Wednesday 9 October 2013

application filed in WP 1280/ 2012 in Delhi High Court by GE whistle-blower seeking recusal by Justice P K Bhasin

In the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
C.M. Appl. No.         of 2013
IN
Writ Petition No.  1280 of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:

Seema Sapra                                                                            …Petitioner

versus

General Electric Company and Others                                               ….Respondents

URGENT APPLICATION
To
The Registrar
Delhi High Court
New Delhi

Sir,
The ground of urgency is that urgent directions are sought for recusal by Justice  P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul, for transfer of this matter to a Bench not comprising Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul,  and for directions that this matter be listed for expeditious and day to day hearing starting 21 October 2013 before a Bench not comprising of Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul. Kindly list this application before the court on 11 October 2013. The petitioner, a highly qualified lawyer and a whistleblower and a witness to corruption, is sleeping in her car on the street since 27 February 2013 with no protection despite court orders to the police to provide the petitioner with security cover. The petitioner’s life is in grave danger.

Place: New Delhi                                            Petitioner in Person
October 9, 2013                                              Seema Sapra
Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of this whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless and sleeping in her car since 27 February 2013

In the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
C.M. Appl. No.         of 2013
IN
Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012


IN THE MATTER OF:

Seema Sapra                                                                                        …Petitioner

Versus

General Electric Co. and Others                                                         ….Respondents


An application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code SEEKING URGENT ORDERS for RECUSAL BY JUSTICE  P K BHASIN AND JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA MRIDUL; FOR TRANSFER OF THIS MATTER TO A BENCH NOT COMPRISING OF JUSTICE P K BHASIN AND JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA MRIDUL; AND FOR LISTING OF THIS MATTER FOR EXPEDITIOUS  AND DAY TO DAY HEARING STARTING 21 OCTOBER 2013  BEFORE A BENCH NOT COMPRISING OF JUSTICE P K BHASIN AND JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA MRIDUL


                                                                                    The Petitioner above named
Most Respectfully Showeth:


1.      This is an application seeking urgent orders for recusal by Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul, and for transfer of this matter to a Bench not comprising of Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul, and for listing of this matter for expeditious and day to day hearing starting 21 October 2013 before a Bench not comprising of Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul.

2.      This matter was marked by Chief Justice Ramana to a Division Bench comprised of Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul and was listed before this Bench on 7 October 2013.

3.      Justice P K Bhasin is at present sitting in a regular Division Bench with Justice V P Vaish. Justice Siddhartha Mridul is at present sitting alone in a regular Single Bench.

4.      The petitioner enquired from court 33 at 10.15 am on 7 October 2013 and was informed by court staff in the presence of the court master that the Special Bench would sit after the Regular Bench.

5.      Therefore when the petitioner just happened to go to court 33 at 10.30 am on 7 October 2013, she was surprised to learn that the Special Bench would sit before the regular Bench. It is submitted that it is a matter of grave concern that court staff of Justice P K Bhasin’s court misled the petitioner. If the petitioner had relied upon their information, she would have missed the hearing. The petitioner also wonders when the decision was taken on 7 October 2013, that the special bench would sit before the regular bench. Was it after the petiitioner had been misled at 10.15 and had left the court-room. It is mere good fortune that the petitioner on a gut feeling decided to return later at 10.30 am.

6.      When this matter was called out for hearing on 7 October 2013, the petitioner informed Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul, that it would not be appropriate for Justice P K Bhasin to hear this matter. Justice P K Bhasin asked why and the petitioner responded that she could file an affidavit in this regard.

7.      At that stage, Justice P K Bhasin wanted to adjourn this matter to Friday, 11 October 2013 so that the petitioner could take appropriate steps. At the petitioner’s request that the matter be not posted on a Friday, the matter was adjourned to 9 October 2013. The petitioner submits that if this matter is posted only on Fridays then it will never get heard as essentially the Special Benches that sit on Fridays result in a musical chairs like situation where there is no time for matters to get heard or for Special Benches to sit.

8.      It is submitted that it will not be appropriate for Justice P K Bhasin to hear this matter.

9.      This matter was listed before Justice P K Bhasin sitting singly on 25 May 2012; 28 May 2012, 29 May 2012; and on 30 May 2012.

10.  This is a tender matter as recorded by this court’s order dated 5 December 2012 and as per the court roster it is required to be heard by a Division Bench.

11.  Yet from 2 March 2012 till 26 November 2012, this matter was listed and heard by several judges of this Hon’ble Court sitting alone. These include Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Sunil Gaur, Justice Indermeet Kaur, Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Rajiv Shakdher. Not only was it improper for the court registry to list this matter before Single Judges, it was also improper and inappropriate for all these named single judges (Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Sunil Gaur, Justice Indermeet Kaur, Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Rajiv Shakdher) to hear this matter when according to the court roster itself, a tender matter like this matter is required to be heard by a Division Bench. The petitioner has already placed on record affidavits describing in detail how all these five single judges handled court hearings in this matter. These five single judges knew that according to the court roster they had no jurisdiction to hear this matter yet they continued to do so until the petitioner became aware of thec court roster requirements and moved CM 19197/ 2012 which resulted in this matter going to a Division Bench because of the order dated 5 December 2012.

12.  It is submitted that this is a whistleblower corruption writ petition against a very powerful entity General Electric Company and that the evidence of criminality and illegality extends to the highest levels of the Indianj Government, i.e., to Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, a close aide of the Prime Minister (Dr Manmohan Singh), and possibly to the PMO and to Dr Manmohan Singh himself. The orders passed in this matter show a disturbing pattern of attempts to subvert and sabotage the present petition in order to cover up the corruption complaints against General Electric.

13.  The petitioner has in earlier pleadings in this matter raised additional concerns about Justice P K Bhasin in connection with this matter in CM 8677/2012 filed on 11 July 2012 and pending unheard till now.

14.   In CM 8677/ 2012, the petitioner has stated the following:
“
  1. Civil Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner on February 29, 2012. The petitioner is a whistleblower, a single highly educated woman, a lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi since 1995, and worked for General Electric as their Legal Counsel. The petitioner has exposed several instances of corruption, fraud and other criminal offences committed by the General Electric respondents and by their officers, lawyers, executives and employees. The petitioner has also claimed a grave threat to her life and the petitioner was drugged and poisoned over the course of the last two years. In addition, the petitioner’s reputation was smeared. The petitioner was followed, harassed, intimidated and terrorised. Her friends, family and neighbours were recruited to keep a watch on her, threaten her and even harm her. The petitioner’s attempts to get medical treatment at two private hospitals in Delhi, Max and Apollo resulted in cover-up and denial of her symptoms, denial of medical treatment, attempts to falsify and create misleading medical records, outright attempts to drug her, and intimidation and threats. Her attempts to seek police help and protection resulted in further threats and intimidation in her immediate neighbourhood, attempts to drug her at police headquarters and at the IP extension police station in August 2011. The petitioner was terrorised and sought to protect herself by attempting to withdraw her complaints under duress. At that time the petitioner’s family was used to drug and poison her. Having realised that her family had brought her to their home to poison and drug her, the petitioner returned back to the rented premises in Jangpura Extension because she had nowhere else to go. After her return to Jangpura Extension in November 2011, the petitioner was again drugged and poisoned. Once the petitioner started to go out of the house, attempts were made to terrorise her into staying at home. The local security guards were used to threaten her. Her house was entered into regularly. An iron rod, a bag full of shards of glass, more glass and broken pieces of wood were brought and precariously placed on a ledge above the balcony of the petitioner’s flat. Toxic substances and gases were introduced into the petitioner’s home. There are more facts that are part of the police complaints made by the petitioner.

  1. At this time the petitioner realised that she would be eliminated inside her home. The petitioner realised that withdrawing her complaints had placed her in even greater danger without any recourse. She also realised that in order to protect herself she had to take her complaints against General Electric to their logical conclusion. Once the petitioner started to renew her complaints, attempts were again made to poison her including by the introduction of toxic chemicals into the petitioner’s home and car.

  1. The petitioner therefore filed the present petition praying inter alia that her complaints about corrupt, fraudulent and undesirable practices by General Electric in connection with the locomotive factory tenders be dealt with in accordance with law and that the Union of India be directed to provide protection to the petitioner and to provide her with a safe house. The petitioner stated in her petition and application for interim relief that she was being poisoned and gassed in her home. And that she could not continue living there and needed a safe place to stay.

  1. The petitioner is not going into details of the evidence that establishes that the petitioner was harmed inside her home in Jangpura extension and was drugged. A lot of this evidence is before this Hon’ble court in the form of her police complaints, audio recordings of interactions with the police, video recordings of persons following the petitioner, her medical records and her complaints against the doctors who covered up her symptoms, falsified her medical records and wrote harmful prescriptions. Leave alone investigating any of her complaints, the police has procured false complaints against the petitioner by her neighbours. The police have not investigated a single complaint of the petitioner and did not even enter her home when she was being exposed to harmful substances there. The police has colluded in and facilitated the harm caused to the petitioner.

  1. The present predicament of the petitioner is that she has been rendered homeless after being illegally evicted from her residence on May 30, 2012.

  1. On March 7, 2012 this Hon’ble Court issued notice in Civil Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2770 of 2012 to Respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7 and 12.

  1. On May 25, 2012, this Hon’ble Court passed the following order:
“The Commissioner of Police as well as all other concerned
authorities entrusted with the task of protecting the citizens of the
country are directed to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioner,
who is contesting this battle in person as a whistle blower. Counsel for
the Delhi Police says that it is undoubtedly the duty of the police to
protect all the citizens and so it will be ensured that no harm is caused
to the petitioner by anyone, including policemen.”
\
  1. On May 28, 2012, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7012 of 2012 in CWP 1280 of 2012 filed by the petitioner was listed before this Hon’ble Court seeking directions to the Respondents to file their replies to the interim application and their counter affidavits to the writ petition. 

  1. On May 29 2012, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7175 of 2012 drafted and filed by the Petitioner was listed before this Hon’ble Court seeking orders that notice of the petition be issued to Respondents 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 who are necessary and required parties to Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012.

  1. On May 29, 2012, Civil Miscellaneous Application No.7176 of 2012 in CWP 1280 of 2012 was also listed before this Hon’ble Court seeking directions that the uncalled for, unjustified, false and prejudicial observations made by Justice Sunil Gaur in his order dated May 14, 2012 passed in CWP 1280 of 2012 be expunged from the record.

  1. On May 30, 2012, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7317 of 2012 in CWP 1280 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner was listed before this Hon’ble Court pointing out a decision by the Supreme Court of India decision on the law that the State respondents were required to file counter affidavits and that a writ petition could not be decided in the absence of the counter affidavits of the State. This application sought directions that the Hon’ble Court hear and allow Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7012 of 2012 and direct the respondents to file their replies and counter affidavits.

  1. The petitioner, a single woman, a lawyer and a whistleblower filed this petition on February 29, 2012. This petition and the accompanying application for interim orders have not been heard by the court till this day. Despite several court dates, the petitioner was not allowed to argue her case and make her submissions on some pretext or other. This is apparent from all the court orders, all affidavits filed by the petitioner and from the applications filed by here in this matter. And during this time, from March 2012 until today, the harm being caused to the petitioner continues unchecked.

  1. Three single judges of this court recused themselves and the petitioner has described their conduct on affidavits and in her applications. This matter was thereafter listed on May 25, 2012 before Justice P K Bhasin. Justice P K Bhasin also refused to hear the petitioner on that date and on his own passed a protection order (reproduced above). This order incorrectly records that the petitioner states that she has merely been threatened and intimidated by the police. The petitioner’s complaints made to the police commissioner on email, repeated verbally in court on several occasions and in her writ petition, are that the police is complicit in, has colluded in, has facilitated and participated in drugging and poisoning the petitioner and in exposing her to harmful chemicals. The police has followed, harassed, intimidated and threatened the petitioner.  Senior police officials, including Mr Amulya Patnaik, Mr Ajay Chaudhary, and Ms Meghna Yadav have not only failed to protect the petitioner but have used their subordinates to facilitate the harm caused to the petitioner. 

  1. On May 25, 2012, the petitioner asked Justice P K Bhasin to hear the petitioner before the court holidays but he refused and instead passed an order of protection which was not the kind of protection that the petitioner had sought in her petition and application for interim relief.

  1. On that date, Justice P K Bhasin while dictating his order in court ordered that the respondents would not be permitted to file their counter affidavits or replies. The petitioner appeared before Justice P K Bhasin after lunch and requested that the respondents be asked to file counter affidavits because the petition could not be decided without these. At this time, Justice P K Bhasin told the petitioner in open court that in the absence of counter affidavits the petitioner’s facts would be accepted as uncontested. Justice P K Bhasin was attempting to trick the petitioner into believing that the order disallowing counter affidavits was in the petitioner’s favour. Despite this, the petitioner filed an application that the respondents be directed to file counter affidavits, This application was listed on May 28, 2012. Inexplicably, Justice P K Bhasin without prior intimidation did not hold court that day.

  1. The order passed by Justice P K Bhasin on May 25, 2012 was uploaded onto the Delhi High Court website and was seen by the petitioner in the late evening of May 27, 2012. The signed order dated May 25, 2012 only contained a direction that the respondents would not be permitted to file replies to the petitioner’s application. No mention was made about counter affidavits. As stated earlier Justice P K Bhasin had clearly also issued a similar direction about counter affidavits in court on May 25, 2012. Justice P K Bhasin modified his order dated May 25, 2012 on this issue after the petitioner had served a copy of CM 7012 of 2012 on the respondents on May 26, 2012.

  1. CM 7012 of 2012 was heard by Justice Valmiki Mehta on May 29, 2012. Justice Valmiki Mehta told the petitioner in open court that she could not compel the respondents to file counter affidavits. The petitioner informed Justice Valmiki Mehta that the GE respondents wanted to file their counter affidavits. This was confirmed to the court by Mr. Nanju Ganpathy appearing for GE. Justice Valmiki  Mehta refused to pass any order and adjourned this application to July 19, 2012.

  1. On May 29, 2012, Justice P K Bhasin again refused to hear the matter on that day and adjourned the applications listed on that day to July 19, 2012. The petitioner was not permitted to argue her application for interim protection and for provision of a safe place to stay.

  1. On May 30, 2012, again Justice P K Bhasin refused to hear the petitioner’s application for interim protection orders and for provision of a safe place to stay. On this date however, he directed the respondents to file their counter affidavits and replies. The petitioner points out that even on May 30, 2012, Justice P K Bhasin first insisted that the respondents would not be permitted to file replies and did not permit the petitioner to make her submissions on why these replies were necessary. Justice P K Bhasin told the petitioner that she could not force the respondents to file replies. The counsel for the Union of India, Ms Sapna Chauhan told the court that the Union of India wished to file its reply and that she had received some instructions from VIP security police. Mr Nanju Ganpathy, counsel for GE also told the court that GE wanted to file its reply. It was only after the respondents’ counsels stated that they wanted to file replies, that Justice P K Bhasin passed an order directing the respondents to file their replies.

  1. The same day, on May 30, 2012, the petitioner was evicted from her residence in her absence while she was in court and while she was drafting further motions in this matter.

  1. The petitioner points out that after the hearing on May 29, 2012, she told Mr Nanju Ganpathy and Mr Manpreet Lamba that she would file an application praying that the Hon’ble Court have her previous chest xrays  and xray reports examined by doctors to confirm that the petitioner had exhibited symptoms consistent with her complaints that she had been physically harmed and her lungs poisoned by the intentional introduction of toxic chemicals into her vicinity in her accommodation and vehicle. The very next day, the petitioner was evicted from her residence and the original xray films (and other medical records) were seized in her absence. Where are these records? This constitutes a gross violation of the petitioner’s human rights.

  1. On May 30, 2012, the petitioner was present in the Delhi High court for this very matter. Sometime during the afternoon while I was in court, I was evicted from my residence in my absence. I accessed a text message sent to my phone that afternoon at around 4 pm. I was in the Delhi High Court the entire day and my phone was either on silent or was switched off. At around 4.15 pm I saw the following text message on my phone which was sent from the number 9811454468. This text was sent to me shortly after 2 pm and read:

“There is an order of the Saket dist court against you to vacate G-4 jangpura first floor. I along with the court appointed bailiff and police personel are standing and taking over the possession. I have call you thrice but you have not responded. This is for your information.

shivam sharma”

  1. I checked my phone and there were three missed calls from this number at 2:18 pm, 2:19 pm, and 2:21 pm. I immediately went to Justice P K Bhasin’s court who had passed the order dated May 25, 2012 and before whom the matter had been listed on May 30, 2012. I told Justice Bhasin that I had been illegally evicted and I had nowhere to stay. I made an oral prayer that he pass orders directing the Union of India to immediately provide me with safe accommodation. Justice P K Bhasin refused to pass any order. He made the strange remark that the eviction was a result of what I had been doing. Justice P K Bhasin suggested that the illegal eviction was a consequence of the applications I had moved in CWP 1280 on three consecutive days, i.e., on 28, 29 and 30th May. GE’s lawyers also knew that I intended to file further applications including an appeal. I had told Mr Nanju Ganpathy that I would file an appeal in the Supreme Court of India against the failure of Justice P K Bhasin to hear CM 7175/ 2012 and issue notice to respondents 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 on May 29, 2012.  .

  1. On 30 May, 2012, after leaving Justice P K Bhasin’s court, I called the SHO of the Nizamuddin (Sunil Kumar Sharma) police station at 4.51 pm from the High Court itself. I asked him if possession had been taken over. He stated that it had. I asked him about the location of my belongings that were in the house. The SHO told me that all my belongings had been taken away by the bailiff in the presence of the police. I then went to Mr Najmi Waziri’s chamber, who was appearing for Delhi Police, to tell him that the police had committed contempt of the Court’s order dated May 25, 2012. Mr Najmi Waziri refused to talk to me and told me he had marked the matter to another counsel for the Government of the NCT of Delhi, Mr. H. S. Sachdeva. I called Mr. H S Sachdeva but he was out of town and said he did not know about my matter.

  1. That same evening (May 30, 2012) the petitioner contacted the staff in the courts of both Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed seeking to mention this matter and that she was on the road without her belongings. However, that evening there was a function organised in the Delhi High Court to inaugurate the new underground parking. Both Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed were unavailable. I stayed back for this function to end hoping to meet either one of the judges after that. During the service of refreshments after the function ended, I informed Mr. A S. Chandhiok that I had been evicted and had no where to stay. I told him that I was going to mention this matter at the residence of the Chief Justice of India, Justice S. H. Kapadia. Mr. A S Chandhiok told me to wait and that he would help me and arrange accommodation for me. He suggested the Sunder Nagar guesthouse. I told him I would not feel secure there. I said I wanted to stay at a place like the India International Centre or the India Habitat Centre. Mr A S Chandhiok asked me to have something to eat while he organised some accommodation. After an hour and a half, Mr A S Chandhiok suddenly told me that he had not been able to arrange anything and the only option was the Sunder Nagar guesthouse. Mr. A s Chandhiok then left leaving me in the lurch close to 10 pm in the night. At this time, Mr A S Chandhiok was no longer concerned about me and simply wanted to get away. 

  1. As a result of Mr. Chandhiok’s deception, by the time I reached the residence of Justice S H. Kapadia, his office was closed. I was unable to meet either Justice Kapadia or his staff. (Mr A S Chandhiok delayed me that evening by making a false offer to help  me with the intent to delay me from going to Justice Kapadia’s residence before it was closed.) That night, I spoke with Mr Ravindra Maithani, the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court of India. I also spoke to the Supreme Court vacation officer. I provided details to both these officers about the writ petition I had filed in the Delhi High Court and the contempt of the court’s order committed by the police in illegally evicting me. I told them I had nowhere to stay for the night. Both Mr. Maithani and the Supreme Court vacation officer refused to help me and I was asked to move a petition the next day along with an application of urgency. I went to Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s residence after that and I explained the situation to his daughter. His daughter took the papers to Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and then returned and told me that it was not possible for Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul to help me. I then went to the Tughlak Road police station and spoke with the SHO there. I told him that I had no place to stay. I finally checked into Claridges hotel for one night after 1 pm that night upon the suggestion of the SHO. The next day, i.e., on May 31, 2012, I went to the India Habitat Center and after having my membership there activated, I checked into the India Habitat Center where I have been staying until now.

  1. Since July 7, 2012, the India Habitat Center management started asking me to check out and vacate the room. I made several requests to the management to permit me to stay for a few more days but the management insisted that I check out.

  1. On the night of July 9, 2012, I went to the Tughlak Road police station again and informed the police that I had no place to stay. The SHO was on leave and I spoke to an Inspector who was in charge (Anand or Ajay). He told me the police could not provide me with a place to stay. I stated that I had nowhere to go and could not stay on the street. This police officer told me I could stay in the police station. I asked for a place to sleep. I was told I could not sleep in the police station and that I should sit on a chair. This inspector told me that he would produce me before a magistrate at Patiala house the next day. Since, I was very sleepy and because I wanted to draft and move this application, I decided to go back to the India Habitat Centre. The management of the India Habitat Centre has refused to extend my stay even for a few more days to enable me to move appropriate petitions/ applications before this Hon’ble Court. I was not given a room last night and spent the whole night in the lobby. 

  1. I would like to point out that in Civil Writ petition 1280 of 2012, I have stated that I have been drugged and poisoned over the last two years since July 2010. Under these circumstances, I obviously was not able to appear before the civil Judge in the eviction suit filed against me. I have been consistently stating since July 2011, that I am being harmed in that house and that I cannot stay there.

  1. On April 3, 2012 soon after I started to make formal complaints against Max Hospital, my landlady, her lawyers and some unknown men barged into my house, threatened me and broke locks. I attach the police complaints (as Annexure P-1 hereto) that I made on April 3, 2012 when the landlady for my flat, her lawyers and some unknown men barged into my home, broke the locks, stole my keys and threatened to evict me then and there. I asked for time to evict but I was told I had to leave there and then. I attach six audio recordings and two video recordings that establish beyond doubt that I was not supplied or even shown a copy of any eviction order or decree. My request that I be provided with a copy of the execution decree (made in front of a policeman from the local police post at Jangpura Extension) was scoffed at. I state that as is clear from these recordings, I did not resist eviction on April 3, 2012 but only asked for a copy of the order and some notice period. I attach photographs of locks broken in my home by these persons on April 3, 2012. I attach an audio recording of my phone conversation on April 3, 2012 with the SHO of the Nizamuddin police station.

  1. After April 3, 2012, I contacted Rajni Palriwala, the landlady and forwarded her a copy of this writ petition and other documents. I attach copies of my correspondence with Rajni Palriwala on April 3, 2012. These are annexed hereto as Annexure P-2. The above audio recordings, video recordings and photographs are annexed hereto as Annexure P-3.

  1. I did not hear anything about an eviction decree or its execution after April 3, 2012 either from Rajni Palriwala or her lawyer or the Nizamuddin SHO.

  1. The police was aware that I had not been provided with a copy of the eviction decree or given any prior notice of eviction. As stated in the attached police complaints, on May 30, 2012, I was evicted from my residence in my absence with no prior notice or intimation and without being provided with a copy of the alleged eviction decree. The local SHO and his subordinates were aware that I had not been provided with a copy of the eviction decree or with any prior notice.

  1. I am now homeless and have spent last night (night of 10 and 11 July, 2012) in the lobby of the India Habitat Centre. 

  1. I am filing the present application seeking directions that I be immediately provided with shelter and a safe place to stay. I also seek directions to the Union of India, the Central Vigilance Commissioner, and to General Electric Co. and GE India Industrial Private Limited that the petitioner be provided with a safe and secure accommodation.

  1. I do not have any confidence in Justice P K Bhasin. He refused to help me on May 30, 2012. On four hearings, he refused to allow me to argue or even speak. He attempted to sabotage this petition by directing that the respondents would not be allowed to file counter affidavits and then modified his order dated May 25, 2012 after I filed CM No. 7012 of 2012 on May 26, 2012. Justice P K Bhasin suggested that I had it coming when I told him that I had been illegally evicted on May 30, 2012.

  1. Nevertheless, I am constrained to file this application because I need shelter.
I request that Justice P K Bhasin not hear this matter but list it before another bench. This matter needs to be heard today because I do not have shelter for tonight.”


15.  On 7 October 2013, the petitioner requested Justice P K Bhasin to recuse from this matter. On that date Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul adjourned the matter to 9 October to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps.

16.  On 8 October, 2013, the petitioner was targeted by Delhi Police Security in the Delhi High Court premises and was compelled to make a written complaint to  interalia Chief Justice Ramana. A copy of this complaint dated 8 October, 2013 was filed on record in this matter on 8 October 2013 itself and was on the court file during the court hearing on 9 October 2013. In this complaint (to which the petitioner attached a copy of CM 8677/ 2012), the petitioner also requested as follows:

“Yesterday, WP Civil 1280 of 2012 and Criminal Contempt Case 3/ 2012 (the illegal contempt proceedings being used to target me) were listed along with CM Appl 15203/ 2013 before a Division Bench of Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul. I informed that Bench that it would be inappropriate for Justice P K Bhasin to hear this matter before he had earlier heard this matter sitting singly without juridiction and because of certain complaints against him which are described in CM 8677/ 2012 which is lying unheard befotre the court since 13 July 2012. (A copy of CM 8677/ 2012 is attached).

Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul suggested that I approach Chief Justice Ramana and wanted to adjourn the matters to 11 October 2013 (Friday) but upon my request the matters were adjourned to 9 October 2013.

I will be filing appropriate applications and making appropriate requests as far as the listing of these matters is concerned.

…

I also point out that it is very surprising that these matters have once again been marked to a Bench with a Judge (Justice P K Bhasin) who ought to be disqualified from hearing these matters.

…

I also request that WP Civil 1280/ 2012 and Criminal Contempt case 3/ 2012 be listed before a bench not comprising Justice P K Bhasin.” 


17.  This matter was listed before Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddartha Mridul on 9 October 2013. At 10.30 am, parties were informed that the Special Bench of Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul would sit for this matter at 12.45 pm.

18.  When the matter was called out, the petitioner orally requested Justice P K Bhasin to recuse himself but he did not respond on this request. The court’s attention was drawn by the petitioner to the contents of the complaint dated 8 October 2013 and to the contents of CM 8677/ 2012. Justice Siddartha Mridul indicated that CM 8677/ 2012 did not contain a prayer for recusal by Justice P K Bhasin.

19.  The petitioner requested that in that case she was seeking a short adjournment to file an application with an express prayer that Justice P K Bhasin not hear this matter. Justice Siddhartha Mridul indicated that the petitioner was free to do so.

20.  Eventually upon the petitioner’s insistence that she wanted Justice P K Bhasiin to recuse, Justice P K Bhasin started to dictate an order that the matter was being adjourned at the petitioner’s request. The petitioner insisted that the order record that the petitioner’s request for an adjournment was to enable her to file an application seeking recusal by Justice P K Bhasin. Eventually Justice P K Bhasin recorded in his order that the petitioner was seeking time to file such an application.

21.  The petitioner requested an adjournment till 21 October 2013 (in view of court vacations in the week commencing 14 October 2013). However, shockingly and with clear intent to vindictively target and victimise the petitioner, Justice P K Bhasin insisted on adjoutning the matter to 7 January 2014. The petitioner repeatedly requested that the matter be posted either on 21 October 2013 or on 11 October  2013, yet the Bench refused to give a shorter date. The petitioner pointed out to the court that she was sleeping in her car and needed urgent orders for housing and protection and thaat the adjournment of the matter to 7 January 2014 would deprive the petitioner of her constitutional rights, place her life at risk, and asked if the Bench wanted the petitioner to continue sleeping in her car for the next three months including in the winter. The petitioner pointed out that the Judges were targeting the petitioner by depriving her of her legal remedies for another three months. There was no response from Justice P K Bhasin or Justice Siddhartha Mridul to this and they left the court.

22.  It is also pointed out that during the court hearing on 9 October 2013, Justice P K Bhasin expressed views that display his bias towards General Electric. During the hearing, Mr Nanju Ganapathy rose to address the court and the petitioner objected stating that he had not filed valid vakalarnamas and could not represent the three General Electric companies. In an attempt to protect Mr Nanju Ganapathy and General Electric from the consequences of appearing without proper authority documents, Justice P K Bhasin stated that this issue would only be decided after thec court heard the petitioner on merits. It is submitted that this position is incorrect. According to the law, the court cannot permit a lawyer to represent a party without a proper vakalatnama and the continued appearance of Mr Nanju Ganapathy in this matter violates the law. This court has to decide the petitioner’s application CM 10493/ 2013 on this issue before hearing the matter on merits. Mr Nanju Ganapathy’s appearance in this matter today violated the law and the court ought not to have permitted him to appear or to record his appearance.

23.  It is also a matter of concern, that Justice Siddhartha Mridul suggested to the petitioner during the court hearing on 9 October 2013 that she not pursue her several applications in this matter including CM 10493/ 2013 and that she focus on the main petition itself, It is submitted that this suggestion by Justice Siddhartha Mridul was wholly inappropriate and would benefit General Electric and those who have physically and otherwise caused harm and injury to the petitioner.

24.  The petitioner is for the reasons above making this application seeking recusal from this matter (and from Criminal Contempt Case 3/ 2012) by both Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul. While the reasons for the petitioner seeking recusal by Justice P K Bhasin are elaborated in CM 8677/ 2012 and hereinabove, the petitioner was very disappointed by Justice Siddhartha Mridul participating in targeting the petitioner by adjourning this matter to 7 January 2014.

25.  Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul had no reason or justification to adjourn this matter to 7 January 2014 and this act on their part shows a clear intent to target the petitioner, to continue to place her life at risk, to continue to allow General Electric and the State repondents to cover up the corruptipn complaints in the present petition. These judges are aware that adjourning this matter to 7 January 2014 would prevent a timely hearing of CM 7197/ 2013 (which is lying unheard before the court since 31 May 2013) in which the petitioner has sought the following urgent relief:

“PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

  

(a)    Stay the decision of the Cabinet dated 1 May 2013 to cancel the impugned tenders and to issue new RFQs and RFPs for the ELF and DLF Projects or to proceed with the new Bidding Process for these Projects until this writ petition is heard and finally decided and until the complaints made in this writ petition are dealt with in accordance with law;

(b)   Injunct/ restrain respondents 4 and 5 (Railway Ministry and the Union of India through the PMO) from proceeding further with the bid process under the two RFQs issued on 6 May 2013 (Global RFQ No. 2013/M/ (W)/ 964/33 dated May, 2013, and Global RFQ No. 2013/Elect (Dev)/440/7 dated 6 May, 2013) until this writ petition is heard and finally decided;

(c)    Injunct/ restrain respondents 4 and 5 (Railway Ministry and the Union of India through the PMO) from issuing the RFQ documents for DLF and ELF (for Global RFQ No. 2013/M/ (W)/ 964/33 dated May, 2013, and for Global RFQ No. 2013/Elect (Dev)/440/7 dated 6 May, 2013) to General Electric Company, or to GE India Industrial Private Limited, or to GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited or to any of their associate companies and/or from receiving applications for prequalification under these RFQs from any of these companies or their associates until this writ petition is heard and finally decided;

(d)   Injunct/ restrain respondents 4 and 5 (Railway Ministry and the Union of India through the PMO) from short-listing General Electric Company or GE India Industrial Private Limited, or GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited or any of their associate companies under Global RFQ No. 2013/M/ (W)/ 964/33 dated May, 2013, and Global RFQ No. 2013/Elect (Dev)/440/7 dated 6 May, 2013 until this writ petition is heard and finally decided;

(e)    Direct the PMO and the Railway Ministry to file separate affidavits (through the Principal Secretary, PMO and the Chairman of the Railway Board respectively) answering the questions raised in this application;

(f)    Direct the Railway Ministry to blacklist General Electric Company,  GE India Industrial Private Limited, GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited and all and any of their associate companies from participation in any Railway Tenders including (Global RFQ No. 2013/M/ (W)/ 964/33 dated May, 2013, and Global RFQ No. 2013/Elect (Dev)/440/7 dated 6 May, 2013) for a minimum period of two years;

(g)   Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”


26.  The petitioner also points out that during the court hearing on 9 October 2013 and after the judges had left the court-room, Mr Nanju Ganapathy threatened and mocked the petitioner by stating loudly in front of several lawyers that the petitioner should complain against the judges to Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. It is pointed out that Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia stands accused in the present petition of favouring General Electric in the impugned tenders and of illegal acts to assist General Electric in grabbing the lucrative Marhowra diesel locomotive factory which has been specifically created for General Electric Company and which is against national interest and against the interests of Indian manufacturing. It is also pointed that Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia is behind the threat to the life of the petitioner. In these circumstances, Mr Nanju Ganapathy’s statement to the petitioner that she conplain against the judges to Montek Singh Ahluwalia amounts to criminal intimidation and to contempt of court.

27.  It is requested for the reasons stated above, that both Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul recuse themselves from hearing this matter forthwith and that the matter be listed for hearing before another Bench (subject to the orders of the Chief Justice) for day to day hearing starting 21 October 2013. The petitioner’s life is in danger, she is sleeping on the street without any protection. Attempts to drug her, poison her, and even to abduct her continue. The petitioner is being tortured both physically and mentally on a daily basis to cause her to fall ill and to break down mentally. In these circumstances and with these facts (and supporting evidence) on record, it was/ is unconscionable for Justice P K Bhasin and for Justice Siddhartha Mridul to adjourn this matter to 7 January 2014.

28.   This application is being made in the interest of justice.

29.  It is requested that this Bench first take a decision on recusal from both W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012 and from Criminal Contempt Case 3/ 2012 and not pass any others orders in these matters. A final decision must be made on the request for recusal before this Bench passes any other orders in these matters. It is also prayed that if the Bench decides not to recuse itself from either of these matters, then an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to appeal from such order.

30.  The petitioner seeks liberty to supplement this application through additional affidavits.





PRAYER




It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:


(a)    Direct that the present writ petition and all pending applications be listed before a Bench not comprising of Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul (subject to orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice);


(b)   Direct that this matter and especially the petitioner’s applications for interim relief, including housing and protection be heard expeditiously with a day to day hearing commencing 21 October 2013;
(c)    List this matter for hearing on 21st October, 2013;


(d)   Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.




Place: New Delhi                                            Petitioner in Person
October 9, 2013                                              Seema Sapra
Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of the whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless and sleeping in her car since 27 February 2013



In the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
C. M. Appl. No.          of 2013
In
Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012


IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra                                                                            …Petitioner
versus

General Electric Co. and Others                                             ….Respondents


AFFIDAVIT

I, Seema Sapra, daughter of Late Shri A. R. Sapra, aged 42 years, previously resident of G 4, first floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi 110014 and rendered homeless on 30 May 2012 (because of and as a result of the whistleblower complaints of corruption, forgery, bribery, fraud and illegal activities made against General Electric, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Planning Commission, Railway Ministry and Ministry of Finance and as a result of the whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and because of my complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Soli J Sorabjee and Mr Raian Karanjawala) in contempt of this Hon’ble Court’s order dated May 25, 2012 and presently homeless and sleeping in my car since 27 February 2013 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1.      I am the Petitioner in the present Petition and am well aware of the facts of the case and am competent to file the present affidavit.

2.      I state that the accompanying application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking directions from the court (along with affidavit) has been drafted by me and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed there-from and that all annexures to the application are true copies of their respective originals.


DEPONENT



VERIFICATION


Verified at New Delhi on this 9th day of October 2013, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
                                                                                               


DEPONENT  






In the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
C.M. Appl. No.         of 2013
In
Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012


IN THE MATTER OF:

Seema Sapra                                                                            …Petitioner
versus

General Electric Co. and Others                                             ….Respondents

INDEX
No.
Particulars
Pages
1
Urgent Application

1
2
Court Fees
2
3
C.M. No.              of 2013 - An application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code  seeking directions from the court that the present writ petition and all pending applications be listed before a Bench not comprising of Justice P K Bhasin and Justice Siddhartha Mridul and for day to day hearing in this matter commencing 21 October 2013 (along with affidavit)
3-23


Place: New Delhi                                            Petitioner in Person
October 9, 2013                                              Seema Sapra
Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of this whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless and sleeping in her car since 27 February 2013

Note: All 17 respondents have been served with an advance copy of this application by email dated 9 October 2013.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)