division Bench, and that she has written to
Hon?ble the Chief Justice of this Court in this regard.
We are not inclined to entertain this oral prayer. Of course, it
would be open to the petitioner to take such recourse, including
moving a formal application, if she is so advised.
Ms. Sapra now states that she intends to move an application.
If and when such an application is moved, the same shall be
considered.
The petitioner requests for an adjournment to do the needful,
and also desires that the matter be posted for 03.02.2014.
Any application moved be listed as per Rules, if otherwise in
order.
List on 11th February, 2014.
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page 45 of 100
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
SURESH KAIT, J"
Order dated 07.3.2014
List this matter before another Bench of which one of us
(Suresh Kait, J.) is not a member, after obtaining orders of
Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice on 14th March, 2014.
It has been pointed out by the petitioner, who appears in
person, that the appearance of Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior
Advocate, as the Amicus Curiae, appears to have been erroneously
recorded in this matter since he has been appointed as Amicus
Curiae only in the Crl. Cont. Pet. No.03/2012. This appears to be
correct, and the error stands corrected.
Since there appears to be some confusion regarding the
appearance being recorded on behalf of all parties, the Court
Master and the Registry shall ensure that before any appearance is
recorded, the Memo of Appearance or Vakalatnama of the
Advocate concerned is on the record.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
SURESH KAIT, J."
Order dated 25.3.2014
"The petitioner has handed over copies of certain emails,
which she states, have been circulated by her. She states that she
shall be filing copies of the same supported by an affidavit, in the
Registry.
We have heard the petitioner from 3.45 p.m. to 5.04 p.m.
Re-notify on 27th March, 2014 at 3:30 PM.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
S.P. GARG, J"
Order dated 27.3.2014
"We have heard the petitioner from 3:32 PM to 4:48 PM.
Re-notify on 1st April, 2014 at 3.30 PM.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
S.P. GARG, J"
Order dated 01.4.2014
"We have heard the petitioner from 3:33 PM to 5:05 PM.
Re-notify on 03.04.2014 at 3.30 PM.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
S.P. GARG, J"
Order dated 22.4.2014
"Today the petitioner, who appears in person, states as
follows:
"I have claimed a grave threat to my life from the State
including the police. I have informed this Court in
writing that since January 2014 I have been sleeping in
my car outside Gate No.8 of the Delhi High Court. I
have also been informing this Court in writing and
through affidavits filed in this matter that the police has
failed to comply with the protection orders issued by
this Court; and that I am not only being harassed and
targeted with police complicity during the night but I am
also being poisoned by deliberate exposure to toxic
chemical, including nerve agents and
organophosphates, during the night. I fear for my life. I
have been waking up breathless during the night on
account of such poisoning, and I apprehend that if this
continues, it will result in cessation of breathing and
will cause death; and I further apprehend that the police
will then be used to cover up such murder. I have been
making police complaints about these incidents since
January 2014 in writing but the police has failed to even
respond to these complaints. In view of this, I am making
an oral request to this Hon?ble Court that it issue the
directions to the Registrar General of this Court; to the
Delhi Police Commissioner; and to the local SHO; to
ensure that the CCTV security camera recordings
maintained both by the Court and by the police in the
area where I am parking my car at night and along the
roads leading to that spot; be preserved, because this will
be valuable evidence in support of my complaints to the
police. I have been informed by the Delhi Police
security that such recordings are normally preserved only
for a month. I am, therefore, seeking directions from this
Court that these recordings be preserved for longer than
that until my complaints are addressed and investigated. I
am also submitting that such an order will also result in
providing me some measure of protection because those
harming me, including the police, will get the message
that the evidence of what is going on around my car
during the night is being preserved pursuant to the
directions of this Court. This is my request orally.
Further, I have also requested the Hon?ble Court to
direct the Registrar General to preserve CCTV footage
from the three court lobbies today because I noticed that
a policeman was instructing two other policemen to
target me; and CCTV footage might provide evidence of
contact between the General Electric lawyers and those
policemen. Further, one Sub Inspector Umed Singh
from Police Station Nizamuddin, who is present in
Court, was also seen by me speaking with General
Electric lawyers outside the Court."
We have recorded the above verbatim so that there may be no
doubt about the submissions of the petitioner, who also happens to
be a qualified and practicing Advocate registered at the Bar.
This matter has been pending for some time. There is
extensive controversy raised by the petitioner on almost every
aspect of the matter. Apparently, she is also making serious
allegations against the respondents including the Police
Authorities to the extent of alleging a deliberate intent to murder
her in a premeditated conspiracy.
Under the circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to file an
appropriate application seeking specific reliefs so that an
appropriate response can also be obtained from the concerned
respondents on every allegation made by the petitioner. As and
when such an application is moved, the same shall be duly
considered by this Court.
We have now invited the petitioner to continue where she
left off on the previous date of hearing.
We have heard the petitioner from 3:50 PM to 5:31 PM.
Re-notify on 24.04.2014 at 3:30 PM.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
S.P. GARG, J"
Order dated 24.4.2014
"List this matter before some other Bench, subject to order of
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 29.04.2014.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
S.P. GARG, J"
Order dated 29.4.2014
"Subject to orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, place this
matter before another Bench on 6th May, 2014.
V.K.SHALI, J
G.P.MITTAL, J"
Order dated 06.5.2014
"List this matter before some other Bench (of which neither of
us is a member) on 8th May 2014 subject to order of Hon'ble the
Chief Justice.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J"
Order dated 08.5.2014
"List the matter before another Bench, of which one of us
(V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.) is not a member, subject to and after
obtaining orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 15.5.2015.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J"
Order dated 20.11.2014
"We may note that Mr.Om Prakash, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Ministry of Railways, has raised a strong
objection with regard to circulation of emails by the petitioner
concerning the Railway Minister. Mr.Prakash submits that the
platform of the High Court is being used by the petitioner, which
is evident upon reading of the first page of the email, which refers
to the present petition (W.P.(C)1280/2012), wherein she refers
herself to be a whistleblower. Mr.Prakash next submits that the
petitioner should be restrained from making such scandalous emails
against the persons by referring to the writ petition, which is
pending and has become infructuous (which is disputed by
Ms.Sapra). Mr.Prakash also submits that as many as twenty six
Judges have recused from hearing this matter for one reason or the
other or on account of the emails being addressed by the petitioner
with respect to them. Ms.Sapra submits that the Judges have
recused not because of her but for valid reasons.
Ms.Sapra submits that as a citizen she has the right to make a
complaint against the Railway Minister or any other person in case
there is evidence of corruption.
The submissions made by Mr.Om Prakash, counsel for the
respondent/Ministry of Railways, shall be considered on the next
date of hearing.
Ms.Sapra also informs the Court that she has filed an application
in the Registry, which is likely to be listed on 24.11.2014, in which
she has again requested this Bench to recuse from hearing this
matter, besides the prayers of Z+ security and for safe housing, as
she is a witness and a whistleblower.
It may be noted that like all the previous orders this order has also
been read out to Ms.Sapra in Court in the presence of other counsel.
List on 24.11.2014.
G.S.SISTANI, J
A.K.PATHAK, J"
Order dated 01.12.2014
"Repeated requests have been made to the Bench for recusal
on various grounds including that the petitioner has no faith in this
Bench. Three fresh applications have been filed, various directions
have been ought including that the matter may be placed before
Hon?ble the Chief Justice for seeking a direction to list this matter
before another Bench for day to day hearing.
Ms. Sapra wants to produce a notification of the High Court to
show that the recusal application can only be made before the Judge
concerned whose recusal is sought.
List on 2nd December, 2014.
G.S.SISTANI, J
A.K. PATHAK, J"
Order dated 02.12.2014
" Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been
repeatedly stating that she has no faith in this Court and taking
into consideration the nature of emails, which have been circulated
by the petitioner wherein incorrect statements have been attributed
to the Bench, we feel, in the fitness of things, not to hear this
matter. Accordingly, we recuse ourselves from hearing this matter.
List this matter on 10.12.2014 before another Bench subject to and
after obtaining Orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
G.S.SISTANI, J
A.K. PATHAK, J"
Order dated 16.1.2015
Petitioner submits that she has no faith in this Bench.
List the matter before another Bench, subject to the order of
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 19th January, 2015.
PRATIBHA RANI, J
JAYANT NATH, J"
Order dated 19.1.2015
"Petitioner has been heard with respect to the writ petition and
its prayers. Thus part arguments have been heard.
To come up for further arguments tomorrow i.e 20.1.2015 at
3.30 PM.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
P.S. TEJI, J"
Order dated 20.1.2015
"We have heard the petitioner further.
List for further arguments on behalf of the petitioner on 22 nd
January, 2015 at 3.30 P.M.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
P.S. TEJI, J"
Order dated 22.1.2015
1. We heard the petitioner for one hour on 19.1.2015. We also
thereafter heard the petitioner for one hour on 20.1.2015. We have
also heard the petitioner today for one hour. Petitioner on the earlier
dates and today has argued her case not only the writ petition, but
she has prayed that various applications which have been filed by
her be taken up and decided. Petitioner especially presses the
application with respect to non-entitlement to representation of the
lawyers of the respondent nos.1,6 and 7.
2. In our opinion, whatever are the orders which we have to pass
whether on the writ petition which is being heard or on the
applications with respect to which the petitioner seeks hearing and
seeks issuance of notice, cannot go on interminably in a case such
as the present. We therefore order that the petitioner should
complete her arguments on the next date i.e on 29th January, 2015
when the matter is fixed at 3.00 P.M.
At this stage, petitioner states that she is not available on
29.1.2015, and therefore this case is listed on 3rd February, 2015 at
3.00 P.M. for remaining arguments of the petitioner.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
P.S. TEJI, J"
Order dated 03.2.2015
1. The petitioner states that she has moved an application for
transfer of this case because she has no faith in this Bench, however
in our opinion we are not bound to recuse ourselves as prayed by
the petitioner. It is noted, and which is seen from the perusal of the
record of this case, that twenty eight Judges of this Court have
recused from hearing this matter on account of similar stance of the
petitioner before those Benches, and against which Benches the
petitioner has made uncalled for remarks and allegations. There are
over two dozen order sheets of different Benches of this Court in
this case which show that inspite of hearings being given to the
petitioner, running into hours and hours, the petitioner has not
concluded her arguments and the case has thus remained pending.
A litigant, and a litigant who is a lawyer, cannot in effect seek
change of Benches at her asking. The prayer made for this Bench to
recuse is thus rejected.
2. Though the petitioner states that the matter be adjourned
because the application which she has filed today praying for
transfer of the case from this Court is not on record, we again
specifically decline the request, and order that the petitioner should
continue with her arguments on merits on the writ petition, and for
which purpose this case was fixed today specifically at 3.00 PM
vide order dated 22.1.2015.
3. Once again in spite of the repeated directions to the petitioner to
commence her remaining arguments on merits, the petitioner does
not argue the case on merits, and therefore the petitioner is once
again requested to commence her arguments on merits in the writ
petition.
4. At this stage, the petitioner insists that the orders passed by
earlier Benches of this Court be referred to, and reference is
particularly invited to the order of a Division Bench of this Court
dated 16.1.2013, however, in our opinion, since this Court has
commenced the hearing, no earlier order by the Division Bench
could or would have obviously made directions with respect to how
this can be heard on merits by a subsequent Bench. The petitioner is
once again directed to commence her arguments on merits in the
writ petition.
5. Petitioner has now commenced her arguments in the writ
petition.
6. Petitioner has been heard till 4.30 PM.
7. Petitioner states that she has not completed her arguments and
she would need at the very least around 15 to 20 more hearings to
complete her arguments, and even probably many more. We find
this unacceptable in a case like this and especially in view of the
earlier orders of this Court and particularly the last order dated
22.1.2015.
8. Judgment reserved.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
P.S. TEJI, J"
(underlining added)
16. A reading of the aforesaid orders shows that petitioner has been
unnecessarily and deliberately prolonging the matter without any valid
reason. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner basically does not want
the case to come to an end. The action of the petitioner has caused gross
wastage of judicial time. In spite of hearings being granted to the petitioner,
petitioner never seems to be satisfied with the hearings given. Endeavors of
Benches of this Court to give relief by passing interim orders, though such
interim orders really need not have been passed in favour of the petitioner,
had made no difference to the petitioner who has continued with her wayward
ways of seeking recusal from different Benches and for arguing quite a few
irrelevant points. The record shows that petitioner was holding on to a rented
accommodation and from which ultimately she was evicted by means of
judicial process initiated by the landlord and it is possibly for this reason one
of her prayers was 're-location to a safe house'. Petitioner has made wild and
baseless allegations against her neighbours of they trying to poison her and
similarly against Max and Apollo Hospitals for allegedly giving false reports
and trying to poison her. Petitioner has also made false and repeated
allegations against the police of trying to kill her. The indiscipline of the
petitioner therefore actually knows no bounds and the present petition
therefore does not deserve any consideration by this Court on merits with
respect to the writ petition on account of complete failure of the petitioner
in exhibiting a bonafide conduct expected of a petitioner in a PIL.
17. It is also relevant at this stage to state that after the 2010
tenders were cancelled, petitioner has sought to desperately continue the
writ petition by even questioning the subsequent tender process initiated by
the Railways by filing CM No. 7197/2013, and which CM was nothing but
rehash of existing allegations which were made in the writ petition of
alleged forgery and corruption and tenders being floated with terms to suit
G.E. Petitioner cannot be allowed to expand the scope of the writ petition
beyond the causes of action pleaded in the writ petition, much less by
filing additional affidavits and interim applications.
18. Let us at this stage refer to headings and reliefs of some of the
applications filed by the petitioner to show the total lack of responsibility
on the part of the petitioner and total frivolousness in moving the
applications.
CM No. 326/2013
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHY, ON
WHAT BASIS AND UNDER WHOSE DIRECTIONS THE
PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO LEAVE JUSTICE RAJIV
SHAKDHER'S COURT (COURT ROOM NO 7 OF THE DELHI
HIGH COURT) ON NOVEMBER 26,2012 IN GROSS
VIOLATION OF HER RIGHTS AS AN ADVOCATE
ENROLLED WITH THE BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND
SEEKING AN INQUIRY INTO THIS EXTRA-JUDICIAL AND
UNLAWFUL ACTION AND SEEKING THE RECUSAL OF
JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER FROM CIVIL WRIT PETITION
1280 OF 2012"
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Clarify why, for what reason, on what basis and under whose
directions was the petitioner compelled to leave justice Rajiv
Shakdher's court on November 26, 2012 when the Petitioner had
not done anything wrong that would call for such action;
(b) Order an inquiry into the intimidation and harassment of this
petitioner on November 26, 2012 when she was asked by police
security to leave court room no.7 on the instructions of the court-
master;
(c) Transfer this matter from Justice Rajiv Shakdher and place
Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 before another bench;
(d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
CM No.428/2013
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT
TO MURDER THE PETITIONER ON FEBRUARY 17,2012
ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
"(a) Issue notice to the Medical Councils of Delhi and India and
direct them to take cognizance of the petitioner's complaint
against Dr K G S Bansal that he was party to a conspiracy and
attempt to murder the petitioner on February 17,2012;
(b) Direct the State respondents to investigate and prosecute the
petitioner's complaint regarding the attempt to murder her on
February 17, 2012;
(c) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
CM No.2477/2013
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING DIRECTIONS TO THE
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE PMO (RESPONDENT 5 )
TO CONSTITUTE A COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
IN VISHAKA AND OTHERS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
AND OTHERS (JT 1997 (7) SC 384) AND MEDHA LELE] TO
INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN 2001 AT THE HANDS OF MR.
SOLI J. SORABJEE WHEN HE WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF INDIA AND THE PETITIONER WAS A YOUNG
LAWYER WORKING HIS CHAMBERS AS HIS JUNIOR."
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Direct the Government of India (Respondent no.5 herein) to
act on the Petitioner's complaint forwarded to the President and
Prime Minister of India by email dated February 12,2013 and to
constitute a high level complaints committee in accordance with
the Supreme Court's directions in Vishaka & Others v. State of
Rajasthan & Others and in Medha Kotwal Lele and Others v.
Union of India and Others to redress the petitioner's complaint of
sexual harassment against Mr. Soli j Sorabjee, when the latter held
the constitutional post of Attorney General of India;
(b) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
CM No. 5007/2013
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING URGENT DIRECTIONS
FROM THE COURT FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF MR
K JAYANAND, (HIS ACCOMPLICES AND CO-
CONSPIRATORS), GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE
INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED, AND OF THE
PRINCIPAL CORPORATE OFFICERS OF GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY AND GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL
PRIVATE LIMITED (MR JEFFREY IMMELT, MR. JOHN
FLANNERY AND MR BANMALI AGRAWALA) FOR
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE OF MAKING A FALSE
POLICE COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 182 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE; FOR COMMISSION OF THE
CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF INTIMIDATION OF A WITNESS
WITH INTENT TO OBSTRUCT HER FROM PURSUING
THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND TO OBSTRUCT HER
FROM DEPOSING ABOUT THE COMMISSION OF
CRIMINAL OFFENCES BY GENERAL ELECTRIC
EXECUTIVES, LAWYERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND FOR
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT IN ATTEMPTING TO
OBSTRUCT AND SUBVERT THESE WRIT PROCEEDINGS"
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(A) Issue directions for the criminal prosecution of Mr K
Jayanand, (his accomplices and co-conspirators), General Electric
Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited, and of the
responsible principal corporate officers of General Electric
Company and GE India Industrial Private Limited (Mr Jeffrey
Immelt, Mr John Flannery and Mr Banmali Agrawala) for
commission of the criminal offences of making a false police
complaint under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code by
knowingly furnishing false information to the police with intent to
use the police power to cause harm and injury to the petitioner-
whistleblower;
(B) Issue directions for the criminal prosecution of Mr K
Jayanand, (his accomplices and co-conspirators), General Electric
Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited, and of the
responsibility principal corporate officers of General Electric
Company and GE India Industrial Private Limited (Mr Jeffrey
Immelt, Mr John Flannery and Mr Banmali Agrawala) for
commission of the criminal offences of intimidation of a witness
with intent to obstruct her from pursing these legal proceedings
and to obstruct her from deposing about the commission of
criminal offences by General Electric executives, lawyers and
employees;
(C) Issue notice to Mr K Jayanand, (his accomplices and co-
conspirators), General Electric Company, GE India Industrial
Private Limited, and of the responsible principle corporate officers
of General Electric Company and GE India Industrial Private
Limited (Mr Jeffrey Immelt, Mr John Flannery and Mr Banmali
Agrawala ) for criminal contempt of court in attempting to
obstruct and subvert these writ proceedings by making a false
police complaint against the petitioner-whistleblower;
(D) Direct the Delhi High Court Registry to place the letter
received from Mr K Jayanand on 4 March 2013 and the two
letters received from the Petitoiner on 13 and 15 March, 2013 in
the pleadings folders of the court file where these documents can
be inspected by all parties;
(E) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
CM No. 5008/2013
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL,
PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING URGENT DIRECTIONS FOR
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONSPIRACY AND
ATTEMPT TO MURDER THE PETITIONER -
WHISTLEBLOWER IN JUNE, JULY, AUGUST AND
SEPTEMBER 2011 WITH THE USE OF MEDICAL DOCTORS
FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL AND FROM MAX
HEALTHCARE GURGAON AND MAX HEALTHCARE
SAKET HOSPITALS AND SEEKING IMMEDIATE RETURN
OF ALL HERE MEDICAL RECORDS (AND OTHER
BELONGINGS) UNLAWFULLY REMOVED IN HER
ABSENCE FROM HER RENTED RESIDENCE IN JANGPURA
EXTENSION ON 30 MAY 2012 WITH POLICE
PARTICIPATION"
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(A) Issue notice to the Medical Council of India and to the
Medical Council of Delhi both in the writ petition and in this
application, and direct them to take cognizance of the Petitioner's
complaints that in June, July, August, and September 2011, the
following hospitals and doctors participated in the conspiracy and
attempts to murder/eliminate the petitioner (a whistleblower) as
described hereinabove
Apollo Hospital, Delhi
(i) Dr. Alok Aggarwal
(ii) Dr Hariharan
(iii) Dr Nalin Nag
(iv) Dr P K Ghosh
Max Gurgaon and Max Saket Hospitals
(i) Dr Sushum Sharma
(ii) Dr S K Das/ Dass
(iii) Dr Ashish Jain
(iv) Dr Nevin Kishore
(v) Dr Sandeep Budhiraja
(vi) Dr Debajyoti Chaudhuri
(vii) Dr Nisha Dabas
(viii) Dr Anupam Goel
(ix) Dr Akshay Shukla
(x) Dr Manoj Sharma
(xi) Dr Mohan Bhargava
(xii) Doctors who attended to petitioner in Max Saket
emergency on 12 August 2011
(xiii) Dr Alka Ashmita Singhal
(xiv) Dr Varun Katyal
(xv) Dr Sonali Vatsa
(B) Direct the cancellation of the medical licences of the
following hospitals and the disbarment from medical practice of
the following doctors
Apollo Hospital, Delhi
(i) Dr Alok Aggarwal
(ii) Dr Hariharan
(iii) Dr Nalin Nag
(iv) Dr P K Ghosh
Max Gurgaon and Max Saket Hospitals
(i) Dr Sushum Sharma
(ii) Dr S K Das/ Dass
(iii) Dr Ashish Jain
(iv) Dr Nevin Kishore
(v) Dr Sandeep Budhiraja
(vi) Dr Debajyoti Chaudhuri
(vii) Dr Nisha Dabas
(viii) Dr Anupam Goel
(ix) Dr Akshay Shukla
(x) Dr Manoj Sharma
(xi) Dr Mohan Bhargava
(xii) Doctors who attended to petitioner in Max Saket
emergency on 12 August 2011
(xiii) Dr Alka Ashmita Singhal
(xiv) Dr Varun Katyal
(xv) Dr Sonali Vatsa
(C) Direct the State respondents and other appropriate authorities
to investigate and prosecute the following doctors and their
accomplices (including other un-named doctors and hospital
administrators) for conspiracy and attempt to murder/ eliminate
the petitioner (a whistleblower who has exposed General Electric
corruption)
Apollo Hospital, Delhi
(i) Dr Alok Aggarwal
(ii) Dr Hariharan
(iii) Dr Nalin Nag
(iv) Dr P K Ghosh
Max Gurgaon and Max Saket Hospitals
(i) Dr Sushum Sharma
(ii) Dr S K Das/ Dass
(iii) Dr Ashish Jain
(iv) Dr Nevin Kishore
(v) Dr Sandeep Budhiraja
(vi) Dr Debajyoti Chaudhuri
(vii) Dr Nisha Dabas
(viii) Dr Anupam Goel
(ix) Dr Akshay Shukla
(x) Dr Manoj Bhargava
(xi) Dr Mohan Bhargava
(xii) Doctors who attended to petitioner in Max Saket
emergency on 12 August 2011
(xiii) Dr Alka Ashmita Singhal
(xiv) Dr Varun Katyal
(xv) Dr Sonali Vatsa
(D) Direct the Delhi Police and Union of India to arrange for the
immediate return of the petitioner's medical records (and another
belongings) unlawfully removed on 30 May 2012 with police
assistance in the petitioner's absence and without prior notice
from the rented flat at Jangpura Extension (where the petitioner
was then residing);
(E) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
CM No.19473/2014
Heading
"An Application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking
directions that the Government of India through the PMO
(respondent 5 herein) ascertain and declare the conflict of interest
if any regarding Suresh Prabhu and this writ petition and/ or the
Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders; any dealings
(financial or otherwise) between Suresh Prabhu, his son or their
companies and General Electric Company and/or its affiliates; and
declare whether Mr Suresh Prabhu has been made aware of this
writ petition and of the full evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery,
bribery and illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the
Madhepura and Marhowra Projects; and directions to Advocate
Om Prakash to disclose who instructed him to oppose the
Petitioner's representations to the President and Prime Minister
against Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister; and for
issuance of notice of criminal contempt to Advocate Om Prakash
for obstruction of court proceedings on 20 November 2014 when
he prevented the petitioner from addressing the court by shouting
at her and by shouting her down with the specific intent to prevent
her from addressing the court and to prevent her from responding
to his invalid objections."
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Direct the Government of India through the PMO (respondent
5 herein) to ascertain and declare the conflict of interest if any
regarding Suresh Prabhu and this writ petition and/ or the
Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders; to ascertain and
declare any dealings (financial or otherwise) between Suresh
Prabhu, his son or their companies and General Electric Company
and/or its affiliates; and to ascertain and declare whether
Mr.Suresh Prabhu has been made aware of this writ petition and
of the full evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and
illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the Madhepura and
Marhowra Projects;
(b) Direct the Government of India through the PMO (respondent
5 herein) to ensure that SureshPrabhu as Railway Ministe rdoes
not act unlawfully in connection with the Marhowra and
Madhepura locomotive factory Projects and that no attempt is
madeto cover up the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery,
bribery, FCPA violations, tender manipulation, and illegal
lobbying that are pending against General Electric Company in
connection with the Projects and tenders for the proposed diesel
and electric locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura;
(c) Direct Advocate Om Prakash to disclose who instructed him to
oppose the Petitioner's representations to the President and Prime
Minister against Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister;
(d) Issue notice of criminal contempt to Advocate Om Prakash for
obstruction of court proceedings on 20 November 2014 when he
prevented the petitioner from addressing the court by shouting at
her and by shouting her down with the specific intent to prevent
her from addressing the court and to prevent her from responding
to his invalid objections;
(e) Direct the Railway Ministry to replace advocate Om Prakash
with a lawyer who will not facilitate the cover-up of the
corruption complaints against General Electric and who will not
collude with General Electric Company's alleged lawyers to
sabotage this writ petition;
(f) Direct that ASG Sanjay Jain who has been instructed to appear
in this matter for respondents 4 and 5 (Railway Ministry and the
PMO) start assisting the Hon'ble Court and not skip court
hearings;
(g) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
C.M.No.19474/2014
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING DIRECTIONS FROM THE
COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMMEDIATE AND
GRAVE THREAT TO THE LIFE OF THE PETITIONER AND
SEEKING DIRECTIONS FOR Z+ SECURITY AS
WITNESS/WHISTLEBLOWER AND SEEKING DAY TO DAY
HEARING BEFORE A DIFFERENT BENCH AND SEEKING
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HIGH COURT CHIEF
JUSTICE TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA THAT THIS
MATTER BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA"
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Direct the Government of India through the PMO (respondent
5 herein) to immediately provide the petitioner (who is a witness
& whistle-blower facing a grave and immediate threat to her life)
with Z+ security;
(b) Direct that in view of the grave and immediate threat to the life
of the petition (who is being poisoned), the captioned matter be
listed for hearing day to day starting 24 November 2014 before a
Bench not comprising Justice Sistani or Justice Pathak;
(c) Request the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to consider
this matter and to recommend to the Chief Justice of India that
this writ petition be transferred for hearing to the Supreme Court
of India in view of the grave and immediate threat to the
petitioner/s life;
(d) Direct the Government of India to immediately provide the
petitioner with suitable housing where she can be immediately
given Z+protection and security;
(e) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
C.M.No.20069/2014
Heading
"An application under Section 151 CPC seeking directions/ orders
for impleadment and issuance of notice to Mr Deepak Verma,
retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India (resident of B-4,
Geetanjali Enclave, (G.F.) Main Shivalik Road, New Delhi
10017) in connection with certain illegal, unauthorised and
fraudulent arbitration proceedings where he is acting as sole
arbitrator which have been instituted against the Petitioner by K
Radhakrishnan who is impersonating as the authorised signatory
of GE India Industrial Private Limited, and seeking an immediate
stay of the said arbitration proceedings and a permanent injunction
to Mr Deepak Verma to refrain from proceeding with the said
unauthorised, illegal and fraudulent arbitration proceedings and
from passing any orders against the Petitioner as this arbitration
and any order therein will interfere with the administration of
justice in this pending corruption whistle-blower petition, will
amount to contempt of court, and will amount to intimidation,
retaliation against and silencing of a witness-complainant in
complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery, illegal lobbying,
tender manipulation and FCPA violations and seeking certain
other connected directions/ orders"
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Declare that the alleged Board Resolutions of respondent 6
(GE India Industrial Private Limited) dated 7May 2012 and dated
17 December 2012 copies of which have been filed in this vwit
petition and under which K Radhakrishnan claims to be authorised
signatory for respondent 6 are fraudulent, forged, invalid and
fabricated documents and these documents do not constitute K R
Radhakrishnan as the authorised signatory and representative of
respondent 6 for this writ petition for any other purpose or
proceeding;
(b) Declare that K R Radhakrishnan is not the authorised
signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited (respondent 6)
for the purposes of this writ petition or for any other purpose in
connection with the Petitioner and that he cannot represent
respondent 6 in this matter or in any other matter in connection
with the Petitioner or sign court pleadings and/ or affidavits on
behalf of this respondent in this matter or in any other matter in
connection with the Petitioner;
(c) Direct that K Radhakrishnan be criminally prosecuted for
impersonation, fraud, perjury and forgery for falsely holding
himself out as the authorised signatory of respondent 6 (GE India
Industrial Private Limited) under fabricated and forged board
resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 in this
matter and in the illegal, unauthorised and fraudulent arbitration
proceedings initiated before Mr Deepak Verma, retired Judge of
the Supreme Court of India;
(d) Issue notice to Mr Deepak Verma, retired Judge of the
Supreme Court of India (resident of B-4, Geetanjali Enclave,
(G.F.) Main Shivalik Road, New Delhi 110017) and implead him
in this writ petition;
(e) Pass orders for an immediate stay of the alleged arbitration
proceedings against the Petitioner before Mr Deepak Verma,
retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India;
(f) Issue apermanent injunction restraining Mr Deepak Verma,
retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India from proceeding with
any arbitration proceedings against the Petitioner instituted by the
impersonator (K Radhakrishnan) or by GE India Industrial Private
Limited or by any other person/ entity and from issuing any
award/ orders/ directions against the Petitioner in such
proceedings which interferes with or in any manner affects or
restricts the constitutional and legal duties/ obligations / rights of
the petitioner as complainant, witness, whistleblower, writ
petitioner in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 and as an Indian citizen in
respect of her complaints (and connected matters) against General
Electric Company, the Rail Ministry, Montek Singh Ahluwalia
and their co-conspirators/ collaborators about corruption, fraud,
forgery, bribery, unlawful lobbying, tender manipulation, FCPA
violations, obstruction of justice (in connection with the Rail
Projects and tenders for the proposed locomotive factories at
Marhowra and Madhepura), and in respect of her complaints
about the threat to her life, and about past and ongoing conspiracy
and attempts to murder/ eliminate her and her complaints of
targeting, retaliation, intimidation, torture, poisoning, destruction
of limb etc;
(g) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to Mr Deepak
Verma (retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India), Mr K R
Radhakrishnan (GE India), Mr Nanju Ganpathy (AZB), Mr
Manpreet Lamba (AZB), Mr Deepak Adlakha (dismissed GE
India employee), Mr Jeffrey Immelt (GE), Mr John Flaimery
(GE), Mr Banmali Agrawala (GE India), and Tejal Singh (GE
India) for interfering with the administration of justice in this writ
petition by the institution/ entertaining of the unauthorised, illegal
and fraudulent arbitration proceedings which seek to silence/ gag/
intimidate and threaten the petitioner- complainant-witness-
whistleblower before this Court;
(h) Direct that Mr Deepak Verma, K Radhakriahnan, Nanju
Ganpathy (AZB) and Manpreet Lamba (AZB) be criminally
prosecuted for the offence of furnishing false information under
Section 177 IPC; the offence of furnishing false statement on oath
to a public servant under Section 181 IPC; the offence of
furnishing false information, with intent to cause a public servant
to use his lawful power to the injury of another person under
Section 182 IPC; the offence of threatening the Petitioner with
injury to induce her from refraining from applying for protection
to public servant under Section 190 IPC; the offence of giving
false evidence under section 191 IPC; the offence of fabricating
false evidence under Section 192 and 193 IPC; the offence of
threatening the Petitioner to give false evidence under Section
195A IPC; the offence of using evidence known to be false under
Section 196 IPC; the offence of making false statements made in
declarations which are by law receivable as evidence under
Section 199 IPC; the offence of causing disappearance of
evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
under Section 201 IPC; the offence of giving false information
respecting an offence committed under Section 203 IPC; the
offence of false personation for purpose of act or proceeding in
suit or prosecution under Section 205 IPC; the offence under
Section 209 IPC for dishonestly making false claim in Court; the
offence of forgery under Sections 463. 464. 465. 466 IPC; the
offence of criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC; the
offences of criminal conspiracy under Sections 120A and 120B
IPC; the offence of concealing design to commit offence
punishable with imprisomnent under Section 120 IPC; the offence
of abetment under Sections 107, 108, 108A and 109 IPC;
(i) Restram Mr Deepak Verma, retired Judge of the Supreme
Court of India from committing further contempt of this Hon'ble
Court as result of his having entertained the fraudulent,
unauthorised and illegal arbitration claim made against the
Petitioner by the impersonator, K Radhakrishnan;
(j) Issue notice and non-bailable warrants in this matter for the
personal appearance before this court of the Impersonator K
Radhakrishnan;
(k) Direct the impersonator K Radhakrishnan to produce before
this court the complete records of the unauthorised, fraudulent and
illegal arbitration claim and proceedings instituted against the
Petitioner;
(1) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
(underlining added)
19. In addition to the above applications there are various other
applications filed by the petitioner effectively alleging that the lawyers of
respondents no.1,6 and 7 and the attorney empowered by the Board's
resolutions of respondent nos. 1,6 and 7 have no right to represent these
respondents though there have been filed on record the vakalatnamas, the
power of attorneys by GE companies in favour of their officers,
notifications and copies of the resolutions of the GE companies authorizing
their officers to conduct the present and other litigations initiated by the
present petitioner. These applications are as under:-
CM No.18642/2012:
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE FOR DECLARATION THAT MR K R
RADHAKRISHNAN HAS FALSELY REPRESENTED
HIMSELF AS THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF
RESPONDENT NOS 1,6 & 7 (GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED,
AND GE GLOBAL SOURCING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
RESPECTIVELY) IN HIS SWORN AFFIDAVIT DATED JULY
3, 2012 FILED IN CWP NO. 1280 OF 2012; AND
CONSEQUENT DECLARATION THAT MR K R
RADHAKRISHNAN HAS COMMITTED FRAUD ON THIS
COURT AND HAS COMMITTED PERJURY AIDED AND
ABETTED BY HIS LAWYERS, MS ZIA MODY AND MR
NANJU GANPATHY OF AZB & PARTNERS; AND FURTHER
DECLARATION THAT MR NANJU GANAPATHY AND AZB
& PARTNERS HAVE MISLED THIS COURT BY FILING
FALSE VAKALATNAMAS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
NOS 1,6 & 7 AND THAT THAT THIS CONDUCT AMOUNTS
TO LEGAL MALPRACTICE; AND CONSEQUENTLY
SEEKING ISSUE OF NOTICE IN CWP NO. 1280 OF 2012 TO
RESPONDENT 8 (MR JEFEREY IMMELT), RESPONDENT 9
(MR JOHN FLANNREY), RESPONDENT 10 (MR
ALEXANDER DIMITRIEF), RESPONDENT NO 11 (MR
BRACKETT DENNISTON) AND TO MR BRADFORD
BERENSON (CURRENT VICE-PRESIDENT AND SENIOR
COUNSEL, LITIGATION AND LEGAL POLICY AT
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY)"
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Declare that Mr K R Radhakrishnan is not an authorised
signatory for Respondent 1 (General Electric Company),
Respondent 6 (GE India Industrial Private Limited) and
respondent 7 (GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) and is
not competent to represent these Respondents, or execute
vakalatnama on behalf of these Respondents and/or depose by
way of affidavit on behalf of these Respondents before this Court
in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012;
(b) Consequently declare that Mr. K R Radhakrishnan (aided and
abetted by Mr. Nanju Ganpathy, Mr. Deepak Adalkha, Ms Zia
Mody and the law firm of AZB & Partners) has filed false
affidavit before this court and has falsely represented himself as
an authorised signatory of Respondents 1,6 & 7 and in doing so
has committed fraud and perjury and has attempted to obstruct the
course of justice in the present writ petition;
(c) Consequentially direct Respondents 1,6 & 7 to file proper
counter affidavits to the writ petition (duly sworn by competent
and duly authorised officers/representatives)truthfully addressing
the complaints and evidence produced by the petitioner on the
court record;
(d) Consequentially issue notice in CWP 1280 of 2012 and in all
pending miscellaneous applications to Respondents 8,9,10 and 11;
(e) Consequentially implead Mr. Bradford Berenson, currently
vice-president and senior counsel in charge of litigation and legal
policy at General Electric Company in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of
2012 and issue notice to him and direct him to file his personal
affidavit in response to the writ petition and other documents,
evidence and affidavits filed by the Petitioner;
(f) Consequentially direct Respondents 8,9,10 and 11 to file
personal affidavits in CWP 1280 of 2012 addressing the
complaints and evidence produced by the petitioner on the court
record and also explaining how Mr K R Radhakrishnan was able
to file a false affidavit on behalf of Respondents 1,6 & 7;
(g) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
CM No. 19370/2012
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE FOR DECLARATION THAT NO
VAKALATNAMA HAS BEEN FILED IN CIVIL WRIT
PETITION 1280 OF 2012 ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1,6
AND 7 APPOINTING AZB & PARTNERS OR MR. NANJU
GANPATHY AS THEIR ADVOCATES AUTHORISED TO
APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THESE RESPONDENTS IN THIS
MATTER: AND THAT MR. NANJU GANPATHY AND
OTHER ADVOCATES FROM AZB & PARTNERS HAVE
BEEN APPEARING IN THIS MATTER SINCE MAY 2012
WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT
RESPONDENTS 1,6 & 7; AND FOR DIRECTIONS
PROHIBITING APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENTS 1,6 AND 7 BY ANY ADVOCATE
(INCLUDING THE LAW FIRM AZB & PARTNERS AND MR.
NANJU GANPATHY) WITHOUT A DULY EXECUTED
VAKALATNAMA AND FOR ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT TO MR NANJU
GAPATHY FOR COMMITTING A FRAUD ON THIS COURT
WITH INTENT TO SUBVERT AND SABOTAGE THE
PRESENT WRIT PETITION"
Prayer Clause:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Declare that Mr Nanju Ganpathy/AZB & Partners cannot
appear in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 on behalf of
respondents 1,6 and 7 as no vakalatnama in their favour has been
filed in this matter and that Mr Nanju Ganpathy/AZB & Partners
have no authority to represent respondents 1,6 and 7 in these
proceedings;
(b) Prohibit appearance by Mr Nanju Ganpathy and AZB &
Partners on behalf of respondents 1,6 and 7 in Civil Writ Petition
1280 of 2012 on the ground that no vakalatnama has been filed in
favour of these advocates on behalf of respondents 1,6 and 7
appointing these advocates as the lawyers for respondents 1,6 and
7;
(c) Issue notice of criminal contempt to Mr Nanju Ganpathy and
to AZB & Partners for committing a fraud on this court by falsely
claiming to represent respondents 1,6 and 7 and for aiding and
abetting perjury by enabling the filing of false affidavits by Mr K
R Radhakrishnan in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012;
(d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
C.M.No.19683/2012
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE FOR DECLARATION THAT THE
VAKALATNAMA FILED IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION 1280 OF
2012 ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1,6 AND 7 ON
DECEMBER 7,2012 (AND REFILED ON DECEMBER 11,
2012) BY AZB & PARTNERS/MR NANJU GANPATHY ARE
DEFECTIVE AND INVALID AND DO NOT AUTHORISE
AZB & PARTNERS/MR NANJU GANPATHY TO APPEAR
ON BEHALF OF THESE RESPONDENTS IN THIS MATTER;
AND FOR DIRECTIONS PROHIBITING APPEARANCE ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1,6 AND 7 BY ANY
ADVOCATE (INCLUDING) THE LAW FIRM OF AZB &
PARTNERS AND MR NANJU GANPATHY) WITHOUT
DULY EXECUTED VAKALATNAMAS AND FOR
ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF
COURT TO MR NANJU GANPATHY FOR COMMITTING A
FRAUD ON THIS COURT WITH INTENT TO SUBVERT
AND SABOTAGE THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION AND FOR
CERTAIN DIRECTIONS TO THE COURT MASTER OF
COURT 4".
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Declare that Mr. Nanju Ganpathy/AZB & Partners cannot
appear in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 on behalf of
respondents 1,6 and 7 as the vakalatnamas filed by them on
December 7,2012 and refilled on December 11,2012 are defective
and invalid and that Mr. Nanju Ganpathy AZB & Partners have no
authority to represent respondents 1,6 and 7 in these proceedings;
(b) Prohibit appearance by Mr. Nanju Ganpathy and AZB &
Partners on behalf of respondents 1,6 and 7 in Civil Writ Petition
1280 of 2012 on the ground that no valid vakalatnamas have been
filed in favour of these advocates on behalf of respondents 1,6 and
7 appointing these advocates as the lawyers for respondents 1,6
and 7;
(c) Issue contempt of criminal contempt to Mr. Nanju Ganpathy
and to AZB & Partners for committing a fraud on this court by
falsely claiming to represent respondents 1,6 and 7 and for aiding
the abetting perjury by enabling the filing of false affidavits by Mr
K R Radhakrishnan in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 with
intent to subvert and sabotage the present writ petition;
(d) Issue direct notice to respondents 1,6 and 7 (by dasti email)
asking them to appear in this matter through properly authorised
counsel/advocats;
(e) Direct the court-master of court 4 to correct his misleading
noting on the order dated December 10,2012;
(f) Direct the registry to return the defective vakalatnamas filed
on December 7,2012 and refilled on December 11,2012 by Nanju
Ganpathy/AZB & Partners in compliance with the Supreme
Court's decision in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad
Singh[(2006) 1 SCC 75] and to not permit these defective
vakalatnamas to be used by Nanju Ganpathy/AZB & Partners to
apply for certified copies of documents or for any other purpose;
(g) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
CM No. 522/2013
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE FOR DECLARATION THAT THE
VAKALATNAMAS FILED IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION 1280
OF 2012 ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1,6 AND 7 ON
DECEMBER 7,2012 (AND REFILED ON DECEMBER
11,2012) AND THE VAKALATNAMAS FILED ON BEHALF
OF RESPONDENTS 1,6 AND 7 ON DECEMBER 17 2012 BY
AZB & PARTNERS/MR NANJU GANPATHY ARE
DEFECTIVE AND INVALID AND DO NOT AUTHORISE
AZB & PARTNERS/MR NANJU GANPATHY TO APPEAR
ON BEHALF OF THESE RESPONDENTS IN THIS MATTER;
AND FOR DIRECTIONS PROHIBITING APPEARANCE ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1,6 AND 7 BY ANY
ADVOCATE (INCLUDING THE LAW FIRM OF AZB &
PARTNERS AND MR NANJU GANPATHY) WITHOUT
DULY EXECUTED VAKALATNAMAS AND FOR
ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF
COURT TO MS ZIA MODY, MR. NANJU GANPATHY, MR.
MANPREET LAMBA, MR KARTIK YADAV, MR. DEEPAK
ADLAKHA , MR ABHISHEK TIWARI, MR PRACKETT
DENISTON, MR ALEXANDER DIMITRIEF AND MR K R
RADHAKRISHNAN FOR COMMITTING A FRAUD ON THIS
COURT WITH INTENT TO SUBVERT AND SABOTAGE THE
PRESENT WRIT PETITON."
Prayer clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Declare that Mr Nanju Ganpathy/AZB & Partners cannot
appear in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 on behalf of
respondents 1,6 and 7 as the vakalatnama filed by them on
December 7, 2012 and refilled on December 11,2012 and the
vakalatnama filed by them on December 17, 2012 are defective
and invalid and declare that Mr Nanju Ganpathy/AZB & Partners
have no authority to represent respondents 1,6 and 7 in these
proceedings;
(b) Prohibit appearance by Mr. Nanju Ganpathy and AZB &
Partners on behalf of respondents 1,6 and 7 in Civil Writ Petition
1280 of 2012 on the ground that no valid vakalatnamas have been
filed in favour of these advocates on behalf of respondents 1,6 and
7;
(c) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to Mr Brackett
Denniston, Mr Alexander Dimitrief, Ms Zia Mody, Mr Nanju
Ganpathy, Mr Manpreet Lamba Mr. Kartik Yadav, Mr Deepak
Adlakha, Mr Abhishek Tiwari and Mr K R Radhakrishnan for
committing a fraud on this court by falsely claiming that K R
Radhakrishnan and AZB & Partners /Nanju Ganpathy represent
respondents 1,6 and 7 and for aiding and abetting perjury by
enabling the filing of false affidavits by Mr K R Radhakrishnan in
Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 with intent to subvert and
sabotage the present writ petition;
(d) Issue direct notice on the writ petition once again to
respondents 1,6 and 7 by dasti email and directing these
respondents to appear in this matter through properly authorised
counsel/advocates;
(e) Direct the court registry to return the defective vakalatnamas
filed on December 7,2012 and refilled on December 11,2012 and
to also return the defective vakalatnamas filed on December
17,2012 by Nanju Ganpathy/AZB & Partners in compliance with
the Supreme Court's decision in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram
Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75] and direct the court
registry to not provide certified copies of court records to AZB &
Partners on the basis of these defective vakalatnamas;
(f) Clarify that notice on the writ petition to respondents 8,9 10
and 11 as issued by this court on November 19,2012, can be
served dasti by email and courier only and not by all permissible
modes of services;
(g) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
C.M.No.10493/2013
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION I5I, CIVI
PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING DIRECTIONS FROM THE
COURT TO IMMEDIATELY STOP AZB & PARTNERS AND
MR NANJU GANPATHY FROM APPEARING FOR
RESPONDENTS 1,6 & 7 IN THIS WRIT PETITION AND FOR
ISSUE OF FRESH NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS 1, 6 & 7"
Prayer Clause
"In the aforesaid circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
a) dismiss the Writ Petition, along withall the applications filed
in the writ petition, as infructuous filed in the Writ Petition, as
infructuous and not maintainable in so far as the Writ Petition and
the applications relate to and/or pertain to the Respondent Nos.1,6
and 7:
b) pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and expedient in the interest of justice."
C.M.No.18969/2014
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING DIRECTIONS FROM THE
COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRAUD ON THE
HON'BLE COURT AS ONE K R RADHAKRISHNAN
(ASSISTED BY LAWYERS NANJU GANPATHY AND
MANPREET LAMBA OF AZB & PARTNERS AND BY
DEEPAK ADLAKHA, A LAWYER WHO WAS FIRED BY GE
INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED AFTER THIS WRIT
PETITION WAS FILED) IS IMPERSONATING
RESPONDENTS 1, 6&7(GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED &GE GLOBAL
SOURCING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) BEFORE THIS
COURT IN THIS MATTER USING FRAUDULENT, FORGED,
FABRICATED AND INVALID AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS
AND HAS FILED FALSE, UNAUTHORISED AND
PERJURIOUS AFFDAVITS IN THIS MATTER FALSELY
HOLDING HIMSELF OUT AS THE AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY FOR RESPONDENTS 1, 6 AND 7"
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Declare that K R Radhakrishnan is not the authorised signatory
of General Electric Company (respondent 1); GE India Industrial
Private Limited (respondent 6); or GE India Global Sourcing
Private Limited (respondent 7); for the purposes of this writ
petition and that he cannot represent these respondents in this
matter or sign court pleadings and/ or affidavits on behalf of these
respondents in this matter;
(b) Declare that K R Radhakrislman has unlawfully impersonated
as the authorised signatory of respondents 16 and 7 in this matter
as part of a criminal conspiracy to defraud this Hon'ble Court with
intent to file false and unauthorised affidavits and to cover up the
complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery and manipulation of the
Railway Madhepura & Marhowra Projects and tenders pending
before this court against respondents 1,6 and 7 andto deny the
petitioner/whistleblower/witness her rights for whistleblower
protection against respondents 1, 6 and 7;
(c) Declare that the three vakalatnamas signed by K
Radhakrishnan and filed on December 7, 2012 and refiled on
December 11, 2012; and the three vakalatnamas signed by
KRadhakrishnan and filed on December 17,2012; and the
vakalatnama allegedly signed by Bradford Berenson on 9May
2013 and the two vakalatnamas signed by KRadhakrishnan and
filed on July 16, 2013 are all invalid, unlawful and defective;
(d) Declare that the alleged Power of Attorney executed by
Alexander Dimitrief on 4May 2012 purportedly on behalf of
General Electric Company and filed in this court under which
KRadhakrishnan claimed to be authorised signatory for General
Electric Company (respondent 1) is unlawful, fraudulent and
violates the Board Resolution of General Electric Company
numbered 10855 adopted by the Board of Directors of General
Electric Company in its Board of Directors Meeting on 6
November 2009;
(e) Declare that the alleged Power of Attorney executed by
Bradford Berenson on 29 April 2013 purportedly on behalfof
General Electric Company and filed in this court under which K
Radhakrishnan claimed to be authorised signatory for General
Electric Company (respondent 1) is unlawful, fraudulent and
violates the Board Resolution of General Electric Company
numbered 10855 adopted by the Board of Directors of General
Electric Company in its Board of Directors Meeting on 6
November 2009;
(f) Declare that the alleged copies of the Board Resolutions of
respondents 6and 7(GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE
Global Sourcing India Private Limited) dated 7May 2012 and
dated 17 December 2012 filed in this writ petition and under
which K Radhakiislinan claims to be authorised signatory for
respondents 6 and 7are fraudulent, forged, invalid and fabricated
documents and these documents do not constitute K R
Radhakrishnan as the authorised signatory and representative
ofrespondents 6 and 7for this writ petition;
(g) Declare that Mr Nanju Ganpathy/ AZB &Partners cannot
appear in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of2012 on behalf of
respondents 1, 6 and 7as the vakalatnamas filed by them on
December 7, 2012 and refiled on December 11, 2012 and the
vakalatnamas filed by them on December 17, 2012 and the
vakalatnamas filed by them on 16 July 2013 are all defective and
invalid and declare that Mr NanjuGanpathy/ AZB &Partners have
no authority to represent respondents 1, 6 and 7 in these
proceedings;
(h) Immediately prohibit appearance by Mr Nanju Ganpathy and
AZB &Partners on behalf of respondents 1, 6and 7in Civil Writ
Petition 1280 of2012 on the ground that vakalatnamas and
authority documents placed on record by AZB on behalf of
respondents 1, 6and 7are defective and invalid;
(i) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to Mr Jeffrey
Tmmp.lt (GE), Mr Brackett Denniston (GE), Mr Alexander
Dimitrief (GE), Mr Bradford Berenson (GE), Mr Jeffrey Eglash
(GE), Mr F. Joseph Warin (Gibson Dunn), Mr John Chesley
(Gibson Dunn), Ms Zia Mody (AZB), Mr Nanju Ganpathy (AZB),
Mr ManpreetLamba (AZB), Mr Kartik Yadav (previously
appearing for AZB), Mr Deepak Adlakha (ex GE-India), Mr
Abhishek Tiwari (AZB), Ms Tejal Singh (GE India) and
MrKRRadhakrishnan(GE India) for committing afraud on this
court by using K R Radhakrishnan to impersonate as the
authorised signatory for respondents 1, 6and 7and using him to
file false and unauthorised affidavits, applications, pleadings, and
vakalatnamas for respondents 1, 6, and 7 with criminal intent to
commit a fraud on this Hon'ble Court, on the Government of
India, on General Electric Company and on the Petitioner to
facilitate a cover up of the complaints of corruption, forgery,
fraud, tender manipulation, and illegal lobbying against
respondents 1, 6and 7in connivance with the Railway Ministry
(respondent 4);
(j) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to Mr Jeffrey Immelt
(GE), Mr Brackett Demaiston (GE), Mr Alexander Dimitrief
(GE), Mr Bradford Berenson (GE), Mr Jeffrey Eglash (GE), Mr F.
Joseph Warin (Gibson Dunn) Mr John Chesley (Gibson Dumr),
Ms Zia Mody (AZB), Mr NanjuGanpathy ' (AZB), Mr
ManpreetLamba (AZB), Mr Kartik Yadav (previously appearing
for AZB), Mr Deepak Adlaklia (ex GE-India), Mr Abhishek
Tiwari (AZB), Ms Tejal Singh (GE India) and Mr K R
Radhakrishnan (GE India) for aiding and abetting peijury by
enabling the filing of false and unauthorised affidavits by Mr K R
Radhakrishnan in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 with intent to
subvert and sabotage the present writ petition;
(k) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to General Electric
Company respondent 1); GE India Industrial Private Limited
(respondent 6); and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited
(respondent 7) for failing to appear before this Hon'ble Court
despite issue and service of notice and summons dated 7 March
2012;
(1) Direct the criminal prosecution of K R Radhakrishnan for
criminal impersonation, fraud, cheating, forgery, and perjury in
respect of the complaints set out in the present application;
(m) Issue direct notice on the writ petition once again to
respondents 1, 6 and 7 by dasti email and directing these
respondents to appear in this matter through properly authorised
counsel/advocates and to file their response to the pleadings
through a duly authorised signatory duly empowered to sign court
pleadings on behalfof these respondents;
(n) Direct the court registry to return the defective vakalatnamas
filed on December 7, 2012 and refiled on December 11, 2012 and
to also return the defective vakalatnamas filed on December 17,
2012 and July 16,2013 by NanjuGanpathy/ AZB &Partners in
compliance with the Suprerne Court's decision in Uday Shankar
Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1see 75];
(o) Clarify that notice onthe writ petition to respondents 8, 9, 10
and 11 as issued by this court on November 19, 2012, can be
served dasti by email and courier only and not by all permissible
modes of service;
(p) Direct AZB &Partners, Nanju Ganapathy, and K R
Radhakrishnan to produce the original records of the minutes of
the board meetings/resolutions of respondents 6and 7for the board
resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012, allegedly
issued by respondents 5and 6;
(q) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
C.M.No.1882/2015
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL,
PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING DIRECTIONS FROM THE
COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRAUD ON THE
HON'BLE COURT AS ONE K R RADHAKRISHNAN
(ASSISTED BY LAWYERS MANJU GANPATHY AND
MANAPREET LAMBA OF AZB & PARTNERS AND BY
DEEPAK ADLAKHA, A LAWYER WHO WAS FIRED BY GE
INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED AFTER THIS WRIT
PETITION WAS FILED) IS IMPERSONATING AS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF RESPONDENTS 1,6,& 7
(GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL
PRIVATE LIMITED & GE GLOBAL SOURCING INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED) BEFOE THIS COURT IN THIS MATTER
USING FRAUDULENT, FORGED, FABRICATED AND
INVALID AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS AND HAS FILED
FALSE, UNAUTHORISED AND PERJURIOUS AFFDAVITS
IN THIS MATTER FALSELY HOLDING HIMSELF OUT AS
THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY FOR RESPONDENTS 1, 6
AND 7 AND ADDRESSING NEW FRAUDULENT
AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS FILED THROUGH NANJU
GANPATHY ON 28 JANUARY 2015."
Prayer Clause
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Declare that K R Radhakrishnan is not the authorised signatory of
General Electric Company (respondent1); or GE India Industrial
Private Limited (respondent 6); or GE India Global Sourcing
Private Limited (respondent 7); for the purposes of this writ
petition and that he cannot represent these respondents in this
matter or sign court pleadings and / or affidavits on behalf of these
respondents in this matter,
(b) Declare that K R Radhakrishnan has unlawfully impersonated as
the authorised signatory of respondent 1 6 and 7 in this matter as
part of a criminal conspiracy to defraud this Hon'ble Court with
intent to file false and unauthorised affidavits and to cover up the
complaints of corruption, fraud forgery and manipulation of the
Railway Madhepura & Marhowra projects and tenders pending
before this court against respondent 1, 6 and 7 and to deny the
petitioner/whistleblower/witness her rights for whistleblower
protection against respondent 1,6 and 7;
(c) Declare that the three vakalanamasallegedly signed by K
Radhakrishnan and filed on December 7, 2012 and refilled on
ecember 11, 2012; the three vakalatnamasallegedly signed by K
Radhakrishnan and filed on December 17, 2012; the vakalatnama
allegedly signed by Bradford Berenson on 9 Many 2013; and the
two vakalatnamasallegedly signed by K Radhakrishnan and filed
on July 16, 2013 are all invalid, unlawful and defective;
(d) Declare that the alleged Power of Attorney allegedly executed by
Alexander Dimitrief on 4 May 2012 purportedly on behalf of
General Electric Company and alleged copy thereof filed in this
court under which K Radhakrishnan claimed to be authorised
signatory for General Electric Company (respondent 1) is
unlawful, fraudulent and that it violates the Board Resolution of
General Electric Company numbered 10855 adopted by the Board
of Directors of General Electric Company is its Board of Directors
Meeting on 6y November 2009;
(e) Declare that the alleged Power of Attorney executed by Bradford
Berenson on 29 April 2013 purportedly on behalf of General
Electric Company and alleged copy thereof filed in this court
under which K Radhakrishnan claimed to be authorised signatory
for General Electric Company (respondent 1) is unlawful,
fraudulent and that it violates the Board Resolution of General
Electric Company numbered 10855 adopted by the Board of
Directors of General Electric Company in its Board of Directors
Meeting on 6 November 2009;
(f) Declare that the alleged Board Resolutions of respondents 6 and 7
(GE India Industrial private Limited and GE Global Sourcing
Indian Private Limited) dated 7 May 2012 and dated 17 December
2012 and copies thereof filed in this writ petition and under which
K Radhakrishnan claims to be authorised signatory for
respondents 6 and 7 are fraudulent, forged, invalid and fabricated
documents and these documents do not constitute K R
Radhakrishnan as to authorised signatory and representative of
respondents 6 and 7 for this writ petition;
(g) Declare that the alleged Power of Attorney dated 8/12/2014
allegedly executed by TejalPatil purportedly on behalf of GE
India Industrial Private Limited and alleged copy thereof filed in
this court under which K Radhakrishan claims to be authorised
signatory for GE India Industrial Private Limited is unlawful,
fraudulent, invalid, forged and fabricated and that TejalPatil has
produced no authority to execute such Power of Attorney on
behalf of GE India Industgrial Private Limited.
(h) Declare that the alleged board resolutions of GE India Industrial
Private Limited dated 10/9/14 and 26/9/2014 and copies thereof
filed in this writ petition on 28 January 2015 and under which K
Radhakrishnan claims to be authorised signatory for respondent 6
are fraudulent, forged, invalid and fabricated documents and these
documents do not constitute K R Radhakrishnan as the authorised
signatory and representative of respondents 6 and 7 for this writ
petition;
(i) Declare that Mr NanjuGanpathy/AZB & Partners cannot appear in
Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 on behalf of respondents 1,6 and
7 as the vakalatnamas filed by them on December 7, 2012 and
refiled on December 11, 2012 and the vakalatnamas filed by them
on December 17, 2012 and the vakalatnamas filed by them on 16
July 2013 are all defective and invalid and declare that Mr
NanjuGanpathy/AZB & Partners have no authority to represent
respondents 1,6 and 7 in these proceedings;
(j) Immediately prohibit appearance by Mr. NanjuGanpathy and
AZB & Partners on behalf of respondents 1,6 and 7 in Civil Writ
Petition 1280 of 2012 on the ground that vakalatnamas and
authority documents placed on record by AZB on behalf of
respondents 1,6 and 7 are defective and invalid.
(k) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to Mr. Jeffrey Immelt
(GE), Mr Brackett Denniston (GE), Mr. Alexander Dimitrief
(GE), Mr Bradford Berenson (GE) , Mr. Jeffrey Eglash (GE), Mr.
F. Joseph Warin (Gibson Dunn), Mr. John Chesley (Gibson
Dunn), Ms Zia Mody (AZB), Mr. NanjuGanpathy (AZB), Mr
ManpreetLamba (AZB), Mr Kartik Yadav (previously appearing
for AZB), Mr. Deepak Adlakha (ex GE-India), Mr Abhishek
Tiwari (AZB), Ms Tejal Singh (GE India) and Mr K R
Radhakrishnan (GE India) for committing a fraud on this court by
using K R Radhakrishnanto impersonate as the authorised
signatory for respondents 1,6 and 7 and using him to file false and
unauthorised affidavits, applications, pleadings, and vakalatnamas
for respondents 1,6 and 7 with criminal intent to commit a fraud
on this Hon'ble Court, on the Government of India, on General
Electric Company and on the Petitioner to facilitate a cover up of
the complaints of corruption, forgery, fraud, tender manipulation,
and illegal lobbying against respondents 1,6 and 7 in connivance
with the Railway Ministry (respondent 4);
(l) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to Mr. Jeffrey Immelt
(GE), Mr Brackett Denniston (GE), Mr Allexander Dimitrief
(GE), Mr Bradford Berenson (GE), Mr Jeffrey Eglash (GE), Mr F.
Joseph Warin (Gibson Dunn), Mr. John Chesley (Gibson Dunn),
Ms Zia Mody (AZB), Mr. NanjuGanpathy (AZB), Mr
ManpreetLamba (AZB), Mr Kartik Yadav (previously appearing
for AZB), Mr Deepak Adlakha (ex GE-India), Mr Abhishek
Tiwari (AZB), Ms Tejal Singh (GE India) and Mr K R
Radhakrishnan (GE India) for aiding and abetting perjury by
enabling the filing of false and unauthorised affidavits by Mr. K R
Radhakrishnan in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 with intent to
subvert and sabotage the present writ petition;
(m) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court of General Electric
Company (respondent 1); GE India Industrial Private Limited
(respondent 6); and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited
(respondent 7) for failing to appear before this Hon'ble Court
despite issue and service of notice and summons dated 7 March
2012;
(n) Direct the criminal prosecution of K R Radhakrishnan for criminal
impersonation, fraud, cheating, forgery, and perjury in respect of
the complaints set out in the present application;
(o) Issue direct notice on the writ petition once again to respondents
1,6 and 7 by dasti email and directing these respondent to appear
in this matter through properly authorised counsel/advocates and
to file their response to the pleadings through a duly authorised
signatory duly empowered to sign court pleadings on behalf of
these respondents;
(p) Direct the court registry to return the defective vakalatnamas filed
on December 7, 2012 and refilled on December 11, 2012 and to
also return the defective vakalatnamas filed on December 17,
2012 and July 16, 2013 by NanjuGanpathy/AZB & Partners in
compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in Uday Shankar
Triyar v. Ram kalewar Prasad Singh (2006) 1 SCC 75];
(q) Clarify that notice on the writ petition to respondents 8,9,10 and
11 as issued by this court on November 19, 2012, can be served
dasti by email and courier only and not by all permissible modes
of service;
(r) Direct AZB & Partners, NanjuGanpathy, Manpreet Lamba, and K
R Radhakrishnan to produce the apostilledoriginals of the alleged
Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief on
4 May 2012 and of the alleged Power of Attorney allegedly
executed by Bradford Berenson on 29 April 2013; and to produce
the original of thealleged Power of Attorney dated
8/12/2014allegedly executed by TejaPatil; and to produce the
original company records of the minutes of the board meetings of
respondents 6 and 7 for the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012
and 17 December 2012 allegedly passed by respondents 5 and 6
and for the board resolutions dated 27/9/12, 10/9/14, and
26/9/2014 allegedly passed by respondent 6;
(s) Direct Mr NanjuGanpathy and Mr ManpreetLamba to supply the
petitioner with copies of the documents filed under their name on
28 January 2015 in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012;
(t) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
20. There was also an application filed by the petitioner that the
counsels and the authorized signatories of CVC/respondent no.2 and
Railway Ministry/respondent no.4 were not authorized and this application
filed was CM 6417/2013 whose heading and prayer clauses read as under:
CM No. 6417/2013
Heading
"AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING DIECTIONS FROM THE
COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE
UNAUTHORISED/IMPROPER LEGAL/COURT
REPRESENTATION FOR RESPONDENT 2(CVC) AND
RESPONDENT 4 (RAILWAY MINISTRY) IN THIS MATTER."
Prayer Clause
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to:
(a) Direct that Mr R V Sinha cannot represent the CVC, i.e.,
respondent 2 in this writ petition as he has not produced a
vakalatnama, and also because he has previously appeared in this
writ petition for the Railway Ministry (respondent 4), and also
because his read brother is the counsel for the Railway Ministry
(respondent 4) and this creates a serious conflict of interest;
(b) Direct that Mr R N Singh cannot represent the Railway
Ministry (respondent 4) in this writ petition because he and his
brother's appearance in this matter for the CVC and the Railway
Ministry have created a serious conflict of interest situation and valid
concerns about collusion between the CVC, the Railway Ministry
and General Electric in subverting these writ proceedings and in
subverting the administration of justice;
(c) Direct that the respondent 2(CVC) appoint a competent and
authorised counsel to represent it in this writ petition and that it issue
proper instructions to such counsel;
(d) Direct that the respondent 4(Railway Ministry) appoint a
competent and authorised counsel to represent it in this writ petition
and that it issue proper instructions to such counsel;
(e) Reject as inadequate the deficient, evasive false and fraudulent
affidavits filed in this matter by both Mr R N Singh and Mr R V
Sinha for the CVC and the Railway Ministry, and direct both the
CVC and the Railways Ministry to file proper, complete, true and
competent affidavits in this matter through properly authorised and
instructed counsel;
(f) Direct that the names of both Mr R V Sinha and Mr R N Singh
be removed from the Central Government's panel of nominated
counsel;
(g) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
21. We do realize that mentioning of the aforesaid orders,
applications and other aspects have made this judgment lengthy but we had
no option but to reproduce them, inasmuch as, it was necessary to show
consistent lack of bonafides good faith and honesty of the petitioner with
respect to the present writ petition. The writ petition is therefore clearly a
gross abuse of the process of the law and is liable to be dismissed on these
grounds itself without even going into the averments made in the writ
petition, however, we would hereafter refer to the writ petition, averments
made therein, reliefs claimed therein and certain other aspects to show that
the writ petition is nothing but a case of self serving averments of the
petitioner with no larger public interest involved at all, and, issues raised of
alleged corruption of which neither there is sufficient material for this
Court to entertain the writ petition and nor the averments made are
bonafide. In fact, the petitioner had filed a complaint with CVC with
regard to some of her allegations made in this petition, and the records of
this court show that after replying to the petitioner that the complaint has
been looked into, CVC ultimately had advised closure of the case and this
is so stated in the counter- affidavit of respondents no. 2 and 4/Railways
dated 2.7.2012 and the relevant para of the counter-affidavit is para 3
which reads as under:-
"3. That the Central Vigilance Commission vide its
letter No. 1117/RLY/16/124624 dated 11.04.2011 had
forwarded to Railway Board a copy of e-mail complaint
dated 11.01.2011 received in the Commission from Ms.
Seema Sapra, Advocate, New Delhi in which the
complainant alleged that fake Customer Certificate was
submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. in
connection with Request for Qualification (RFQ) for setting
up Diesel Locomotive Factory at Marhowra, District -
Saran, Bihar. On receipt of the complaint, the matter was
got thoroughly investigated and the investigation has
revealed that Clause 3.2 related to "Technical Capacity',
inter-alia, mentioned that the applicant firm should have
manufactured and supplied at least 1000 Mainline Diesel
Electric Locomotives over the period of last ten years.
Scrutiny of the tender file revealed that as per the
Customers' Certificate attached at page 63 to 113 of the
RFQ submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd.,
the company had designed, manufactured and supplied total
2326 mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over a period of
last ten years. Thus, it is noticed that even if the Customer
Certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway for 10 No. of
locomotives supplied by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt.
Ltd. is discarded, the firm was fulfilling the 'Technical
Capacity' criteria, as the requirement as per clause 3.2 of the
RFQ is only 1000 locomotives over the period of last ten
years. Thus, investigation has found that the firm M/s.
Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any
advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no
substance was found in the allegation. The report of
investigation was sent to the Central Vigilance Commission
and the Central Vigilance Commission after perusal of the
Investigation Report and the comments of the administrative
authorities thereon has advised closure of the case vide
CVC's ID No. 117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.20111
(Annesure R-1)." (underling added)
22. When we read the writ petition and its annexures we doubt
whether even notices at all should have been issued in this writ petition. We
have already reproduced above the ratios of various judgments of the
Supreme Court which require that it is necessary that there must be basis for
the averments made in a PIL i.e the averments must be prima facie
substantiated and unless that is done, writ petition is liable to be thrown out at
the threshold itself. Further, for looking into corruption, a statutory body
being the CVC exists, and it is not that merely if the petitioner utters
'mantras' of corruption therefore merely on that ground alone PIL should be
entertained. This we are stating because in innumerable number of pleadings
of the petitioner and in the hearings before the Court, allegations are made
that the respondents are wanting to cover up corruption and in fact petitioner
has also (without directly saying so), made innuendoes against different
Benches of this Court of trying to cover up corruption by not giving the
reliefs as claimed in the writ petition by allowing of the writ petition. There
are allegations galore against all and sundry be they officials of GE, officials
of Railways, officials of Planning Commission, Advocates, the respondents,
officials of contesting respondents, PM office, Senior Advocates of Supreme
Court, retired and sitting Judges of Supreme Court etc etc. The writ petition
therefore being based only on self-serving averments and self-serving
correspondence initiated by the petitioner herself was liable to be
dismissed even without issuing notice and in any case the writ petition
definitely need not have been continued after the main reliefs of
cancellation of 2010 tenders became infructuous as the Government had
cancelled the tenders and so recorded in terms of the statement of the then
ASG made before the Division Bench of this Court on 31.5.2013. Petitioner,
as is her won't, even before this Bench which concluded her arguments, kept
on arguing that in spite of cancellation of the tenders, GE be black-listed and
that this Court takes cognizance and cancel even of the subsequent tender
process of 2013. In our opinion, if a petitioner in a PIL is allowed to keep on
expanding the contours of the PIL petition to keep on including every
subsequent tender then a PIL will never come to an end. We therefore refuse
to look into the allegations made by the petitioner in her various applications
and affidavits by which even the subsequent tender process of the year 2013
is being questioned by the petitioner. It is impermissible to expand the scope
of the writ petition to a totally new cause of action, and we therefore decline
the prayer of the petitioner to expand the scope of the writ petition to allow
the petitioner to question the 2013 tenders, much less on account of gross
mala fides of the petitioner as already detailed above and whose entitlement
to file a PIL on the subject matters, we reject lock, stock and barrel.
23. Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous so far as
the main relief of 2010 tender process is concerned. Issue of black-listing
of G.E is an issue which is for the Railways to look into inasmuch as
black-listing can only be done under a specified process of a government
organization and which only the concerned authority can do with the
further aspect that in the opinion of that authority that it is required to be
done.
24. In our opinion, for the sake of argument even if we take the
averments made in the writ petition in some way to have an alleged case of
corruption, however, every case of corruption does not mean that this
Court should entertain PILs unless a grave public interest is involved by it
being substantiated by specific and detailed pleadings and the requisite
independent corroborative documents, but which we find lacking in the
present case. Of course, we may hasten to add that there is a case of
corruption has not even prima facie been made out because the so called
allegations of corruptions are only self-serving averments of the petitioner
without any independent and acceptable substantial material to at all
substantiate these allegations. Petitioner has totally failed to give prima
facie substantiation to her allegations of bribery, corruption etc and just
because petitioner is keen on making self-serving wild and reckless
allegations against government officials, Ministries, GE companies etc etc
does not mean that allegations simply because they are repeated hundreds
of times should be read as having any substance in the same. We would at
this stage seek to clarify that we are not specifically referring to the
allegations of corruption and bribery etc inasmuch, if we will do so, then,
we would in fact be looking into merits of issues with respect to a tender
process of 2010 and which we need not at all do so inasmuch as the 2010
tender process has been cancelled and recalled long back. At the cost of
repetition we would like to state that the averments made in the writ
petition having not been substantiated, hence lack legal basis, and thus do
not in any manner deserve even a cursory and prima facie acceptance by
this Bench.
25(i) The second and only other relief, and the second aspect of the
writ petition, is with respect to claim of the petitioner for being provided
security on the ground that she is a whistle blower. Petitioner in different
applications and in the writ petition has claimed security and even Z+
security on account of averments that there are threats to her life. What are
the threats to the life of the petitioner we have already reproduced above
and which have been noted in different orders passed by different Benches
of this Court. Suffice to say that the said/alleged threat to the petitioner's
life is nothing but a figment of imagination of the petitioner. None of the
neighbours of the petitioner can be said to have tried to poison the
petitioner. None of the hospitals and the doctors alleged by the petitioner
have also ever tried to poison or kill the petitioner. There is no basis
whatsoever in the allegations against Delhi police and some of its
personnel trying to kill the petitioner or harass the petitioner. All
allegations made by the petitioner are baseless and self-serving allegations
which merit total and complete rejection by this Court. In fact, petitioner is
not a whistle blower but is a disgruntled ex-employee of the respondent
no.1 and whose services were terminated prematurely and seeing the
conduct of the petitioner so far as this writ petition is concerned, we are
sure that G.E obviously would not have been able to tolerate the
employment of the petitioner with it.
(ii) We would also like to note that issues of threat perception and
threat assessment are left to the requisite authorities being the Delhi Police
and the Ministry of Home Affairs and both these authorities have filed
affidavits in this Court that there is no threat perception to the petitioner
and we completely agree with the stands taken by the Delhi Police. The
relevant paras of the counter-affidavits of the Ministry of Home Affairs
and Delhi Police read as under:-
Para 1 of Counter Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 of
Ministry of Home Affairs
"1. REPLY TO PARA 1 AND 2: In reply to para 1
and 2 it is humbly submitted by the respondent that
provision of security to the petitioner, is the
responsibility of the State Government/UT
Administration concerned. The local police may provide
security, if, as per their local threat assessment, such
security is considered necessary. Whereas it is submitted
that with regards to the provision of security to whistle
Blowers, the Government of India has authorized the
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as the designated
agency to receive written complaints for disclosure on
any allegation of corruption or misuse of office and
recommend appropriate action in respect of employees of
the Central Government or of any Corporation
established under any Central Act, Government
Companies, societies or local authorities owned or
controlled by the Central Government. It is further
submitted that if CVC is of the opinion that the
complainants or the witnesses need protection, it shall
issue appropriate directions to the concerned Government
Authorities, i.e. Delhi Police, in the instant case.
Similarly, for her relocation to a safe house on security
considerations, it is for the CVC to take a view as to its
necessity and give appropriate directions to the Delhi
Police. A copy of Resolution No. 371/12/2002-AVD-III,
dated 21.04.2004 and CVC Office Order No. 33/5/2004
dated 17.05.2004 under file No.004/VGL/26 and its
enclosures, is annexed along with and is marked as
ANNEXURE A."
Paras 42 and 43 of the counter affidavit dated
11.1.2013 of Delhi Police
"42-43. The contents of para 42-43 are denied
except which are specifically admitted hereinunder.
Without commenting upon the petitioners apprehension
of danger of her life it is submitted that the answering
respondent in strict adherence to the order of this Hon'ble
high court tried to extend police protection to the
petitioner, however on enquiry it was found that the
petitioner had been evicted from the tenanted premises at
G-4, First Floor, Jungpura Extension in pursuance of the
Judgement/decree dated 27.5.2011 passed by the court of
Ms. Neelam Singh, ADJ-II, South, Saket Courts. It is
submitted that pursuant to the order of eviction, the
owner of the premises had filed an execution in which
the bailiff was appointed for taking over the possession
of the premises.When the bailiff tried to take the
possession the same was resisted by the petitioner
leading to seeking of police protection by the owner. The
owner and the bailiff were granted police assistance and
the possession of the premises was taken over on dated
30.5.2012. The copy of proceedings leading to recovery
of possession of the rented premises from the petitioner
are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R3/2 (Colly). It is
submitted that after the possession of the premises were
taken over, the whereabouts of the petitioner could not be
ascertained despite attempts being made through enquiry
from various bar Association offices. The copy of letter
sent to bar association offices are annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE-R3/3 (colly). The petitioner has lately sent
a complaint through mail to the commissioner of Police
regarding grievance of parking at the Indian Habitat
Centre. The complaint is being looked into by the
Concerned police station and a concerned officer from
the police station Lodhi Colony as tried to contact the
Petitioner but despite efforts the petitioner couldn't be
contacted either due to her unavailability at her room or
due to her mobile being switched off. However the
concerned official has given strict instructions to the
security at the India Habitat Centre and also to the Beat
staff of the local police to look after and secure the
petitioner. The copy of D.D. entry showing the visit by
police official from Police Station Lodhi Colony are
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R3/4 (colly).
The complaints made till date by the petitioner
to the police have been duly enquired into and found
to be highly imaginative and/or an exaggerated
narration of fact which discloses no cause for
apprehension to either her life or person. The
allegation of being drugged/poisoned at the house by
the neighbour through holes in her tenanted house
were enquired and no such hole was found to have
existed. Further allegation of poising through
overhead water tank were also frivolous in as much as
there exist a single tank on the top through which
water is supplied to all the 3 floors of the rented
premises and no such problem was informed by
anyone living in the other floors of the building. The
petitioner had made numerous complaints however
nothing substantial was found in the complaint
despite enquiry/investigation by the police officials. It
is submitted that the allegation of
terrorization/intimidation by the Delhi police are
entirely false and frivolous. The allegation of
conspiracy by the police to isolate the petitioner are
also baseless and ill founded. The allegation of being
terrorized by alleged harassment by the police are
also baseless."
(emphasis is mine)
26. We completely agree with the stands taken up by the Delhi
Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs in this regard. Petitioner in the
guise of making allegations of threat to human life has in fact caused
misery, harassment and turmoil to innumerable number of people
including her neighbours, Delhi Police, doctors and even advocates of this
Court. Though it may not be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
writ petition, it may be noted that the petitioner who is an advocate has
been restrained from going into the canteens of the lawyers of this Court
because petitioner kept on making allegations even against lawyers that
lawyers were trying to poison her. Petitioner therefore only has access to
this court as a lawyer for approaching the courts and not for using the areas
to which other advocates have access such as canteens etc.
27. In view of the above, this writ petition is a totally frivolous
and a mala fide petition, and it is also an abuse of the process of the law.
The present writ petition was never a genuine PIL and it was only an
action of a disgruntled employee who was thrown out of her employment
and such a petitioner/employee through this PIL is seeking to take vendetta
against her erstwhile employer with whom she has enmity. By the time the
judgment in the case was reserved vide order dated 3.2.2015, volumes of
the writ petition had reached to number 35 ending at page nos. 12,440.
28. In view of the above, the various orders passed by this Court,
and the wild and reckless allegations made by the petitioner against all and
sundry including Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the Supreme Court, the
present is a classic case of abuse of PIL process where the writ petition
must be and is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 2 lacs to
be deposited within 3 months with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid
Services Authority and payment of which costs shall be a condition
precedent for the petitioner to initiate any fresh independent litigation on
any of the subject matters of the present proceedings. All pending
applications stand disposed of accordingly.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
P.S.TEJI, J
MARCH 02, 2015
ib/dkg/KA
