Tuesday, 16 May 2017

Fwd: Message to US President Donald Trump from General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra concerning request for US political asylum - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:23 AM
Subject: Message to US President Donald Trump from General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra concerning request for US political asylum - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831
To: pmosb <pmosb@gov.in>, Amit Shah <amitshah.bjp@gmail.com>, Sanjay Jain <sanjayjain.chamber@gmail.com>, "director@aiims.ac.in" <director@aiims.ac.in>, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, joe.kaeser@siemens.com, dch@nic.in, "splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in" <splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <splcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-cr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ser-dl@nic.in, jtcp-swr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ga-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sec-dl@nic.in, "jcpsec@rb.nic.in" <jcpsec@rb.nic.in>, "addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-sb-dl@nic.in, addlcp-crime-dl@nic.in, "addlcpt-dtp@nic.in" <addlcpt-dtp@nic.in>, "addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in>, dcp-west-dl@nic.in, addlcp-se-dl@nic.in, "dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <dcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, dcp-eow-dl@nic.in, dcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, dcp-east-dl@nic.in, dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in, "dcp-central-dl@nic.in" <dcp-central-dl@nic.in>, dcp-north-dl@nic.in, dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in, "dcp-south-dl@nic.in" <dcp-south-dl@nic.in>, dcp-outer-dl@nic.in, "dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in" <dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in" <dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in>, dcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, "addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in" <addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in>, "acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-hndin-dl@nic.in" <sho-hndin-dl@nic.in>, "emily.madder@siemens.com" <emily.madder@siemens.com>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.com>, "cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com" <cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com>, rajshekhar rao <rao.rajshekhar@gmail.com>, "vikram@duaassociates.com" <vikram@duaassociates.com>, "pk.malhotra@nic.in" <pk.malhotra@nic.in>, "ramakrishnan.r@nic.in" <ramakrishnan.r@nic.in>, "cvc@nic.in" <cvc@nic.in>, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, "hshso@nic.in" <hshso@nic.in>, "complaintcell-ncw@nic.in" <complaintcell-ncw@nic.in>, "sgnhrc@nic.in" <sgnhrc@nic.in>, "dg-nhrc@nic.in" <dg-nhrc@nic.in>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov" <usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov>, "nalin.jain@ge.com" <nalin.jain@ge.com>, "helpline@eda.admin.ch" <helpline@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Vertretung-New-Delhi <ndh.vertretung@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-VISA New-Delhi <ndh.visa@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Etat Civil New Delhi <ndh.etatcivil@eda.admin.ch>, "vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "emb@rusembassy.in" <emb@rusembassy.in>, indconru indconru <indconru@gmail.com>, "web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk" <LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk>, "delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu" <delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu>, "re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca" <re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca>, "info@new-delhi.diplo.de" <info@new-delhi.diplo.de>, "delamb@um.dk" <delamb@um.dk>, "emb.newdelhi@mfa.no" <emb.newdelhi@mfa.no>, "chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "InfoDesk@ohchr.org" <InfoDesk@ohchr.org>, "Press-Info@ohchr.org" <Press-Info@ohchr.org>, "civilsociety@ohchr.org" <civilsociety@ohchr.org>, "webmaster@ambafrance-in.org" <webmaster@ambafrance-in.org>, "VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "indne@unhcr.org" <indne@unhcr.org>, "ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it" <ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it>, "chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn>, "chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "webmaster@mfa.gov.cn" <webmaster@mfa.gov.cn>, "in@mofcom.gov.cn" <in@mofcom.gov.cn>, "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, "mr@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mr@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "crb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <crb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "me@rb.railnet.gov.in" <me@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "mm@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mm@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ms@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ms@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in" <legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "r_s_chidambaram@cat.com" <r_s_chidambaram@cat.com>, "rathin.basu@alstom.com" <rathin.basu@alstom.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "john.flannery@ge.com" <john.flannery@ge.com>, "delhihighcourt@nic.in" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov" <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "chairmanoffice@sec.gov" <CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "radhakrishnan.k@ge.com" <radhakrishnan.k@ge.com>, "preet.bharara@usdoj.gov" <preet.bharara@usdoj.gov>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "ffetf@usdoj.gov" <ffetf@usdoj.gov>, "fja@federaljudgesassoc.org" <fja@federaljudgesassoc.org>, "supremecourt@nic.in" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com" <ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com>, Directors@corporate.ge.com, Siemens Ombudsman COM <mail@siemens-ombudsman.com>, compliance.office@bombardier.com, pierre.beaudoin@bombardier.com, william.ainsworth@caterpillar.com, CATshareservices@cat.com, BusinessPractices@cat.com, patrick.kron@alstom.com, keith.carr@alstom.com, Jean-David.barnea@usdoj.gov, paul.murphy@usdoj.gov, sandra.glover@usdoj.gov, Jonah Spector <robert.spector@usdoj.gov>, christopher.connolly@usdoj.gov, joseph.cordaro@usdoj.gov, christopher.harwood@usdoj.gov, michael.byars@usdoj.gov, david.hale@usdoj.gov, rod.rosenstein@usdoj.gov, william.martin@usdoj.gov, richard.callahan@usdoj.gov, michael.cotter@usdoj.gov, paul.fishman@usdoj.gov, richard.hartunian@usdoj.gov, william.hochul@usdoj.gov, peter.smith@usdoj.gov, david.hickton@usdoj.gov, peter.neronha@usdoj.gov, jose.moreno@usdoj.gov, john.vaudreuil@usdoj.gov, christopher.crofts@usdoj.gov, bprao@bhel.in, ajay.sinha@emdiesels.com, armin.bruck@siemens.com, sunil.mathur@siemens.com, roland.busch@siemens.com, klaus.helmrich@siemens.com, daniel.desjardins@bombardier.com, james.buda@caterpillar.com, alert.procedure@alstom.com, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, public.enquiries@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, luis.quesada@ic.fbi.gov, eric.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, david.brooks@ic.fbi.gov, frank.teixeira@ic.fbi.gov, timothy.langan@ic.fbi.gov, sharon.kuo@ic.fbi.gov, kingman.wong@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.bodony@ic.fbi.gov, christopher.mcmurray@ic.fbi.gov, eric.metz@ic.fbi.gov, alejandro.barbeito@ic.fbi.gov, cary.gleicher@ic.fbi.gov, paul.haertel@ic.fbi.gov, lazaro.andino@ic.fbi.gov, gabriel.ramirez@ic.fbi.gov, benjamin.walker@ic.fbi.gov, kirk.striebich@ic.fbi.gov, katherine.andrews@ic.fbi.gov, mark.nowak@ic.fbi.gov, stuart.wirtz@ic.fbi.gov, lesley.buckler@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.dudzinski@ic.fbi.gov, william.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, "Brown, Connally B. (MM) (FBI)" <connally.brown@ic.fbi.gov>, lawrence.futa@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.shaffer@ic.fbi.gov, Amit Sharma <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, Rajesh Mishra <attorney.rmishra@gmail.com>, csrhw@csrhw.com.cn, deepak verma <justicedverma@gmail.com>, dridzu@nic.in, "P.H. Parekh" <pravin.parekh@pravinparekh.com>, abhay kumar verma <akvadvocates@gmail.com>, Manan Mishra <manankumarmishra@gmail.com>, prabakaran.president.tnaa@gmail.com, vbhatt.adv@gmail.com, advajithts@gmail.com, Nilesh Kumar <agrnilesh73@gmail.com>, kunals777@yahoo.com, chairman@ses-surat.org, bhojcthakur@yahoo.com, raj mohan singh tanwar <rmsinghadvocate@gmail.com>, Satish Abarao Deshmukh <satish.adeshmukh@gmail.com>, info@group30.org, poststelle@sta.berlin.de, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, webmaster.greco@coe.int, info@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@generalbundesanwalt.de, jthuy@eurojust.europa.eu, ejn@eurojust.europa.eu, collegesecretariat@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@bgh.bund.de, secretariat@cepol.europa.eu, CP@ohchr.org, siemens-ombudsmann@rae13.de, mariassy@rae13.de, usgrievance@rb.nic.in, cenvigil@nic.in, sdas@cbi.gov.in, adrkd@cbi.gov.in, jdp@cbi.gov.in, hozeo@cbi.gov.in, hozmdma@cbi.gov.in, hozbpl@cbi.gov.in, hozmum1@cbi.gov.in, hozkol@cbi.gov.in, hozac@cbi.gov.in, hozstf@cbi.gov.in, hozsc@cbi.gov.in, hozbsf@cbi.gov.in, hozpat@cbi.gov.in, hozeo2@cbi.gov.in, jda@cbi.gov.in, jdtfc@cbi.gov.in, hozdel@cbi.gov.in, hozchn@cbi.gov.in, hozhyd@cbi.gov.in, hozne@cbi.gov.in, dop@cbi.gov.in, hobac1del@cbi.gov.in, hobac2del@cbi.gov.in, hobac3del@cbi.gov.in, rajiv.vc@nic.in, rajeev.verma@nic.in, "cp.ggn@hry.nic.in" <cp.ggn@hry.nic.in>, mukul17855@yahoo.com, Ranjit Kumar <sgofficerk@gmail.com>, tusharmehta64@yahoo.com, Neeraj Kaul <neerajkishankaul@gmail.com>, president@bjp.org, fmo@nic.in, cabinet@nic.in, cabinetsy@nic.in, kk manan <kkmananadvocate@gmail.com>, kkmanan@gmail.com, secy-mci@nic.in, Delhi Medical Council <delhimedicalcouncil@gmail.com>, sho-civilline-dl@nic.in, sho-kamlamkt-dl@nic.in, sho-gk-dl@nic.in, sho-chandnimahal-dl@nic.in, sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in, sho-paharganj-dl@nic.in, sho-rkpuram-dl@nic.in, sho-bkroad-dl@nic.in, sho-chanakyapuri-dl@nic.in, sho-vasantvhr-dl@nic.in, sho-vksouth-dl@nic.in, sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in, sho-kmkpur-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in, sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in, sho-malviyangr-dl@nic.in, sho-saket-dl@nic.in, sho-lodhiclny-dl@nic.in, sho-dkuan-dl@nic.in, sho-kalkaji-dl@nic.in, sho-crpark-dl@nic.in, sho-govpuri-dl@nic.in, sho-ipestate-dl@nic.in, sho-mandirmarg-dl@nic.in, sho-kashmirigate-dl@nic.in, sho-rajinderngr-dl@nic.in, sho-karolbagh-dl@nic.in, sho-parsadngr-dl@nic.in, sho-bhrao-dl@nic.in, sho-sadarbazar-dl@nic.in, sho-jamamasjid-dl@nic.in, sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzqazi-dl@nic.in, sho-lahorigate-dl@nic.in, sho-anandparvat-dl@nic.in, sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in, sho-ranjitngr-dl@nic.in, sho-dbgrd-dl@nic.in, sho-sarairohilla-dl@nic.in, sho-punjabibagh-dl@nic.in, jtcp.ggn@hry.nic.in, "dcphq.ggn@hry.nic.in" <dcphq.ggn@hry.nic.in>, "dcp.southggn@hry.nic.in" <dcp.southggn@hry.nic.in>, Mukul Rohatgi <mukul17855@gmail.com>, seclg@nic.in, suresh prabhu <spprabhu1@gmail.com>, rv.dhc@nic.in, jawahar@pralaw.in, prem@pralaw.in, Kent Walker <kwalker@google.com>, Eric Schmidt <eschmidt@google.com>, David Drummond <ddrummond@google.com>, Patrick Pichette <ppichette@google.com>, Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan@google.com>, Daniel Alegre <dalegre@google.com>, John Fitzpatrick <jfitzpatrick@google.com>, president@whitehouse.gov, zentrale@bundesnachrichtendienst.de, alokk.verma@nic.in, delpol@vsnl.com, ashish.sawkar@ic.fbi.gov, dgtihar@nic.in, dig-tihar@nic.in, tihar@nic.in, scj1-tihar@nic.in, scj2-tihar@nic.in, scj3-tihar@nic.in, scj4-tihar@nic.in, scj5-tihar@nic.in, scj6-tihar@nic.in, scj7-tihar@nic.in, scj8-tihar@nic.in, sdjr-tihar@nic.in, sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in, reg.rajpalarora@sci.nic.in, reg.rnnijhawan@sci.nic.in, Alex Dimitrief <alex.dimitrief@gmail.com>, bernabei@bernabeipllc.com, jzuckerman@zuckermanlaw.com, Kathleen Clark <kathleen@wustl.edu>, shippw@dcobc.org, academic@wcl.american.edu, driver@american.edu, dorsainv@american.edu, executive.office@dcbar.org, Maninder Singh <ms@singhmaninder.com>, Harsh Sharma BCD <harshrma@hotmail.com>, kkmanan <kkmanan@rediffmail.com>, Avtar Singh Malhotra <malhotra.avtar@gmail.com>, sho-vknorth-dl@nic.in, lggc.delhi@nic.in, nodp.delhi@nic.in, directorihbas@vsnl.net, Deepak Kumar <dmsihbas@gmail.com>, "Emergency Medicine, AIIMS" <emergencymediaiims@gmail.com>, naman_kvpy@rediff.com, anupam ranjan <dranupamranjan@gmail.com>, nishtha.aiims@gmail.com, shivampatel999@gmail.com, ms.aiims@aiims.edu, dean@aiims.edu, Rajesh sagar <rsagar29@gmail.com>, "Dr. Manju Mehta" <drmanju.mehta@gmail.com>, pratapsharan@yahoo.com, Nand Kumar <nandkm2001@gmail.com>, sgupta52001@yahoo.co.in, S K Sharma <sksharma.aiims@gmail.com>, sksmedicine.aiims@gmail.com, Prakash Singh <62prakashsingh@gmail.com>, ragesh rnair <rageshrnair@gmail.com>, drsanjeevsinha2002@yahoo.com, director.aiims@gmail.com, vsrinivas@aiims.ac.in, drambujroy@gmail.com, Ramakrishnan S <ramaaiims@gmail.com>, Saurabh Kumar Gupta <drsaurabhmd@gmail.com>, sunil verma <ksunilverma02@gmail.com>, Neeraj Parakh <neerajparakh@yahoo.com>, Rajiv Narang <r_narang@yahoo.com>, aiims aiims <drsandeepseth@hotmail.com>, rakeshyadav123@yahoo.com, nitishnaik@yahoo.co.in, G Karthikeyan <karthik2010@gmail.com>, Gautam Sharma <drsharmagautam@gmail.com>, Sandeep Singh <drssandeep@hotmail.com>, vkbahl2002@yahoo.com, anitasaxena@hotmail.com, kothariss@vsnl.com, balrambhargava@yahoo.com, drkcgoswami@rediffmail.com, Rajnish Juneja <rjuneja2@gmail.com>, Mahesh Misra <mcmisra@gmail.com>, misramahesh@hotmail.com, randeepg@hotmail.com, randeepguleria2002@yahoo.com, Dr G C Khilnani <gckhil@gmail.com>, anantmohan@yahoo.com, Karan Madan <drkaranmadan@gmail.com>, karanmadan@aiims.ac.in, vijayhadda@yahoo.com, gangaram@sgrh.com, "dcp.eastggn@hry.nic.in" <dcp.eastggn@hry.nic.in>, "dcp.westggn@hry.nic.in" <dcp.westggn@hry.nic.in>, dcp.trafficggn@hry.nic.in, "dcpcrime.grg@hry.nic.in" <dcpcrime.grg@hry.nic.in>, acpudyogviharggn-hry@nic.in, acptrafficggn-hry@nic.in, acpggnsdr-hry@nic.in, acpdlfggn-hry@nic.in, acpggncity-hry@nic.in, acppataudiggn-hry@nic.in, shoggnsdr-hry@nic.in, SHO Gurgaon Hardeep Singh Hooda DLF sector 29 GGN <shodlfggn-hry@nic.in>, shosushantlok-hry@nic.in, sho.dlfphse1ggn-hry@nic.in, shodlf2ggn-hry@nic.in, shosec56ggn-hry@nic.in, shosec40ggn-hry@nic.in, shoggncity-hry@nic.in, shosec10ggn-hry@nic.in, shocivillinesggn-hry@nic.in, "SHO Sector 5, Old Gurgaon Police Department, Haryana" <shosec5oldggn-hry@nic.in>, shorajendrapark-hry@nic.in, shoudyogvihar-hry@nic.in, shosec17-hry@nic.in, shopalamvihar-hry@nic.in, shobadshahpur-hry@nic.in, shosohna-hry@nic.in, shobhondsi-hry@nic.in, shopataudi-hry@nic.in, shofarrukhnagar-hry@nic.in, shomanesar-hry@nic.in, shobilaspur-hry@nic.in, shokhrkhidaula-hry@nic.in, showomenpsgn-hry@gov.in, itcellggn-hry@nic.in, Embassy of Portugal in New Delhi <embassy@portugal-india.com>, naresh.trehan@medanta.org, "kirti_uppal@yahoo.com" <kirti_uppal@yahoo.com>, "rsethi@snrlaw.in" <rsethi@snrlaw.in>, rameshsingh66@gmail.com, pravin@anandandanand.com, cyril.shroff@cyrilshroff.com, Gourab Banerji <gkbanerji@gmail.com>, "dushyantdave@gmail.com" <dushyantdave@gmail.com>, EthicsAndCompliance@starbucks.com, sumi.ghosh@starbucks.com, World YWCA <worldoffice@worldywca.org>, Suhel.Daud@ic.fbi.gov, Suhel D <suhel.daud@gmail.com>, rajiv luthra <rajiv@luthra.com>, dcp-igiairport-dl@nic.in, sho.igiairport@delhipolice.gov.in, cp.amulyapatnaik@delhipolice.gov.in, Scba India <scbaec@gmail.com>, gau123@hotmail.com, Gaurav Bhatia <grv.bhatia@gmail.com>, Rupinder Suri <suri.rupinder@gmail.com>, cm@maharashtra.gov.in, acs.home@maharashtra.gov.in, rg-bhc@nic.in, jeff.sessions@usdoj.gov, sho-cp-dl@nic.in, cmdelhi@nic.in, swatidcw@gmail.com, customercare@tatastarbucks.com, pallavi.shroff@amsshardul.com, shardul.shroff@amsshardul.com, Samrat Nigam <samrat.nigam@gmail.com>, Amarjit Singh Chandhiok <achandhiok@gmail.com>, pvkapur@kapurlaw.com, william.cowan@ge.com, Rebecca John <rebeccamammen@gmail.com>, Saurabh Kirpal <saurabhkirpal@hotmail.com>, darpan.wadhwa@gmail.com, ndixit@snrlaw.in, aknigamoffice@gmail.com, Sid Luthra <sidluthra@gmail.com>, sanjivsenoffice@gmail.com, Abhishek Manu Singhvi <drams59@gmail.com>, amit.sibal@amitsibal.com, shyelt@yahoo.com
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>


Message to US President Donald Trump, 

I am a General Electric Company whistleblower in India who is being chronically poisoned. The local police and intelligence agencies are being used by GE to target me. 

Please read more about me and my complaints about GE below.

My life is in great and imminent danger, I request that you grant me political asylum in the United States so that I can be protected and the corruption, forgery, FCPA violations, fraud and obstruction of justice by GE executives and lawyers can be dealt with in accordance with law. 

Last night I was targeted with acrid and acidic chemical fumes. This morning I was again targeted with highly poisonous chemical fumes, nerve agents and anesthetic agents when I was asleep in my car. This was attempted murder. The intent is to cause death by causing airway obstruction and paralysis of the heart muscles. 

Jeffrey Immelt, John Flannery and Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company are responsible for me being poisoned. Persons within the Modi administration and the BJP who are having me targeted include Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Arun Jaitley, Suresh Prabhu and Ajit Doval. Powerful former ministers/ officials having me targeted include Manmohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia. Pratyush Kumar (ex-GE) and now heading Boeing in India is also having me targeted. GE's lawyers in India Zia Mody and her father Soli J Sorabjee ( a former Attorney General of India) are also responsible for having me poisoned. 

The intent is to prevent me from pursuing my corruption and fraud complaints against GE in the Supreme Court of India. 

Seema Sapra 
General Electric Company whistleblower


I have filed the criminal appeal (reproduced below) in the Supreme Court of India under Diary No. 10342. 

Seema Sapra 

General Electric Company whistleblower 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.               OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF
SEEMA SAPRA                                        …Appellant/Petitioner

Versus

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION                 …    Respondent

To
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India., the appeal/ petition of the Appellant/ Petitioner most respectfully showeth :-
1.       This is a Criminal Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 from the judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014, hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment. This appeal is filed with a delay of  32  days beyond the 60-day period prescribed in Section 19. An application for condonation of delay is also filed. The impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014 (Court on its own motion vs. Seema Sapra) is annexed hereto as Annexure A-1.
2.       By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been found guilty of contempt of court. The impugned judgment has imposed a punishment of imprisonment for a period of one month; and in addition a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited within a period of three months with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court failing which the appellant will undergo a further term of imprisonment of one month. The impugned judgment has further directed that the appellant, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi will not be allowed to argue, whether as an Advocate or in person, except in her defence, before any Bench of this High Court or any court or tribunal subordinate to this High Court for a period of two years. The impugned judgment has directed that a copy of that judgment be sent to the Registry of the Delhi High Court and to all subordinate courts and tribunals, and further that a copy of that judgment be also sent to the Delhi Bar Council for information. The impugned judgment itself directed that the operative part pertaining to imposition of punishment would not operate for a period of three months from 17.12.2015 to enable the "contemnor" to take appropriate steps to exercise her legal remedy.

3.       This appeal being filed in person by the appellant begins with a prayer, because the only reason that the appellant-whistleblower-advocate has survived almost six complete years of on-going attempts to eliminate her is because of her prayers.
"Sada durga dahine, sanmukh rahe ganesh, panch dev raksha kare, brahma vishnu mahesh."
4.       At the outset, the appellant/petitioner states that being a woman lawyer, she has the greatest respect for both the judiciary and the rule of law. As a whistleblower who complied with her ethical duty of upholding the rule of law even under grave life threats, it is evident that the appellant takes the law seriously. The appellant holds the judiciary and the judicial function in great respect. She has never sought and will never seek a confrontation with the judiciary. She has never intended to scandalize or to disrespect the judiciary or the Court or to bring it into disrepute.
5.       This appeal challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court in a criminal contempt proceeding has its genesis in a whistleblower right to life petition that the appellant had filed in the Delhi High Court i.e., Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others (hereinafter referred to as the "Writ Petition"). 
6.       This appeal will establish that the appellant is a whistleblower, a lawyer who worked in 2010 for General Electric Company in India and who was compelled to make whistleblower complaints when her legal services were sought to be used for corrupt practices including fraud, forgery, bribery, illegal lobbying etc. in connection with Indian Railway tenders for rail locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura. This appeal will establish that attempts were made to eliminate the appellant with State authorities including the Police and intelligence agencies being used to target and silence the appellant. The appellant managed to file an Article 226 petition in the Delhi High Court. This appeal will establish that this petition languished unheard in the Delhi High Court for 3 years while the appellant continued to be destroyed, physically harmed, attacked, intimidated, harassed, targeted and threatened. This Appeal will establish that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed that Petitionby a judgment dated 2.3.2015 without hearing the appellant who was the petitioner in that matter in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. This appeal will establish that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed the whistleblower corruption case against General Electric Company in complete disregard of the material on record before it, in complete disregard of the law and in complete disregard of the appellant's right to life. This appeal will establish that this unsustainable and wrongful dismissal of the writ petition resulted in a cover-up of very serious complaints and evidence of corruption by and favouring General Electric Company facilitated by then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and his close aide and then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition and the denial of a hearing to the appellant in that matter resulted in gross injustice, and a cover up of attempts to murder the appellant, a cover-up of the fact that the appellant was poisoned, a cover-up of State and police participation in the conspiracy and attempts to silence and eliminate the appellant, a cover-up of the severe targeting that the appellant was subjected to and a cover up of the gross violation of the appellant's right to life. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition has resulted in the appellant continuing to be poisoned for the last one year since 2.3.2015, and continuing to be targeted, harassed, intimidated, threatened, defamed and destroyed. This appeal will further establish that a mind-boggling fraud was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 where an unauthorized person effectively impersonated as the authorised signatory of General Electric Company and two of its subsidiaries and filed patently false and unauthorized affidavits and that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition results in a cover up of this massive fraud on the Court. This appeal will further establish that affidavits filed for the Railway Ministry in the Writ Petition contained multiple instances of perjury and included documents fabricated expressly for the purpose of covering up the corruption by General Electric. Further this appeal will establish that affidavits and status reports filed for the Delhi Police in the Writ petition also contained multiple instances of perjury, and that these affidavits and status reports themselves establish that the police was targeting the appellantand besides actively facilitating her being physically harmed, the police covered up her complaints and fabricated and procured false complaints against her.
7.       The same Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the Writ Petition ( Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P.S. Teji) then proceeded to hear two criminal contempt proceedings which were instituted against the appellant while the Writ Petition was pending and which arose out of facts connected to the hearing of the Writ Petition. This same Division Bench has now after rejecting the appellant's request for recusal, ruled against the appellant in one of the contempt cases and again without permitting the appellant to file a written reply, without hearing the appellant or affording her an opportunity to defend herself has issued the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty of contempt of court and imposing an extraordinarily harsh punishment on the appellant which includes sentencing her to imprisonment.
8.       The appellant states that she has managed to survive for 6 years fighting alone but itis certain that she will be drugged and poisoned in prison and will come out from prison both mentally and physically damaged and incapacitated. It is also certain that this incarceration will be used to falsify medical records for the appellant and to cover up the fact that she has been chronically poisoned, and that this poisoning has caused organ damage and to cover up the fact that the appellant's left ankle was deliberately dislocated in June 2014. The impugned judgment will result in facilitation of the elimination of the whistleblower appellant and in silencing her.
9.       This appeal will establish that the impugned judgment in the contempt case is wrong in law and on facts, that it has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and without hearing the appellant and without providing her even the most limited opportunity to defend herself. This appeal will establish that the impugned contempt judgment misrecords not only the facts but also the appellant's submissions and defence. This appeal will establish that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and to the relevant material before the court.
10.     The appellant does not want to comment on the conduct of the specific Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, but this appeal will establish that the judgments of this particular Division Bench both in the Writ Petition and in the contempt case are wrong, contrary to law and to the material on record, and are unsustainable and perverse.

11.     The record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is relevant to this appeal but is very voluminous. The appellant will place the record of the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in electronic format on a DVD. 
A copy of the judgment in the Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is being filed in a separate volume.
12.     A copy of the appellant's cv showing her educational and professional achievements as in 2010 when the appellant ended up as a whistleblower is reproduced below.
Curriculum Vitae 
Seema Sapra
Contact details

Work Experience
Legal Counsel for GE Transportation India in Delhi (2010 – 5 months until September 2010)
Consultant to Microsoft India on Innovation & IP law and policy - 2009-2010 in Delhi (approx. six months)
Visiting fellow at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, 2008-2009, working on trade policy, climate change and energy policy 
Director – Trade & Policy, at Delhi office of law firm Amarchand Mangaldas, Suresh A. Shroff & Co, 2008. Worked on trade policy, competition policy, nuclear policy, investment policy, India's comprehensive economic cooperation agreements, anti-dumping.  
Visiting Fellow at the Institute of International Economic Law, Georgetown University Law Center in Washington DC 2004-2005, worked on trade and investment policy and law
Assisted GE India General Counsel, Ruby Anand as off-counsel from approx. 1999 till 2001
Associate in the office of Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General of India, 2000-2001 
Empanelled lawyer for the Government of India in the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi in 1999-2001
Lawyer with the litigation law firm of M/s Karanjawala & Co. in New Delhi, 1995-2000
Extensive litigation experience in the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, and various special tribunals.

Policy expertise
International Trade
Bilateral and regional trade agreements 
Investment policy, bilateral investment treaties 
Climate change and sustainable development
Energy efficiency and climate change
Innovation policy, technology transfer and intellectual property
Competition policy 

Teaching Experience
LLM tutor for the World Trade Law joint course at University College London and the School of Oriental and African Studies (2007)
Contract law tutor for 1st Year LLB at the University of Westminster, School of Law as a part-time visiting lecturer (2007)
Guest lectures for the LLM program at Kings College London and University of Leicester law school

Education
PhD studies at Kings College London 2003-2007 (not completed)
Title of proposed thesis: The Place, Treatment, and Meaning of Development in the WTO
Research supervisor - Professor Piet Eeckhout, Kings College London
3 year research fellowship by the Centre for European Law, Kings College London
LLM in Public International Law with distinction at the University of Leicester, 2001-2003
British Chevening scholar
LLB from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi - Ist Division. 1995
Diploma in Environmental Law from the Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India -1994-1995
B. A. Honors in English Literature from St Stephen's College, University of Delhi - 1992

Editorial Assistant for the Journal of International Economic law, 2004-2005 based at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC
Internship with the United Nations Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania 2002-2003

Publications
Article titled "Sustainable Development and the role of the Indian Supreme Court", ASERI (Milan) publication, 2009 
Article titled "An Agenda for Teaching International Economic Law in Indian Law Schools", Indian Journal of International Economic Law, 2009, National Law School, Bangalore
Article titled "The WTO System of Trade Governance: The Stale NGO Debate and the Appropriate Role for Non-state actors" in Oregon Review of International Law Journal, volume 11 issue 1, 2009
Chapter titled 'Domestic Politics and the Search for a New Social Purpose of Governance for the WTO: A Proposal for a Declaration on Domestic Consultation' in Debra Steger (ed.) Redesigning the World Trade Organization for the Twenty-first Century, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2009
Chapter titled 'New Agendas for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Including an Agenda in Support of Reform'  in Colin B. Picker, Isabella Bunn & Douglas Arner, (ed.) INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW - THE STATE & FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE, Hart Publishing, 2008
'Ideas of Embedded Liberalism and Current and Future Challenges for the WTO',  in Ortino and Ripinsky, WTO Law and Process, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007. pg 330 - 352
Development: Its Place, Treatment, and Meaning at the WTO / Seema Sapra (2006). In: Proceedings of the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, Vol. 100, pg 223-226

Papers / Conferences 
Presented paper titled "An Indian perspective on sustainable development: the role of the Indian higher judiciary" at panel discussion at ASERI, Milan in December 2008
Panelist for EDGE network panel on WTO Institutional Reform at the Inaugural conference of the Society for International Economic Law, Geneva, 15-17 July 2008
Presented paper titled "Developing Countries and Outreach to Non-State Actors in the WTO", at an EDGE network project workshop on WTO institutional reform in March 2008 at Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, Ontario. 
Presented paper titled "The Case for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Possible Agendas Including an Agenda in Support of Reform"  at the Annual Conference of the International Economic Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law at Bretton Woods in November, 2006
Panelist at the sixth Annual WTO Conference hosted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in May 2006, on the topic "Doha Development Round: Current and Future Challenges"
Presented paper titled "Development - Its Place, Treatment and Meaning at the WTO" at the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington D.C. 2006.
Presented paper titled "Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law" at the Institute of International Economic Law (IIEL), Georgetown University Law Center in September 2005
Presented paper titled "Constructivism and Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law" at the 2005 conference of the International Law Association, British Branch held at Edinburgh in May 2005

Memberships
Bar Council of Delhi
Society of International Economic Law
Asian WTO Research Network

13.     Questions relevant for this appeal
Is the Appellant a whistleblower? What are the complaints of corruption and what is the evidence?
Has the Appellant been targeted?
Has the Appellant been physically harmed?
Is there a continuing threat to the life of the Appellant?
Has the Indian State, including the Police participated in covering up the corruption complaints and in targeting the appellant-whistleblower?
What were the events of 6.5.2014, the date on which the appellant is stated to have committed contempt of court?
Did the Appellant have an opportunity to defend herself in the Contempt case? Was she given a fair hearing in accordance with law before she was found guilty of contempt?
What is the appellant's response to the contempt notice against her?
Is the punishment accorded by the impugned judgment fair and reasonable?

14.     Before proceeding further, the appellant reproduces below an email sent by her on 6.5.2014 setting out what happened on that date. A copy of this email was filed by the appellant on the Court record of Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012 and of CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014 in the Delhi High Court.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:10 PM
Subject: Ref: Corruption Complaint against Delhi High Court Judges J. Ravindra Bhat; J. S Muralidhar and J. Vibhu Bakhru in connection with Whistle-blower corruption and right to life Writ Petition pending in the Delhi High Court since February 2012 – Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012
To: director@aiims.ac.in, lggc.delhi@nic.in, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, Bhim Sain Bassi <cp.bsbassi@nic.in>, joe.kaeser@siemens.com, dch@nic.in, secypc@nic.in, "splcp-admin-dl@nic.in" <splcp-admin-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-intandops-dl@nic.in" <splcp-intandops-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-antiriotcell-dl@nic.in" <splcp-antiriotcell-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-security-dl@nic.in" <splcp-security-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in" <splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <splcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-armed-dl@nic.in" <splcp-armed-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-operation-dl@nic.in" <splcp-operation-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-traffic-dl@nic.in" <splcp-traffic-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-pl-dl@nic.in" <splcp-pl-dl@nic.in>, splcp-trg-dl@nic.in, "splcp-splcell-dl@nic.in" <splcp-splcell-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-cr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ser-dl@nic.in, jtcp-swr-dl@nic.in, "splcp-pandi-dl@nic.in" <splcp-pandi-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-training-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ga-dl@nic.in, "jtcpt_dtp@nic.in" <jtcpt_dtp@nic.in>, "jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sec-dl@nic.in, "jcpsec@rb.nic.in" <jcpsec@rb.nic.in>, "addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sb-dl@nic.in, addlcp-crime-dl@nic.in, "addlcpt-dtp@nic.in" <addlcpt-dtp@nic.in>, "addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in>, "addlcp-security-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-security-dl@nic.in>, addlcp-ptc-dl@nic.in, "addlcp-lic-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-lic-dl@nic.in>, dcp-west-dl@nic.in, addlcp-se-dl@nic.in, "dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <dcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, dcp-eow-dl@nic.in, dcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, dcp-east-dl@nic.in, dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in, "dcp-central-dl@nic.in" <dcp-central-dl@nic.in>, dcp-north-dl@nic.in, dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in, "dcp-south-dl@nic.in" <dcp-south-dl@nic.in>, dcp-outer-dl@nic.in, "dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in" <dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in" <dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in>, dcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, dcp-igiairport-dl@nic.in, South Asia Initiative Harvard University <sainit@fas.harvard.edu>, "sorina.tira@emdiesels.com" <sorina.tira@emdiesels.com>, "joanne.brozovich@emdiesels.com" <joanne.brozovich@emdiesels.com>, "customs@emdiesels.com" <customs@emdiesels.com>, Mahesh Batra <itcphq-dl@nic.in>, "janpathten@yahoo.com" <janpathten@yahoo.com>, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, "addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in" <addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in>, "acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "office@rahulgandhi.in" <office@rahulgandhi.in>, Arvind Nigam <nigamak@gmail.com>, "sho-hndin-dl@nic.in" <sho-hndin-dl@nic.in>, "enquiries@in.g4s.com" <enquiries@in.g4s.com>, "arjun.wallia@securitas-india.com" <arjun.wallia@securitas-india.com>, "dan.ryan@g4s.com" <dan.ryan@g4s.com>, "grahame.gibson@g4s.com" <grahame.gibson@g4s.com>, "Madder, Emily" <emily.madder@siemens.com>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.com>, "peter.loescher@siemens.com" <peter.loescher@siemens.com>, "cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com" <cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com>, "duadel@duaassociates.com" <duadel@duaassociates.com>, "ranji@duaassociates.com" <ranji@duaassociates.com>, rajshekhar rao <rao.rajshekhar@gmail.com>, "mail@aglaw.in" <mail@aglaw.in>, "vikram@duaassociates.com" <vikram@duaassociates.com>, "neeraj@duaassociates.com" <neeraj@duaassociates.com>, "sec-jus@gov.in" <sec-jus@gov.in>, "pk.malhotra@nic.in" <pk.malhotra@nic.in>, "ramakrishnan.r@nic.in" <ramakrishnan.r@nic.in>, "oo.prlsecypmo@gov.in" <oo.prlsecypmo@gov.in>, "pulok@gov.in" <pulok@gov.in>, "jmg.vc@nic.in" <jmg.vc@nic.in>, "r.sri_kumar@nic.in" <r.sri_kumar@nic.in>, "cvc@nic.in" <cvc@nic.in>, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, "hshso@nic.in" <hshso@nic.in>, "complaintcell-ncw@nic.in" <ncw@nic.in>, "complaintcell-ncw@nic.in" <complaintcell-ncw@nic.in>, "sgnhrc@nic.in" <sgnhrc@nic.in>, "dg-nhrc@nic.in" <dg-nhrc@nic.in>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov" <usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov>, "nalin.jain@ge.com" <nalin.jain@ge.com>, "pradeep.gupta@ge.com" <pradeep.gupta@ge.com>, "sriram.nagarajan@ge.com" <sriram.nagarajan@ge.com>, Wiltschek Susanne EDA WSU <susanne.wiltschek@eda.admin.ch>, "helpline@eda.admin.ch" <helpline@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Vertretung-New-Delhi <ndh.vertretung@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-VISA New-Delhi <ndh.visa@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Etat Civil New Delhi <ndh.etatcivil@eda.admin.ch>, "vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "beatrice.latteier@eda.admin.ch" <beatrice.latteier@eda.admin.ch>, "emb@rusembassy.in" <emb@rusembassy.in>, indconru indconru <indconru@gmail.com>, "web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk" <LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk>,   "delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu" <delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu>, "re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca" <re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca>, "info@new-delhi.diplo.de" <info@new-delhi.diplo.de>, Ambassaden New Delhi <ambassaden.new-delhi@foreign.ministry.se>, "delamb@um.dk" <delamb@um.dk>, "emb.newdelhi@mfa.no" <emb.newdelhi@mfa.no>, "chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "InfoDesk@ohchr.org" <InfoDesk@ohchr.org>, "Press-Info@ohchr.org" <Press-Info@ohchr.org>, "civilsociety@ohchr.org" <civilsociety@ohchr.org>, "nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org" <nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org>, "webmaster@ambafrance-in.org" <webmaster@ambafrance-in.org>, "info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org" <info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org>, "VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "indne@unhcr.org" <indne@unhcr.org>, "ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it" <ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it>, "chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn>, "chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "webmaster@mfa.gov.cn" <webmaster@mfa.gov.cn>, "in@mofcom.gov.cn" <in@mofcom.gov.cn>, "advocatesapnachauhan@yahoo.com" <advocatesapnachauhan@yahoo.com>, "sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com" <sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com>, "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, Manpreet Lamba <manpreet.lamba@azbpartners.com>, "mr@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mr@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "msrk@rb.railnet.gov.in" <msrk@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "edpgmsrk@rb.railnet.gov.in" <edpgmsrk@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "msrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <msrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "crb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <crb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "srppscrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <srppscrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "osdpri@rb.railnet.gov.in" <osdpri@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "dsconf@rb.railnet.gov.in" <dsconf@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "fc@rb.railnet.gov.in" <fc@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ppsfc@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ppsfc@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "edfc@rb.railnet.gov.in" <edfc@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ml@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ml@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ppsml@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ppsml@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "psml@rb.railnet.gov.in" <psml@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "osdml@rb.railnet.gov.in" <osdml@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "me@rb.railnet.gov.in" <me@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ppsme@rb.railnet.gov.in"   <ppsme@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "osdme@rb.railnet.gov.in" <osdme@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "mm@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mm@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ms@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ms@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ppsms@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ppsms@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "dpc1@rb.railnet.gov.in" <dpc1@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "mt@rb.railnet.gov.in"   <mt@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "srppsmt@rb.railnet.gov.in" <srppsmt@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ppsmt@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ppsmt@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "dtcord@rb.railnet.gov.in" <dtcord@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "pssecyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <pssecyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "dgrhs@rb.railnet.gov.in" <dgrhs@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ppsdgrhs@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ppsdgrhs@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "dgrpf@rb.railnet.gov.in" <dgrpf@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "srppsdgrpf@rb.railnet.gov.in" <srppsdgrpf@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "edcc@rb.railnet.gov.in" <edcc@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "aml@rb.railnet.gov.in" <aml@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in" <legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "amm@rb.railnet.gov.in" <amm@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "amplg@rb.railnet.gov.in" <amplg@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "r_s_chidambaram@cat.com" <r_s_chidambaram@cat.com>, "sunand.sharma@alstom.com" <sunand.sharma@alstom.com>, "hiren.vyas@alstom.com" <hiren.vyas@alstom.com>, "jojo.alexander@alstom.com" <jojo.alexander@alstom.com>, "patrick.ledermann@alstom.com" <patrick.ledermann@alstom.com>, "rathin.basu@alstom.com" <rathin.basu@alstom.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, Nanju Ganpathy <nanju.ganpathy@azbpartners.com>, "bradford.berenson@ge.com" <bradford.berenson@ge.com>, "brackett.denniston@ge.com" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "john.flannery@ge.com" <john.flannery@ge.com>, "delhihighcourt@nic.in" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov" <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "CHAIRMANOFFICE@SEC.GOV" <CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "radhakrishnan.k@ge.com" <radhakrishnan.k@ge.com>, "tejal.singh@ge.com" <tejal.singh@ge.com>,   Sonali Mathur <sonali.mathur@azbpartners.com>, eric.holder@usdoj.gov, "preet.bharara@usdoj.gov" <preet.bharara@usdoj.gov>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "Denise_L._Cote@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Denise_L._Cote@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "ruby_krajick@nysd.uscourts.gov"   <ruby_krajick@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "Leonard_B._Sand@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Leonard_B._Sand@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "gloria_rojas@nysd.uscourts.gov" <gloria_rojas@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "william_donald@nysd.uscourts.gov" <william_donald@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "edward_friedland@nysd.uscourts.gov" <edward_friedland@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "richard_wilson@nysd.uscourts.gov" <richard_wilson@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "robert_rogers@nysd.uscourts.gov" <robert_rogers@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "kdonovan-maher@bermandevalerio.com" <kdonovan-maher@bermandevalerio.com>, "rcohen@lowey.com" <rcohen@lowey.com>, "ffetf@usdoj.gov" <ffetf@usdoj.gov>, "Harold_Baer@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Harold_Baer@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "Jed_S._Rakoff@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Jed_S._Rakoff@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "Cathy_Seibel@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Cathy_Seibel@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "Victor_Marrero@nysd.uscourts.gov"   <Victor_Marrero@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "fja@federaljudgesassoc.org" <fja@federaljudgesassoc.org>, "supremecourt@nic.in" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "Ronald J. Keating" <RKeating@bermandevalerio.com>, jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com, bhart@lowey.com, rharwood@hfesq.com, Joseph Guglielmo <jguglielmo@scott-scott.com>, drscott@scott-scott.com, "ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com" <ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com>, Directors@corporate.ge.com, Siemens Ombudsman COM <mail@siemens-ombudsman.com>, Sunder.Venkat@aero.bombardier.com, compliance.office@bombardier.com, nilesh.pattanayak@aero.bombardier.com, pierre.beaudoin@bombardier.com, djohnson@mccarthy.ca, douglas.oberhelman@caterpilllar.com, william.ainsworth@caterpillar.com, CATshareservices@cat.com, BusinessPractices@cat.com, patrick.kron@alstom.com, keith.carr@alstom.com, Jean-David.barnea@usdoj.gov, reed.brodsky@usdoj.gov, andrew.michaelson@usdoj.gov, ellen.davis@usdoj.gov, eric.glover@usdoj.gov, paul.murphy@usdoj.gov, sandra.glover@usdoj.gov, robert.spector@usdoj.gov, christopher.connolly@usdoj.gov, joseph.cordaro@usdoj.gov, david.jones6@usdoj.gov, daniel.filor@usdoj.gov, amy.barcelo@usdoj.gov, christopher.harwood@usdoj.gov, michael.byars@usdoj.gov, benjamin.torrance@usdoj.gov, sarah.normand@usdoj.gov, elizabeth.shapiro@usdoj.gov, alicia.simmons@usdoj.gov, joyce.vance@usdoj.gov, kenyen.brown@usdoj.gov, karen.loeffler@usdoj.gov, andre.birotte@usdoj.gov, melinda.haag@usdoj.gov, laura.duffy@usdoj.gov, john.walsh@usdoj.gov, david.weiss@usdoj.gov, ronald.machen@usdoj.gov, robert.o'neill@usdoj.gov, pamela.marsh@usdoj.gov, wifredo.ferrer@usdoj.gov, michael.moore@usdoj.gov, sally yates <sally.yates@usdoj.gov>, edward.tarver@usdoj.gov, alicia.limtiaco@usdoj.gov, florence.nakakuni@usdoj.gov, wendy.olson@usdoj.gov, james.lewis@usdoj.gov, patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov, stephen.wigginton@usdoj.gov, david.capp@usdoj.gov, joseph.hogsett@usdoj.gov, stephanie.rose@usdoj.gov, nick.klinefeldt@usdoj.gov, kerry.harvey@usdoj.gov, david.hale@usdoj.gov, stephanie.finley@usdoj.gov, rod.rosenstein@usdoj.gov, carmen.ortiz@usdoj.gov, barbara.mcquade@usdoj.gov, b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, william.martin@usdoj.gov, richard.callahan@usdoj.gov, beth.phillips@usdoj.gov, michael.cotter@usdoj.gov, deborah.gilg@usdoj.gov, daniel.bogden@usdoj.gov, john.kacavas@usdoj.gov, paul.fishman@usdoj.gov, kenneth.gonzales@usdoj.gov, loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov, richard.hartunian@usdoj.gov, william.hochul@usdoj.gov, john.stone@usdoj.gov, anne.tompkins@usdoj.gov, tim.purdon@usdoj.gov, steve.dettelbach@usdoj.gov, carter.stewart@usdoj.gov, sandy.coats@usdoj.gov, zane.memeger@usdoj.gov, peter.smith@usdoj.gov, david.hickton@usdoj.gov, peter.neronha@usdoj.gov, bill.nettles@usdoj.gov, william.killian@usdoj.gov, jerry.martin@usdoj.gov,   edward.stanton@usdoj.gov, jose.moreno@usdoj.gov, carlie.christensen@usdoj.gov, tristram.coffin@usdoj.gov, ronald.sharpe@usdoj.gov, neil.macbride@usdoj.gov, timothy.heaphy@usdoj.gov, bill.ihlenfeld@usdoj.gov, booth.goodwin@usdoj.gov, james.santelle@usdoj.gov, john.vaudreuil@usdoj.gov, christopher.crofts@usdoj.gov, bprao@bhel.in, opb@bhel.in, akhatua@bhel.in, csverma@bhel.in, vpandhi@bhel.in, Atul Saraya <saraya@bhel.in>, ajay.sinha@emdiesels.com, Rajeeve Mehra <mehralaw@gmail.com>, mehralaw@yahoo.co.in, lajita.rajesh@alstom.com, francois.carpentier@alstom.com, armin.bruck@siemens.com, sunil.mathur@siemens.com, benoit.martel@bombardier.com, luis.ramos@bombardier.com, harsh.dhingra@bombardier.com, glen.lehman@caterpillar.com, john.newman@caterpillar.com, peter.solmssen@siemens.com, roland.busch@siemens.com, michael.suess@siemens.com, klaus.helmrich@siemens.com, daniel.desjardins@bombardier.com, james.buda@caterpillar.com, adam.smith@emdiesels.com, glen.lehman@progressrail.com, duane.cantrell@progressrail.com, craig.johnson@caterpillar.com, alert.procedure@alstom.com, "Zia Mody (zia.mody@azbpartners.com)" <zia.mody@azbpartners.com>, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, pk65sharma@yahoo.co.in, confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, public.enquiries@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, "ohhdl@dalailama.com" <ohhdl@dalailama.com>, stephen.vogt@ic.fbi.gov, luis.quesada@ic.fbi.gov, steven.kessler@ic.fbi.gov, henry.gittleman@ic.fbi.gov, renn.cannon@ic.fbi.gov, stephen.gaudin@ic.fbi.gov, eric.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, jeff.bedford@ic.fbi.gov, david.brooks@ic.fbi.gov, robert.clifford@ic.fbi.gov, mary.warren@ic.fbi.gov, bill.nicholson@ic.fbi.gov, frank.teixeira@ic.fbi.gov, richard.cavalieros@ic.fbi.gov, timothy.langan@ic.fbi.gov, sharon.kuo@ic.fbi.gov, kingman.wong@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.bodony@ic.fbi.gov, christopher.mcmurray@ic.fbi.gov, ralph.hope@ic.fbi.gov, eric.metz@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.baldwin@ic.fbi.gov, alejandro.barbeito@ic.fbi.gov, cary.gleicher@ic.fbi.gov, paul.haertel@ic.fbi.gov, greg.cox@ic.fbi.gov, lazaro.andino@ic.fbi.gov, gabriel.ramirez@ic.fbi.gov, tom.sobocinski@ic.fbi.gov, benjamin.walker@ic.fbi.gov, kirk.striebich@ic.fbi.gov, "Snyder, David" <david.snyder@ic.fbi.gov>, gregory.cox@ic.fbi.gov, katherine.andrews@ic.fbi.gov, carolyn.willson@ic.fbi.gov, mark.nowak@ic.fbi.gov, stuart.wirtz@ic.fbi.gov, lesley.buckler@ic.fbi.gov,   daniel.dudzinski@ic.fbi.gov, william.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, connally.brown@ic.fbi.gov, leo.navarette@ic.fbi.gov, lawrence.futa@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.shaffer@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.clegg@ic.fbi.gov, adishaggarwala@yahoo.com, adishaggarwala@hotmail.com, vsondhi@luthra.com, muraritiwari.adv@gmail.com, adv.priyankatyagi@gmail.com, sarlakaushik@yahoo.com, goswamiandassociates@yahoo.co.in, vedbaldev@rediffmail.com, rakeshtikuadvocate@yahoo.com, kkmanan@rediffmail.com, ars.chauhan.co@gmail.com, Usama Siddiqui <musiddiqui@gmail.com>, Rajiv Khosla <advrajivkhosla@gmail.com>, rakeshkochar@hotmail.com, khatri.surya@hotmail.com, puneet mittal <puneetmittal9@gmail.com>, "advamit.sharma@gmail.com" <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, Attorneynitin@yahoo.com, Rajesh Mishra <attorney.rmishra@gmail.com>, jaibirnagar@gmail.com, Sho-lodhicolony-dl@nic.in, csrhw@csrhw.com.cn, cnriec@chinacnr.com, raymond.l.conner@boeing.com, timothy.keating@boeing.com, "deepak@adlakha.com" <deepak@adlakha.com>, deepak verma <justicedverma@gmail.com>, dridzu@nic.in, Manish Sisodia <msisodia@gmail.com>, NDBox Library Reference <Libdel@state.gov>, office@vinoddiwakar.com, Om Prakash <oplawassociates@gmail.com>, Jatan Singh <jatan_singh@yahoo.com>, Abhijat Bal <abhijat.bal@gmail.com>, asutosh lohia <lasutosh@gmail.com>, Vikram Singh Panwar <vikrampanwar2010@gmail.com>, Anoop Bagai <anoopbagai@gmail.com>, ashok.bhasin@yahoo.co.in, Aruna Tiku <arunatikuadvocate@yahoo.com>, Sunil Mittal <sunilmittaladvocate@gmail.com>, Meghna Sankhla <meghna@sankhla.in>, Amit Sharma with khosla <advocateas@gmail.com>, Laxmi Chauhan <laxmichauhanmalhan@gmail.com>, Pankaj Kapoor <lawyerpankaj@gmail.com>, "P.H. Parekh" <pravin.parekh@pravinparekh.com>, rakesh.sherawat@yahoo.com, jagdev_advocate@yahoo.com, abhay kumar verma <akvadvocates@gmail.com>, aman_sareen169@yahoo.com, Manan Mishra <manankumarmishra@gmail.com>, ZAFAR AHMED Khan <zakhan52@gmail.com>, anirveda_04@sifymail.com, prabakaran.president.tnaa@gmail.com, vbhatt.adv@gmail.com, goolamev@vsnl.net, faisalrizvi@hotmail.com, birisinghsinsinwar@indiatimes.com, advajithts@gmail.com, n_ramchanderrao@yahoo.com, Nilesh Kumar <agrnilesh73@gmail.com>, kunals777@yahoo.com, chairman@ses-surat.org, bhojcthakur@yahoo.com, raj mohan singh tanwar <rmsinghadvocate@gmail.com>, Rohinton Nariman <rohintonnariman@gmail.com>, Satish Abarao Deshmukh <satish.adeshmukh@gmail.com>, info@group30.org, poststelle@sta.berlin.de, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, webmaster.greco@coe.int, info@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@generalbundesanwalt.de, jthuy@eurojust.europa.eu, ejn@eurojust.europa.eu, collegesecretariat@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@bgh.bund.de, secretariat@cepol.europa.eu, CP@ohchr.org, siemens-ombudsmann@rae13.de, mariassy@rae13.de, mail@democraticunderground.com, admin@democraticunderground.com, skinner@democraticunderground.com, earlg@democraticunderground.com, elad@democraticunderground.com
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>

6 May 2014
To
(i)                 Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court of India
(ii)               Chief Justice Rohini, Delhi High Court
(iii)             The Registrar General, Delhi High Court
(iv)             Chairman, Bar Council of Delhi
(v)               All other members of Bar Council of Delhi
(vi)             Chairman and members of Bar Council of India
(vii)           Delhi Police Commissioner
(viii)         Registrar Vigilance, Delhi High Court
Ref: Corruption Complaint against Delhi High Court Judges J. Ravindra
Bhat; J. S Muralidhar and J. Vibhu Bakhru in connection with
Whistle-blower corruption and right to life Writ Petition pending in
the Delhi High Court since February 2012 – Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/
2012

Today WP Civil 1280 of 2012 was listed before a special Division Bench
of Delhi High Court Judge S Muralidhar and Judge Vibhu Bakhru.

Yesterday I had both verbally and in writing brought it to the
attention of Chief Justice G Rohini of the Delhi High Court that
neither of these two judges could hear this matter.

I had stated the following in my communication dated 5 May 2014
addressed interalia to the Chief Justice of India and to the Chief
Justice of the Delhi High Court:

"To the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High
Court, and the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court,

It has come to my notice that WP Civil 1280 of 2012 has been marked to
a Division Bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Vibhu Bakhru.

This matter is due to be listed before court tomorrow, i.e., on 6 May 2014.

Neither of them can hear this matter or the connected matters, OMP 647
of 2012 or Criminal Contempt Case 3 of 2012.

I am yet again astonished that WP Civil 1280 of 2012 has been marked
to Delhi High Court judges S. Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru, both of
whom cannot hear this matter.

I have complained against Justice Muralidhar of judicial corruption
and have stated that he had been approached by General Electric and
had passed orders in 2012 in OMP 647 of 2012 knowing that those orders
would be used to cover up my corruption complaints against General
Electric and would interfere with the administration of justice in WP
Civil 1280 of 2012. I had in 2012 sought his recusal from OMP 647 of
2012 on this basis. In retaliation, Judge Muralidhar had illegally and
without jurisdiction purported to issue notice of criminal contempt to
me and had purported to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against
me. These orders of Judge Muralidhar were passed without jurisdiction,
in violation of natural justice and it is my case that these orders
have no legal effect.

OMP 647 of 2012 had been transfered to another Bench from Judge
Muralidhar's Bench, hence no recusal order was passed.

Judge Muralidhar cannot hear any of my matters.

Judge Vibhu Bakhru cannot hear WP Civil 1280 of 2012 or the two
connected matters because (1) I had discussed WP 1280 of 2012 with him
before his elevation as a judge; (2) He has frequently represented
General Electric Companies as counsel; (3) He has been accused by me
in documents on the court record in WP Civil 1280 of 2012 of
participating in attempts to cover up my corruption complaints against
General Electric and in victimising me; (4) I have complained that
Vibhu Bakhru ought not to have been appointed a Delhi High Court judge
because of pending perjury proceedings against him in Deepak Khosla's
matters and that he was party to the victimisation of Deepak Khosla by
Judge Suresh Kait; and (5) that as a judge Vibhu Bakhru participated
in targeting S K Srivastava to silence him in connection with money
laundering and corruption complaints against NDTV, P Chidambaram, andGeneral Electric.

I have also complained that Judge Muralidhar was also party to the
targeting of S K Srivastava to silence him in connection with money
laundering and corruption complaints against NDTV, P Chidambaram, and General Electric.

I have informed the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court of the
above facts, and have requested that Chief Justice G Rohini be
requested that WP Civil 1280 of 2012 be not listed before Judge S
Muralidhar or Judge Vibhu Bakhru on 6 May 2014.

My daily complaints emailed to the Supreme Court of India and the
Delhi High Court establish the urgency in WP 1280 of 2012, as does
order dated 22 April 2012 passed in that matter.

Seema Sapra"

Despite this, the matter was not transferred to a different Bench and
was listed in the cause list today before Judge S Muralidhar and Judge
Vibhu Bakhru.

Today, I went to Court 5 where J. Bhat and J. Bakhru were sitting in
their regular Division Bench. The Bench did not convene till 10:45 so
I went to Court 29 where J Muralidhar was sitting singly to check if
the Special DB was convening first. Since I found J Muralidhar already
holding court singly in Court 29, I returned to Court 5. The DB of
Court 5 had still not assembled. Finally when the DB convened in Court
5, I mentioned this matter before Judge Vibhu Bakhru at around 10: 50
am with the permission of the Division Bench he was sitting in with
Judge Ravindra Bhat. I informed Judge Vibhu Bakhru that neither he nor
Judge Muralidhar could hear WP Civil 1280 of 2012 and that I had
informed Chief Justice Rohini about this. I was told by J. Vibhu
Bakhru that I should make this request before his Division Bench with
J. Muralidhar. I then enquired at what time the Special Division Bench
of J. Muralidhar and J. Vibhu Bakhru would convene. J. Bakhru mumbled something saying that it was a Friday and he could not say when theBench would convene. I corrected him pointing out that it was a
Tuesday. Judge Ravindra Bhat intervened and stated that the Special
Division Bench would convene only after the regular Division Bench
comprised of him and J. Bakhru had finished hearing the matters listed
before them.

I kept watching the movement of matters in Court 5 where Judge
Ravindra Bhat and Judge Bakhru were hearing their cases. I went inside
this court room once at around 12 pm. I again went to this court room
at around 1 pm and stayed until the DB of J. Bhat and J. Bakhru rose
for lunch. They were proceeding with their board slowly and had at
least 20 matters left when they rose for lunch. I had considered
asking J. Bakhru again at 1:15 what time the special DB would convene,
but J. Bhat and J. Bakhru suddenly rose and left the court room before
I could do so. I therefore decided to return to Court 5 after lunch to
ask when the Special DB would convene. The clear impression given to
me as well as to other lawyers and litigants assembled in court 5 was
that after lunch the regular DB of J. Bhat and J. Bakhru would convene
in Court 5.

At around 1 pm, I sent the following complaint to the Police, the
Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and copied it to several
lawyers. I received no response to this complaint.
"
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 06 May 2014 13:00
To: Sapra; Seema Sapra; Bhim Sain Bassi; rg.dhc@nic.in
Cc: Rajiv Khosla; Jatan Singh; Abhijat Bal; Ashutosh lohia; Vikram
Subject: General Electric whistleblower being poisoned in the Delhi
High Court - Seema Sapra - Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 in the
Delhi High Court
Sometime about 45-60 minutes ago, I was exposed to some poisonous
chemical in gas/ vapor/ aerosol form on Delhi High Court premises by
someone who was instructed to come close to me and release this
chemical near me.

As a result, I have sudden nausea, some dizziness and light-headedness.

CCTV recordings from Delhi High Court premises must be preserved and
an FIR registered for poisoning and attempted murder.

My corruption whistle-blower writ petition is listed today in Court.

Seema Sapra
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone"

Feeling nauseous, I decided to eat a sandwich in the Delhi High Court
lawyers' cafeteria.

I went back to Court No. 5 around 2.20 pm and was shocked to be told
by an intern working with J. Bakhru that the Special DB of J
Muralidhar and J. Bakhru had already sat and heard WP Civil 1280 of
2012. There is a considerable distance to walk between Court 5 and
Court 29. I repeatedly asked Court staff in court where J. Bakhru was
at that time. I was told by one person that he was back in his
chamber. Subsequently, when I tried to confirm this, Court staff in
court 5 refused to answer. They also refused to tell me what had
happened in WP Civil 1280 of 2012 and what the next date of hearing
was. Several lawyers and litigants present in court were witnesses to
my unanswered queries.

Finally J. Bhat and J. Bakhru entered Court 5. J. Bakhru was laughing.
I asked him when the Special DB would convene and he replied that it
had already sat and transferred my matter. I was told that the next
date of hearing was 23 May 2014.

I strongly protested and told J Bakhru that the matter had been
deliberately and deceptively heard in my absence and behind my back. I
told him that the regular Bench in Court 5 had clearly indicated to me
that the Special DB would convene only after the regular bench
completed its board. I reminded them that I was present in court 5 at
1:15 and no contrary information was given to me. I stated that all
three Judges (J. Bhat, J. Muralidhar and J. Bakhru) were aware of the
grave urgency in my matter. I told them I was making daily complaints
of being poisoned. I told them the order dated 22 April 2014 recorded
the fact that I was making complaints of poisoning which were not
being addressed and were being ignored. I stated that I was entitled
to be heard and the matter could not be heard in my absence as had
been done. I requested J. Bakhru that he send a message to J.
Muralidhar and that the Spl DB reconvene so that I could get a shorter
date. Both J. Bhat and J. Bakhru displayed a complete indifference to
what I had submitted. I was told that I should file an application for
date change. I was prevented from making my submissions by a threat
that security would be summoned. I then asked J. Bhat and J. Bakhru if
they did not care that I was being poisoned and if they wanted to find
me dead before WP Civil 1280 of 2012 could be heard. I was then
constrained to ask aloud if J. Bakhru was so corrupt that he did not
care that I was being poisoned.

Let me point out the facts. WP Civil 1280 of 2012 was listed before J.
SK Misra and J. S P Garg through most of March and April and it was
heard twice weekly for about 3 weeks after which S K Misra for
undisclosed reasons suddenly recused on 24 April 2014 after recording
in the order dated 22 April 2014 my statement that I was being
poisoned. After that this matter went to another Spl DB on 29 April
2014 and I asked J. Shali to recuse. The order dictated in court was
that J. Shali had recused, however the signed order stated "list
before another Bench". I asked J. Shali and J. G P Mittal for a short
date and first they insisted on posting this matter on 9 May but upon
my objection, it was posted on 6 May.

On 6 May, the matter went before another disqualified Bench.

J. Bhat and J. Bakhru deliberately deceived me that the Spl DB would
convene only after the regular DB of Court 5 had finished its board.
Then deceptively and corruptly, the Spl DB was suddenly convened
without notice just after lunch. This was a deliberate and planned
ploy to hear the matter in my absence and to adjourn it to a date when
it would not be heard. Adjourning the matter to 23 May 2014, a Friday
and a date very close to the month long summer vacations meant that
this matter would not be heard all through May and June 2014.

There is another element to this corruption. General Electric lawyers
have repeatedly tried to get this matter listed on a Friday when it
will not be heard due to paucity of time on Fridays. Several judges
who were sabotaging the hearing of this matter have repeatedly posted
this matter on a Friday. Finally in March 2014, on a date when Justice
Nandrajog was in charge as Acting Chief Justice, he passed an order on
the administrative side posting the matter on a Tuesday from a Friday
and telling me that he was doing this because this matter would not
get heard on a Friday.

J. Shali and J. G P Mittal had on 29 April 2014 again attempted to
post this matter on a Friday, but on my pointing out J. Nandrajog's
intervention, they had placed this matter on 6 May 2014.

The question I ask is: Both J. Muralidhar and J. Vibhu Bakhru are
aware of the urgency in the matter as recorded in the order dated 22
April 2014. Yet today, both conspired along with J. Ravindra Bhat to
deceive me and to hear this matter in my absence when they knew that I
was in court waiting for this matter. They then recused themselves as
they were required to do (having no other option), yet they then
proceeded to adjourn the matter for 17 days and posted it on a Friday
23 May 2014. The last working day before the June summer holidays is
31 May 2014.  Both these judges were fully aware that this matter
would not be heard on 23 May 2014 and that it would end up in July
2014. Further these judges also deliberately prevented this matter
from getting heard for the next three weeks.

Why would a Bench recusing itself give such a long date in the matter?

It is clear that Judges Muralidhar and Bakhru corruptly conspired
today with GE lawyers to prevent my matter from being heard in May
2014 and they did this by corruptly and deceptively holding a hearing
in my absence and behind my back. I was actively misled by J. Bhat and
J. Bakhru as part of this conspiracy about the timing for the hearing
of my matter.

I have earlier had to ask J. Ravindra Bhat to recuse from WP Civil
1280 of 2012 because of reasons which are on the court record. A close
family friend of J. Bhat was targeting me in 2011 and was invoking J.
Bhat's name and position to deceive me.

After I protested to J. Bakhru in Court 5 at 2:45 pm and asked if he
was so corrupt that he did not care that I was being poisoned, I was
told by J. Bhat on the prompting of J. Bakhru that the court would
issue notice to me for criminal contempt. I was told to return at 4
pm.

I then went to court 29 and asked J. Muralidhar that a short date be
given in WP 1280 of 2012. At my request, he then modified the date
from 23 May 2014 to 8 May 2014.

I went back to Court 5 at 4 pm. At around 4:30 pm, J. Bhat and J.
Bakhru proceeded to pass an order purporting to charge me with
criminal contempt of court for calling J. Bakhru "corrupt". I refused
to accept any notice and requested that if they were issuing me any
notice then the matter be transferred to a different Bench. An order
has been accordingly passed.

Today's events further buttress my complaints that Delhi High Court
judges are participating in targeting me and are facilitating my
poisoning and the attempted cover up of my corruption complaints
against General Electric.

Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Muralidhar and Justice Vibhu Bakhru
today celibately conspired to deceive me so that WP Civil 1280 of 2012
was taken up for hearing in my absence and was adjourned to 23 May
2014 to prevent this matter from being heard all through May and June
2014. This was done to facilitate my ongoing poisoning and destruction
with intent to sabotage WP Civil 1280 of 2012 and to cover up my
corruption complaints against General Electric.

WP Civil 1280 of 2012 has now been listed for 8 May 2014 only after my
strong objection to what took place today.

I am not intimidated by the further attempt by these three Delhi High
Court judges acting at the behest of agents and lawyers for General
Electric to target me by initiation of fresh contempt proceedings
against me. I stand by my charge of corruption against J. Vibhu
Bakhru. He has actively targeted me before he became a judge. On 17
February 2012, there was a conspiracy and attempt to murder me before
this petition was filed. Vibhu Bakhru played a role in that
conspiracy. Vibhu Bakhru has been accused of perjury in pending
judicial proceedings and ought never to have been appointed as a
judge. J. Vibhu Bakhru has close ties to General Electric and its
lawyers. J, Vibhu Bakhru clearly conspired with General Electric's
lawyers today to prevent WP Civil 1280 of 2012 from being heard and to
facilitate my poisoning and eventual elimination.

I ask again, how corrupt is J. Vibhu Bakhru that he does not care that
his corruption will facilitate my poisoning?

I will vehemently defend myself in any contempt proceedings that are
initiated to target me further by J. Ravindra Bhat and J. Vibhu Bakhru
at the instance of General Electric Company and its agents.

I reproduce at the end of this email, the order passed on 22 April
2014 in WP Civil 1280 of 2014.

Seema Sapra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  WP(C) 1280/2012

  SEEMA SAPRA ....Petitioner
  Through In person.
versus
  GENERAL ELECTRIC CO AND ORS. ..... Respondents

  Through Mr. N. Ganpathy and Mr. Manpreet Lamba, Advocates for R 1, 6 and  7.
 Mr. Rakesh Sharma and Ms. Renu Malik, Advocates for Mr. P.K. Sharma,Standing Counsel, CBI.
Mr. Om Prakash with Honey Kolawar, Advocates for R-4
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for R5/UOI
Mr.Vikram Dhokalia, Advocate for R 16.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG

   O R D E R
   22.04.2014

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

15.     Before addressing the impugned judgment in the contempt matter, it is important to emphasize that the appellant is a whisteblower facing a serious life threat. Not only does she have a dislocated ankle at present, she has also been chronically poisoned since 2010. The petitioner has been subjected to poisonous chemical fumes/ gases and inhalants and this has increased in intensity over the last one year and the last few months and days. The petitioner's lungs have been damaged and are in a worse condition than that of a Bhopal gas survivor. Other internal organs and body systems have also likely suffered damage from the chronic poisoning. The petitioner's hair and nails can be tested to establish such chronic poisoning.
16.     The genesis of the matter - The appellant worked as in-house counsel for General Electric Company's business division GE Transportation in India in 2010. She was advising General Electric on its bids for two multi-billion dollar tenders floated by the Railway Ministry to set up diesel and electric locomotive factories and for long-term purchase orders for locomotives. During the course of her work the Appellant discovered multiple instances of corrupt and criminal activities that General Electric executives were engaged in as part of their efforts to secure the tender for the diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra. The Appellant became a threat to these General Electric executives and lawyers and she was drugged. The Appellant raised compliance related concerns during her employment with General Electric as a whistleblower and this resulted in retaliation including the wrongful termination of her contract in complete violation of General Electric's own internal policies. The Appellant continued to pursue her complaints even after her contract was terminated and reported the violations to the relevant authorities both in India and in the United States. The appellant continued to be poisoned and drugged while General Electric in a sham internal investigation covered up the appellant's complaints. All through 2011 and through January and February 2012 the appellant was drugged, poisoned, and isolated. Finally, in February 2012, the appellant managed to file Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 in the Delhi High Court.

17.     The relief claimed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012
1.       Summon the records of Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 on the 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 the commission of criminal offences (including forgery, bribery and public corruption) 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 this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

18.     Respondents in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 before Delhi High Court
Respondent
Notice
General Electric Company and two Indian subsidiaries - GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited
Notice issued on 7 March 2012
Officers of General Electric Company Jeffrey Immelt, John Flannery, Alexander Dimitrief and Brackett Denniston

Notice issued on 19.11.2012 but order issuing notice unclear. Application for clarification of order dismissed without clarification on 26 November 2012 
The Central Vigilance Commission
Notice issued on 7 March 2012
The Delhi Police through the Commissioner of Police
Notice issued on 7 March 2012
The Ministry of Railways
Notice issued on 7 March 2012
The Union of India through PMO
notice issued on 7 March 2012
The Central Bureau of Investigations
notice issued on 7 March 2012
Siemens India

Notice issued on 8.11.2012 & again on 21.12.2012
Bombardier Transportation India Limited
Notice issued on 8.11.2012 & again on 21.12.2012
Alstom Projects India Limited
Notice issued on 8.11.2012 & again on 21.12.2012
EMD Locomotive Technologies
Notice issued on 8.11.2012 & again on 21.12.2012
BHEL
Notice issued on 8.11.2012 & again on 21.12.2012

19.     Fraud committed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of General Electric Company
Fake Authority Docs issued by Alex Dimitrief & Brad Berenson for General Electric Company. Fraud committed by Alexander Dimitrief & Bradford Berenson in Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding summons to and appearance by General Electric Company
General Electric Company is a large conglomerate incorporated in the United States. Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to General Electric Company on 7.3.2012. 
Advocate Nanju Ganpathy appeared on 9.5.2012 claiming to represent General Electric Company and continued to appear thereafter. Mr Nanju Ganpathy is a Partner in the law-firm AZB & Partners.
Affidavits were filed on behalf of General Electric Company through one K Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of General Electric Company were produced.
At Appellant's request, order dated 12.10.2012 directed Nanju Ganpathy to produce authority documents to show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of General Electric Company.
Nanju Ganpathy filed a photocopy of a document self-describing as a Power of Attorney executed by one Alexander Dimitrief on 4.5.2012. This document had a validity of one year.
Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been filed so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi High Court registry shows a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and was invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75]
CM 19683/2012 filed by Appellant on 14.12.2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and did not annex the required authority documents.
A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This vakalatnama was signed by K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory for General Electric Company under a Power of Attorney (POA) dated 4.5.2012 issued in his favour by Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company.
Affidavit of K Radhakrishnan filed on 7.1.2013 producing an extract from the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised on November 6, 2009) containing a Board Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the Board Resolution) which describes and limits the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company.
Nanju Ganpathy filed another vakalatnama for General Electric Company on 16.7.2013. This vakalatnama was allegedly signed by Bradford Berenson on 9.5.2013.
Attached to this vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 was a photocopy of a document self-describing as a power of attorney allegedly executed on 29 April 2013 by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company and apostilled in the United States on 10 May 2013. This was also only valid for one year.
In any event, since the Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 was valid only for one year, it ceased to have legal effect from 30.4.2014 onwards.
Therefore, even without going into the authenticity and legal validity of the authority documents and vakalatnamas filed on behalf of General Electric Company, it is clear that General Electric Company was not legally represented by anyone before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 from 30.4.2014 onwards.
Issues concerning these authority documents and vakalatnamas
1.     Were the Powers of Attorneys dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson lawful and valid authority documents whereby K Radhakrishnan was appointed as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company for the purpose of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 before the Delhi High Court?
2.     Were these documents placed on the court record by Nanju Ganpathy genuine or fraudulent?
3.     Did K Radhakrishnan impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court and file unauthorized and false affidavits?
4.     Was Advocate Nanju Ganpathy authorized to represent and appear for General Electric Company?
Who is K Radhakrishnan?
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company. He has described himself in his affidavits as the company secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited, a fully owned Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company.
Who is Alexander Dimitrief?
Alexander Dimitrief was Vice President, Litigation & Legal Policy of General Electric Company from 9 February 2007 until November 1, 2011 when he was appointed as General Counsel of GE Energy. Alexander Dimitrief has been appointed as General Counsel of General Electric Company with effect from 1.11.2015. 
Who is Bradford Berenson.
Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as the Operational Officer for Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric Company on 15 October 2012.
Were the Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson legal and valid in law?
The authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company emanates from Board Resolution dated 26.4.1988 as incorporated in the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised on November 6, 2009).
Under this Board Resolution, both Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had the authority to sign court pleadings and powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company for litigation purposes but they had no authority to further delegate this authority to anyone. 
General Electric Company's Board Resolution dated 26.4.1988 stipulates in Paragraph A that certain types of documents/ instruments including court pleadings and powers of attorney can only be signed on behalf of General Electric Company by 
(i) corporate officers of the Company who are identified by position as "Authorized Persons"; 
(ii) by an Operational Officer of the Company where such document pertains to the component or function to which such officer is assigned; 
(iii) by a Manager or Acting Manager of the relevant Division or Department of General Electric Company. 
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company and Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had no authority to delegate to K Radhakrishnan any authority to execute either court pleadings or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company in relation to Writ Petition Civil No. 1290/2012 filed in the Delhi High Court. 
The Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson respectively were therefore illegal and invalid documents and which therefore conferred no authority upon K Radhakrishnan to represent himself as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court.
K Radhakrishnan therefore effectively impersonated as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company and the affidavits filed by him before the Delhi High Court were unauthorized, false and perjurious.
Brackett Denniston (who retired as General Counsel of General Electric Company on 31.10.2015), Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson knowingly participated in a criminal obstruction of justice conspiracy to falsify powers of attorney with intent to enable K Radhakrishna to unlawfully impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in a whistleblower litigation involving complaints and evidence of corruption by General Electric Company. K Radhakrishnan was used to commit a fraud on the Delhi High Court, on the Government of India and on General Electric Company itself. K Radhakrishnan was used to sign and file false and unauthorized affidavits in the Delhi High Court. 
Information about this litigation was suppressed by Brackett Denniston, Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson and Jeffrey Eglash, all senior level in-house lawyers for General Electric Company. 

20.     Fraud committed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private Limited
Fake Authority Docs for GE India Industrial Private Limited filed in Delhi High Court. Fraud committed in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private Limited. 
One K Radhakrishnan impersonated as authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 using fraudulent authority documents. 
GE India Industrial Private Limited is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of the US conglomerate General Electric Company. Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to GE India Industrial Private Limited on 7.3.2012. 
Advocate Nanju Ganpathy appeared on 9.5.2012 claiming to represent GE India Industrial Private Limited and continued to appear thereafter. Mr Nanju Ganpathy is a Partner in the law-firm AZB & Partners.
Affidavits were filed on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited through one K Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited were produced.
The counter- affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 3.7.2012 merely stated that K Radhakrishnan was the authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private   Limited. The affidavit contained a verification clause which was signed but not affirmed before an oath commissioner. Another two-page affidavit of K Radhakrishnan was attached to this counter-affidavit which merely stated that K Radhakrishnan was the authorised signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited in the matter "pursuant to the powers of attorney executed in my favour in this regard". No power of attorney nor any other authority document was annexed to this counter-affidavit which otherwise contained thirteen annexures with the affidavit itself running into 206 pages.
At Appellant's request, Delhi High Court order dated 12.10.2012 directed Nanju Ganpathy to produce authority documents to show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Nanju Ganpathy filed a photocopy of a document on 19.10.2012 which was described as a board resolution dated 7 May 2012 passed by GE India Industrial Private Limited which was effective up to 31.3.2013. No power of attorney was produced for GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been filed so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi High Court registry shows a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and was defective and invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75]
The Supreme Court of India in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75] has ruled that a vakalatnama on behalf of a company must either bear the company seal or it must mention the name and designation of the person signing the vakalatnama (on behalf of the company) below the signature AND a copy of the authority must be annexed to the vakalatnama. The Supreme Court further ruled that if a vakalatnama is executed by a power-of-attorney holder of a party, the failure to disclose that it is being executed by an attorney holder and the failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney will render the vakalatnama defective.
CM 19683/2012 filed by Appellant on 14.12.2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and did not annex the required authority documents.
A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This vakalatnama was signed by K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory for GE India Industrial Private Limited.
K Radhakrishnan also filed two affidavits dated 17.12.2012 on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited.   
The first affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 17.12.2012 was a reply to CM 18642/ 2012 (it begins at page 3874 of the court record). This affidavit contained the following statement at page 3878 of the court record:
"… the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 issued Board Resolutions authorizing Mr K R Radhakrishnan to take all necessary steps to prosecute and/ or defend the said two entities. It would further be necessary to mention that no Power of Attorney as envisaged in each of the said Board Resolutions was issued as the Board Resolution(s) issued clearly empowered and authorized Mr K R Radhakrishnan to do all that was necessary to effectively prosecute and/ or defend actions to be initiated by these entities and/ or initiated against these entities." 

In this affidavit, K Radhakrishnan therefore clearly admitted that no power of attorney in his favour had been issued on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited pursuant to the Board Resolution dated 7.5.2012. A bare perusal of the Board Resolutions dated 7.5.2012 shows that it clearly contemplated the execution of a power of attorney in favour of K Radhakrishnan.
The Board Resolution dated 7.5.2012 stated:
"RESOLVED FURTHER THAT a Power of Attorney be executed for this purpose in favour of K R Radhakrishnan and any one Director of the Company be and is hereby authorised to sign the same for and on behalf of the company".

The admitted non-execution of a power of attorney in favour of K Radhakrishnan on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited shows that K Radhakrishnan was never appointed as the attorney of GE India Industrial Private Limited for the purpose of this writ petition and he was not authorized to sign the vakalatnamas and court pleadings on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Further the board resolution dated 7.5.2012 which was produced as an authority document by K Radhakrishnan did not even cover the Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 filed in the Delhi High Court by the Appellant against General Electric Company.
This Board Resolution was limited to "Proceedings" which were defined as follows:
"initiate proceedings before the Bar Council of Delhi (under the provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules) or Bar Council of India or any Civil Courts, Criminal Courts, High Courts, Supreme Court of India or before any other Quasi-Judicial authority, Tribunal, Government Authority or Local authority, against Ms. Seema Sapra, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi ("Proceedings")"

The "Proceedings" covered by the Board Resolutions dated 7.5.2012 therefore did not include the writ petition filed by the Appellant against GE India Industrial Private Limited as the subject matter of the Board Resolution was limited to proceedings that GE India Industrial Private Limited might initiate against the Appellant.
The fraud that was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court is extremely evident. In the first instance, the source of K Radhakrishnan's authority to represent GE India Industrial Private Limited was described as a power of attorney in his favor. A board resolution dated 7.5.2012 was then produced which however did not cover the writ petition proceeding and which envisaged the execution of a power of attorney which was admittedly never executed. Vakalatnama was not filed. Affidavits were signed and filed through K Radhakrishnan even though he was not duly constituted as the attorney for GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Once the Appellant pointed out these deficiencies on the court record of the writ petition, a second attempt at fraudulently deceiving the court was attempted by producing a board resolution dated 17.12.2012 which misrepresents itself as a power of attorney.
The second affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 17.12.2012 produced a copy of what was described as another Board Resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 17.12.2012. K Radhakrishnan now claimed to be the constituted attorney for GE India Industrial Private Limited under this Board Resolution dated 17.12,2012.
This new alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 is a strange document that masquerades as a power of attorney by itself. It records that the consent of the Boards of GE India Industrial Private Limited is accorded to authorise and appoint K Radhakrishnan (the Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited) as the attorney of the Company interalia to defend proceedings initiated against the Company by Ms. Seema Sapra in the Delhi High Court. This board resolution does not contain the usual provision that contemplates and authorises the execution of a power of attorney instrument.
Instead in its final paragraph, this board resolution claims to be the power of attorney instrument itself and states: "RESOLVED FURTHER THAT this power of attorney is governed by, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of India and shall remain in full force and effect until it is revoked by the company in writing or until December 16, 2014 whichever occurs earlier".
Did the board resolution dated 17.12.2012 as filed constitute a power of attorney appointing K R Radhakrishnan as the duly constituted attorney for GE India?
The Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 defines a power of attorney as "any instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it."
A Power of Attorney therefore is a written legal instrument executed by the person devolving the power of attorney on another "specified person" and thereby empowering the specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing the instrument.
Section 46 of the Companies Act provides:
"Form of contracts
(1) Contracts on behalf of a company may be made as follows:—
(a) a contract which, if made between private persons, would by law be required   to be in writing signed by the parties to be charged therewith, may be made on behalf of the company in writing signed by any person acting under its authority, express or implied, and may in the same manner be varied or discharged;
(b) a contract which, if made between private persons, would by law be valid although made by parole only and not reduced into writing, may be made by parole on behalf of the company by any person acting under its authority, express or implied, and may in the same manner be varied or discharged.
(2) A contract made according to this section shall bind the company."
A power of attorney on behalf of a company would therefore fall within Clause 1(a) of Section 46 of the Companies Act and is required to be in writing and executed/ signed on behalf of the company by a person acting under the authority of the company.
Section 48 of the Companies Act provides:
"Execution of Deeds
(1) A company may, by writing under its common seal, empower any person, either generally or in respect of any specified matters, as its attorney, to execute deeds on its behalf in any place either in or outside India.
(2) A deed signed by such an attorney on behalf of the company and under his seal where sealing is required, shall bind the company and have the same effect as if it were under its common seal."
Under Indian law, a power of attorney executed on behalf of a company must be a written instrument signed by an authorized signatory for and on behalf of the company.
The alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 purports to directly appoint K Radhakrishnan as the attorney of GE India without the execution of a written power of attorney instrument in favour of K Radhakrishnan signed by an authorized signatory of GE India. This is not permissible under Indian law. And the document described as a board resolution dated 17.12.2012 did not therefore amount to a power of attorney and was invalid. 
A board resolution of a company is not a written instrument/ contract executed on behalf of the company. Board resolutions by themselves cannot appoint someone as an attorney of the company as this can only be done through a written instrument duly executed on behalf of the company by an authorized signatory signing such an instrument in the name of, for and on behalf of the company. This was admittedly not done.

The copies of the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 placed on record were not certified and authenticated as per usual practice and law. The certified minutes containing these board resolutions were not produced.  
A comparison of the photocopies of the letterheads containing the two alleged board resolutions for GE India Industrial Private Limited which were filed raises the suspicion that these documents were not genuine. The alleged board resolution dated 7.5.2012 does not bear the company seal.  The GE logo on the letterhead on which these board resolutions are printed is illegible. The persons who have signed these documents dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 are not identified. The letterhead on which the alleged board resolution for GE India dated 17.12.2012 is printed has a blurred and obscured GE logo. Prima facie it appears that the documents filed as board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 are forged and unauthentic.
Both the board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 omitted to mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the nature/ character/ subject matter of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
The fact of this fraud committed on the Delhi High Court is further confirmed by a strange provision in the board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012. Both these board resolutions provide that the powers conferred "shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise affected by the fact of the Company acting either directly or through another agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained".
This clause was obviously inserted to allow for "unauthorized" instructions to be sent to K Radhakrishnan and Nanju Ganpathy which were not sent directly from GE India but via other unidentified intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple layers of separation between the Company (and its legal officers) and court proceedings in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280. 2012 were maintained. 

Nanju Ganpahy filed another vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 also signed by K Radhakrishnan. This vakalatnama also relied upon the alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 to establish K Radhakrishnan's authority to act as attorney for GE India.
The Appellant filed CM 10493 of 2013 on 19.7.2013 placing the above facts and objections on record and objecting to K Radhakrishnan being allowed to represent GE India and objecting to Nanju Ganpathy appearing for GE India. This application was unfortunately not taken up for hearing.
On 21.11.2014, the Appellant moved another application being CM No. 18969 of 2014 again seeking directions on these issues. This was also unfortunately adjourned by the Court without being taken up despite the appellant's requests that orders were necessary on these issues.
Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012 went before a new Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji on 19.1.2015. It was adjourned to 20 and then 22 January 2015. On all these three days, the Bench held a formal hearing for about an hour but the appellant was not permitted to argue the matter. The Bench was insistent that the matter had become infructuous. The Bench did not allow Ms. Seema Sapra to argue her case, and repeatedly kept interrupting her. For most of these three hours spread over three days, Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P. S Teji kept repeating that the matter was infructuous. They repeatedly interrupted Ms. Seema Sapra to prevent her from arguing the case. The matter was then adjourned to 3.2.2015.
On 19.1.2015, when Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 went before Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji, all the alleged authority documents filed for the three General Electric respondents had also expired by lapse of time on the following dates.
Alleged authority document
Date of expiry
Alleged Power of Attorney executed by Alexander Dimitrief on 4 May 2012 purportedly on behalf of General Electric Company
4 May 2013
Alleged Power of Attorney executed by Bradford Berenson on 29 April 2013 purportedly on behalf of General Electric Company
29 April 2014
Alleged Board Resolution of respondent 6 (GE India Industrial Private Limited) dated 7 May 2012
31 March 2013
Alleged Board Resolution of respondent 6 (GE India Industrial Private Limited) dated 17 December 2012
16 December 2014
Alleged Board Resolution of respondent 7 (GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) dated 7 May 2012
31 March 2013
Alleged Board Resolution of respondent 7 (GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) dated 17 December 2012
16 December 2014.

Despite the Appellant's objections, orders dated 19, 20 and 22 January 2015 passed by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P S Teji recorded the appearance of Manpreet Lamba for GE India, General Electric Company and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited. The Appellant therefore declared her intent to impugn these orders in a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of India and applied for certified copies of these orders. This intent was also communicated by the Appellant to Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P S Teji on 19, 20, and 22 January 2015. The matter was adjourned to 3 February 2015.
The petitioner learnt that on 28 January 2015, some document/s described in the court's electronic filing system as "vakalatnama" was filed under the name of Nanju Ganpathy in this matter under diary no. 37442/2015. The Petitioner repeatedly asked Mr Nanju Ganpathy to supply copies of these documents to the Petitioner but he did not respond.
The Petitioner therefore inspected the court record on 29 January 2015 and looked at the new documents filed through Nanju Ganpathy on 28 January 2015 which had been placed in the court file in folder B.
The Petitioner then filed CM 1882 of 2015 addressing these new alleged authority documents which were actually completely irrelevant documents being passed off as authority documents. The petitioner also sought copies of these documents. This application was listed before the High Court on 3.2.2015. The petitioner also applied for certified copies of the new alleged authority documents filed on 28.1.2015. On 2.2.2015 at around 4 pm, Nanju Ganpathy sent scanned copies of these new authority documents filed on 28.1.2015 to the Petitioner. These were incomplete as the scans excluded the edges of the documents.
Before addressing these new alleged authority documents filed on 28.1.2015, the nature of the hearing on 3.2.2015 is described below.
On 3.2.2015, Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji held another hearing for about an hour and a half and suddenly cut off the petitioner who had commenced arguments on the issue of the corruption involving General Electric Company, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Vinod Sharma and declared that they could not give the petitioner further time. They declared that judgment was being reserved. The Petitioner objected stating she had just started her arguments. The Bench ignored her and walked out.
CM 1882 of 2015 and the earlier applications on the issue of appearance by the General Electric respondents were not taken up for hearing on 3.2.2015 or decided.  
What were the new documents filed on 28.1.2015?
No new "vakalatnama" was filed. Three documents were filed which were described in the table of contents as:
Copy of Power of Attorney dated December 8, 2014 valid till September 30, 2015 filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6
Copy of Board Resolution dated December 10, 2014 on behalf of Respondent No. 6
Copy of Board Resolution dated September 26, 2013 on behalf of Respondent No. 6

The first document is what purports to be a Power of Attorney in favor of K Radhakrishnan allegedly executed by Tejal Patil on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited, who is described therein as a Director. This alleged POA is dated 8/12/2014 and was valid until 30/9/2015. This alleged POA refers to a Board Resolution dated 10/9/14 and claims to have been executed pursuant to this Board Resolution dated 10/9/14. This document does not mention WP Civil 1280/2012, or OMP 647/2012, or the alleged arbitration before Mr Deepak Verma, or the alleged complaint which was already made to the Bar Council of Delhi against Ms Seema Sapra. This alleged PoA has not been executed on non-judicial stamp paper and is also neither notarized nor attested. No company stamp is affixed. It bears signatures of two witnesses named as Ira Shukla and Shweta Malhotra without any information about who these witnesses are. Prima facie this POA is invalid and fraudulent.
The opening paragraph of this alleged Power of Attorney reads:
"KNOW ALL MEN BY THIS PRESENT THAT GE India Industrial Private Limited (hereinafter called "Company") having registered office at 401, 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E-1,2,3 Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi 110 034 acting through Ms. Tejal Patil, Director of the Company, duly authorised by Board of Directors through resolution passed on 10th September, 2014 does hereby constitute and appoint K R Radhakrishnan, Company Secretary to initiate proceedings before the Bar Council of Delhi (under the provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules) or Bar Council of India or any Civil Courts, Criminal Courts, High Courts, Supreme Court of India or before any other Quasi-Judicial authority, Tribunal, Government Authority or Local authority, against Ms. Seema Sapra, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi ("Proceedings") and to prosecute, defend and for that purpose to appear & represent the Company and to perform and execute, with respect to the Proceedings, from time to time, all or any of the following acts, deeds and things, that is to say:- "

Note that this alleged Power of Attorney dated 8.12.2014 did in any case not cover the proceedings in Writ Petition Civil No.1280/2012 instituted against GE India by Ms. Seema Sapra as it was limited to proceedings that GE India might institute against Ms. Seema Sapra.
The second document filed is what is described as a board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 10/9/14 which merely refers to another   earlier alleged board resolution dated 27/9/12 and purports to extend the validity of the latter resolution to 30/9/15. This is reproduced below.
Certified true copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company in its meeting held on September 10, 2014
Power of Attorney in favour of K R Radhakrishnan
"RESOLVED THAT in partial modification of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 27th September 2012, the authority granted in favour of K R Radhakrishnan, be and is hereby extended to 30th September, 2015."
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT all the terms and conditions mentioned in all earlier resolutions remain unchanged."
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT a fresh power of attorney be executed for this purpose in favour of K Radhakrishnan and any one Director of the Company be and is hereby authorised to sign the same for and on behalf of the Company."
Certified to be true
For GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd.
K R Radhakrishnan
Company Secretary
Membership No. F3276
R/o A-202, Emerald Court
Essel Towers
Gurgaon

The third document filed is what is also described as a board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 26/9/13 which merely refers to an earlier board resolution dated 27/9/12 and purports to extend the validity of the latter resolution to 30/9/14. This is reproduced below.
Certified true copy of the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company in its meeting held on September 26, 2013
Power of Attorney in favour of K R Radhakrishnan
"RESOLVED THAT in partial modification of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on  27th September 2012, the authority granted in favour of K R Radhakrishnan, be and is hereby extended to 30th September, 2014."
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT all the terms and conditions mentioned in all earlier resolution(s) remain unchanged."
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT a fresh power of attorney be executed for this purpose in favour of K R Radhakrishnan and any one Director of the Company be and is hereby authorised to sign the same for and on behalf of the Company."
Certified to be true
For GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd.
K R Radhakrishnan
Company Secretary
Membership No. F3276
R/o A-202, Emerald Court
Essel Towers, Gurgaon
Haryana-122002

So the new documents filed on 28.1.2015 were the following:
i.                   An alleged Power of Attorney executed by Tejal Patil in favour of K Radhakrishnan which did not apply to Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012.
ii.                 An alleged Board resolution dated 26.9.2013 which merely extends an earlier board resolution dated 27.8.012 which was not produced.
iii.              An alleged Board resolution dated 10.9.2014 which merely extends an earlier board resolution dated 27.8.012 which was not produced.

The new documents filed on 28.1.2015 refer to the following documents which were not produced:
i.                   A board resolution dated 10.9.2014 referred to in the Power of Attorney dated 8.12.2014 but which board resolution was not produced.
ii.                 A board resolution dated 27.8.2012 referred to in the alleged board resolutions dated 26.9.2013 and 10.9.2014.

The two alleged board resolutions dared 10.9.14 and 26.9.2013 merely refer to an earlier alleged resolution dated 27.9.12 and purport to extend the latter's validity, which itself has not been produced and whose contents are therefore unknown. So we do not know for what purpose if any, K Radhakrishnan appointed was as attorney of GE India by the alleged board resolution dated 27.9.2012. The failure to produce this alleged board resolution dated 27/9/12 can only mean that no such resolution exists or if it does exist, it is irrelevant.

The fraud played on the Delhi High Court by the impersonator K Radhakrishnan falsely claiming to be the authorised signatory of GE India stands further exposed and established even by the last desperate attempt to file further fraudulent and irrelevant alleged authority documents on record behind the back of the petitioner on 28.1.2015.

A summary of the various authority documents which Advocate Nanju Ganpathy produced for K Radhakrishnan establishes the fraud beyond doubt.

7.3.2012
Notice issued
9.5.2012
Advocate Nanju Ganpathy appears without vakalatnama
3.7.12 and 3.8.12
Affidavits filed by K Radhakrishnan without authority documents
12.10.2012
Order passed directing production of authority documents
19.10.2012
Alleged board resolution dt 7.5.2012 filed
This envisaged a Power of attorney which was not filed.  
Expiry dated 31.3.2013
6.12.2012
CM 19370/2012 filed pointing out absence of vakalatnama
7.12.2012
Defective Vakalatnama filed without authority documents
14.12.2012
CM 19683/2012 filed pointing out vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was defective and invalid.
17.12.2012
New vakalatnama filed relying upon board resolution dated 7.5.2012
17.12.2012
Affidavit of K Radhakrishnan filed admitting power of attorney envisaged by board resolution dt 7.5.2012 was never executed.
17.12.2012
A new board resolution dt 17.12.2012 was filed which claimed to be a power of attorney without execution of a written instrument – this is contrary to law
Expiry dated 16.12.2014
16.7.2013
Another vakalatnama filed by K Radhakrishnan relying upon board resolution dt 17.12.2012
19.7.2013
CM 10493 of 2013 filed
21.11.2014
CM 18969 of 2014 filed
4.12.2014
CM 20069 of 2014 filed
19, 20 and 22     Jan 2015
Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 went to new Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta & Judge P S Teji who wrongly recorded appearance of counsel for General Electric despite objection by petitioner.
Petitioner indicated her intention to challenge these orders wrongly recording appearance of counsel for General Electric.
28.1.2015
Documents described in the court's electronic filing system as "vakalatnama" were filed under the name of Nanju Ganpathy under diary no. 37442/2015 without providing copies to the petitioner.
There was no vakaltnama.  
These three documents were

A power of attorney dt 8.12.2014 executed by Tejal Patil in favour of K Radhakrishnan which did not cover Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. This power of attorney referred to a board resolution dt 10.9.2014 which was not produced.

A board resolution dt 10.12.2014 which was irrelevant and did not establish authority of K Radhakrishnan for the writ petition.

A board resolution dt. 26.9.2013 which was irrelevant and did not establish authority of K Radhakrishnan for the writ petition.

Reference was made in these documents to another board resolution dt 27.9.2012 which was not produced and appears to be irrelevant.

It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a legal entity or a company in court proceedings without being duly authorised in accordance with law and without producing such duly executed authority documents. It is also basic and settled law that no lawyer can represent a party in court proceedings without placing on the record a vakalatnama in his favour duly executed by such party or by its duly authorised signatory. 

No Court has the power or discretion to allow a company to be represented in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and sufficient authority documents, has failed to establish his authority to represent the company, and who has produced invalid, false, forged and fabricated authority documents. The Court also has no power or discretion to permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and valid vakalatnama.

A judgment was issued in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 by the Bench of Judge Valmiki and Judge P.S. Teji on 3.3.2015 wrongfully dismissing the petition.

This judgment contained the following statement in paragraph 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:-"

The judgement then proceeded to merely reproduce the prayer clauses of CM 18642/2012, 19370/2012, 19683/2012, 522/2013, 10483/2013, CM 1882/2015.

This then is how the Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji have dealt with the applications pointing out that the authority documents filed for the General Electric respondents were invalid. Instead of hearing and deciding these applications on merits, this Bench prevented the petitioner from arguing, reserved judgment without a hearing, did not accord any hearing on the applications, and in its judgment failed to deal with the submissions of the petitioner, and with the material and evidence on record. It further included the statement in paragraph 19 which conveys the incorrect impression as if this issue was examined by the court. Note that this paragraph in the judgment does not examine whether these authority documents filed were invalid, defective, fraudulent or irrelevant as the petitioner had contended and as elaborate hereinabove, instead the paragraph merely records that these were filed. Without even hearing the petitioner and without referring to her submissions, paragraph 19 conveys the impression that K Radhakrishnan was duly authorised to represent the three General Electric respondents and that Nanju Ganpathy was authorized to appear for the General Electric respondents.

21.     A similar fraud was committed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding the appearance of GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited.
22.     There were two applications on the court record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 that comprehensively brought out the material and evidence before the Delhi High Court to establish that the petitioner's whistleblower complaints were genuine. These were CM 19501/2012 and CM 7197/2013. Notice in CM 19501/2012 was issued on 21 December 2012. True copies of  CM  19501/2012 and CM  7197/2013 are being filed in a separate volume.

23.     Just by way of example, the evidence that was available before the Delhi High Court against General Electric and the Ministry of Railways in respect of two of the several whistleblower complaints of the appellant is reproduced hereinbelow for the benefit of this Hon'ble Court.

24.     Corruption by PwC and General Electric Company in Marhowra diesel locomotive factory Project. How the Indian Railway Ministry fabricated false documents and evidence to cover up corruption by General Electric Company.
Read below on how the Railway Ministry fabricated false documents and evidence to cover up corruption by General Electric Company. This deals with the issue of PricewaterhouseCoopers and Vinod Sharma.
General Electric engaged in a proscribed corrupt and undesirable practice by using the advisory and lobbying services of one Vinod Sharma for its bid for the 2010 Marhowra and Madhepura tenders and in doing so violated Clause 2.2.1 (d), Clause 4.1.3 a) and Clause 4.1.3 d) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ and was accordingly liable to be disqualified and blacklisted under Clause 4.1.2. This also amounted to a violation of the conflict of interest clause which was expressly proscribed by the RFQ. 
Vinod Sharma is a retired Indian Railways official who after retirement worked with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). PwC was appointed as consultant by the Railway Ministry in 2008 to prepare the bid documents for the Marhowra Project and to assist in bid evaluation and Vinod Sharma was part of the PwC team.
Four elements are required to establish as to whether General Electric did commit this corrupt practice and whether it was liable to be disqualified and blacklisted.
i.                   Did Vinod Sharma work for GE in 2010 on the bid for the Marhowra Project?
ii.                 Did Vinod Sharma earlier act as an advisor to the Railway Ministry for the same Project?
iii.              Did these facts violate clauses of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ which defined corrupt and undesirable practices and conflict of interest?  
iv.               What were the consequences prescribed by the RFQ for such violation? 

i.        Material and evidence to establish that Vinod Sharma worked for GE in 2010 on the bid for the Marhowra Project.
·        The Appellant in her writ petition described her meetings with Vinod Sharma in the GE office in May, June and July 2010 where Vinod Sharma's gave his advice on the draft bid documents that the GE team had prepared for the Madhepura and Marhowra tenders and met Railway officials along with the GE team on several occasions.

·        The appellant also produced on record two internal GE emails referring to Vinod Sharma and his visits to the GE office. 

General Electric internal emails dated July 5, 2010 sent in connection with Mr. Vinod Sharma's visit to the GE office. The first email was sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar at 8:17 am on July 5, 2010 with the subject "RFQ". The email was sent to Mr. Ashish Malhotra, Mr. Gaurav Negi, Mr. Ashfaq Nainar, Ms. Praveena Yagnambhat, Mr. Ramesh Mathur and to the Appellant. It stated:
"Mr Sharma will be coming to AIFACS around 11 am to go through D-Loco RFQ submittal."
Mr. Ramesh Mathur replied to this email at 8.20 a.m. and stated:
"We were planning for tomorrow. If he is coming today we will share work-in-progress. Thanks. Ramesh"
Mr. Pratyush Kumar replied to Mr. Ramesh Mathur at 8:22 am and stated:
"Earlier the better – can do another round. I DO NOT want things at the last moment."
Copies of these three emails are part of the court record in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 in the Delhi High Court as part of Annexure P-7 to the Petition at page 219.


·        Even the unauthorised affidavit filed in the writ petition on behalf of General Electric confirmed that Vinod Sharma was working for GE in 2010 on its bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura tenders.

A "Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit" dated 23 March 2013 filed for the GE Respondents     (Nos. 1, 6 and 7) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 states on internal page 62:

" … the Answering Respondents state that GE India did in fact enter into a written agreement to govern its relationship with Mr Sharma's company, Essvee     Consultants, effective August 11, 2009."


Interestingly this affidavit disclosed that GE India had entered into a written contract with Vinod Sharma, through what the affidavit described as his "company" "Essvee Consultants" effective from 11 Aug 2009. However, a search of corporate records at the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has revealed that there exists no company registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs with the name "Essvee Consultants". There is no incorporated company in existence in India whose name begins with "Essvee Consultants".

ii. Material and Evidence to establish that Vinod Sharma had earlier in 2008 and 2009 advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and tender
·        Internal Ministry of railways 2008 document downloaded by the Petitioner on June 25, 2012 from the Ministry of Railways website at http://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/O&M/Annexture_1_4.pdf and titled "Annexture_1_4.pdf" contains the following statement on the role of PwC as the consultant to the Indian Railways for the Marhowra diesel locomotive factory tender:

"Ministry of Railways have appointed a Consultant M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers for advisory on setting up of new unit.
Final report for the first part, which is on strategy, has since been received and the consultant has been given a go-ahead for the second part of the report i.e. bid process management.
A final decision on Joint Venture will be taken based on the response in the bidding process.
Status on selection of developer for setting up new Manufacturing Units in Joint     Venture:
Draft Agreements (Procurement contract, maintenance contract and shareholders' agreement) approved by the Board(MM).
Legally vetted copy of final Land Lease agreement incorporating views of AM/Adviser's Committee has been submitted by the Consultant (PWC) and put up to Board(ME) for approval.
Legally vetted copy of Procurement Contract has been received from the Consultant. Other draft agreements (Shareholders' agreement and Maintenance Contract) are under legal vetting with the Consultlant.
Procurement Specialist for validating procurement contract hired by the Consultlant, has started work. Work likely to be completed in a week's time.
After validation of Procurement Contract and legal vetting of draft agreements, final bid document (RFP) will be put up for approval by Board(MM, FC & CRB) and MR. Likely date of submission is 30-04-2008.
A fresh RFQ based on approval by Planning Commission will be issued shortly.
Further bid process will depnd on the reply to the reference made to the Ministry of Finance.
Bid process is likely to be completed by August, 2008.
The project is expected to be completed in about 2 to 2½ years after CCEA's approval is obtained for going ahead with bidding process for Joint – Venture."


·        An ADB document from November 2008 numbered T A 4998 (IND): Preparing the Railway Sector Investment Program Final Report – Efficiency Improvement. This document includes Mr. Vinod Sharma's name as a representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. This document appears to be a consultancy report prepared by PwC for the Ministry of Railways under ADB funding and includes advice on the Electric and Diesel Locomotive Tenders." Copies of relevant extracts from this were annexed as Annexure P-3 to the Appellant's rejoinder affidavit dated 9/7/2012 filed in WP Civil 1280/ 2012. This document establishes that in 2008, Mr Vinod Sharma was working for PricewaterhouseCoopers which was advising the Ministry of Railways on the bids for the diesel locomotive factory.

·        A news report dated 3 October 2008 published by Live Mint which stated "PwC is advising the railways on the diesel locomotive bids."

"Govt shortlists five MNCs for $8 bn Indian Railways orders
The firms will compete for deals to build and supply 660 electric locomotives and 1,000 diesel engines"
Rahul Chandran and K.P. Narayana Kumar

·        An article titled 'Indian Railways: Steamrolling towards new horizons' by Vineet Unnikrishnan published in the India Law Journal in the fourth quarter of 2008 described the engagement of PwC by the Indian Railways in these terms:

"PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a renowned professional consultancy company and Singhania & Partners, a distinguished legal firm are handling the financial and legal nitty-gritty's respectively. These firms are currently in the course of preparing the details of the structure for some of the projects which includes the procedure of the entire bidding process, ownership shares, management, etc which will lay a foundation for future projects of a similar nature. The primary focus of the two firms is on the work related to the establishment of new mainline factories (NMF) and identifying and acknowledging the legal issues that can impact the said ventures, reviewing and preparing the requisite project and transaction documentation, conducting legal vetting, providing valuable advice legal questions in the management of the bidding process collection of significant legal data needed for the successful development of the factories and creation of inventive strategies to manage the bids and pick competent developers for the new factories." See http://www.indialawjournal.com/volume1/issue_4/article_by_vineet.html


·        In its counter affidavit dated 2 July 2012 the Railway Ministry first attempted to mislead the Court by stating that it "has never engaged Shri Vinod Sharma for any work in connection with the said tenders" referring to the 2010 tenders and thereby incorrectly implying that the prohibition on conflict of interest was in respect of the same tender and not the same Project. This was countered by the appellant in her response where it was pointed out that both Clause 2.2.1 (d) and Clause 4.1.3 (a) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ used the word Project.

·        Attempt by the Railway Ministry to mislead the Court by perjury and fabrication of false evidence in its affidavit dated 14 January 2013 filed in reply to CM 19501/ 2012.

·        In its affidavit dated 14 January 2013, the Ministry of Railways actually produced two patently fabricated letters which were used to make a false statement in the affidavit that Vinod Sharma did not advise the Ministry on the Marhowra Rail Project. Both these letters are reproduced and analysed below. This conduct by the Railway Ministry where it failed to honestly answer the question as to whether or not Vinod Sharma ever advised the Ministry on the Marhowra Project, and where instead the attempt was to lie based upon fabricated documents is by itself evidence and material sufficient to lead to the inference that the Railway Ministry is trying to hide the true facts. These documents establish that the Railway Ministry has tried to protect GE and to cover up its corrupt practice by deliberately misleading the Court on the point of Vinod Sharma. This conduct by the Railway Ministry it is submitted constitutes perjury and contempt of court and involves a criminal conspiracy to deceive the court and to fabricate false evidence.

·        Fabricated letter dated: 27.12.2012 addressed to Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RITES Ltd. from G.K. Gupta, Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project) Railway Board filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAILWAY BOARD

No. 2012/M(W)/964/26                 New Delhi, Dated: 27.12.2012

Chairman-cum-Managing Director
RITES Ltd.
Gurgaon
Sub. Setting up of Diesel locomotive Factory, Marhowra
Ref. Writ Petition No. 1280/2012 in Delhi High Court.

A Writ Petition No. 1280/2012 has been filed in Delhi High Court against M/s General Electric Company and others in which Ministry of Railways is also one of the Respondents. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has raised certain issues related to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers, who had been engaged by M/s RITES as consultant for setting up of Diesel Locomotive Factory, Marhowra. The contents of Writ Petition are posted on website of Delhi High Court.

You may kindly get the same examined and submit your comments by 31.12.12 positively as the same are to be discussed on 1,1.2013 with Counsel of Central Government for finalizing the Counter Affidavit. Concerned officers may discuss and seek any clarification on the matter with undersigned on 28.12.12.

Yours sincerely,

(G.K. Gupta)
Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project)
          Railway Board


·        Fabricated letter dated Dt. 7.1.2013 addressed to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.) Railway Board from Anil Vij, GGM/RW&IE at RITES filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013

RITES LTD                                                                   
(A Government of India Enterprise)
RW&IE DIVISION
2ndFloor, Centre Wing, RITES BHAWAN
PLOT No 1, Sector 29
Gurgaon- 122,001, Haryana, (India)
Telefax : +91(0124)2571627
No. 2012/RITES/RW&IE/DLF/Marhowra
Dt. 7.1.2013

Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.)
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi – 110001.

Dear Sir,
Sub:- Setting up Diesel Locomotive Factory, Marhowra
Ref:- Rly. Bd.'s letter no. 2012/M(W)/964/26 dt. 27.12.12

In reference to the above letter from Railway Board in regard to the writ petition no. 1280/2012 filed in Delhi High Court, the issues related to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers raised by the petitioner have been examined and the comments of RITES are as under:-

i)Railway Board, vide letter no. 2006/Infra./PPP/Consultancy dt. 11.10.2006 (copy placed at Annexure-1) communicated to RITES that Railway Board has approved appointment of RITES for providing consultancy services to the Ministry of Railways to engage Consultancy firm for advisory on setting up new     manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Bidding Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell.

ii) Accordingly, RITES went through with the process of engaging a consultancy form on behalf of the Ministry of Railways and issued Letter of Award dt. 2.3.2007 to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd. (PwC) – copy placed at Annexure-2 and signed an agreement dated 6.3.2007 as the Employer's Representative on behalf of the Ministry of Railways (Employer) and M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd. (Consultant) – copy placed at Annexure-3.

iii)As regards the issue of Mr. Vinod Sharma raised by the petitioner, it is brought out that the relevant records have been checked and as per the Technical     Proposal -Part II of M/s PwC of December, 2006, the Team Composition of PwC for the consultancy assignment mentioned in Para I above, was as under:-
S.No.
Name
Position
Technical/ Managerial Staff
1.
Amrit Pandurangi
Project Manager (Senior PPP Specialist)
2.
Latha Ramanathan
Financial Analyst
3.
Vishwas Udgirkar
Procurement Specialist
4.
Dipak Rao
Legal Specialist
5.
Rahul Garg
Tax Specialist
6.
Sarabjit Arjan Singh
Technology Expert (Passenger Coach)
7.
Harry Aghjayan
Technology Expert (Wheel)
8.
Claude Messier
Technology Expert (Diesel Locomotive)
9.
Raymond Booth
Technology Expert (Electric Locomotive)
Support Staff
10.
Nripesh Kumar
PPP Specialist / Project Management
11.
Kushal Singh
Bid Process Management Specialist
12.
Manav Bansal
Financial Analyst
13.
Sarika Jain
Financial Analyst
14.
Subrajit Ghadel
Bid Process Management Specialist
15.
Kishore Desai
Research Expert
16.
Ashutosh Bhandari
Research Expert

Further, at no stage during the currency of the assignment, M/s PwC informed RITES/Ministry of Railways about any change in the team composition.

Thus from the information furnished by PwC, it is seen that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not a part of the PwC team that worked on the consultancy assignment.

The above is for your information please.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,

(Anil Vij)
GGM/RW&IE
Encl. :- As Above.

·        The second letter from RITES to the Railway Board dated 7.1.2013 refers to a consultancy contract with PwC dated 6.3.2007 and then uses the list of the proposed team composition in the Technical Proposal -Part II of M/s PwC of December, 2006 to state that Vinod Sharma was not a part of the team that worked on that consultancy assignment.

·        As a matter of fact, there were two separate consultancy contracts entered into between the Railway Ministry/RITES and PwC.

·        The first was the contract dated 6.3.2007 which was a consultancy to advise on the process the Railway Ministry should prefer for setting up its proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories.
A news report dated February 18, 2007 available on the internet at http://www.steelguru.com/indian_news/Indian_Railway_selects_PWC_as_advisor_for_rolling_stock_venture/18380.html states: "Business Line reported that Indian Railways has selected Price Waterhouse Coopers to advise it on the process it should prefer for setting up its proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories. The report cites an Indian railway official as saying that "PWC is required to submit an inception report within a fortnight. And the final advisory report has to be submitted within another two and a half months." On behalf of the Railway Ministry, RITES had invited competitive bids from consulting firms to provide advisory services on development strategy and bid process management for selection of developers for new factories."
This contract with PwC dated 6.3.2007 was only for 3 months and this assignment was completed by June 2007. This contract was also not specific exclusively to the Marhowra Project but was for provision of advisory services on development strategy and bid process management for selection of developers for the new proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories.

·        In 2008, the Railway Ministry either directly or through RITES entered into another consultancy contract with PwC which is referred to in the internal Ministry of Railways 2008 document downloaded by the Petitioner on June 25, 2012 from the Ministry of Railways website at http://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/O&M/Annexture_1_4.pdf and titled "Annexture_1_4.pdf" which has been reproduced above. This is also the contract mentioned in the news report dated 3 October 2008 published by Live Mint which stated "PwC is advising the railways on the diesel locomotive bids." This is also the contract mentioned in the article published in the fourth quarter of 2008 in the India Law Journal, the relevant part reproduced hereinabove. It is under this 2008 contract with the Railway Ministry that PwC provided advisory services on the bid documents and bid evaluation for the 2008-2009 Marhowra Project and tender. Vinod Sharma was part of the PwC team advising the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and tender under this 2008 contract with PwC.

·        So when called upon by the Delhi High Court to answer as to whether Vinod Sharma had advised the Ministry of Railways as part of the PwC team for preparation of  bid documents and for bid evaluation for the Marhowra Project and tender in 2008, officials of the Railway Ministry and RITES were made to write fabricated letters dated 27.12.2012 and 7.1.2013 which referred not to the relevant 2008 contract with PwC but to an entirely different, earlier and irrelevant contract dated 6.3.2007 and this letter was then used to create false evidence by way of the RITES reply dated 7.1.2013 which was in turn used by the Railway Ministry to lie on affidavit that Vinod Sharma had not advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project.

·        This lie also stands exposed because the PwC contract dated 6.3.2007 mentioned in the RITES letter dated 7.1.2013 involved advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Bidding Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell. The Bid Process that was finally adopted by the Railway Ministry for both the Marhowra and the Madhepura Projects in 2008 involved a two stage bidding process with separate RFQ and RFP stages.

·        That there was a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the Court by the Railway Ministry is also evident from the following:

o   The letter to RITES from G.K. Gupta, Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project), Railway Board dated 27.12.2012 did not provide a copy of the writ petition to RITES. Instead the letter resorts to the falsehood that a copy of the writ petition was available on the website of the Delhi High Court. This letter does not state the conflict of interest complaint against GE, Vinod Sharma and PwC. In fact, it does not even mention Vinod Sharma. This letter which asks RITES for comments on a complaint of corruption and conflict of interest in a pending writ petition for the express purpose of drafting a court affidavit does not even disclose to RITES what the complaint was, and what the issue and facts in contention were.
o   The response from Anil Vij, GGM/RW&IE, RITES to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.), Railway Board dated 7.1.2013 refers to as explained above a contract signed with PwC dated 6.3.2007 and states that copies of the letter of award dated 2.3. 2007 and contract dated 6.3.2007 are attached to the letter, but these attachments were not included in the railway affidavit which produced this letter before the Delhi High Court. This for the obvious reason that the persons who drafted, signed and affirmed the affidavit were aware that this contract dated 6.3.2007 was not the relevant contract and the relevant contract was from 2008. These persons were aware that they were drafting and/or signing a false and misleading statement on oath in an affidavit with intent to mislead the court and to cover up corruption by General Electric Company.
o   While the letter dt 27.12.2012 from the Railway Ministry is addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of RITES, the reply dated 7.12013 from RITES has not been issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, but under the name of one Mr Anil Vij with the words GGM/ RW&IE printed underneath. The letter does not bear a full signature and instead has merely been initialled and even these initials are illegible.

·        The affidavit dated January 14, 2013 filed for the Railway Ministry states at page 12 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma that: "A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra".
·        It is submitted that this statement in the Railway Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 is false and that the officers who have signed this affidavit authors of the Railway affidavit have attempted to protect themselves by using the words "evidently discloses". The phrase "evidently discloses" is commonly used to distance oneself from a statement of fact and to deny any personal responsibility for the fact being asserted.

·        The Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 filed for the Railway Ministry is signed and affirmed by two officers from the Railway Ministry, one of whom is Gopal Krishan Gupta, Executive Director, Mechanical Engineering (Project) Railway Board, the same person who wrote to RITES on 27.12.2012. The other officer is Nihar Ranjan Dash, Executive Director, Electrical Engineering (Development) Railway Board. Both G K Gupta and N R Dash therefore in their affidavit dated January 14, 2013 have denied personal responsibility and ownership of the statement that "A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra".

·        For the reasons set out hereinabove, the statements made on behalf of the Railway Ministry in its affidavit dated January 14, 2013 in paragraphs 17, 18, 20, and 32 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma are false and incorrect. These statements and the misleading record produced and sought to be created by the Railway Ministry are clearly the result of a planned conspiracy under advice of lawyers, by Railway Ministry officials to deceive and mislead the court with intent to cover up the corrupt nature of the dealings between Vinod Sharma and General Electric in 2009 and 2010. These statements amount to perjury and the fabrication of documents and evidence attracts the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

·       
Even the affidavit-in-reply verified on 23 March 2013 and filed on behalf of the General Electric respondents contains the following statement:
"The Answering Respondents are unaware of the percentage of text from the 2010 diesel tender documents that is similar to the earlier project documents. Further, the Answering Respondents are unaware of what role, if any, Mr. Sharma or PwC served in reviewing documents associated with the 2008 diesel locomotive tender".
The fact that PwC was advising the Railway Ministry on the 2008 Marhowra tender was public knowledge and widely published. GE executives would have attended formal pre-bid meetings with Railway officials and PwC representatives in 2008. So this statement in this affidavit-in-reply verified on 23 March 2013 and filed on behalf of the General Electric respondents is also false.

·        As stated above, a "Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit" dated 23 March 2013 filed for the GE Respondents (Nos. 1, 6 and 7) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 states that GE India entered into a written agreement with Vinod Sharma's company, Essvee Consultants, effective August 11, 2009.
There are no records for such company with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.  
A search on the internet for Essvee Consultants shows that there is a website with the domain name http://www.essveeconsultants.com/. The "company profile" on this website reads:
"Established in 2009, *Essvee Consultants* is a trusted placement agency providing total recuritment solutions for diverse industries having its offices in Ajmer (Rajasthan) and Faridabad (Haryana). We are engaged in providing manpower solutions in India as well as abroad. The company has been established with the sole objective of dedicatedly serving the Human Resource Sector with quality service. The company is providing consultation and value added HR services to Corporate and other small Business Houses. Our prime focus is on offering HR Services that exactly match the requirements of our esteemed clients".

The "management team" and "contact" pages on this website list the following three names: Sandeep Dutt Sharma, Rajesh Sharma and Rahul Sharma. All three names share the surname "Sharma" with Mr Vinod Sharma. It is pointed out that this Essvee Consultants claims to have been established in 2009.

·        General Electric therefore engaged Vinod Sharma in 2009 and 2010 for advice on its bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura Projects. Vinod Sharma had earlier in 2008-2009 been part of the PwC team that advised and consulted with the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and the 2008-2009 Marhowra tender. This PwC team advised on bid strategy, it drafted bid documents, and it evaluated the 2008-2009 Marhowra tender bids including the bid of General Electric.

iii. & iv
The above facts and evidence establish that General Electric violated Clause 2.2.1 (d) [conflict of interest],  Clause 4.1.3 (a) [corrupt practice] and Clause 4.1.3 d) [undesirable practice] of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ.  
As a result General Electric was liable to be not only disqualified under the 2010 Marhowra RFQ but also liable to be blacklisted from all Railway Ministry Projects for a period of two years under Clause 4.1.1 and Clause 4.1.2 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ respectively.
·        The relevant clauses of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ

Clause 2.2.1 (d)
"An Applicant shall be liable for disqualification if any legal, financial or technical adviser of the Authority in relation to the Project is engaged by the Applicant during the Bidding Process or after the issue of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, till commissioning of the factory as per provisions to be specified in the RFP, in any manner for matters related to or incidental to the Project."


Clause 4.1.3 (a) 
""corrupt practice" means (i) the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting, directly or indirectly, of anything of value to influence the actions of any person connected with the Bidding Process (for avoidance of doubt, offering of employment to or employing or engaging in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, any official of the Authority who is or has been associated in any manner, directly or indirectly with the Bidding Process or the LoA or has dealt with matters concerning the Agreement or arising therefrom, before or after the execution thereof, at any time prior to the expiry of one year from the date such official resigns or retires from or otherwise ceases to be in the service of the Authority, shall be deemed to constitute influencing the actions of a person connected with the Bidding Process) or (ii) engaging in any manner whatsoever, whether during the Bidding Process or after the issue of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, till commissioning of the factory as per provisions to be specified in the RFP, any person in respect of any matter relating to the Project or the LOA or the Agreement, who at any time has been or is a legal, financial or technical   adviser of the Authority in relation to any matter concerning the Project".

Clause 4.1.1
"The Applicants and their respective officers, employees, agents and advisers shall observe the highest standard of ethics during the Bidding Process. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Authority shall reject an Application without being liable in any manner whatsoever to the Applicant if it determines that the Applicant has, directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged in corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice in the Bidding Process."

Clause 4.1.2
"Without prejudice to the rights of the Authority under Clause 4.1.1 hereinabove, if an Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice     during the Bidding Process, such Applicant shall not be eligible to participate in any tender or RFQ issued by the Authority during a period of 2 (two) years from the date such Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice, as the case may be."

Clause 4.1.3 d) 
"undesirable practice" means (i) establishing contact with any person connected with or employed or engaged by the Authority with the objective of canvassing, lobbying or in any manner influencing or attempting to influence the Bidding Process; or (ii) having a Conflict of Interest".

Clause 1.2.1". "The term "Project" is defined by this RFQ in Clause 1.2.1 as follows:
"The Project for which the Applications are being invited pursuant to this RFQ Document shall comprise of the following:
i. setting up a new Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives factory at Marhowra, Bihar (hereafter referred as the "Site"); and
ii. supplying Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives to the Authority; and
iii. providing maintenance support for the Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives procured by the Authority from the new factory."



25.     General Electric Company forged/doctored a Kazakhstan Rail customer certificate for India Marhowra rail tender in 2010. How the Railway Ministry lied on affidavit & fabricated CVC docs to cover-up forgery by General Electric in 2010 Marhowra diesel loco tender.
Read below for how the Railway Ministry has covered up the complaint that a forged/ tampered Kazakhstan Railway customer certificate was submitted by General Electric with its 2010 RFQ Marhowra DLF on 12 July 2010.
Since all documents that can establish this complaint are either in the possession of the Railway Ministry or of General Electric, it is obvious that the appellant cannot produce direct documentary evidence of this forgery. What the appellant can produce is her own insider eye-witness account of what she saw, read and heard when she was working with General Electric in 2010 when this document was forged.
Second the appellant can produce documentary evidence of correspondence exchanged with General Electric lawyers in 2010 and 2011 which establishes that this complaint was not properly and satisfactorily investigated by GE and that GE lawyers attempted to cover up this forgery.

The third and most important type of material and evidence that prima facie establishes the need for investigation of this complaint is documentary evidence that establishes the attempt by the Government of India including both the Railway Ministry and the Central Vigilance Commission to close this complaint without investigation as part of the cover-up of all complaints against GE. This evidence has emerged on the record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 in the affidavits and documents filed by the CVC and the Railway Ministry.

It is submitted that evidence of a cover-up by the Government leads to the inference that there is something to hide and the Government did not want to investigate this complaint in accordance with law because the documentary evidence in its possession is harmful to GE.

The Appellant narrated her eye-witness account in the rejoinder affidavits filed by her on July 9, 2012 and on July 23, 2012 and in particular on the correspondence between the her and General Electric exchanged during and after General Electric's purported internal investigation. The appellant also filed a detailed affidavit running into 55 pages exclusively addressing the facts and evidence in connection with her complaint of forgery on October 11, 2012. This affidavit describes in detail the events of July 8, 9, and 10, 2010, the weekend before July 12, 2010 when the technical bid was submitted by General Electric for the Marhowra tender and when the forgery took place.  

The brief details of the Appellant's complaint with a brief narration of facts concerning the forgery

The Appellant worked for General Electric as Legal Counsel during May, June, July, August and September 2010, and was involved in the preparation of General Electric's RFQ application dated July 12, 2010 which included the tampered document. Therefore the petitioner's evidence is based upon her personal knowledge of the facts. General Electric had a customer certificate that Kazakhstan Railway had issued to General Electric around December 2009/ January 2010. General Electric needed to submit this document in original to the Railway Ministry along with General Electric's technical bid for the 2010 Marhowra tender in order to satisfy the RFQ technical capacity eligibility criteria (in particular the requirement that the prior locomotive sales should have had at least two variants which the RFQ defined as gauge variations or service application variations). This customer certificate from Kazakhstan Railway was undated and therefore non-compliant with the format for customer certificates prescribed in the RFQ. This fact that the certificate was non-compliant was pointed out by the petitioner to colleagues at General Electric at the end of June 2010 (the RFQ application was due on July 12, 2010).

Unknown to the petitioner, sometime between the end of June 2010 and July 9, 2010, General Electric executives/ employees (including Pratyush Kumar, Ashfaq Nainar, Gaurav Negi. Ramesh Mathur,Ashish Malhotra and Praveena Yagnambhat) entered into a criminal conspiracy to add a false date to the undated customer certificate and to submit this altered and therefore forged document along with General Electric's RFQ application to the Railway Ministry on July 12, 2010. The petitioner states that this conspiracy was carried out and the document that was submitted by General Electric to the Railway Ministry on July 12, 2010 as part of General Electric's RFQ for the 2010 Marhowra tender as the customer certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway was a tampered and forged document. The document submitted was the original copy of the Kazakhstan Railway certificate that General Electric obtained in December 2009/ January 2010. This document was altered and a false date (July 7, 2010) was added to this undated document by the hand of one of the General Electric executives involved in the criminal conspiracy. This altered and forged document was then submitted to the Indian Railway on July 12, 2010 with General Electric's RFQ application. 

As part of this conspiracy, an elaborate and detailed fraud was perpetrated by these General Electric executives (with other unknown co-conspirators) whereby a record was created in internal General Electric emails that these executives had obtained a fresh customer certificate from Kazakhstan Railway which was compliant (dated), and that a scanned copy of this new certificate would be submitted by General Electric, and that the Railway Ministry had approved the submission of a scanned copy instead of the original document.

In reality, the afore-mentioned General Electric executives altered the old Kazakhstan Railway certificate (which did not have a date) and added a false date (July 7, 2010) to that document. This tampered/ forged document was then slipped into General Electric's RFQ application just before it was sent for binding. No one else in General Electric, except those involved in this conspiracy, would ever have known which document was eventually submitted by General Electric. Also, the Railway Ministry would have accepted the altered / forged document as an original certificate and would never have raised any questions.  It is also possible that the General Electric executives involved in the conspiracy intended to claim that the new original document from Kazakhstan Railways (which had been purportedly couriered) had been delivered sometime during the weekend of 10 and 11 July 2010 and that this document had been substituted in place of the scanned copy. As a result, even the internal General Electric record would have shown that General Electric had submitted an original copy of a compliant certificate.

This conspiracy was foiled as a result of the petitioner recording on email on the   morning of July 10, 2010 that the General Electric team consider including both documents in its RFQ application, i.e., the alleged scanned copy of the fresh certificate and the undated original document. As the undated original document had already been tampered, it was no longer possible for the General Electric executives (involved in the forgery) to include it. The plan was also foiled because the petitioner looked through the bound RFQ application on July 10, 2010 and saw that this compilation included an "original certificate" from Kazakhstan Railway that bore the date July 7, 2010. As a result of the petitioner having seen evidence of the forgery, she was drugged during the weekend of July 10 and 11, 2010 by/ at the behest of these General Electric executives. She was also bullied, harassed and an attempt made to get her to participate in an unlawful act (as described in the affidavit dated October 11, 2012 filed on the forgery issue) which could then be used to blackmail the petitioner. After July 12, 2010, the petitioner was again drugged/ poisoned while these General Electric executives participated in a further conspiracy to eliminate the petitioner and to remove her by having her contract with General Electric terminated. The petitioner was finally able to report this forgery only on October 1, 2010 to the General Counsel for General Electric Company after her contract with General Electric had been terminated in violation of whistleblower non-retaliation laws and policies. Since then, the petitioner has been subjected to further poisoning and drugging and her complaint of this forgery has been covered up by General Electric. The petitioner's life remains in grave danger.

General Electric through Mr Alexander Dimitrief's letter dated February 3, 2011, claims that documentary evidence disproves the petitioner's complaint about the forgery. This is incorrect. The documentary evidence discussed in Alexander Dimitrief's letter is irrelevant. He states: "We have compared the printout of the certificate from the July 7 e-mail with GETI's copy of the Request for Qualification ("RFQ") submitted to Indian Railways and they are identical".

The petitioner submits that this does not establish that the certificate was not forged. Why would General Electric executives retain evidence of the forgery and of the tampered document on General Electric files? A close reading of Alexander Dimitrief's letter will establish that it does not provide any evidence to establish that the petitioner's complaint of forgery is without basis. The letter misrepresents and ignores the petitioner's written evidence and attempts to falsely suggest that the petitioner withdrew her complaint, whereas the petitioner did not.

The document that General Electric eventually submitted to the Railway Ministry on July 12, 2010 was not a scanned copy of the fresh customer certificate dated July 7, 2010. General Electric executives submitted the original   undated Kazakhstan Railway customer certificate after adding a false date to it. This is the document the petitioner saw in the bound RFQ application on July 10 and 11, 2010.  The evidence that the petitioner has shared in writing clearly shows the following:

i.        The document the petitioner saw in the RFQ compilation on the evening of 9 July 2010 contained a black and white copy of the Kazakhstan certificate. This was the final set that was supposed to have been sent for binding.
ii.       The bound set that the petitioner saw on 10 July 2010 contained an entirely different document (Kazakhstan certificate) that was in colour and looked like an original leading the petitioner to ask her colleagues at General Electric: "are you guys playing games with me?"
iii.      Ashish Malhotra (from General Electric) lied to the petitioner and told her that the coloured document had been present in the set the petitioner looked through on 9 July 2010. This is incorrect. The document the petitioner saw on 9 July 2010 was a black and white document that on the face of it looked like a copy.

The only relevant evidence of the forgery is the document on the files of the Railway Ministry, i.e., the document General Electric actually submitted. The petitioner submits that a perusal of this document by this court will establish that the document General Electric submitted was the original undated Kazakhstan Railway customer certificate with a false date. Any reasonable person wanting to investigate this forgery would look to the relevant documentary evidence available with the Government. Why does General Electric not want that evidence examined?  The petitioner has described the events of 10 and 11 July 2010 in great detail in writing. There is hard evidence of the events of 10 and 11 July 1010 that have been described by the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner has also detailed the conspiracy to cover up this forgery that was put into effect afterwards.

Ms. Sapra made the following complaint to General Electric Company on 1.10.2010

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Subject: more information about week before D loco RFQ submission
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, deepak.adlakha@ge.com, james.winget@ge.com, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Jeff,
I have been spending a lot of time going over events from my time at GE. There   is an important issue about which I now have doubts in my mind.
In my review of the Diesel Loco RFQ (due on 12 July 2010), I found that some customer certs were deficient. I also raised and communicated concerns that the certs might not adequately meet the technical capacity pre-qualification criteria in the RFQ. All this is on record.

Week of 5th July 2010
In the last week before the submission date, during a meeting where Vinod Sharma ( an external consultant) was also present, Prat and Ash took the decision to submit scanned copies of a couple of certs as the originals were not available. This according to them was the only available option at that time. I pointed out then (as I had before and did again subsequently), that the RFQ required originals and there was a risk of disqualification without originals. Mr Sharma agreed with me on the need for originals and said efforts must be made to get originals but if these did not arrive in time then scanned copies were the best option. Later that evening, Prat and Ash assured me that they would record their decision as a business decision.    

My advice to Ashish all through the last week was to delay binding and wait for   the originals. I emailed and spoke to Tara and Jamie about this issue. And I also spoke to Deepak on Friday evening. The papers were sent for binding on Friday late evening. Earlier in the evening Ashish had given me the original set to review and it had two scanned certs, the Vale and the Kazakhstan cert. Both of these were black and white copies.

Weekend (10 & 11 July 2010)
On Saturday morning I sent an email on this issue because I was concerned and because Deepak had given some advice. This email is on record. Deepak called me on Saturday and told me to now leave the issue/ decision to Prat and Ash. 

I went into office on Saturday later and saw the bound version. I was surprised to find the Kazakhstan cert (one of the missing originals) in color. It looked like the original. I asked Ashish and Ramesh (I do not remember if Praveena was in the room) "Are you guys playing games with me?" Basically I asked them have you got the original because you told me it had not arrived. Ashish told me this was a color printout. I said I got confused. It looked like an original. I asked Ashish where did you get this. He said they had a color scan and they decided to take a color printout.

Prat came in later and Ashish told him Seema had gotten confused about the color printout.
Even though Ashish told me this was a color print-out, I now have doubts about this. Prat and Ash were very angry about my Saturday email. There was a lot of tension because of my email.

On Sunday, Ash tried to trap me into getting a non-compliant Power of Attorney (POA) as he raised a big hue and cry about a small mistake in the POA. I refused to get the non-compliant POA and insisted that use the document we had.  [This was confirmed by three lawyers, Amit Kumar (Amarchand), Deepak Adlakha and I. All three were of the view that there was no defect in the POA we had.] When I said the existing POA was OK, Ash got upset and said I had been going on for weeks about the customer certs and now I was not concerned about the POA.

On Sunday, Praveena claimed to have found a notary on the internet who could notarise a new POA. Ash and Praveena wanted to send an office assistant to this notary. I said I would go myself as I wanted to make sure it was all genuine. I found the notary set-up a con and refused to get a new POA from there. Despite my telling Ash (I called Ash from the notary's office) my concerns about this notary, he suggested I get the document and then we could decide. I refused and said the existing POA could be used. Later I found a genuine stamp paper vendor who issued stamp paper on Sunday. I also located a genuine notary who could notarise the POA. When I asked Ash to send his car for the stamp paper, Prat stepped in, called up Amit Kumar (Amarchand) and decided we did not need a new POA. I think there was an attempt to harass me over a minor defect in the POA and to trap me into getting a non-compliant POA. Did Praveena really find the con notary on the internet on Sunday? Was this a pre-planned conspiracy? Was this intended to deflect my attention from the customer cert issue?
Prat bullied and humiliated me in front of everyone on Sunday over other issues   (i.e., me questioning Ramesh sending out E Loco RFP queries to the Government without review) leading me to tell him I would resign. Deepak called me about this on Sunday evening.
I have given these and subsequent events a lot of thought in the past few weeks.
I am concerned about the Kazakhstan cert that was submitted. Was it a color print-out of a color scan like I was told? The earlier scan I had seen was in black and white. Was this a doctored/ manipulated document?
It is important that GE ascertain whether the scan was in color or not? Where did the color printout come from?
Were Prat and Ash intending to pass off the Kazakhstan cert submitted as original? Was this why my email of Saturday made them so angry?
If the color copy filed is not a genuine print-out of a genuine color scanned copy then the document could be seen as a forgery. GE must inform the Government about any such forgery.
I have another concern about this weekend.
My email stopped working after my Saturday morning email. I tried to resolve the problem on the phone with Varun (IT) on Saturday but could not. He could not explain why my connection to the GE servers was down. There was something wrong about my IP address. My email started working again on Monday morning on its own. Did someone deliberately interfere with my network connectivity? Why was my connection down on Saturday and Sunday.
Incidentally, all through this weekend, I had severe lower back pain and was on pain-killers.
All of this also happened soon after I had spoken to Radhika about Prat and Praveena and after I suspect Radhika warned Praveena.
Some other thoughts:
Prat, Ash, Ramesh and Praveena's entire interaction with me as legal counsel for GE was in bad faith.
While I was still at AIFACS I noticed how anxious Prat, Ash, Ramesh and Praveena became when I started talking about raising concerns.
I can prove everything that happened on a day-to-day basis.  There are so many people who can bear me out on facts. But no one in GE was interested in listening to what happened. GE's response was to push me out, move me to Gurgaon and then to ask me to leave.  The paramount concern of people I tried to speak to was that nothing should come in the way of the D loco deal. And since Prat was not working well with me, I should be removed from the role.
Thanks,
Seema
-
Seema Sapra

Ms. Seema Sapra made the following complaint to the Railway Ministry on 23.12.2010.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Subject: GE's RFQ for Marhowra Project
Attn:
Shri Santosh Sinha                                                                                                            Director (Mech Engg)/ Works
Room No. 312A, Rail Bhawan
Ministry of Railways, Rafi Marg
New Delhi 110001
Fax: 011 23386693
Ref: RFQ for Diesel Locomotive factory at Marhowra submitted by GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd
Dear Shri Santosh Sinha,
I was employed as Legal Counsel with GE Transportation in India at their Rafi Marg office between April 2010 and September 2010. I am writing in connection with the RFQ Application submitted by GE for the Marhowra project on 12 July 2010.
This application contained a customer certificate from Kazakhstan railways. I would like to bring to your notice that the Kazakhstan certificate submitted is not an original copy. GE received the original of this certificate a few days after the RFQ was submitted on 12 July. I have reasons to suspect that the copy filed was faked to look like an original. I believe that GE might have had a scanned copy of the original sent on email. However, I suspect that this scanned copy was modified to look like an original and therefore a faked certificate was submitted along with the RFQ.
I request you to investigate this matter thoroughly. I had communicated my concern to GE on 1 October 2010. Since then, GE has not confirmed to me that the certificate filed was not forged. I have shared the reasons for my concern with GE senior management and attorneys in their headquarters in the United States.
As a lawyer who was involved in the preparation of the RFQ application and as a citizen of  India, I have a legal right to know if the certificate was forged. If it was forged, then I believe criminal offences have been committed. Further GE is liable to be disqualified from the tender process. I request the Railway Authorities to ascertain the truth from GE and kindly let me know. I am copying GE on this request.
Kind Regards,
Seema Sapra
Advocate
G-4 First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi 110014
Ph. 99588 69955
Copy to:
John Flannery
GE India Industrial Private Limited
Building 7A, 5th Floor
Sector 25A, DLF Cyber City
Phase III, Gurgaon
Haryana 122 022

Ms. Seema Sapra made the following complaint to Indian Government authorities on 11.1.2011 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:18 PM
Subject: GE's RFQ for Marhowra Project
Dr. Ahluwali and Mr. Haldea,
I am a lawyer and have brought a possible forgery to the notice of the Railway Board in respect of the RFQ submitted by GE for the diesel locomotive factory (Marhowra) project. My email to the Railway Board is set out below.
I request that this matter be looked into. I request that the Government obtain a clarification from GE about this issue.
Regards,
Seema Sapra

From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:35 AM
Subject: GE's RFQ for Marhowra Project
Attn:
Shri Santosh Sinha                                                                                                            Director (Mech Engg)/ Works
Room No. 312A, Rail Bhawan
Ministry of Railways, Rafi Marg
New Delhi 110001
Fax: 011 23386693
Ref: RFQ for Diesel Locomotive factory at Marhowra submitted by GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd
 Dear Shri Santosh Sinha,
 I was employed as Legal Counsel with GE Transportation in India at their Rafi Marg office between April 2010 and September 2010. I am writing in connection with the RFQ Application submitted by GE for the Marhowra project on 12 July 2010.
This application contained a customer certificate from Kazakhstan railways. I would like to bring to your notice that the Kazakhstan certificate submitted is not an original copy. GE received the original of this certificate a few days after the RFQ was submitted on 12 July. I have reasons to suspect that the copy filed was faked to look like an original. I believe that GE might have had a scanned copy of the original sent on email. However, I suspect that this scanned copy was modified to look like an original and therefore a faked certificate was submitted along with the RFQ.
I request you to investigate this matter thoroughly. I had communicated my concern to GE on 1 October 2010. Since then, GE has not confirmed to me that the certificate filed was not forged. I have shared the reasons for my concern with GE senior management and attorneys in their headquarters in the United States.
As a lawyer who was involved in the preparation of the RFQ application and as a citizen of  India, I have a legal right to know if the certificate was forged. If it was forged, then I believe criminal offences have been committed. Further GE is liable to be disqualified from the tender process. I request the Railway Authorities to ascertain the truth from GE and kindly let me know. I am copying GE on this request.
Kind Regards,
Seema Sapra
Advocate
G-4 First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi 110014
Ph. 99588 69955
Copy to:
John Flannery
GE India Industrial Private Limited
Building 7A, 5th Floor
Sector 25A, DLF Cyber City
Phase III, Gurgaon
Haryana 122 022

Ms Seema Sapra received the following communication from the Central Vigilance Commission dated 30.5.2011.
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
Telegraphic Address:
"SATTARKA: New Delhi
E-Mail Address
Website
EPABX
24651001 – 07
Fax: 24616286

Satarka Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex,
Block A, INA, New Delhi 110023
No. 1117/RLY/16/130260
Dated 30.05.2011

To,
Smt. Seema Sapra,
Advocate,
G-4 First Floor
Jangpura Extesion
New Delhi – 110014

Sub: Complaint against Railway official
Ref:  Your e-mail letter dated 11.01.2011

Sir,
Your e-mail complaint has been registered as complaint no. 107/11/1 and has been forwarded to Shri A.K. Maitra, Advisor (Vig), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi for investigation and submission of a report within three months from the date of receipt of Commission's reference.
2. The Commission would be obtaining a report from the department in due course. If you wish to see the status of your e-mail complaint, you may log on to the Commission's website http://www/cvc/nic/in by entering the complaint number given above, in the field complaint status. The current status of your complaint would be displayed on the screen.
                                                                             Yours faithfully
(SK Gwaliya)
Section Officer

Notice was issued to the CVC and the Railway Ministry (among others) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 on 7.3.2012.
The following statement was made in the affidavit dated 2.7.2012 filed for the Railway Ministry.
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 email 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. GE 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. 1117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure-R-1).

CVC document produced along with Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

The Commission has perused the investigation report and the comments of the administrative authorities thereon. In agreement with the RB(Vigilance), the Commission would advise closure of the complaint case.

2. Railway Board's ID No./2011/VC/RB/10-CVC dated 12.02.2011 refers and its file is sent herewith.

(R.C. Arora)
Director

Railway Board (Shri AK Maitra, Advisor(Vig.) New Delhi.
CVC's ID No. 1117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.2011

Note that the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012 establishes the following:
The complaint of forgery was not investigated.
The Railway Ministry misled the Delhi High Court that General Electric did not need the Kazakhstan Railway certificate to qualify.
The only finding of the "investigation" was that according to the Railway Ministry, General Electric did not benefit from submitting the Kazakhstan Certificate and that even if that certificate is discarded, General Electric fulfilled the technical capacity criteria.   
It was on this basis that the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2013 stated the following:
"Thus, investigation has found that the firm M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no substance was found in the allegation."

Two-point response to this affidavit of the Railway Ministry
i.        General Electric did need the Kazakhstan certificate to qualify, therefore this certificate could not be discarded.  General Electric did therefore benefit from filing this certificate.
iii.     The complaint of forgery has not been investigated.

In her response, the Petitioner also pointed out that the only document produced with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012 was the CVC document dated 19.9.2011 which did not shed any light on the matter. The Petitioner had therefore submitted in her subsequent applications and affidavits that the Railway Ministry and the CVC be directed to produce the actual investigation report.
Another affidavit dated 1.14.2013 was filed for the Railway Ministry. In this affidavit, the following statement was made in paragraph 172:
"A true copy of the advice received from the Central Vigilance Commission and a true copy of the brief on the investigation conducted by the Railway Board (Vigilance) on the complaint dated 11.01.2011 made by the Petitioner to the CVC are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-10 (Colly)."

Attached to this affidavit as Annexure R-10 (Colly) were three documents. These are reproduced below.
URGENT
COURT CASE
F.No.2011/VC/RB/10-CVC
Sub:   PIL filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi titled Seema Sapra Vs Union of India & others. W.P.(C)No.1280/2012 (PIL).
Ref:   EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012
          A brief on the investigation conducted by Railway board Vigilance on the complaint dated 11.01.2011 made by Ms. Seema Sapra, Advocate to CVC is enclosed as desired.
(R.V.Nair)
JDV(Int.)
25.06.2012
Adv.(Vig.)
EDME(Proj.)
  
BRIEF ON THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY RAILWAY BOARD VIGILANCE ON THE COMPLAINT MADE TO CVC BY MS. SEEMA SAPRA, ADVOCATE.
Central Vigilance Commission vide its letter No.1117/RLY/15/124624 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.

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, M/s GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. 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. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no substance was found in the allegation.
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. 1117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.2011.

The third document was the CVC communication dated 19.9.2011 which has already been reproduced above.
Now this CVC document dated 19.9.2011 refers to four documents :-
(i) an investigation report
(ii) comments of the administrative authorities on the investigation report
(iii) a communication from the RB(Vigilance)
(iv) Communication carrying Railway Board's ID No./2011/VC/RB/10-CVC and dated 12.02.2011
None of these four documents mentioned in the CVC communication have been produced along with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14.1. 2013.
Instead there is an unsigned note which verbatim repeats what was stated in the first Railway Ministry affidavit of 2.7.2012. This unsigned note is titled "BRIEF ON THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY RAILWAY BOARD VIGILANCE ON THE COMPLAINT MADE TO CVC BY MS. SEEMA SAPRA, ADVOCATE". This note refers to a Central Vigilance Commission letter No.1117/RLY/15/124624 dated 11.04.2011 which "had forwarded to Railway Board a copy of e-mail complaint dated 11.01.2011 received in the Commission from Ms. Seema Sapra, advocate,"
Note the discrepancy here. The CVC note of 19.9.2011 which is relied upon to support the closure of the case refers to a Railway Board letter with ID No./2011/VC/RB/10-CVC and dated 12.02.2011.
How did the Railway Board write to the CVC about this complaint (and recommend closure on 12.02.2011)  when the unsigned note titled "BRIEF ON THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY RAILWAY BOARD VIGILANCE ON THE COMPLAINT MADE TO CVC BY MS. SEEMA SAPRA, ADVOCATE" claims that it received the complaint from the CVC on 11.04.2011?
The other document produced with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14.1.2013 is an internal Railway Ministry communication dated 25.06.2012 enclosing the unsigned note and referring to it as the "EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012".
So the Railway Ministry has not produced any report of investigation carried out by its vigilance department or by the CVC.
All it has produced is an unsigned note referred to as the EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012. EDME refers to Executive Director Mechanical Engineering. Even the name of the officer who has allegedly written this note is not provided.
So there is no investigation report. Instead the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14.1.2013 attempts to misrepresent and pass off an anonymous unsigned note referred to as the EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012 as the investigation report of the vigilance branch. Note that the Executive Director Mechanical Engineering is not part of the vigilance department.
So it is clear that there has been no investigation by the CVC or Railway Vigilance on the complaint of forgery. Forged and fraudulent documents suggesting this have been filed with the Railway Ministry affidavits dated 2.7.2012 and 14.1.2013.
False and perjurious statements have been made in these affidavits lying to the Court that the forgery complaint was investigated and that the CVC approved of the investigation and recommended closure of the case.
These false statements include the following false statement made in para 196 of the affidavit dated 14.1.2013:
"it is respectfully submitted that the summary of the investigation report by the Vigilance Directorate, as endorsed by the CVC, has been placed before the Hon'ble Court. In terms of the recommendation, the case has been closed."
The complaint of forgery was not investigated either by the Railway Ministry Vigilance Department or by the Central Vigilance Commission. Instead the attempt has been to cover up this matter and to avoid an investigation into the complaint of forgery.

General Electric did need the Kazakhstan Railways certificate qualify.
Clause 3.2.1 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ
"Subject to the provisions of Clause 2.2, the Applicant shall:
a) over the period of last ten (10) years, have manufactured and supplied at least 1000 Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives and:
i. such Locomotives should comprise at least 2 Variants; a Variant for the purpose of this RFQ Document shall mean a Locomotive with different gauge or with different service application;
ii. the supply of such Locomotives should have been to three (3) or more countries;
iii. 200 or more of such Diesel Electric Locomotives should be of 4000 HP (or higher) with AC-AC 3-phase and IGBT technology; iv. 25 or more of such Diesel Electric Locomotives should be of 6000 HP (or higher)"
Thus the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2,7.2012 falsely stated that General Electric only needed evidence of manufacture and supply of 1000 mainline Diesel Electric locomotives. As is clear from Clause 3.2.1 (reproduced above), a bidder also needed to provide customer certificates to show that it met the other conditions/ criteria prescribed in Clause 3.2.1. The 1000 locomotives relied upon by a bidder needed to have at least two variants. These locomotives should have been supplied to at least three countries. 200 of these locomotives should have been of at least 4000 HP with AC-AC 3-phase and IGBT technology. And at least 25 of these locomotives should have been of at least 6000 HP.

While General Electric did not need the Kazakhstan Railways customer certificate to certify the requirement for prior manufacture and supply of 1000 locomotives, it did need this certificate to meet the requirement that these locomotives should comprise of two variants (i.e., locomotives with either gauge variations or service application variations). General Electric did not meet the requirement for two variants prescribed by Clause 3.2.1 without the Kazakhstan Railways customer certificate which covered a gauge variant. This was also the internal understanding in General Electric and is recorded on internal General Electric emails.

Further the submission of a forged certificate amounted to a material misrepresentation under clause 2.7.3 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ and a fraudulent practice under clause 4.1.3 (b) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ. The submission of a forged/ tampered customer certificate therefore rendered General Electric liable for mandatory disqualification and blacklisting for a period of two years (Clause 4.1.1 and Clause 4.1.2 of the RFQ).  It also amounts to the criminal offence of forgery under both Indian and US law.    

The Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji who wrongly dismissed Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 did not permit the petitioner to argue the matter at all. The Petitioner was unable to even mention the issue of the forgery complaint during the four hearings on 19, 20, 22 January and 3 February 2015 before this Bench, leave alone argue.

Yet without even hearing the petitioner on this issue or indeed hearing anyone else, or examining the court record, or considering the affidavits filed by the petitioner, the judgment dated 2.3.2015 issued by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji includes the following statement:
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)
  
This is the only reference in the judgment to the court record and it refers to and relies upon a patently false statement made in the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012. This statement has been included in the judgment without hearing the petitioner, without examining the court record, and without considering the affidavits of the petitioner and her submissions therein.
The result is that this judgment which expressly refuses to look at the court record and states this at more than one place, picks up a portion of a Railway Affidavit that amounts to perjury and inserts it into the judgment as if this were a finding of the Court, without hearing the parties.
As elaborated hereinabove, this statement in the Railway Ministry affidavit was not only false but perjurious, intended to mislead the Court, and based upon fabricated documents.
There has been no CVC investigation into the complaint of forgery.
Once again the judgment issued by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Tegi is deeply flawed. The result is a cover-up of the corruption complaints against General Electric including this particular complaint of forgery. 

26.     Other material and evidence before the Delhi High Court in connection with the appellant's whistleblower complaints against General Electric Company is being filed in a separate volume.
27.     From the above preliminary and incomplete recital above of the appellant's whistleblower complaints alongwith an indication of the kind of material that was available before the Delhi High Court, it is clear that the judgment in the writ petition issued by the Division Benchof Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P.S. Teji is wrong. As a result of this incorrect decision, the protection orders (not very useful as they were) passed in favour of the whistleblower-appellant have ended. The appellant's life is put at grave risk as a result of this judgment. The appellant has suffered the consequences of this over the last one year in being deliberately targeted by exposure to highly toxic chemical fumes, gases and inhalants. She has been chronically poisoned over this last year and has even been drugged on a few occasions.
28.     The appellant initially wanted to let the matter rest after 2 March 2015 because of the threat to her life. However, the appellant has continued to be poisoned. The petitioner's life has been made hell. She is homeless, has no money, is being prevented from working, is being defamed, and is being chronically poisoned. There is a clear agenda to destroy the appellant-whistleblower. The appellant intends to file a petition under Article 32 before this Hon'ble Court in respect of her whistleblower complaints against General Electric Company and in respect of the past and continued violation of the petitioner's right to life as a result. It is submitted that there is no res judicata bar to the petitioner seeking relief for the continued violation of her right to life under Article 32. Further it is clear that Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 has not been decided on merits, and it had not considered the material before it. Further this petition was disposed in the absence of several necessary respondents who were not present before the court including General Electric Company and its subsidiaries. Other bidders like Siemens AG were not present. The lawyers who appeared for EMD, Alstom and Siemens India did not produce authority documents with the vakalatnamas which were filed. The judgment in the writ petition has not settled the points of controversy therein. The judgment is clearly a non-speaking order. Almost all of the subject matter of that petition has not been considered in this judgment, it is a non-speaking order without reasoning and is nothing but a summary dismissal by the Division Bench and a refusal to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, there is no bar of res judicata to an article 32 petition as per the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Daryao and Others vs The State Of U. P. And Others 1962 SCR (1) 574. The fresh Marhowra tender instituted during the pendency of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012 in 2013 has been awarded to General Electric by the Railway Ministry in November 2015. This award is vitiated on account of the cover-up of the corruption complaints against General Electric and the fraud and perjury committed against the Delhi High Court on behalf of General Electric and the Railway Ministry. In any event the law of the land requires that these complaints be properly investigated, the forgery, fraud, corruption and perjury be punished. A fraud committed on the judiciary of the magnitude described above is no small matter that the Government of India can simply ignore. 
29.     The appellant is also continuing to pursue her remedies against General Electric Company with the US authorities, the FBI, the US Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission. In August 2015, the appellant has filed a complaint with the SEC as a whistleblower through its online complaint intake portal and this complaint has been registered as TCR1439646785831. A copy of this complaint as submitted through the SEC portal web form is reproduced below.

TCR Submitted Successfully - Reference Number: TCR1439646785831
Tell us about your complaint
Please select the option that best describes your complaint
Bribery of, or improper payments to, foreign officials (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violations)
Please select the specific category that best describes your complaint
Bribery of foreign officials
Provide additional details about your complaint:
Former General Electric in-house counsel Seema Sapra filed a legal proceeding in the Delhi High Court (Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012) against General Electric Company and two Indian subsidiaries (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited). The Delhi High Court issued notice in this matter to General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited on 7 March 2012. A copy of the Delhi High Court order dated 7 March 2012 can be viewed on the Delhi High Court website at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=49717&yr=2012 Instead of appearing before the Delhi High Court in this matter through properly authorized and competent person/s, General Electric Company lawyers and executives (including General Counsel Brackett Denniston, and GE in-house lawyers Alexander Dimitref, Bradford Berenson, and Jeffrey Eglash), caused this legal proceeding to remain hidden from General Electric Company and caused an Indian subsidiary employee K R Radhakrishnan to impersonate as the authorized signatory/ representative of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in these legal proceedings between 2012 and 2015 using   fraudulent and forged authority documents on behalf of General Electric Company. With the help of this fraud, and using other dishonest, corrupt and illegal means, General Electric Company is attempting to cover up the corruption and FCPA complaints against it in connection with its bids for two Indian Railway tenders - the tenders for the proposed diesel locomotive factory in Marhowra and the tenders for the proposed electric locomotive factory in Madhepura. Under Indian law, a lawyer representing a Party to a judicial proceeding must produce on the court record a duly executed 'vakalatnama', which is a specialized form of a Power of Attorney granted by the Party to the lawyer to represent it in Court. Under Indian law, a lawyer cannot appear for a Party in judicial proceedings without producing a duly executed vakalatnama in his favor by the client. Further under Indian law, in case the party to the judicial proceeding is a corporate entity, then the authorized signatory/ representative of the corporate entity who executes the vakalatnama and other court pleadings on behalf of such corporate entity, must produce on the court record the documentation that establishes such person as the duly authorized signatory and representative of the corporate entity for such legal proceedings. From July 2012 to March 2012, an Indian citizen named K R Radhakrishnan has unlawfully and fraudulently impersonated as the authorized signatory and representative of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012. K R Radhakrishnan is neither an officer nor employee of General Electric Company. He claims to be the Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited which is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company. K R Radhakrishnan has purported to execute vakalatnamas (Powers of Attorney) and court affidavits/ pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company which were filed in the Delhi High Court on behalf of General Electric Company. Under the Board Resolution No.10855 of General Electric Company listing out the persons who are entitled to execute documents on behalf of General Electric Company (including Powers of Attorney and Court pleadings), K R Radhakrishnan was not entitled to act as authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court and was not entitled to execute any Powers of Attorney or Court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company. This Board Resolution of General Electric Company can be read at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxHBZ8fQxNoQeGU2OGozcGtYR28/view?usp=sharing The Court record for Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 can be found at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/p/updated-court-documents-in-whistle.html
When did you become aware of the alleged conduct? (mm/dd/yyyy)
08/10/2010
When did the alleged conduct begin? (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/01/2010
Is the alleged conduct ongoing?
Yes
Has the individual or firm acknowledged the alleged conduct?
No
What is the source of your information? You may select more than one
Conversations; Internal business documents; Publicly available information; SEC filings;
Have you taken any action regarding your complaint? You may select more than one
Complained to firm; Complained to other regulator; Complained to SEC; Complained to law enforcement; Legal action;
Who did you contact and what action did you take?
I have emailed the SEC, the US DOJ, the FBI. I sued General Electric Company in the Delhi High Court.
Who are you complaining about?
Are you complaining about an individual or a firm?
Firm
Select the title that best describes the individual or firm that you are complaining about:
Publicly held company
Firm Name:
General Electric Company
Street Address:
3135 Easton Turnpike
City:
Fairfield
State / Province:
Connecticut
Zip / Postal Code:
CT 06828-0001
Country:
USA
Telephone:
Are you or were you associated with the individual or firm when the alleged conduct occurred?
Yes
How are you or were you associated with the individual or firm you are complaining about?
I was working as in-house legal counsel in India helping GE Transportation (US) bid for Indian Rail contracts
Products involved
Select the type of product involved in your complaint:
Other
Please select the category that best describes your security product:
Other
For other, please provide more information:
Indian rail tenders
Enter the product name(s):
locomotives
About you
*Are you submitting this tip, complaint or referral pursuant to the SEC's whistleblower program?
Yes
*Are you submitting this tip, complaint or referral anonymously? Being able to contact you for further information or clarification may be helpful.
No
**Are you represented by an attorney in connection with your submission?
No
Submitter Information
Title:
Ms.
**First Name:
Seema Sapra
**Last Name:
Sapra
Street Address:
39
Address (Continued):
Prithviraj Road
City:
New Delhi
State / Province:
Delhi
Zip / Postal Code:
1100011
Country:
India
Mobile Telephone:
00919582716748
Email Address:
What is the best way to contact you?
Email
Select the profession that best represents you:
Attorney
Whistleblower Declarations
*1. Are you, or were you at the time you acquired the original information you are submitting to us, a member, officer, or employee of the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, any law enforcement organization, or any national securities exchange, registered securities association, registered clearing agency, or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board?
No
*2. Are you, or were you at the time you acquired the original information you are submitting to us, a member, officer, or employee of a foreign government, any political subdivision, department, agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government, or any other foreign financial regulatory authority as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(52) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78c(a)(52))?
No
*3. Did you acquire the information being submitted to us through the performance of an engagement required under the federal securities laws by an independent public accountant?
No
*4. Are you submitting this information pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the SEC or another agency or organization?
No
*5. Are you a spouse, parent, child, or sibling of a member or employee of the SEC, or do you reside in the same household as a member or employee of the SEC?
No
*7a. Are you submitting this information before you (or anyone representing you) received any investigative request, inquiry, or demand that relates to the subject matter of your submission from the SEC, Congress, or any other federal, state, or local authority, any self regulatory organization, or the Public   Company Accounting Oversight Board?
Yes
*8a. Are you currently a subject or target of a criminal investigation, or have you been convicted of a criminal violation, in connection with the information you are submitting to the SEC?
No
*9a. Did you acquire the information being provided to us from any person described in questions 1 through 8?
No
10. Identify with particularity any documents or other information in your submission that you believe could reasonably be expected to reveal your identity, and explain the basis for your belief that your identity would be revealed if the documents were disclosed to a third party.
I do not wish to keep my identity public. I have already made my identity as a whistleblower public.
*I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the information contained in this submission is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I fully understand that I may be subject to prosecution and ineligible for a whistleblower award if, in my submission of information, my other dealings with the SEC, or my dealings with another authority in connection with a related action, I knowingly and willfully make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or use any false writing or document knowing that the writing or document contains any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.
Agree

30.     Before proceeding to the impugned judgment in the contempt matter, a brief dissection and discussion of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is presented below. The complete judgment is being filed in a separate volume. This judgment is of 100 pages but most of it refers to material not relevant to the merits of the case.
31.     The writ judgment begins with the following introduction.
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 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) 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 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:-
 (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, 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.

32.     Para 6 which follows merely reproduces the order dated 3.2.2015 by which judgment was reserved.
33.     The Writ judgment then contains the following observation in para 7.

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 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.

34.     The writ judgment in paras 8-14 then merely refers to and reproduces extracts from various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on PIL etiquette and PIL abuse. This section comprises about 11 pages out of the 100 page judgment.
35.     Then the writ judgment includes the following observations in para 15.
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 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:-

36.     After para 15, the writ judgment merely reproduces verbatim 43 previous orders passed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. This starts at page 19 of the judgment and goes on till page 54, a total of 35 out of 100 pages.
37.     The following observations are then made by the Division Bench in the judgment in para 16 and 17.
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.

38.     Starting with para 18, the writ judgment then merely reproduces the headings and reliefs of 16 applications filed by the appellant / petitioner in the writ petition. This takes up 14 pages out of the 100-page judgment.
39.     Para 19 of the writ judgment then states the following.
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:-

40.     Para 19 of the writ judgment is followed by the mere reproduction of the titles and relief clauses of 7 applications filed by the petitioner on the issue of the fraud regarding the authority documents, representation and appearance of the three General Electric respondents which has been described in detail hereinabove. This section takes up 16 pages out of the 100-page writ judgment.
41.     Then in para 20, the writ judgment merely notes another application filed by the petition ad again merely reproduces the title and relief clause of the application. This was an application raising serious conflict of interest issues as the same counsel had appeared both for the Railway Ministry and the CVC.
42.     The next relevant section of the writ judgment are the concluding observations which can be divided into 2 parts. Part 1 of the concluding observations in paras 21-24 are the following.
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.

43.     Part 2 of the concluding observations of the writ judgment in paras 25 and 26 are the following.
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 anyCentral 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.

44.     The final observations and directions of the writ judgment in paras 27 and 28 are reproduced below.
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

45.     The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 2.3.2015 issued in Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012 has referred to this petition as a PIL and called the filing of this petition an abuse of the process of the court.
46.     In response, the following submissions are made:
(i)                Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012 was never a PIL. It was not filed under Delhi High Court PIL rules, it was never described as a PIL, and it was never treated as a PIL by the Delhi High Court itself from February 2012 onwards when it was filed until February 2015. (eg. It was never listed as a PIL before the PIL Bench.) The writ judgment for the first time after a three-year period and out of the blue mislabels it as a PIL contrary to the record.
(ii)             The appellant herein, who was the petitioner in the said writ petition had filed it in person as a whistleblower who is both complainant and a witness in the complaints made against General Electric. She had been subjected to physical harm, intimidation, attack and targeting and the said writ petition was also filed invoking her right to life and seeking protection and safe housing. As such the petitioner had an interest in the matter and it was not filed on behalf of a third party but on her own behalf. The petitioner had invoked her fundamental right to life before the Delhi High Court in its Article 226 jurisdiction.
(iii)           The Division Bench in the writ judgment merely refers to the fact that the petitioner's contract had been terminated by General Electric Company and from that alone concludes that the petitioner had filed the writ petition in abuse of the court process to seek vengeance. Note that neither was this issue argued before this Division Bench and neither did the Division Bench query the petitioner on this issue. Instead this conclusion was arrived at by this Division Bench without a hearing, and contrary to the material before it, and appears to be a device to taint the petitioner.
(iv)           The petitioner is a lawyer who was employed by General Electric Company through its Indian subsidiary to provide legal counsel to the GE Transportation Division. The assignment of the petitioner was not only to provide legal advice for General Electric's bids for the Indian Rail tenders and the Transportation business as such, but she was also given the responsibility to oversee compliance with the law. The compliance function in a corporate is really to ensure that no laws or policies are violated. The petitioner was required under internal policies of General Electric to report any instances of violation of the law by GE entities or employees or even contractors. GE internal policies also prohibit any form of retaliation against someone exposing wrong-doing.
(v)             In addition, the code of conduct on ethics prescribed by the Bar Council makes it obligatory for a lawyer, even and especially an in-house lawyer to refuse to permit a client to use the legal services of such lawyer to commit unlawful and unethical acts. An in-house lawyer would become an accessory to crime if she did not report that her legal services were attempted to be used/ or ended up being used in the commission of a crime.
(vi)           The petitioner first made complaints internally to General Electric officers as was her right and her obligation.
(vii)        Even before these complaints could be investigated, and while a preliminary internal GE exercise of scrutiny of her complaints was still in progress, the petitioner's contract was suddenly and it is submitted unlawfully terminated. This amounted to retaliation against the petitioner and was a violation of GE's own policies and US whistleblower laws.
(viii)      The petitioner immediately complained the day her contract was terminated that she was being retaliated against and there was an attempted cover-up.
(ix)           This was followed by an internal GE investigation which further attempted a cover-up.
(x)             Under the law on disclosure and client confidentiality, the petitioner had the duty to report these legal violations to the authorities in both the United States and in India. She accordingly did that. She also made the media and the lawyer community aware of her whistleblower complaints as a safety measure.
(xi)           The petitioner was being physically harmed, drugged and poisoned and was being targeted, intimidated and defamed. Fearing for her life, the petitioner filed Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 in the Delhi High Court.
(xii)        The material before the Delhi High Court establishes that the petitioner made serious and substantiated complaints of corruption by General Electric.
(xiii)      The material before the Delhi High Court also establishes that the petitioner was targeted, attacked, defamed and physically harmed.
(xiv)      Even the documents pertaining to the petitioner's employment with GE, the termination of her contract and subsequent communications from GE establish that the petitioner's expose was not a case of vendetta or vengeance. Some of these crucial documents were part of the Delhi High Court writ record.
(xv)        As such, the writ judgment of the Division Bench does great violence to the petitioner when it wrongly and without any basis whatsoever mis-labels her, a whistleblower, as someone who filed an abusive PIL to seek "vengeance".

47.     The Appellant will file the full set of orders passed in the writ petition in a separate volume along with her comments thereon.
43 Orders reproduced in judgment
49 Orders neither mentioned nor reproduced in judgment

2.3.2012

5.3.2012
7.3.2012


25.4.2012
9.5.2012

14.5.2012

16.5.2012


25.5.2012

28.5.2012

29.5.2012

30.5.2012

3.7.2012

13.7.2012

19.7.2012

12.10.2012

8.11.2012

19.11.2012
26.11.2012


30.11.2012

5.12.2012

10.12.2012

12.12.2012

19.12.2012

20.12.2012

21.12.2012

7.1.2013

14.1.2013
16.1.2013


23.1.2013
24.1.2013

30.1.2013

1.2.2013


4.2.2013

15.2.2013
27.2.2013


18.3.2013

1.4.2013

11.4.2013

12.4.2013
18.4.2013

22.4.2013


26.4.2013
29.4.2013

1.5.2013


3.5.2013
16.5.2013


22.5.2013

28.5.2013

30.5.2013        
31.5.2013       

18.7.2013


22.7.2013
22.8.2013       

30.9.2013


7.10.2013
9.10.2013

11.10.2013

8.1.2014

10.1.2014

24.1.2014

28.1.2014

30.01.2014


11.2.2014
07.3.2014


14.3.2014

18.3.2014

20.3.2014
25.3.2014

27.3.2014

01.4.2014


3.4.2014

15.4.2014
22.4.2014

24.4.2014

29.4.2014

06.5.2014

08.5.2014


15.5.2014

18.7.2014

31.7.2014

25.9.2014

10.11.2014
20.11.2014

01.12.2014

02.12.2014


10.12.2014

17.12.2014
16.1.2015

19.1.2015

20.1.2015

22.1.2015

03.2.2015

2.3.2015




48.     The appellant will file a separate note on the applications which were dismissed by the Division Bench without a hearing. 
16 Applications whose prayers reproduced in judgment
24 Applications not mentioned in the judgment

CM No.2770/2012

CM No.8677/2012

CM No.7012/2012

CM No.7175/2012

CM No.7176/2012

CM No.7317/2012

CM No.8856/2012

CM No.18324/2012

CM No.18325/2012
CM No.18642/2012


CM No.18862/2012

CM No.19197/2012
CM No. 19370/2012


CM No.19501/2012
C.M.No.19683/2012


CM No.19820/2012

CM No.105/2013
CM No. 326/2013

CM No.428/2013

CM No. 522/2013


CM No.847/2013

CM No.1223/2013

CM No.1679/2013
CM No.2477/2013


CM No.3380/2013

CM No.3855/2013
CM No. 5007/2013

CM No. 5008/2013


CM No.6096/2013
CM 6417/2013


CM No.7197/2013

CM No.10492/2013
C.M.No.10493/2013


CM No.14194/2013
C.M.No.18969/2014

CM No.19473/2014

C.M.No.19474/2014

C.M.No.20069/2014


CM No.1881/2015
C.M.No.1882/2015


2 applications filed on 3.2.2015 which could not even be listed. (filing nos. 59802/2015 and 62111/2015.
49.     The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 2.3.2015 issued in Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012 also wrongly suggests that the petitioner made a prayer for safe housing in the petition only because she had been evicted from her rented premises. This suggestion which the Division Bench makes without any examination of the material before it and without hearing the petitioner cannot be further from the truth about the petitioner's situation which is public knowledge and how she has been forced into homelessness for now almost 4 complete years and how that homelessness has been used to keep the petitioner vulnerable to the targeting directed at her.
50.     In response, the following submissions are made:
(i)                The petitioner was staying alone in a rented floor at G4, Jangpura Extension at a monthly rent of Rs. 25000 per month since 2008.
(ii)             After the petitioner made her whistleblower complaints against GE in July/August 2010, her landlady asked her to vacate. The petitioner sought time.
(iii)           The landlady filed an eviction suit in December 2010.
(iv)           The petitioner was being drugged and poisoned in that house where she was living alone. She was unable to contest that suit or to follow its progress.
(v)             In July and August 2011, the petitioner for the first time made complaints that she was being drugged and poisoned.
(vi)           In July and August 2011, the petitioner noticed gaseous fumes in that flat and she wanted to leave it. She moved in with a friend in Gurgaon.
(vii)        The Petitioner returned to the house and the targeting continued. Toxic chemicals were introduced into the house to harm the petitioner.
(viii)      The petitioner decided to move out. She temporarily checked into the India Habitat Centre using her membership.
(ix)           The petitioner then looked at properties to rent and entered into a lease agreement for a one-room set in Defence Colony. She paid an advance of about 1 lakh Rs. by check. She even made a check payment to a property dealer.
(x)             She moved into the Defence Colony premises and asked her family to help remove the heavy furniture from the Jangpura house because she intended to vacate it.
(xi)           The petitioner was drugged and poisoned in the Defence Colony premises.
(xii)        The Petitioner then begged her family to let her stay with them. The petitioner moved to her family's home in Gurgaon. She was drugged and poisoned there. When she confronted her family members, she was told to leave.
(xiii)      The petitioner ended up moving back into the Jangpura house because she had nowhere else to go.
(xiv)      The petitioner continued to be targeted in the Jangpura house. She was also targeted when she left the house.
(xv)        From then onwards the petitioner became more careful about her food and drink.
(xvi)      In December 2011 and January 2012, the Petitioner started to re-pursue her complaints against General Electric.
(xvii)   The targeting intensified. She started noticing her surroundings and the house and started to make police complaints.
(xviii) The petitioner started going to the courts.
(xix)      Fearing for her life, the petitioner told the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court on 17 February 2012 that she was being poisoned.
(xx)        Finally, the petitioner filed the writ petition in February 2012.
(xxi)      Notice was issued on this petition on 7.3.2012. On 25.5.2012, an order was passed in the writ petition directing the police and other authorities to protect the petitioner and ensure that she was not harmed.
(xxii)   On 30.5.2012, while the petitioner was in the Delhi High Court for the writ petition, the police participated in evicting the petitioner from the house.  All her belongings including medical records of complaints of poisoning were taken away in her absence and have not been returned till date. The petitioner was left with nothing but her car, her laptop bag which thankfully had her passport, and the clothes on her back.
(xxiii) After spending one night at Claridges hotel for Rs.13000, the petitioner moved into India Habitat Center where she stayed till the first week of July 2012.
(xxiv) The petitioner then moved into the YWCA blue triangle hostel where she stayed for about 3 weeks.
(xxv)   Next the petitioner stayed at the Ambassador Hotel for about 3 weeks.
(xxvi) Next the petitioner stayed at Hotel Janpath for a few days.
(xxvii)          The petitioner by this time had run out of money and was surviving on her credit card and some funds given to her by people.
(xxviii)        The petitioner even contemplated disappearing and went to Jaipur by bus. However, when she was targeted there and she realised she would be followed, she returned to Delhi.
(xxix) On 1 October 2012, the petitioner went to the Delhi Police headquarters. Instead of helping her find accommodation, the petitioner was assaulted on those premises. An attempt was made to harm her.
(xxx)   The petitioner moved into Red Fox Hotel in Mayur Vihar for a few days. The Petitioner stayed at a few other places.
(xxxi) The petitioner moved into a dharamsala at the Tibetan refugee colony at Majnu Ka Tila and stayed there approximately from November 2012 until the last week of February 2013. The appellant had run out of funds by now and was surviving by requesting lawyers for money. She spent the months of November and December 2012 and January 2013 and a part of February 2013 staying at this cheap dharamsala in the Tibetan refugee colony of Majnu ka tila in a room costing Rs. 500/750 per night. She did not have sufficient warm clothes that winter. The appellant was asking her colleagues and so-called friends for financial help but they refused. Finally, the appellant could not even pay a bill of Rs. 40,000 at the dharamsala for two months. After she complained she was being targeted there, the appellant was asked to vacate that place.
(xxxii)          The appellant with no money and with her classmates and so-called friends refusing to help, started to sleep in her car from 26 February 2013.
(xxxiii)        The appellant was initially targeted by policemen in her car and attempts were made to depict her as a prostitute. She was parking her car in the WWF lane, in Defence Colony, outside the World Bank, and in Pandara Park.
(xxxiv)        Later the petitioner started parking her car in Rabindra Nagar close to the residence of Special Commission of Police P N Aggarwal.
(xxxv)          In June 2013, the petitioner stayed for about two weeks at the Ginger Hotel in East Delhi.
(xxxvi)        The Petitioner again started sleeping in her car in Rabindra Nagar.
(xxxvii)     In June 2013, an attempt was made to abduct the petitioner in the middle of the night from Rabindra Nagar.
(xxxviii)   In June 2013, the petitioner was repeatedly harassed in her car at night. Once when she went to the police-station seeking compliance with a court protection order, she was asked by the SHO to sleep in the police station. On another occasion, a glass bottle was thrown at her in the presence of the police outside Tughlaq Road police station in the middle of the night.
(xxxix)        All though the rest of 2013, the petitioner continued to sleep in her car.
(xl)           The petitioner not only spent the entire scorching summer of 2013 sleeping in her car, but also spent the entire winter of 2013-2014 sleeping in her car.
(xli)        From around December 2013 onwards, toxic chemicals started to be sprayed on the petitioner while she was asleep in her car at night.
(xlii)      After Special Commissioner of Police P N Aggarwal retired, he used his security guards to prevent the petitioner from sleeping in her car near his house. She then started sleeping in her car outside the houde of Special Commissioner of Police Dharmendra Kumar in Rabindra Nagar.
(xliii)   From around December 2013, the petitioner also started sleeping in her car outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court.
(xliv)   The petitioner continued to sleep in her car until 5 June 2014 when she fractured her left fibula on a very hot day in Gurgaon. She was there looking for a place in a mall to work on this matter because she had no place to stay.
(xlv)      The petitioner was taken to Artemis Hospital in an ambulance. Her leg was placed in a cast. She had no place to stay. She finally checked into the Red Fox Hotel in Aerocity that night where she stayed until 9 June 2014. She was in a wheel-chair.
(xlvi)   On 9 June 2014, the petitioner's left ankle was deliberately dislocated by Dr. Anuj Malhotra in Fortis Hospital at Vasant Kunj.
(xlvii) The Petitioner left the hospital on 9 June 2014 with her leg in an aircast boot. She actually picked up her car, drove to Ambience Mall to access the internet to find a place to stay. The petitioner had a freshly fractured fibula. She also had a freshly dislocated ankle that she had not been informed about.
(xlviii)          The petitioner made a booking at Oberoi Maidens hotel at a reduced price and then on 9 June 2014 drove her car to the Maidens hotel and checked in there.
(xlix)   The petitioner stayed at the Maidens Hotel till 23.6.2014. She was targeted at the Maidens Hotel. When she complained the hotel wanted her to leave. On 23.6.2014, the police was used to assault the petitioner who was in a wheel-chair. Her laptop was broken and her phone sim card was destroyed by a policeman. She was forcibly taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. Attempts were made to create false medical records. She was suddenly asked to leave by the Police.
(l)                That night on 23.6.2014, the petitioner slept in her car outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court.
(li)             The next morning, the petitioner checked into the YWCA on Parliament Street where she stayed for a few days.
(lii)           The petitioner then moved into the YMCA for a few days where she stayed until 18 January 2014. On 18 July 2014, the petitioner attended the hearing in the Delhi High Court using a walker along with her aircast boot to move. This was the first day that the petitioner walked since 5 June 2014 using both legs after the fracture and ankle dislocation.
(liii)        Since then, the petitioner has had to stay in hotels, guest-houses, B&Bs etc. because she could not sleep in her car with her fractured leg and dislocated ankle. She has had to request lawyers for money to do this. Some lawyers have literally made her beg for money and others have turned her away empty-handed or handed over pittances. Some have chosen to insult her.
(liv)        The petitioner has been forced to raise money for accommodation because she could not sleep in her car with her dislocated ankle.
(lv)           The petitioner was wearing the aircast boot until the end of September 2015. She is now wearing high ankle support hiking boots made by Solomon which cost her Rs. 13000. She needs these boots because the ankle is still dislocated. The petitioner can now walk though very carefully and slowly. She needs to take care that the ankle which has healed in a dislocated position is not stressed or damaged or twisted. She also needs pain relief but instead of medicines the petitioner uses turmeric as an anti-inflammatory and pain-killer. The petitioner cannot squat. She needs to keep her left leg and foot in a comfortable position while sitting and lying down.
(lvi)        Right from May 2012, the petitioner has been in a strange situation. She needs accommodation and she needs money. She is able to work but she continues to be targeted. She has also been defamed as being mentally ill. She has no place to stay. She continues to be poisoned wherever she stays in temporary accommodation because she is unable to control her surroundings and environment. It has been made impossible for her to find employment in these circumstances. She has requested several lawyers to help her rent a place but all have refused. If she could rent a place, she would need much less money. Living in hotels and guest houses means that the appellant has needed to spend over a lakh each month simply on accommodation all of which she has had to raise from lawyers. If she could rent a place, she could also control access to the accommodation and thus make it difficult for those targeting her to do so. Meanwhile she continues to be chronically poisoned. 
(lvii)      The petitioner would like to describe what it has meant being homeless and being forced to sleep in her car for over a year and 3 months. In the height of summer, the petitioner slept in her car drenched in sweat and at the mercy of mosquitoes despite lathering exposed skin with insect-repellent. She first tried sleeping curled up on the back seat of her Santro car but later slept on the back seat with one door open and her legs and feet sticking out. It has meant no access to proper and private toilet facilities. The petitioner has had to urinate on the road side and on occasion even defecate on the road-side or in the open. She has had no access to a toilet at night even when she had her period. She was forced to change her sanitary pads out in the open in the dark. In the early mornings, the petitioner faced a lot of difficulty when she desperately needed to use a toilet. Once it was daylight, it was not possible for the petitioner to use the open.  On those desperate occasions the petitioner had to rush to the Lodhi Gardens, or the IIC or India Habitat Center or coffee shops in Defence Colony Market or to the Delhi High Court as early as 7 am to use the toilet. The petitioner even stopped having dinner just so that she would not need to use a toilet urgently in the morning. The petitioner had no place to bathe. She would use a wash cloth to clean herself. Later, the petitioner actually started bathing in the toilets in the Delhi High Court lawyers chambers very early in the morning. She had no place to wash her clothes or to dry them.
(lviii)   The petitioner obviously had no place to cook food.
(lix)        The petitioner did not have sufficient warm clothes for the winter of 2012-2013.
(lx)           For the winter of 2013-2014, the petitioner managed to raise some funds to buy two warm winter jackets and a sleeping bag. She spent this winter sleeping sitting upright in the front passenger seat of her car. She would wear all her warm clothes in layers, slip into the sleeping bag, wear a warm cap, cover her torso with two blankets and then sleep on the front passenger seat with the back reclined. This winter she slept in her car parked in Rabindra Nagar close to the house of Special Commissioner of Police Dharmendra Kumar.
(lxi)        In the mornings, the petitioner would go looking for tea and breakfast. Then she would spend the day either in the Delhi High Court, or in a mall or library if the court was closed. In the evenings she would again go to restaurants, caf├ęs and malls or hotels and stay there as late as she could before having to again sleep in the open in her car parked on public streets.
(lxii)      All of this happened while the writ petition remained pending unheard for 3 years before the Delhi High Court.

51.     Before further describing how the petitioner has been deliberately kept homeless since 30 May 2012, some important facts to establish how rendering the petitioner homeless was a well-planned strategy. The petitioner submits that ever since she became a threat to General Electric in July 2010, every aspect of her life has been manipulated by General Electric acting through its agents.  The facts are as follows. Soon after the petitioner made complaints at General Electric, her landlady asked her to vacate. The petitioner was being drugged and poisoned from July 2010 onwards. As a result, the petitioner was unable to contest that suit. In fact, until July 2011, the petitioner hardly left her home. The petitioner complained of poisoning in July/August 2011 and wanted to leave that house. She made several attempts to do so in 2011 even going to the extent of signing a lease and moving into another rented premises in Defence Colony.
52.     In a police affidavit dated July 2012 that was filed in the writ petition, it emerged for the first time that the eviction suit against the petitioner was decided way back in May 2011. Despite that, the petitioner was not even informed about the eviction decree either by the landlady or by her lawyer Trideep Pais all through 2011. Not once was she told that an eviction order had been passed and that she should vacate. The first time that the petitioner became aware of the eviction order of May 2011 was on 3 April 2012. On that day, the petitioner was going through medical records from July and August 2011 when she had complained of poisoning. She made two email complaints in the morning of 3 April 2012 pointing out that Max Hospital had manipulated the petitioner's chest Xray films. That same day, after 2 pm, a group of men entered the petitioner's home after breaking a gate lock and started breaking the front door locks. They pushed the petitioner aside. The group of men were shouting that the petitioner and her belongings would be thrown out.  There was a lawyer in the group who told the petitioner he had an eviction decree against her. The petitioner asked for a copy of this decree but this was refused. The group of men dispersed after the petitioner complained to the police on email but not before damaging the front door and stealing a set of house keys which were lying near an open window sill accessible from the front staircase. The petitioner made complaints about this.
53.     For the rest of April and May the petitioner continued to be targeted. Finally, as stated above, the petitioner was evicted in her absence by the police on 30 May 2012. The petitioner was in the Delhi High Court on 30 May 2012 for a hearing on an application in her whistleblower writ petition. Her phone was on silent. After 4 pm, the petitioner saw a text message sent around 12 pm informing her that persons were present at her house and she was being evicted.
54.     The following questions arise which show that the appellant was deliberately targeted:
(i) The eviction suit was decreed against the petitioner in May 2011, why was no attempt made to evict her until April 2012?
(ii) The documents produced with the police affidavit show that the execution decree was obtained by misrepresenting to the Court that the rented premises had been vacated and were empty.
(iii) What was the reason for incident of 3.4.2012? Prima facie it appears that the intent that day was to use a group of men to break open the locks and enter the house, to overpower the petitioner and to destroy property and evidence as part of an eviction process? The intent seems to have been to destroy the medical records that the petitioner was complaining about.
(iv)Coming to 30 May 2012, why was the eviction carried out in the absence of the petitioner. Why was her personal property including medical records taken away? Why was the petitioner not given any notice or an opportunity to pack her belongings and leave?
(v) Given that the eviction orders were not sought to be enforced for a whole year, why was the eviction carried out right then without notice?
(vi) On 25 May 2012, the Delhi High Court had passed an order directing the Police to ensure that the petitioner was not harmed. Was it then not the duty of the Police to at least inform the petitioner in advance of the proposed eviction? Was it not then the duty of the police to at least permit the petitioner the opportunity to pack her belongings and leave? The property that was taken away included crucial documents which had evidentiary value for the writ petition. Did the police not participate in destroying evidence. The property that was taken away included the petitioner's entire wardrobe with expensive clothes and shoes, her laptops, her printer, her hard drives, her financial papers including check books and bank statements, her car registration papers, her books, her academic papers including years of research from the petitioner's time overseas, her PhD research materials, her personal effects including personal items like photographs and mementos of her deceased father, some furniture, an AC, kitchen appliances and utilities. (Other large items like the fridge and beds had already been removed by the petitioner's family in September/October 2011.) Was this property of the petitioner not illegally removed in her absence without notice and without giving her an opportunity to remove it? This property has still not been returned to the petitioner even after nearly 4 years. The petitioner had a large, expensive and extensive wardrobe which the police dispossessed her of on 30 May 2012. Now she has been reduced to wearing the few cheap clothes she can buy after raising funds. She spent a winter without warm clothes while her belongings including expensive and unused expensive winter jackets were unlawfully taken away by the police from the petitioner's home.
(vii)Why was this eviction done in this manner? First it enabled destruction of evidence. Second it resulted in greater financial burden on the petitioner's dwindling resources. Third this would have enabled the police to plant material among the petitioner's belongings. Numerous attempts have been made to falsely label the petitioner mentally ill. The police could have planted false prescriptions or medicines among the petitioner's belongings.
(viii) The fact that this eviction happened 4 days after the Delhi High Court protection order also meant that the police did not have to protect the petitioner in those premises, and the police did not examine the petitioner's complaints that the house had been rigged to introduce toxic chemicals and that the house was being entered into in the petitioner's absence.
(ix) In view of the facts above, the suggestion in the writ judgment that the petitioner filed the writ petition (in February 2012) seeking safe housing because she had been evicted (which happened on 30 May 2012) is not only perverse but again amounts to a great violence against the petitioner.
55.     A few disturbing aspects on this issue of the petitioner's homelessness.
(i) Justice P K Bhasin refused to pass any order on the day this eviction happened.
(ii) The petitioner filed an urgent application seeking shelter in July 2012.
(iii) Justice Rajiv Shakdher adjourned this application to October 2012 without granting interim relief. When the petitioner asked him where she would stay, he replied I have no clue. In October 2012, he adjourned the writ and this application to April 2013 again without granting interim relief.
(iv) In December 2012, Justice Nandrajog mentioned the possibility of the petitioner being accommodated in a women's hostel but no orders were passed.
(v) In February 2013, a Bench headed by Justice Geeta Mittal adjourned the writ and this application to May 2013 despite the petitioner's requests for an urgent hearing. The order records that the Bench stated it had no time.
(vi) In April 2013, without hearing the petitioner, Justice Geeta Mittal's Bench suggested that the petitioner consider accommodation from the Ministry of Women and Child Welfare. Since the only accommodation this Ministry offers is Nari Niketans the petitioner rightly rejected this suggestion. The petitioner would have essentially been in a prison in a Nari Niketan. In May 2013, again without hearing the petitioner, Justice Geeta Mittal passed an order permitting the South East district Delhi Police about whom the Petitioner had complained in Jangpura to take the help of an unknown NGO to "protect" the petitioner. This NGO is based in a slum at the outskirts of South East Delhi, This order would have been used by the Police to use this NGO to confine the petitioner.
(vii) In October 2013, despite the petitioner sleeping on the streets, a Bench headed by Justice P K Bhasin adjourned the Writ and the application for shelter to January 2014 thus compelling the petitioner to sleep in her car that winter.
(viii) In May 2014, when the petitioner again pleaded for urgent hearing of the matter because she was sleeping on the street, Justice Sistani laughed and remarked but you should sleep in your house. The matter was then adjourned unheard to 18 July 2014.
(ix) As already mentioned, on 5 June 2014 the petitioner fractured her fibula due to circumstances arising from her enforced homelessness.
(x) The only orders that the petitioner needed was that the government be directed to help her find/ rent safe accommodation where the police would have been forced to protect her in compliance with court orders. The petitioner could have raised funds to pay for this accommodation. She could have started working and earning again once she secured safe accommodation.
(xi) But multiple judges of the Delhi High Court ignored the petitioner's plight. A whistleblower against one of the most powerful corporates in the world was forced to sleep in her car for over 1 year and 3 months despite being before the Delhi High Court in a whistleblower right to life petition. This whistleblower has been maimed for life because of the deliberate dislocation of her left ankle in June 2014 as part of the conspiracy to eliminate and silence her. This happened while the petitioner was before the High Court and while there were court orders for her protection.
(xii) The Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Delhi also ignored the petitioner's plight, as did the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Delhi High Court Bar Association all of whom the petitioner wrote to for assistance and support.

56.     In effect the writ judgment of this Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is not based upon the facts or upon the material before the court. It is a perverse and falsely depicts the appellant -whistleblower as someone who abused the court process and filed a malicious petition seeking revenge and seeking housing from the State because she was evicted. 

57.     Material to establish that the appellant whistleblower is being targeted and faces a grave threat to her life is being filed in a separate volume. The appellant has posted some of this material on the internet at the following links. The appellant is also filing a separate affidavit in response to paras 25 and 26 of the writ judgment (reproduced above in para 43) where the Division Bench again without hearing the petitioner and without even considering the material before it comes to the perverse finding that the whistleblower has not been targeted and harmed. This judgment fails to consider even the petitioner's rejoinder filed to the alleged police affidavit and the other material before it that established that the police failed to comply with court protection orders and failed to register and investigate the petitioner's complaints of targeting. The police instead falsified complaints against the petitioner. False statements were made by the Police before the Court.
Attempt at thyroid cancer false diagnosis targeting General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/attempt-at-thyroid-cancer-false.html

Dr S K Das of Max Healthcare attempted to poison Seema Sapra, General Electric whistleblower complaining of poisoning by prescribing Haloperidol as a sleeping aid in August 2011 http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/dr-s-k-das-of-max-healthcare-attempted.html

Dr Anuj Malhotra of Fortis Hospital deliberately dislocated the left ankle of General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra on 9 June 2014 in an attempt to force her into surgery as part of attempts to eliminate her http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/02/dr-anuj-malhotra-of-fortis-hospital.html

Max Hospitals covered up poisoning complaint & clinical poisoning symptoms including abnormal heart ECG with rightward axis in General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/max-hospitals-covered-up-poisoning.html

Max Healthcare Hospitals covered up poisoning complaint & clinical poisoning symptoms including abnormalities in blood haemogram in General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/max-hospitals-covered-up-poisoning_31.html

Jayanand Kinnattinkaryail, Regional Security Director for General Electric in India made false police complaint against GE whistleblower Seema Sapra in 2013 http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/jayanand-kinnattinkaryail-regional.html

Delhi Police assault on General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra at Oberoi Maidens Hotel on 23 June 2014 http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/02/police-assault-on-general-electric.html

Evidence that Delhi Police Inspector Ajay Gupta falsified police records against General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra in June 2013 after facilitating attacks on her as SHO of Tughlaq Road Police Station http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/02/evidence-that-delhi-police-inspector.html

Fraudulent and False Status Report filed by Delhi Police in General Electric Company corruption litigation in Delhi High Court targeting whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/02/fraudulent-and-false-status-report.html

In July 2013, Delhi Police officer S B S Tyagi, then DCP New Delhi with mal-intent procured publication of an inaccurate news report about General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra thereby violating Court orders directing the Police Commissioner to provide protection to Ms Sapra   http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/02/in-july-2013-then-dcp-new-delhi-s-b-s.html

shards of glass intended to target Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower in January 2012 http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/shards-of-glass-intended-to-target.html

11 Dec 2015 Pics showing toe nail symptoms of ongoing chronic poisoning of General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/11-dec-2015-pics-showing-toe-nail.html

Pics showing that my car's tyres are being deliberately destroyed by acid or corrosive chemical - General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/pics-showing-that-my-cars-tyres-are.html

Pics dt 4 Dec 2015 showing that someone cut my car steering - General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/pics-dt-4-dec-2015-showing-that-someone.html

Video evidence of the two men following General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra on 9 March 2012 in Saket Select Citywalk Mall http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/02/video-evidence-of-two-men-following.html

pic of man targeting General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra on 9 September 2011 in Jangpura Extension http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/pic-of-man-targeting-general-electric.html

Car MAP sensor wire cut to target General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra - pics dated 14 March 2015 http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/02/car-map-sensor-wire-cut-to-target.html

pics dated 14 December 2015 showing another car tyre of General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra destroyed with acid or other corrosive chemical http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/02/pics-dated-14-december-2015-showing.html

pics dated 27 Aug 2014 showing car tyre of General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra destroyed with acid or other corrosive chemical http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/02/pics-dated-27-aug-2014-showing-car-tyre.html

Revealing exchange at Legally India website showing General Electric whistleblower lawyer Seema Sapra being targeted http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/revealing-exchange-at-legally-india.html

Shamnad Basheer targeting Seema Sapra, General Electric whistleblower in a malicious and underhand manner http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/shamnad-basheer-targeting-seema-sapra.html

Anonymous abusive, threatening & defamatory messages sent to General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra through her blog http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/anonymous-abusive-threatening.html

58.     Moving now to the contempt notice issued against the appellant for the events of 6.5.2014 which is the subject matter of the impugned judgment.The appellant has reproduced hereinabove the email complaint she made on 6.5.2014 which describes in detail the events of that day. The facts are as follows. The appellant is a highly qualified and accomplished woman lawyer who was forced to make whistleblower corruption complaints against General Electric. She was drugged and poisoned and targeted. She managed to file Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 before the Delhi High Court in February 2012 seeking protection. Instead of being protected, the appellant continued to be drugged, poisoned and viciously destroyed ffrom 2012 until 2014 while the petition languished unheard in the Delhi High Court and while the Bench ignored the petitioner's plight. In May 2014, the petitioner had been homeless for 2 years. In May 2014, the petitioner had been sleeping in her car parked on the streets for over 1 year and three months. She had already spent one scorching summer and bone-chilling winter sleeping in her car. In May 2014, the petitioner was being poisoned. Toxic chemicals were being sprayed on her, inside her car while she was asleep. Toxic chemicals were also being released in the petitioner's vicinity or on her person when she tried to work on her whistleblower case in public spaces. Toxic chemicals were also being released near the petitioner on Delhi High Court premises. In May 2014, the petitioner had been financially broke for almost 1 year 10 months. She had been surviving by requesting lawyers for funds for almost 1 year 10 months. She was finding it extremely difficult to raise funds as lawyers were being told not to help her. In May 2014, the appellant was being defamed as mentally ill. She was being socially and professionally ostracized. Lawyers were being told not to interact with her.

59.     The appellant was desperate to get her right to life and whistleblower petition heard. She desperately need some interim relief, particularly some orders that would help her find a place to stay. She needed protection. She needed the registration of a medico-legal case for poisoning and a medical examination for poisoning.

60.     Instead her matter was not getting heard.  A Division Bench of Justice SK Misra and Justice S P Garg which had started hearing the matter suddenly recused in April 2014 without indicating a reason two days after passing an order recording the appellants statement that she was beingpoisoned.

61.     On 6 May 2014 the matter was listed before Justice Muralidhar and Justice Vibhu Bhakhru neither of whom could hear the matter. The appellant wanted to press for interim relief on shelter and protection before the summer vacations. As the matter was going to get adjourned on 6 May 2014, the appellant wanted to press for a short date. As described in the email dated 6 May 2014, Justice Vibhu Bakhru misled the appellant as to the timing when the writ petition would be heard and he and Justice Muralidhar adjourned the writ petition to 23 May 2014, a Friday before the summer vacations when it was almost certain the matter would not be heard. The appellant requested Justice Bhakhru to modify the date. The appellant was told she should file an application for change of date. The appellant tried to persuade Justice Bhakhru to change the date. He threatened to have the appellant evicted using court security. It was then that the appellant in a spontaneous tearful emotional outburst asked Justice Ravidra Bhat and Justice Vibhu Bhakhru if J. Bhat and J. Bakhru if
they did not care that the appellant, a whistleblower and a lawyer was being poisoned and if they wanted to find the appellant dead before WP Civil 1280 of 2012 could be heard. It was then that the appellant in a moment o emotional distress stated aloud words to the effect - if J. Bakhru was so corrupt that he did not care that the appellant was being poisoned.

62.     After this incident the appellant went to Justice Muralidhar's court and at her request the date in the matter was changed from 23 May to 8 May 2014.

63.     On 8 May 2014, the writ petition was listed before Justice Sistani and Justice V K Rao. Justice V K Rao recused from this matter because he disclosed in court that he did not hear matters where Advocate Mr Vkram Dhokalia was appearing as they were from the same lawyers chamber. Mr Vikram Dhokalia was appearing for one of the respondents. The writ petition again ended up getting adjourned unheard to 15.5.2014. On 15.5.2014, the writ petition was listed before Justice Sistani and Justice A K Pathak who refused to hear the matter that day and adjourned it without hearing to 18 July 2014. So the appellant was again in a position where she had no hope of relief till 18 July 2014. The appellant continued to be poisoned.

64.     On 5 June 2014, as a direct result of her homelessness and her being poisoned, the appellant fractured her left fibula. On 9 June 2014, the appellant was deliberately harmed by none other than a doctor who was used to deliberately dislocate the appellant's left ankle. An attempt was made to force the appellant into surgery. The appellant was targeted with toxic chemicals even while her leg was fractured. She was assaulted by police in June 2014 after she complained of poisoning, who destroyed her laptop and phone and forcibly took her to Aruna Asaf Ali hospital where attempts were made to falsify medical records.

65.     On 18 July 2014, the appellant appeared before Justice Sistani and Justice A K Pathak in a cast and using a walker. She had no laptop and as she was using electronic copies of the court record she could not argue. That day both Justice Sistani and Justice Pathak shouted at the appellant. They intimidated her. Justice Pathak insisted that she argue that day. They took no notice of the fact that the homeless appellant was now before them with a fracture and a dislocated ankle. They ignored the petitioner when she narrated how the police had destroyed her laptop. The order passed that day does not even mention the appellant's fracture. In any case it was impossible for the matter to be heard on 18 July as that was a Friday and there was a tea party and full court reference for a retiring judge. It is submitted that Justice Sistani would have known about these engagements on 18 July in May when this date was given. The matter was now adjourned unheard to 31 July 2014. The appellant was now in an even more difficult situation than in May 2014. In August 2014, the appellant learnt that her ankle was dislocated. On 31 July 2014, with her fracture and dislocated ankle and with no funds to buy a laptop the appellant was forced to seek an adjournment. The matter went to 25 September 2014. And so it continued.

66.     The appellant submits that she has full and deep respect and regard for the rule of law, the judiciary, the courts and the judicial process. In a moment of feeling desperate, and of great emotional distress on account of being forced to survive in very difficult circumstances while being denied access to justice, the appellant crossed the line and uttered a statement without thinking before Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vibhu Bakhru. Looking back the appellant agrees that she should not have said those words, But it was a spontaneous outburst on the spur of the moment and the words were spoken without reflection or premeditation.

67.     The appellant offers her full and unqualified apology for making that un-necessary and inappropriate statement in court.

68.     However as described above, the appellant hopes that this Hon'ble Court will appreciate that very difficult circumstances and the strain of continued targeting for 4 years caused the appellant to have this outburst in court. The appellant's conduct was not malicious and was not intended to scandalize or disrespect the court or to bring it into disrepute.


69.     The appellant therefore requests this Hon'ble Court to take a lenient and sympathetic view of the appellant's emotional outburst and to accept her apology.

70.     The Appellant, a woman lawyer who has always respected the law, a whistleblower, facing a threat to her life, who has been viciously targeted, who has been chronically poisoned certainly does not deserve the harsh punishment that the impugned judgment imposes.  The appellant will be placed in greater danger if she is imprisoned. She will be drugged and poisoned in prison.

71.     The impugned judgment has also directed that the appellant, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi will not be allowed to argue, whether as an Advocate or in person, except in her defence, before any Bench of this High Court or any court or tribunal subordinate to this High Court for a period of two years from today. It is submitted that this direction not only amounts to denying the appellant her right to access justice, but also amounts to an unlawful suspension of her right to practice law as an advocate for two years. The Division Bench has clearly erred in issuing this direction in the impugned judgment.

72.     It is submitted that as clarified by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association of India v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, the Delhi High Court Division Bench while disposing off CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014 had no jurisdiction to debar the appellant from practicing the profession of law before it and before subordinate courts for a period of 2 years. The law as laid down by the Supreme Court is clear that only the Bar Council can suspend or abrogate an advocate's right to practice law and that too after following due process.
73.     Reliance is placed upon the following passages from Supreme Court Bar Association of India v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409.
" The question which arises is whether the Supreme Court of India can while dealing with Contempt Proceedings exercise power under Article 129 of the Constitution or under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution or under Article 142 of the Constitution can debar a practicing lawyer from carrying on his profession as a lawyer for any period whatsoever, We direct notice to issue on the Attorney General of India and on the respondents herein. Notice will also issue on the application for interim stay. Having regarding to the importance of the aforesaid question we further direct that this petition be placed before a Constitution Bench of this Court."

And
"This Court is indeed the final appellate authority under Section 38 of the Act but we are not persuaded to agree with the view that this Court can in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, under Section 38 of the Act, impose one of the punishments, prescribed under that Act, while punishing a contemner advocate in a contempt case. 'Professional misconduct' of the advocate concerned is not a matter directly in issue in the contempt of court case. while dealing with the contempt of court case, this court is obliged to examine whether the conduct complained of amounts to contempt of court and if t he answer is in the affirmative, than to sentence the contemner for contempt of court by imposing any of the recognised and accepted punishments for committing contempt of court. Keeping in view the elaborate procedure prescribed under the Advocates Act 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder it follows that a complaint of professional misconduct is required to be tried by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council, like the trial of a criminal case by a court of law and an advocate may be punished on the basis of evidence led before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council after being afforded an opportunity of hearing. The delinquent advocate may be suspended from the rolls of the advocates or imposed any other punishment as provided under the Act. The enquiry is a detailed and elaborate one and is not of a summary nature. It is therefore, not permissible for this court to punish an advocate for "professional misconduct" in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by convening itself as the statutory body exercising "original jurisdiction". Indeed, if in a given case the concerned Bar Council on being apprised of the contumacious and blame worthy conduct of the advocate by the High Court or this Court does not take any action against the said advocate, this court may well have the jurisdiction in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 38 of the Act read with Article 142 of the Constitution to proceed suo moto and send for the records from the Bar Council and pass appropriate orders against the concerned advocate. in an appropriate case, this Court may consider the exercise of appellate jurisdiction even suo moto provided there is some cause pending before the concerned Bar Council, and the Bar Council does "not act" or fails to act, by sending for the record of that cause and pass appropriate orders.
However, the exercise of powers under the contempt jurisdiction cannot be confused with the appellate jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Act. The two jurisdictions are separate and distinct. We are, therefore, unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the contrary view expressed by the Bench in V.C. Mishra's case because in that case the Bar Council had not declined to deal with the matter ad take appropriate action against the concerned advocate. Since there was no cause pending before the Bar Council, this court could not exercise its appellate jurisdiction in respect of a matter which was never under consideration of the bar councils.
Thus, to conclude we are of the opinion that this court cannot in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 read with Article 129 of the Constitution, while punishing a contemner for committing contempt of court, also impose a punishment of suspending his licence to practice, where the contemner happens to be an Advocate. Such a punishment cannot even be imposed by taking recourse to the appellate powers under Section 38 of the Act while dealing with a case of contempt of court (and not an appeal relating to professional misconduct as such). To that extent, the law laid down in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 S.C.C. 584 is not good law and we overrule it.
An Advocate who is found guilty of contempt of court may also, as already noticed, be guilty of professional misconduct in a given case but it is for the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India to punish that Advocate by either debarring him from practice or suspending his licence, as may be warranted, in the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Solicitor General informed us that there have been cases where the Bar Council of India taking note of the contumacious and objectionable conduct of an advocate, had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and even punished him for "professional misconduct", on the basis of his having been found guilty of committing contempt of court. We do not entertain any doubt that the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India, as the case may be, when apprised of the established contumacious conduct of an advocate by the High Court or by this Court, would rise to the occasion , and take appropriate action against such an advocate. Under Article 144 of the Constitution "all authorities civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court". The Bar Council which performs a public duty and is charged with the obligation to protect the dignity of the profession and maintain professional standards and etiquette is also obliged to act "in aid of the Supreme Court". It must, whenever, facts warrant rise to the occasion and discharge its duties uninfluenced by the position of the contemner advocate. It must act in accordance with the prescribed procedure, whenever its attention is drawn by this Court to the contumacious and unbecoming conduct of an advocate which has the tendency to interfere with due administration of justice. It is possible for the High Courts also to draw the attention of the Bar Council of the State to a case of professional misconduct of a contemner advocate to enable the State Bar Council to proceed in the manner prescribed by the Act and the rules framed thereunder. There is no justification to assume that the Bar Councils would not rise to the occasion, as they are equally responsible to uphold the dignity of the courts and the majesty of the and prevent any interference in the administration of justice. Learned counsel for the parties present before us do not dispute and rightly so that whenever a court of record, records its findings about the conduct of an Advocate while finding him guilty of committing contempt of court and desires or refers the matter to be considered by the concern Bar Council, appropriate action should be initiated by the concerned Bar Council in accordance with law with a view to maintain the dignity of the courts and to uphold the majesty of law and professional standards and etiquette. Nothing is more destructive of public confidence in the administration of justice than incivility, rudeness or disrespectful conduct on the part of a counsel towards the court or disregard by the court of the privileges of the bar. In case the Bar Council, even after receiving 'reference' from the court, fails to take action against the concerned advocate, this court might consider invoking its powers under Section 38 of the Act by sending for the record of the proceedings from the Bar Council and passing appropriate orders. Of Course the appellate powers under Section 38 would be available to this Court only and not to the High Courts. We, however hope that such a situation would not arise.
In a given case it may be possible, for this Court or the High Court, the prevent the contemner advocate to appear before it till he purges himself of the contempt but that is much different from suspending or revoking his licence or debarring him to practice as an advocate. In a case of contemptuous, contumacious, unbecoming or blameworthy conduct of an Advocate-on-Record, this court possesses jurisdiction, under the Supreme Court Rules itself, to withdraw his privilege to practice as an Advocate-an-Record because that privilege is conferred by this court and the power to grant the privilege includes the power to revoke or suspend it. The withdrawal of that privilege, however, does not amount to suspending or revoking his licence to practice as an advocate in other courts or Tribunals.
We are conscious of the fact that the conduct of the contemner of VC Misra's case was highly contumacious and even atrocious. It was unpardonable. the contemner therein had abused his professional privileges while practising as an advocate. he was holding a very senior position in the Bar Council of India and was expected to act in a more reasonable way. He did not. these factors appear to have influenced the bench in that case to itself punish him by suspending his licence to practice also while imposing a suspending sentence of imprisonment for committing contempt of court but while doing so this court vested itself with a jurisdiction where none exists. The position would, have been different had a reference been made to the Bar Council and the Bar Council did not take any action against the concerned advocate. In that event, as already observed, this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Act read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, might have exercised suo moto powers and sent for the proceedings from the Bar Council and passed appropriate orders for punishing the contemner advocate for professional misconduct after putting him on notice as required by the proviso to Section 38 which reads thus:-
" Provided that no order of the disciplinary committed of the Bar Council of India shall be varied by the Supreme Court so as to prejudicially affect the person aggrieved without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
but it could not have done so in the first instance.
In V.C. Mishra's case, the Bench, relied upon its inherent powers under Article 142, to punish him by suspending his licence, without the Bar Council having been given any opportunity to deal with his case under the Act. We cannot persuade ourselves to agree with that approach. It must be remembered that wider the amplitude of its power under Article 142, the greater is the need of care for this Court to see that the power is used with restraint without pushing back the limits of the constitution so as to function within the bounds of its own jurisdiction. To the extent, this Court makes the statutory authorities and other organs of the State perform their duties in accordance with law, its role is unexceptionable but it is not permissible or the Court to "take over" the role of the statutory bodies or other organs of the State and "perform" their functions.
Upon the basis of what we have said above, we answer the question posed in the   earlier part of this order, in the negative. The writ petition succeeds and is ordered accordingly".


74.     The impugned judgment as well as the earlier writ judgment dated 2.3.2015 are both issued by the same Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprised of Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S Teji. As stated above, the appellant's defence to the contempt notice required her to point out that the writ judgment was wrong, contrary to the material before it, perverse and resulted in covering up the corruption complaints against General Electric and the complaints of the petitioner of targeting and poisoning. As such it was correct and justified on the part of the appellant to request that the Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S Teji recuse from the contempt case. This recusal request was wrongly rejected. When the appellant attempted to argue before this Bench that it had incorrectly dismissed the writ petition, this Bench did not permit the appellant to make her submissions. Yet the impugned judgment in the contempt matter itself relies upon the writ judgment.

75.     The Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S. Teji issued bailable warrants against the appellant earlier in 2015 in the contempt case when she failed to appear for a single hearing. The appellant was being drugged and poisoned. This Bench then insisted that the appellant furnish an address even though it was aware and was again made aware that the appellant was homeless since May 2012 and had no fixed address.

76.     On 30.10.2015, this Division Bench closed the right of the appellant to file a reply in the contempt case. This despite the appellant's submission that she was being targeted and poisoned and was homeless. The appellant was then directed to argue. The appellant did not even have the court record of this contempt case with her. Even the limited submissions made by the appellant during the hearing on 30.10.2015 before this Bench have been misrecorded in the order and in the impugned judgment.

77.     It is submitted that Para 10 of the Order dated 30.10.2015 which is relied upon in the impugned judgment does not summarize all the submissions, arguments and defence of the appellant. Neither does this paragraph correctly record the appellant's limited submissions made in court that day.

78.     The impugned judgment incorrectly records that the appellant had relied upon Justice K.G. Balakrishnan's statement as Chief Justice of India that litigants should not hesitate to report judicial corruption. This was not a part of the appellant's submissions in this contempt case. On 30.10.2015 both the contempt cases against the appellant were listed together. There is an earlier contempt case from 2012 where the appellant had asked Justice Muralidhar to recuse from hearing a connected matter OMP 647/2012. It was in her applications in the other contempt case of 2012 that the appellant had relied upon the said statement of Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. On 30.10.2015 the Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S Teji themselves asked the appellant specifically if she had relied upon such a statement by the Chief Justice. The appellant had answered that she had. This question and answer took place in the context of Criminal Contempt case 3 of 2012 and not Criminal Contempt case 2 of 2014. After this exchange, the Division Bench had insisted that the appellant first address them on the 2014 matter. They ten refused to hear the 2012 matter which was adjourned and is still pending. Yet the impugned judgment incorrectly includes this as one of the appellant's arguments in Criminal Contempt case 2 of 2014. Paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment therefore misrecords the defence of the appellant. Instead as stated hereinabove and in her email of 6.5.2014, the appellant made the statement spontaneously in an emotional outburst without prior reflection in a situation of emotional distress.

79.     The impugned judgment also misrecords the appellant's submission in para 8. The appellant submits that it was improper for Justice Bhakhru to be part of the Bench that issued the notice of criminal contempt to her. The Bench of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bhakhru should have placed the matter before the Chief Justice for the Chief Justice to take a call and if appropriate place the matter before a different Bench. The appellant did not argue that the Delhi High Court itself could not hear the contempt case. The impugned judgment incorrectly records that the appellant made this argument and then conveniently dismisses it as frivolous.

80.     It is also pointed out that the impugned judgment is wrong when it states in para 8(ii) that in some cases, criminal contempt matters can be heard by a single judge.  In fact, under the Contempt of Courts Act, criminal contempt cases must be heard by a Division Bench and cannot be heard by a Single Judge. This issue is not even relevant for the present case.
In fact, by virtue of Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 a case of criminal contempt is to be heard by a Division Bench only when the criminal contempt is one under Section 15 of the Act, and thus except in cases covered by Section 15 of the Act a criminal contempt can in fact be heard not only by a Single Judge but the same Single Judge in whose face the contempt is committed


81. In para 9(ii) the impugned judgment wrongly suggests that the appellant lied that a long date was first given to her in the writ petition on 5 May 2014. The impugned judgment states that the court record in the writ case mentions the date in the order as 8.5.2014. Now as stated above the facts are that a date for 23.5.2014 was first given. The date was only changed to 8.5.2014 after the appellant's strong objections and after the exchange in the court of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vibhu Bakhru. Obviously this date change will not be reflected in the signed order which is signed only after the court rises for the day in the evening. The order will only reflect the changed date. The record of the date change will only be found in the papers and records of the court master's and court-stenographer's notings for the day. In this case, since no order was actually dictated in court in the writ petition on 6.5.2014. any evidence of the date change will only be in the court master's records. There are several witnesses to what transpired in court on that day and therefore it is submitted that the appellant will if called upon produce evidence to establish that such a date change did happen.

82. The appellant had also stated that Justice Vibhu Bakhru had represented/ appeared for General Electric as a lawyer; that she had discussed her whistleblower litigation against General Electric with him; and that she had even emailed Justice Vibhu Bakhru regarding that litigation. In para 10, the impugned judgment calls these self-serving convenient averments and states that the Bench disbelieves the same. In response it is submitted that Justice Vibhu Bhakhru has advised/ represented General Electric as a client. This is a matter of fact which the appellant is ready to establish in a trial. The appellant discussed the General Electric whistleblower case with Justice Vibhu Bakhru in the Delhi High Court premises on more than one occasion and in the presence of other lawyers. In fact, on one occasion, this discussion happened with Justice Vibbhu Bhakhru and Advocate Ms Anuradha Dutt in the ground floor lobby of the Delhi High Court. The topic of this discussion was whether K Radhakrishnan could be appointed the authorized representative of General Electric Company for the writ petition. The impugned judgment, fails to even record that the appellant had sent emails on the subject of her whisleblower complaints and litigation against General Electric to Justice Vibhu Bhakhru.

83.     Judge Vibhu Bakhru was appointed as Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court on 17.4.2013. The appellant sent 72 emails between 6.5.2012 and 17.4.2013 to a large group of lawyers including Judge Vibhu Bakhru (vibhulegal@gmail.com) all on the subject of her complaints against General Electric, Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and her being targeted as a whistleblower. As Judge Vibhu Bakhru's email was included in a large mailing list, the appellant's emails to this mailing list of lawyers kept going to Judge Vibhu Bakhru's email even after 17.4.2013 and 19 such emails were sent by the appellant to Judge Vibhu Bakhru's email address. Evidence of all these emails being sent is available on the appellant's Gmail account records (seema.sapra@gmail.com). These emails are voluminous and are not being reproduced herein. The Appellant will produce two such specimen emails along with additional documents in a separate volume. The appellant is ready to produce all these emails sent by her to Justice Vibhu Bakhru before this Hon'ble Court. 

84.     The appellant had told the Division Bench on 30.10.2015 that she had been harassed by the police in court that day and that toxic chemicals were also being released near her on Delhi High Court premises. In para 11 of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench misrepresents this as a defence to the contempt notice. It then again relies upon its incorrect observations in the writ judgment to describe the appellant's complaint of police harassment on 30.10.2015 as wild and unsubstantiated. The appellant submits that since July 2014, the appellant has been harassed by Delhi High Court security police on every date when the writ or the contempt matters were listed. Large numbers of police personnel have been needlessly surrounding the appellant and even entering the court-rooms when her matters were listed. Some of these policemen have also been releasing toxic chemicals near the appellant on Delhi High Court premises. Court-staff and the PSO attached to Justice Valmiki Mehta's court have been party to such targeting using the police. On 30.10.2015, before the hearing, several policemen had surrounded the appellant and some had even stationed themselves inside the court-room. The appellant took pictures of such targeting. She made a complaint on email. Thereafter a large group of policemen surrounded the appellant inside the court-room before the judges entered and demanded that the appellant hand over her phone. The appellant refused and complained of such targeting to the Bench. The appellant has video, audio recordings and pictures to establish police targeting before the hearing on 30.10.2014 and to establish the participation of court staff attached to Justice Valmiki Mehta in such targeting.

85.     The impugned judgment is perverse in that it fails to correctly record the appellant's submissions.

86.     It is submitted that the appellant's un-premeditated and spontaneous emotional outburst on 6.5.2014 does not amount to contempt of court. There was no intent to scandalize the court or to lower its authority on the part of the appellant. The statement uttered by the appellant in a moment of great emotional distress has not caused any prejudice to the administration of justice or to any judicial proceeding.

87.     The recusal by the Bench of Justice Muralidhar and Justice Vibhu Bakhru was for entirely different reasons and in fact the recusal order was already made even before the alleged contempt took place. Therefore, the impugned judgment is entirely wrong in stating that "The contemptuous statement prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings inasmuch as the unsubstantiated contemptuous statement has caused recusal of a Bench of this Court from hearing the matter on 6.5.2015."

88.     It is submitted that the appellant's statement uttered without reflection and in a moment of distress does not amount to contempt of court. Neither did this statement interfere with the due course of justice.

89.     The appellant further submits that due process require under the Contempt of Court's Act has not been followed and the appellant has been found guilty of contempt in a summary fashion without even being given an opportunity to defend herself.

90.     The appellant places reliance upon Section 13 of the Contempt of Court's Act which provides "Contempts not punishable in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it
substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the
due course of justice."

91.     It is submitted that the alleged contumacious statement of the appellant has not in any manner interfered with the administration of the due course of justice. This statement made before Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vibhu Bakhru was not the reason for the recusal by Justice Muralidhar and Justice Bakhru which recusal in fact happened before this statement was made.

92.     The appellant submits that her conviction for contempt of court is wrong and requests that it be set aside.

93.     The appellant submits that the punishment and prison sentence imposed by the impugned judgment is not only contrary to Section 13 of the Contempt of Court's Act but is inappropriate and extremely harsh.

94.     It is pointed out that the appellant had informed Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S Teji on 30.10.2015 of her intention to pursue her whistleblower and right to life complaints before the Supreme Court.
It is submitted that the prison sentence will be used to drug, poison and eventually eliminate the appellant whistle-lower in order to silence her forever.

95.     The appellant has offered a full, unqualified and unconditional apology for the statement which she made in the heat of the moment in a deeply distressed emotional state where she was concerned for her safety and survival. The impugned judgment incorrectly records that the appellant is not contrite. The impugned judgment is again incorrect in stating that the appellant had sought to over-awe different judges, The Appellant will file a separate affidavit explaining the circumstances of each and every recusal in WritPetition Civil No. 1280/2012 which is being repeatedly used to target her. The appellant was the real victim of these recusals.

96.     It is denied that the appellant was "incorrigible" in the hearings before Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S.Teji in the hearing of Contempt Case 2 of 2014 as stated in para 15 of the impugned judgment. How can the inability of a person (being targeted and poisoned) to file a reply be proof of their incorrigibility.

97.     The impugned judgment and the writ judgment both establish that the Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S Teji has not conducted itself in accordance with the requirements of judicial propriety and ethics in hearing these matters and they have not discharged their judicial function in an impartial, objective and unbiased manner.

98.     The appellant requests that this Hon'ble Court set aside the impugned judgment and the conviction of the appellant for contempt of court. The appellant also requests that the extremely harsh and un-called for punishment be set aside. The Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction and authority in effectively suspending the right of the advocate appellant to practice law for two years. This direction also needs to be set aside.

99.     The appellant also prays that the operation of the impugned judgment be stayed pending the hearing and decision of this appeal.

100.   That the appellant/ petitioner has not filed any other appeal or petition in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER

In the above facts and premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

(i)                To allow the application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal;
(ii)             To set aside the conviction of the appellant for contempt of court;
(iii)           To set aside the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014;
(iv)           To accept the unconditional and unqualified apology offered by the appellant and to discharge the contempt notice issued to her by the Delhi High Court on 6.5.2014;
(v)             To stay the operation of the impugned judgment pending hearing and decision in this appeal;
(vi)           To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemednecessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT/ PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.


FILED BY:
APPELLANT/PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
DRAWN:

FILED ON:


 

Read below for an account of the detailed corruption charges against General Electric Company in India



In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Civil Writ Jurisdiction

C.M. Appl. No. 7197 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 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DIRECTIONS FROM THE COURT TO RESTRAIN RESPONENTS 4 AND 5 FROM SUBVERTING THESE WRIT PROCEEDINGS

 

                                                                                    The Petitioner above named

Most Respectfully Showeth:

 

 

1.      This is an application seeking directions to Respondent 2 (the CVC), Respondent 4 (Railway Ministry), and to Respondent 5 (the PMO) in connection with the affidavit dated 15 May 2013 filed in this matter by Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash purporting to be on behalf of Respondent 4.

 

2.     The present application seeks an urgent injunction addressed to respondents 4 and 5 (Ministry for Railways and the office of the Prime Minister of India respectively) restraining these respondents from acting on the Cabinet decision dated 1 May 2013 and from proceeding further with the new RFQs published on 6 May 2013 for the Projects for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra and the proposed electric locomotive factory at Madhepura until the present writ petition is heard and decided finally. This application seeks orders restraining respondents 4 and 5 from receiving any application/ technical bids/ under these new      RFQs issued for ELF and DLF from and on behalf of General Electric Company/ GE India Industrial Private Limited/ GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited and/ or any of their Associate companies.  

 

3.      The petitioner refers to and relies upon the writ petition, the counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits on record, several additional affidavits on record and upon several sets of additional documents on record.

 

4.      The petitioner also refers to and relies upon CM 19501/ 2012 pending hearing before this Court where the following relief was sought:

 

"Injunct/ restrain respondents 4 and 5 (Railway Ministry and the Union of India through the PMO) from inviting financial bids and otherwise proceeding further with the bid process for the two global tenders impugned in the present writ petition, namely the 2010 tenders for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra [Global RFQ No. 2010/ ME (Proj)/ 4/ Marhoura/RFQ] and for the proposed electric locomotive factory at Madhepura [RFQ No. 2010/ Elect. (Dev0 440/1(1))] until this writ petition is heard and finally decided;"

 

5.      In the latest affidavit dated 15 May, 2013, Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash has informed the court that the Bidding Process initiated in 2010 for the two tenders impugned in this writ petition has been cancelled. New Bidding Processes (tenders) for the Project for the proposed Marhowra diesel locomotive factory (DLF) and for the Project for the proposed Madhepura electric locomotive factory (ELF) have been initiated. Fresh RFQs for both these Projects have been issued.

 

6.      Attached hereto as Annexure P-1 is a copy of the new RFQ issued for the Project for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra, being Global RFQ No. 2013/M/ (W)/ 964/33 dated May, 2013.

 

7.      Attached hereto as Annexure P-2 is a copy of the new RFQ issued for the Project for the proposed electric locomotive factory at Madhepura being  Global RFQ No. 2013/Elect (Dev)/440/7 dated 6 May, 2013.

 

8.      It is submitted that the manner and timing of cancellation of the tenders impugned in this petition by the Railway Ministry and the inordinate hurry in issuing new RFQs and thereby starting new Bidding Processes for the Marhowra and Madhepura Projects and the manner in which this has been done without informing this Court and despite the pendency of this writ petition is nothing but an attempt to over-reach this court and to cover-up the grave charges of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery, and improper and undesirable conduct in connection with the DLF and ELF tenders and Projects that this court is seized of in the present writ petition. The malafide intent of respondents 4 and 5 appears to be to "save" General Electric from the lawful consequences of its illegal acts and corrupt practices which are before this Hon'ble Court.

 

9.      Several issues arise as a result of the attempted subversion of these writ proceedings by the latest actions of the Railway Ministry, the PMO, the Planning Commission, the Finance Ministry, Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Mr P Chidambaram, and Mr Pavan Bansal as disclosed in the affidavit of Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash dated 15 May, 2013. These are listed below.

 

10.  This affidavit was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner obtained a copy only on 20 May, 2013 when she obtained a copy of the scanned court record from the court registry.

 

11.  This affidavit was deliberately filed late on 15 May 2013 so that it was not before the court on the last date of hearing, i.e., on 16 May, 2013. No one appeared for the Railway Ministry on 16 May, 2013 to inform the court that this affidavit had been filed or about these latest developments in the matter. Neither Mr Rajiv Mehra (the ASG) nor Mr R N Singh, the counsel appearing for the Railway Ministry appeared for the hearing on 16 May, 2013 to inform the court of these actions of the Government of India.

 

12.  This writ petition was again listed before court on 22 May 2013 along with CM 6417/ 2013 filed by the petitioner. Once again there was no appearance by Counsel for the UOI (PMO), the CVC or the Railway Ministry despite the fact that this new application expressly seeks relief against the CVC and the Railway Ministry and advance copies of this application were served on all parties.

 

13.  The affidavit dated 15 May 2013 signed by Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash pertains to both the Madhepura Project being administered by the Electrical Engineering directorate of the Railway Ministry and to the Marhowra Project being administered by the Mechanical Engineering directorate of the Railway Ministry. Yet the affidavit has been filed by a junior officer of the Electrical Engineering directorate who has no authority to file an affidavit deposing on the issue of the Marhowra Project which is being managed by an entirely separate department of the Railway Ministry. For this reason and for being evasive and misleading (as described below), this affidavit must be rejected.

 

14.  The timing of these new developments and the actions of the Railway Ministry, the PMO, the Union Cabinet, Mr P Chidambaram, Mr Pavan Bansal, Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia  and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh as disclosed in the affidavit of Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash dated 15 May, 2013 show that the intent of the Government is to over-reach this court and to take steps which are timed in a clear attempt to subvert this writ petition in order to cover up criminal activity including corruption. The timing of these malafide actions also shows that the Government of India is attempting to take undue advantage of the petitioner's pending request for recusal by the Bench of Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Deepa Sharma, of the order passed by Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Deepa Sharma in adjourning the petitioner's application for their recusal to 18 July 2013, and of the month long summer vacations of the Delhi High Court in June.

 

15.   The intent seems to be to complete the new Bidding Process for the DLF and ELF tenders before this writ petition can be heard and decided. It is submitted that General Electric is liable to be blacklisted from all Railway Ministry tenders for two years or more and this prayer has been expressly sought in this writ petition. The Railway Ministry cannot therefore be permitted to invite General Electric to participate in a new Bidding Process even while the unaddressed complaints of fraud, forgery, corruption, bribery and illegal lobbying by General Electric for an earlier Bidding Process for the same Project are before this court in this writ petition.

 

16.  A brief list of dates that establishes this attempt to over-reach the court by the PMO, the Union Cabinet, the Railway Ministry, the Planning Commission, Mr P Chidambaram, Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr Pavan Bansal is set out below. This list of dates spans three different tenders for the DLF and ELF Projects. The first set of tenders for these two Projects were in 2008-2009, the second set of tenders for these two Projects were in 2010-2013, and the third set of tenders for the same two Projects have been issued on 6 May 2013. The two Railway Ministry Projects are ELF (electric locomotive factory at Madhepura) and DLF (diesel locomotive factory at Marhoura). Both Projects together are worth approximately 20 billion USD.

 

LIST OF DATES

 

22 Feb 2007

Issue of justification for the ELF and DLF Projects

 

Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) approved Railway proposal to set up ELF and DLF.

 

This approval and the basis for this approval have not been placed on the court record by the Railway Ministry.

 

According to Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013 in reply to CM 19501/ 2012, there is a CCEA note justifying the need for DLF and ELF and the need for new manufacturing capacity for diesel and electric locomotives. This note has not been produced on record.

 

Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia is a member of the CCEA.

 

The genesis of these Projects is a recommendation by Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia at the behest of General Electric. 

1 Aug 2008

Issue of General Electric having access to unreleased Bid Documents in 2008

 

Reproduced below is an email that the petitioner received from Ms Ruby Anand on March 9, 2010 forwarding five pdf files that were sent to her by Ms Praveena Yagnambhat (from General Electric) on August 1, 2008. Ms Ruby Anand has in the past served as General Counsel for General Electric in India for about 10 years. The documents attached to this email were the following:

                                            i.            11th July 2008 D Loco Land Lease Agreement

                                          ii.            11th July 2008 D Loco Maintenance Contract

                                        iii.            11th July 2008 D Loco Procurement Contract

                                        iv.            11th July 2008 D Loco RFP Document

                                          v.            11th July 2008 D Loco Shareholders Agreement

 

 

The email from Ms Ruby Anand read: 

 

"From: Ruby Anand <rubysdesk@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Subject: See the 5th doc for now - the Loco RFP -issued earlier

To: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Yagnambhat, Praveena (GE Infra, Transportation) <praveena.yagnambhat@ge.com>

Date: Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Subject: Loco RFP

To: Ruby Anand <rubysdesk@gmail.com>

 

Dear Ruby

 

Attached please find a soft copy of the Loco RFP. Please let me know if you are unable to open any of the files.

 

Regards

Praveena Yagnambhat

GE Infrastructure -  India

Phone : +91 11 4155 5317

Fax :     +91 11 2335 5969

 

--

Ruby

 

Ruby Anand

C-4/7 Safdarjung Development Area

New Delhi- 110016

India

 

Mobile - +91-9811082215"

 

 

A printout of the pdf file - 11th July 2008 D Loco RFP Document – which the petitioner received from Ms Ruby Anand on March 9, 2010 has been attached as Annexure P-2 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner on July 23, 2012. This document is the Railway Ministry draft RFP for the 2008-2009 tender for the diesel locomotive factory Project at Marhowra.  Similarly, the other four documents attached to Ms Ruby Anand's email dated March 9, 2010 are all Indian Railways draft documents for the 2008-9 tender for the Marhowra locomotive factory Project.  

 

The RFP for the Marhowra Project tender in 2008 was not issued by the Railways Ministry until the 22 September 2008. So how did General Electric have in its possession on August 1, 2008, the draft documents for the 2008-2009 Marhowra Project tender? How did General Electric get access to these documents on or before August 1, 2008?

 

These internal Railway Ministry documents (still in draft form) were obviously obtained by General Electric illegally before they were officially finalised and released publicly. This evidence confirms the complaints of corruption against General Electric. General Electric needs to disclose how it came into possession of these confidential documents. How were these documents leaked to General Electric? 

 

The affidavit filed by the Railway Ministry in response to CM 19501/ 2012 does not offer any explanation about how General Electric came to possess a copy of the draft RFP on 1 August 2008, when this RFP was formally released to Bidders only on 22 September 2008.

 

All that this affidavit dated 14 January 2013 filed by the Railway Ministry in response to CM 19501/ 2012 (in volume 13 of the court record) states on this issue is the following:

"It is pertinent to note that any RFP document is one which is discussed, deliberated and finalized after discussion with several stakeholders and consultants."

 

No explanation has been provided by the Railway Ministry as to how General Electric had in its possession the draft Bid Documents for the ELF tender on 1 August 2008, before these were released to the two Bidders, EMD and General Electric.

 

The statement in the Railway affidavit that "It is pertinent to note that any RFP document is one which is discussed, deliberated and finalized after discussion with several stakeholders and consultants" is an attempt to cover up the fact that General Electric had in its possession, the draft Bid Documents before they were officially/ formally released/ shared with either General Electric or EMD.

 

This provides evidence that the DLF Project have been created/ tailor-made at the behest of and for General Electric. General Electric has since 2008 influenced the bid documents to ensure that a commercially lucrative contract and opportunity is created for itself using their contacts/ agents within the Indian government (like Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia). 

 

The role of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the role of his close aide Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia and the role of other officials from the PMO and the Planning Commission in creating these suspect Projects for General Electric and in interfering in the bid process and the bid documents with intent to help General Electric secure the DLF Project requires to be investigated.

22 Sep 2008

RFP for DLF issued to General Electric and to EMD.

5 Feb 2009

Framework and documents including PCMA approved by the Cabinet for the Projects for ELF and DLF

 

Cabinet appointed Empowered Committee of Secretaries to approve changes in the PCMA.

 

This Empowered Committee of Secretaries comprised Chairman Railway Board, Secretary Economic Affairs, Secretary Planning Commission, Secretary Law, Financial Commissioner Railways, Member Electrical Railway Board, and Member Mechanical Railway Board. 

 

This approval was issued in a hurry with intent to award these contracts before the 2009 general elections.

10 Feb 2009

Issue of tailor-made DLF Project and tenders and issue of illegal lobbying by General Electric

 

The petitioner draws the attention of this court to a public statement made by Mr. John Rice, Vice Chairman of General Electric Company in connection with the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects during an investor meeting on February 10, 2009. Mr John Rice stated:

 

"We are also competing for the India rail tender, which will be announced over the next two or three weeks. This is a project that has been 10 years in the making, and will be all of the diesel electric locomotive requirements for India over the next 10 years. So it's a very big tender, significant when you add services. It is about $6 billion and a great opportunity for us."

 

In this statement, Mr John Rice has disclosed that the Marhowra Projects which is the subject matter of one of the impugned tenders in this writ petition "has been 10 years in the making, and will be all of the diesel electric locomotive requirements for India over the next 10 years." This recorded statement of Mr John Rice (Vice Chairman at General Electric Company) is an admission that General Electric has lobbied for "the making" of this DLF Project for ten years and that the Project, the impugned tender for this Project, the earlier 2008 tender for the same Project, as well as the new 6 May 2013 tender/ RFQ for the same Project, have been tailor-made for General Electric to hand over to it on a platter the "great" business opportunity that is present in "all of the diesel electric locomotive requirements for India over the next 10 years."

16 February 2009

Financial bid for DLF tender received from GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited. EMD, also shortlisted did not bid.

 

General Electric's bid was found to be non-responsive and the tender was discharged.

23 Feb 2009

Cabinet approved Railway Ministry proposal to set up DLF and ELF Projects as Departmental Production Units of Indian Railways.

23 Feb 2009

Business Standard news report dated February 23, 2009 titled "Railways may scrap diesel loco bid -Railway Board to decide on the matter" published.

This report contained the following statements:

"Also, according to sources in the railways, there also appears to be some technical mistake in the GE bid.

When this was pointed out, however, the company said it was a mathematical error and has agreed, in writing, to accept that the price of its locomotives be lowered by the extent of the error — for all the locos. This adds up to around Rs 300 crore over the life of the project."

23 Feb 2009

Issue of internal General Electric emails showing that it was lobbying Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia for the DLF Project

 

There exist internal General Electric emails from 23 Feb 2009 that Mr Jeffrey Eglash (from General Electric) showed the Petitioner on November 30, 2011 during a meeting at the business centre of the Shangrila hotel in New Delhi. These internal General Electric emails forwarded the 23 February 2009 news report reproduced in the row above, as an attachment to Mr John Rice (Vice Chairman of General Electric Company) and to Mr Karan Bhatia (Legal Counsel at General Electric Company for International Law and Policy)  with a message containing language that approximated "should we let this die". This internal General Electric email trail also contained language that approximated "should someone talk to Montek or Ronen Sen'. There is therefore an internal GE email trail (seen and read by the petitioner) on the subject of this Business Standard news article dated February 23, 2009 reporting that there was a mistake in General Electric's financial bid dated 16 February, 2009 and that the Railway Ministry was planning to scrap the Project. [General Electric would have been informed prior to 23 February, 2009 in writing by the Railway Ministry that its bid had been found non-responsive and that the tender was being discharged.]

Yet on 23 February, 2009, internal General Electric emails sent to the Vice Chairman (Mr John Rice) suggested that the news report be allowed to die or that someone from General Electric speak to Montek Singh Ahluwalia or Ronen Sen. General Electric cannot deny these emails seen and read by the petitioner. GE has not issued a denial that an internal GE email sent to John Rice and Karan Bhatia mentioned Montek and Ronen Sen by name and that email was on the subject of the Business Standard Report dated February 23, 2009 and suggested what should be done by GE in response to this report.

 

The fact that internal GE emails dated February 23, 2012  that were also addressed to John  Rice and Karan Bhatia referred to Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Ronen Sen by name and mentioned the possibility of someone at General Electric speaking to these two persons in connection with the Business Standard news report dated February 23, 2009, and the 2009 tender for the Marhowra diesel locomotive factory Project establishes that General Electric was engaged/ involved in corrupt dealings/ contact/ lobbying with high-level functionaries within the Indian government (like Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Ronen Sen) around its 2009 bid for the Marhowra DLF Project. Internal GE emails from February 2009 sent to GE officers (like John Rice) record these corrupt dealings and lobbying. The internal GE emails dated 23 February 2009 that Jeffrey Eglash inadvertently showed the petitioner on November 30, 2011 are prima facie evidence of corruption by General Electric Company and also raise questions about General Electric's access to, dealings with, and influence on high-level government officials like Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. 

5 May 2009

Issue of Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia lobbying for the DLF Project on behalf of General Electric

 

In a meeting between Planning Commission and Railway Ministry, Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia lobbied (on behalf of General Electric) for once again exploring JV route with private parties for ELF and DLF.

18 May 2009

Issue of Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia lobbying for the DLF Project on behalf of General Electric

 

Because of the pressure from Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Railway Ministry approached Cabinet to revert to JV framework for setting up ELF and DLF.

 

Cabinet approval granted to set up ELF and DLF in JVs with private parties. 

18 May 2009

Issue of Clause permitting Bidder to use Consultants who have advised the tendering authority

 

Ministry of Finance issued Office Memorandum releasing a revised model RFQ for pre-qualification of Bidders for PPP Projects

 

Clause 2.2.1 (d) of the model RFQ was amended to allow consultants to the Bidding authority to work for Bidders in relation to the same Project if their engagement by the Bidder ended six months prior to the date of issue of the RFQ.

 

The petitioner submits that this modification is arbitrary, unreasonable, counter-productive, and promotes corruption and conflict of interest and clauses of such nature must be struck down by the Court in all RFQs including in the new ELF and DLF RFQs issued by the Railway Ministry on 6 May 2013.  

11 Aug 2009

Issue of Mr Vinod Sharma

 

"General Electric" (respondents 1, 6 and 7 or "GE') has engaged in a corrupt practice by using/ engaging the services of Mr. Vinod Sharma for GE's bid for the 2010 diesel and electric locomotive tenders.

 

Mr Vinod Sharma is a retired Indian Railways official who after retirement worked with PricewaterhouseCoopers and while at PricewaterhouseCoopers   advised the Railway Ministry in 2007, 2008 and 2009 on the PPP Project for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra.

 

Mr. Vinod Sharma has in the past advised the tendering Authority in respect of the same Project. The 2010 tender is for the same Project that Mr. Vinod Sharma advised the Ministry of Railways for in 2008-2009. The bid strategy   and the bid documents for the 2010 tenders are based upon the advice provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers (and by Mr. Vinod Sharma) to the Railways Ministry. By knowingly engaging Mr. Vinod Sharma as a consultant for the 2010 tenders (as GE has admitted in its counter affidavit) GE violated Clause 2.2.1 (d), Clause 4.1.3 a) and Clause 4.1.3 d) of the 2010 RFQ for the proposed diesel locomotive factory and engaged in corrupt practices as defined in the RFQ and is liable to be disqualified under Clause 4.1.1 and blacklisted under Clause 4.1.2.

 

The 2010 RFQ for the proposed diesel locomotive factory that respondent 7 had been shortlisted for along with respondent 16 (EMD) [Global RFQ No. 2010/ ME (Proj)/ 4/ Marhoura/RFQ] is for the very same Project.

 

Mr. Vinod Sharma had extensive contact both with GE executives and with Indian Railways officials during the time he was working for and lobbying for GE. Mr. Vinod Sharma had helped formulate the bid strategy and helped draft the bid documents for the diesel locomotive factory tender for the same Project in 2007/ 2008. The engagement of Mr. Vinod Sharma by GE therefore violated Clause 4.1.3 a) (ii) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ and amounts to a corrupt practice as defined in this Clause. The engagement of Mr. Vinod Sharma by GE also violated Clause 4.1.3 d) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ and amounts to an undesirable practice as defined in this clause. GE executives interacted with Mr. Vinod Sharma and used his services with the object of canvassing, lobbying and influencing the bidding process. Mr. Vinod Sharma was connected to Indian Railways as he had been engaged (as part of the PwC team) as consultant to the Indian Railways for the same project. GE's dealings with Mr. Vinod Sharma created a Conflict of Interest as defined in Clause 4.1.3 d) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ.

 

Mr Vinod Sharma facilitated and participated in corrupt contact and prohibited lobbying of Railway Ministry officials by GE executives. GE's dealings with Mr. Vinod Sharma amount to corrupt and undesirable practices as defined in Clauses 4.1.3 a) and 4.1.3 d) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ. This conduct makes GE liable to be disqualified and blacklisted under Clauses 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of the RFQ. This is a very serious violation of the tender conditions by GE. The Railway Ministry is legally obligated to disqualify and blacklist GE for this conduct. The 2010 Marhowra RFQ, the law, and the guidelines of the Government of India do not give the Railway Ministry the discretion to overlook this serious violation of the RFQ.

 

The petitioner relies upon Clause 4.1.3 (a) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ which reads:

""corrupt practice" means (i) the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting, directly or indirectly, of anything of value to influence the actions of any person connected with the Bidding Process (for avoidance of doubt, offering of employment to or employing or engaging in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, any official of the Authority who is or has been associated in any manner, directly or indirectly with the Bidding Process or the LoA or has dealt with matters concerning the Agreement or arising therefrom, before or after the execution thereof, at any time prior to the expiry of one year from the date such official resigns or retires from or otherwise ceases to be in the service of the Authority, shall be deemed to constitute influencing the actions of a person connected with the Bidding Process) or (ii) engaging in any manner whatsoever, whether during the Bidding Process or after the issue of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, till commissioning of the factory as per provisions to be specified in the RFP, any person in respect of any matter relating to the Project or the LOA or the Agreement, who at any time has been or is a legal, financial or technical adviser of the Authority in relation to any matter concerning the Project".

 

Clause 4.0 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ deals with "Fraud and Corrupt Practices" and Clause 4.1.1 states:

"The Applicants and their respective officers, employees, agents and advisers shall observe the highest standard of ethics during the Bidding Process. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Authority shall reject an Application without being liable in any manner whatsoever to the Applicant if it determines that the Applicant has, directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged in corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice in the Bidding Process."

 

Clause 4.1.2 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ provides:

"Without prejudice to the rights of the Authority under Clause 4.1.1 hereinabove, if an Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice during the Bidding Process, such Applicant shall not be eligible to participate in any tender or RFQ issued by the Authority during a period of 2 (two) years from the date such Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice, as the case may be."

 

Clause 4.1.3 d) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ defines "undesirable practice'. It reads:

"undesirable practice" means (i) establishing contact with any person connected with or employed or engaged by the Authority with the objective of canvassing, lobbying or in any manner influencing or attempting to influence the Bidding Process; or (ii) having a Conflict of Interest".

 

It is submitted that that Clause 4.1.3 a) of the 2010 diesel locomotive factory RFQ defines "corrupt practice" as including "engaging in any manner whatsoever, whether during the Bidding Process or after the issue of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, any person in respect of any matter relating to the Project or the LOA or the Agreement, who at any time has been or is a legal, financial or technical adviser of the Authority in relation to any matter concerning the Project".

 

The key word in Clause 4.1.3 a) for the present purpose is the word "Project'. The Glossary provided at the beginning of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ has an entry for "Project" which reads: "As defined in Clause 1.2.1". "The term "Project" is defined by this RFQ in Clause 1.2.1 as follows:

 

"The Project for which the Applications are being invited pursuant to this RFQ Document shall comprise of the following:

i. setting up a new Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives factory at Marhowra, Bihar (hereafter referred as the "Site"); and

ii. supplying Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives to the Authority; and

iii. providing maintenance support for the Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives procured by the Authority from the new factory."

 

The bar imposed by Clause 4.1.3 a) is therefore against a bidder engaging any person 'who at any time has been or is a legal, financial or technical adviser of the Authority in relation to any matter concerning the Project". The key word here is "Project" and not "tender".

 

Clause 2.2.1 (d) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ reads as follows:

"An Applicant shall be liable for disqualification if any legal, financial or technical adviser of the Authority in relation to the Project is engaged by the Applicant during the Bidding Process or after the issue of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, till commissioning of the factory as per provisions to be specified in the RFP, in any manner for matters related to or incidental to the Project."

 

The engagement of Mr. Vinod Sharma as consultant by GE violated Clause 2.2.1 (d) of the 2010 RFQ for the proposed diesel locomotive factory. Mr. Vinod Sharma, a retired Railways official has advised the Authority/ Planning Commission on this Project. In 2010, he was actively advising and assisting GE regarding the tender for the same Project (diesel locomotive factory) and also for the tender for the electric locomotive factory. Vinod Sharma was a frequent visitor to GE's AIFACS office. He was in frequent contact with GE employees working on this tender, including Pratyush Kumar and Ashfaq Nainar.  He attended several meetings at GE's office. Internal GE emails provide documentary evidence of such meetings. He lobbied and canvassed with Indian Railways officials on behalf of GE. Mr. Vinod Sharma vetted the RFQ applications submitted by GE (through respondent 7) on 12 July 2010 and on 17 May 2012 for the diesel locomotive factory and the electric locomotive factory tenders.  Clause 4.1.3 (a) (ii) of the Diesel RFQ defines a "corrupt practice" as including the engagement "in any manner whatsoever, whether during the bidding process or after the issue of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, any person in respect of any matter relating to the Project, or the LOA or the Agreement, who at any time has been or is a legal, financial or technical adviser of the Authority in relation to any matter concerning the Project". Mr. Vinod Sharma's engagement by General Electric falls foul of Clause 4.1.3 (a) (ii) and would render GE's application liable for rejection under Clause 4.1.1 of the RFQ. It would also render GE liable for blacklisting in accordance with Clause 4.1.2 of the RFQ.  

 

In a concerted and planned malafide attempt to mislead the court, the Railway Board (Respondent 4) in its counter affidavit (filed by a low-ranking officer who would not in the discharge of his duties be aware of the facts of this case) states that the Railway Board has "never engaged Shri Vinod Sharma for any work in connection with the said tenders".  I point out that the language used by Respondent 4 is carefully worded to avoid commenting on whether Vinod Sharma was an advisor to the Project (i.e., the proposed factory for diesel locomotive tenders at Marhowra). The Railway Ministry knows that it engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers as consultant for the Project and that Mr Vinod Sharma was part of the PricewaterhouseCoopers team for this engagement and was therefore an advisor for the Project. The Railway Ministry knows that Mr Vinod Sharma's engagement by GE for the same Project was therefore a corrupt practice. Yet the Railways Ministry in its counter affidavit fails to disclose these facts. Respondent 4 is covering up the corrupt practice that GE engaged in by using evasive and misleading language in its reply on this issue in its counter-affidavit. The Railways Ministry has not being forthcoming with the facts. It has attempted to suppress these facts by omitting material facts when stating that 'Vinod Sharma was never engaged by the Railways Ministry' and by using the word "tenders" instead of the word "Project". This statement in the affidavit filed by Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash purportedly on behalf of respondent 4 constitutes a lie by omission and deliberate concealment of relevant facts. The Railways Ministry has failed to state that though it never engaged Mr Vinod Sharma directly, it is aware that Mr Vinod Sharma was part of the PricewaterhouseCooper team that rendered advice under the engagement of PricewaterhouseCoopers by the Ministry as a consultant for the same Project. The relevant point is not whether the Railway Ministry 'engaged" Mr Vinod Sharma for the "tenders". Rather the relevant question is did Mr Vinod Sharma at any time act as an "adviser of the Authority in relation to any matter concerning the Project". The Railway Ministry has not denied that Mr Vinod Sharma was in 2007, 2008 and 2009, an "adviser of the Authority" as a result of the engagement of PricewaterhouseCoopers as consultant to the "Project" for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra which Project is the subject matter of the impugned RFQ [Global RFQ No. 2010/ ME (Proj)/ 4/ Marhoura/RFQ].

 

General Electric has admitted that it entered into a written contract with Mr Vinod Sharma, through his "company" "Essvee Consultants" effective from 11 Aug 2009.

 

The petitioner has pointed out that there exists no company registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs with the name "Essvee Consultants".

18 Feb 2010

Issue of Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia lobbying for the DLF Project on behalf of General Electric

 

Cabinet approved launch of Bidding Processes for the ELF and the DLF as JVs with private partners.

2 March 2010

Global RFQ No. 2010/Elect./(Dev.)/440//1(1) issued for ELF

March 2010

Global RFQ No. 2010/ME/ Proj/4/Marhoura/RFQ issued for DLF

1 May 2010

Issue of illegal lobbying by General Electric

 

General Electric was lobbying to introduce"2X6000HP Permanently Coupled Co-Co units at 23 Tons / Axle' into the bid specifications for the 2010 diesel locomotive tender or into the RFP for this tender. The petitioner was present at a  meeting and discussion between Mr Pratyush Kumar and Mr Ashfaq Nainar (both from General Electric) with Mr Shubhranshu from the Railways Ministry that took place in Mr Shubhranshu's office on May 1, 2010 (a Saturday) concerning these   kind of locomotives. This was obviously not an official Railway Ministry meeting. The petitioner recalls Mr Ashfaq Nainar mentioning tonnes per axle and lobbying for some changes to the bid documents (to either the RFQ or the RFP) during this meeting.

12 May 2010

Final version of ELF RFQ issued. 

17 May 2010

Technical Bids submitted for ELF 2010 tender (Bidding Process) under Global RFQ No. 2010/Elect./(Dev.)/440//1(1).

 

Issue of Shell Company

General Electric Company used an Indian subsidiary (GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) as the bidding entity. GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited is a shell company and at the relevant time, this shell company had not engaged in any prior business activities. This shell company was selected as the bidding entity by General Electric Company to avoid having to make mandatory disclosures required under the RFQ read with the Government of India, Department of Disinvestment 'Guidelines for qualification of Bidders seeking to acquire stakes in Public Sector Enterprises through the process of disinvestment' issued vide Office Memorandum No. 6/4/2001DDII dated July 13, 2001.

20 May 2010

Issue of General Electric email to Gmail account of Railway official three days after technical bids submitted for ELF

 

Mr. Ramesh Mathur from GE Transportation (India) sent an email from his General Electric email account (ramesh.mathur@ge.com) to Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari's gmail account (vmt20769@gmail.com) on May 20, 2011 (at 10:46 am) providing additional documentation and information for General Electric's technical bid for the Electric Locomotive Tender three days after the technical bids were submitted and opened in the presence of all Bidders on May 17, 2010. Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari is an Indian Railways officer and his present designation is DEE (Dev.) in the Electrical division of the Railway Board.

18 May 2010

and

22 May 2010

Issue of General Electric's ineligibility for ELF as it does not manufacture electric locomotives, yet ELF Bid Documents tailored to render General Electric eligible. 

 

Petitioner has placed on record two McKinsey documents titled "18052010 Assessing Loco Opportunity v4.ppt" dated May 18, 2010 and "20100522_Working session_V04.ppt" dated May 22, 2010.  These documents are of interest because they also establish that General Electric does not manufacture electric locomotives and does not possess the technology to manufacture electric locomotives.

 

Slide 3 of the document dated May 22, 2010 titled "20100522_Working session_V04.ppt" lists 'Key engineering issues identified during initial round of discussions' between GE and McKinsey. These were listed as:

"Can we hire 100 engineers, including 20-30 domain experts, in 3 months time (plus 4 months before LoA for preparations, e.g., CV short-listing)?

Is BHEL's limited expertise in Liquid cooled IGBT sufficient?

What risk will be posed by the lack of expertise in reliability, vehicle dynamics, system engineering and high voltage circuitry

What risk will be posed by the lack of expertise in E-loco bogey

Can the factory be commissioned in 18-21 months?

What will be the loading cost of higher failure rate (2.04 per fly Vs 1.5)?"

 

These documents establish that General Electric does not manufacture electric locomotives and does not possess the technology, expertise and experience for this purpose.

31 May 2010

Issue of expedited short-listing of Bideders by Railway Ministry for ELF Project in 2010

 

Railway Ministry shortlisted all four applicants for the 2nd (RFP) stage of the Bidding Process for the 2010 ELF tender.

 

The shortlisted bidders were Siemens AG, Alstom Projects India Limited, Bombardier Transportation India Limited, and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited

 

Respondent 4 in its counter affidavit states that official communications were issued to all bidders on May 31, 2010 and that the prequalification was completed on May 31, 2010. The Railway Ministry needs to explain how it completed scrutiny and prequalification of four voluminous bids for a Project worth almost 10 billion USD in just 9 working days.

June 2010

Issue of illegal lobbying by General Electric

 

Towards the end of May 2010 and the first two weeks of June 2010, General Electric engaged a team of McKinsey consultants who were working out of General Electric's office in New Delhi. McKinsey was ostensibly engaged to evaluate the ELF opportunity for General Electric. These McKinsey consultants and General Electric executives had several extensive meetings with Railway Ministry officials during this time. General Electric used these consultants to lobby for changes to the bidding documents for the Diesel and Electric Locomotive Tenders of the Indian Railways. Such contact between a Bidder and its agents with Railway Ministry officials and such lobbying was expressly prohibited under the Diesel and Electric Locomotive tender documents and amounted to a corrupt practice. General Electric executives from GE Transportation in Erie, United States including Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli and Ms. Tara Plimpton as well as Mr. John Flannery,   Respondent No. 9 were aware of these meetings between the McKinsey consultants, General Electric executives and Indian Railways officials. They   were regularly briefed on conference calls by General Electric executives and by the McKinsey team about this lobbying. The Petitioner specifically learnt about the meetings between the McKinsey Consultants, General Electric executives and Railway officials when she was asked to prepare a non-disclosure agreement to be executed between McKinsey and General Electric after the McKinsey team had already completed their assignment.

The petitioner recalls members of the McKinsey team accompanying General Electric executives including Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Mr Ashfaq Nainar and Mr. Ramesh Mathur to the office of the Railway Ministry for meetings on several occasions.

The petitioner has first hand knowledge of these meetings having taken place.

7 June 2010

Issue of internal General Electric emails/ documents evidencing corruption and illegal lobbying

 

Reproduced below is an internal GE email sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar to Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli, Mr. David Tucker, Mr. Brett Begole, Mr. Monish Patolawala, Mr. Joel Berdine, Mr. Russell Stokes, Ms. Tara Plimpton, Mr. Cyrille Petit, Mr John Flannery, Ms Tammy Gromacki, Mr Eric Ducharme, Mr. Karan Bhatia, and Mr. Rich Herold (all from GE) on June 7, 2010. This email was copied to Mr Ashfaq Nainar, Ms Alpna Khera, Mr James Gerson, Mr Steve Seip, Mr Atulya Dubere, Mr Ramesh Mathur, Mr Gaurav Negi, Mr James Winget, Mr Kevin Randall, Mr Puneet Mahajan, Mr Ashish Malhotra, Mr Vageesh Patil (all from GE) and to the petitioner.  This internal General Electric email dated June 7, 2010 sent by Mr Pratyush Kumar has been filed with the petitioner's affidavit dated July 9, 2012. 

 

The subject of the email was "India Update: D-Loco". The email was flagged "High Importance." This email stated as follows:

 

"Current estimate of timelines for D-Loco

·         RFQ due: Jul 12

·         Shortlist: Jul 30 – Aug 9

·         RFP Release: Aug 16-31

·         Price bid: Oct 31 – Nov 15

·         LOA: Dec 15-31

·         Appointed Date: Mar 31, '11 … Clock for deliverables starts then

RFQ Process [Prat/Ash, Jul 12]

·         Pre-Bid held on May 26 … EMD, GE and Phooltas Harsco (a local company from Bihar with no Loco background) attended

·         220 acres of land in possession with 40 pillars for boundary laid out … $4.56MM paid to farmers

·         [As we had anticipated] asked to harmonize with Electric RFQ … final amendments are not yet out … we have the draft

·         So far, keeping Jul 12th submission date

Letter to IR on D-Loco [Prat/Brett/Tara, Jun 15]

Closed item – no 6000HP at 23T/axle

BHEL partnership [Prat/Ash/Brett/Cyrille/, multiple deadlines]

Structure discussed with BHEL [Prat/Brett/Lorenzo]

·         Circle back to them with revised Structure 2 [Prat/Brett, Jun11]

·         Set target price for components supplied from BHEL to GE [Jim Gerson/ Ramesh Mathur, Jun 20]

·         Develop back-to-back terms [Seema Sapra/ Kevin Randall/ Cyrille Petit, Jun 20]

·         Discussion with BHEL with Lorenzo and Dave [June 22]

·         BHEL Board meeting [Last week of June]

·         Negotiations [Prat/Cyrille, Jul-Aug]

RFQ Prep [Ashish Malhotra, India)/Steve Seip, Erie), Jul5]

·         Resolve how to handle CFO certification on networth [Prat/ Monish/ Puneet]

·         Customer certificates …selected few [Steve Seip]

·         Responsiveness requirement [Seema Sapra]

[We will bring BHEL into consortium only after the propulsion % control JV terms are nailed down. But we need to work on consortium agreements now]

·         Joint Bidding agreement with BHEL [Seema Sapra/ James Winget/ Kevin Randall]

·         BHEL RFQ certificates [Seema Sapra / James Winget/ Ashish Malhotra] 

Bharat Forge [Atulya, Sep 15]

·         Identify items they want to quote [Atulya/Ramesh, Jun 15]

·         Get firm quotes with back to back terms [Atulya/ Amol/ Ramesh, Sep 15]

·         Supply agreements with back to back terms [Atulya/ Amol/ Ramesh/ Seema/ Jamie, Oct 1]

Refreshing model / bid [Jim Gerson/ Gaurav Negi/ Monish, Oct 1]

·         EPC quotes for factories and township [Atulya/ Ramesh/ Joel, Jul 15]

·         EHS/ site assessment etc [Atulya/ Ramesh/ Joel, Aug 15]

·         Bengal site assessment for GE or BHEL-GE JV factory [Atulya/ Ramesh/ Joel, Aug 1]

·         Cost validation [Jim Gerson, Aug 15]

·         Discussions with township management vendors [Atulya/ Ramesh/ Joel, Aug 15]

·         Scrub Service model [Alpna/ Gina, sep 15]

·         Run Tollgates [Ashish/ Jim/, various by Oct 15]

Ensure E-Loco concessions get incorporated in D-Loco bid [Prat/ Ash, Sep 15]

Timeline risks

·         EMD asking for more time pending deal closure with Cat

Railway Minister changing"

 

Two items from this email that establishes corrupt dealings between General Electric executives and Railway and Planning Commission officers need to be highlighted.

The first is

"[As we had anticipated] asked to harmonize with Electric RFQ … final amendments are not yet out … we have the draft"

The second is

"Ensure E-Loco concessions get incorporated in D-Loco bid [Prat/ Ash, Sep 15]"

 

General Electric here is talking in internal company emails on 7 June 2010 of concessions obtained from the Railway Ministry in the ELF PCMA, even before the draft RFP for ELF 2010 tender was issued to shortlisted bidders on 11 June 2010.

 

The email talks about getting these ELF concessions incorporated in the DLF Project documents.

 

This email also talks about the internal decision/ discussions of the Railway Ministry to harmonise the DLF RFQ with the ELF RFQ.

8 June 2010

Issue of illegal lobbying by General Electric

 

Towards the end of the McKinsey assignment, Mr. Pratyush Kumar (from General Electric) asked the petitioner on June 8, 2010 to prepare a timeline for events/ tasks to be completed in the Electric locomotive factory RFP. He told her to use the 2008 RFP. The timeline showed certain inconsistencies/ unachievable deadlines. For example the factory would not have been ready in time to meet the first delivery deadlines. Mr. Pratyush Kumar wanted this   timeline urgently for meetings with Railway Ministry officials. Soon after these meetings between General Electric, Railway Ministry officials and McKinsey consultants, the Railway Ministry issued the RFPs for the Dankuni Project and the ELF Madhepura project.

 

The petitioner has personal and first-hand knowledge of these meetings between General Electric executives, McKinsey executives working on an assignment for General Electric ostensibly to assess the ELF opportunity, and Railway Ministry officials.  

Mid June 2010

Issue of illegal lobbying by General Electric and corrupt and prohibited contact with Railway Ministry officials

 

In June 2010, the petitioner was present in the GE AIFACS office on a mid-week holiday working on the Dankuni tender RFP comments. The McKinsey team was also present working on their assignment. Mr. Pratyush Kumar arrived at the General Electric office around the evening (sometime after around 4 pm) that day. Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari (a Railway Ministry official) came to the General Electric office to meet Pratyush Kumar and the   McKinsey team. Mr Anupam Agarwal (the McKinsey engagement manager), Mr Pratyush Kumar and Mr Ved Mani Tiwari all had a meeting n Mr Pratyush Kumar's office cabin. The petitioner is a witness to the fact of this meeting having taken place. The exact date of this visit and meeting can be verified. It was a mid-week government holiday sometime in the first half of June 2010. This was not an official Railway Ministry meeting.

The petitioner has first-hand knowledge of this meeting having taken place.

She was present and saw the meeting taking place through the glass doors of Mr Pratyush Kumar's cabin in the GE AIFACS office. In fact, the Petitioner had been present in Mr Pratyush Kumar's office and was asked by him to leave the office after Mr Pratyush Kumar, Mr Ved Mani Tiwari and Mr Anupam Agarwal (McKinsey) had assembled therein for this meeting.

 

General Electric has not denied and cannot deny that this meeting took place. Mr Pratyush Kumar, Mr Ved Mani Tiwari and Mr Anupam Agarwal were seen by the petitioner closeted together in Mr Pratyush Kumar's cabin for this meeting. The circumstances of this meeting having taken place on a government holiday, with Mr Ved Mani Tiwari coming to General Electric's AIFACS office is clear evidence that this meeting was not above board, was improper and that it took place to facilitate corrupt and illegal lobbying and to unlawfully influence the ELF bid documents and process to enable General Electric to unlawfully influence the DLF bid documents and process. This meeting presents irrefutable and unambiguous evidence of corrupt dealings/ lobbying by General Electric in connection with the ELF and DLF tenders.

 

There can be no other explanation for the fact of this meeting

.

11 June 2010

RFP draft for ELF 2010 tender issued to shortlisted bidders

18 June 2010

By June 18, 2010, Mr. Jeffrey Immelt had decided that General Electric would not bid for the Madhepura electric locomotive factory tender.

28 June 2010

Amendments made to RFQ for DLF and Global RFQ No. 2010/ME/ Proj/4/Marhoura/RFQ –Rev 1. issued for DLF

June- July 2010

Issue of illegal lobbying by General Electric and corrupt and prohibited contact with Railway Ministry officials

 

Pratyush Kumar (General Electric) was lobbying Railway Ministry officials to ensure that the diesel locomotive RFQ was harmonized with the electric locomotive RFQ on the language for the certification required to establish net-worth. [General Electric was apprehensive about being able to obtain a net-worth certificate from the US auditor of General Electric Company in the prescribed format. Eventually though, General Electric did manage to obtain the necessary net-worth certificate. There are several internal GE emails on this issue sent in the last two weeks of June 2010 and first few days of July 2010. In these emails which were also copied to the petitioner (seema.sapra@ge.com) and which she read, Mr Pratyush Kumar has recorded that he was speaking on the phone (from the US) daily with an official in the Railways Ministry to get the RFQ modified so that a net-worth certificate from General Electric's US statutory auditor would not be necessary. These emails were sent to a number of persons in General Electric including to Mr Lorenzo Simonelli, Mr Monish Patolawala, Mr Puneet Mahajan, Mr James Winget, GE's financial controller (a lady called Emily – the petitioner does not recall her full name), Mr Gaurav Negi, Mr Ashfaq Nainar, Mr Ashish Malhotra, and Mr Ramesh Mathur. The reason for the difficulty was that the amended definition of net-worth in the 2010 Marhowra RFQ was different from the definition of net-worth that General Electric's statutory auditor used in the US. Therefore General Electric executives were worried that their US auditors (KPMG) might not be willing or able to provide a certificate that met the requirements of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ. Eventually, General Electric did manage to obtain the necessary certificate, so the complaint is not that General Electric did not submit this document. The petitioner points out that internal GE emails record that before General Electric managed to obtain the certificate, Mr Pratyush Kumar's stated on internal General Electric email that he was in daily telephonic contact from the US with some official(s) in the Railway Ministry to try and get the RFQ language amended to suit General Electric.]  The complaint is once again of illegal and prohibited lobbying and the use of corrupt and undesirable practices by General Electric. 

 

6 July 2010

Issue of internal General Electric emails/ documents evidencing corruption and illegal lobbying

 

Reproduced below is another internal GE email sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar on July 6, 2010 to Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli, Mr. David Tucker, Mr Karan Bhatia, Mr Ashfaq Nainar, Mr Brett BeGole, Mr Richard Herold, Mr Monish Patolawala anf Mr James Gerson (all from GE). This email was forwarded by Mr James Gerson on July 8, 2010 to Ms Tara Plimpton, Mr James Winget, Mr Kevin Randall (all from GE) and to the petitioner. This internal General Electric email sent by Mr Pratyush Kumar on July 6, 2010 has been filed by the petitioner with her affidavit dated July 9, 2012.  The subject of this email was "India Update". This email was an updated version of the "India Update" contained in the email sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar on June 7, 2010. This email sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar on July 6, 2010 stated as follows:

 

 

"Current estimate of timelines for D-Loco

·         RFQ due: Jul 12 … On track

·         Shortlist: Jul 30 – Aug 9 … Pushing for before Jul 30

·         RFP Release: Aug 16-31 … Pushing for before Jul 30

·         Price bid: Oct 31 – Nov 15 … Pushing for before Oct 30

·         LOA: Dec 15-31

·         Appointed Date: Mar 31, '11 … Clock for deliverables starts then

RFQ Process [Prat/Ash, Jul 12]

·         Pre-Bid held on May 26 … EMD, GE and Phooltas Harsco (a local company from Bihar with no Loco background) attended

·         220 acres of land in possession with 40 pillars for boundary laid out … $4.56MM paid to farmers

·         [As we had anticipated] asked to harmonize with Electric RFQ … final amendments are not yet out … we have the draft

·         So far, keeping Jul 12th submission date

·         CSR making rounds … unclear if they will bid

Letter to IR on D-Loco [Prat/Brett/Tara, Jun 15] … act after RFQ Submission only if CSR bids

Closed item – no 6000HP at 23T/axle … 2X6000HP Permanently Coupled Co-Co units at 23 Tons / Axle … idea late in the game, unlikely but we are exploring

BHEL partnership [Prat/Ash/Brett/Cyrille/, multiple deadlines]

·         Structure discussed with BHEL [Prat/Brett/Lorenzo] … Done

·         Circle back to them with revised Structure 2 [Prat/Brett, Jun11] … Done

Need Help on the following items which has NOT progressed … must close ASAP to bring BHEL into consortium

·         Set target price for components supplied from BHEL to GE [Jim Gerson/ Ramesh Mathur, Jun 20]

·         Develop back-to-back terms [Seema Sapra/ Kevin Randall/ Cyrille Petit, Jun 20]

·         Discussion with BHEL with Lorenzo and Dave [June 22]

·         BHEL Board meeting [Last week of June]

·         Negotiations [Prat/Cyrille, Jul-Aug]

RFQ Prep [Ashish Malhotra, India)/Steve Seip, Erie), Jul5]

·         Resolve how to handle CFO certification on networth [Prat/ Monish/ Puneet] … Done

·         Customer certificates …selected few [Steve Seip] … Done

·         Responsiveness requirement [Seema Sapra]

[We will bring BHEL into consortium only after the propulsion % control JV terms are nailed down. But we need to work on consortium agreements now] … Done

·         Joint Bidding agreement with BHEL [Seema Sapra/ James Winget/ Kevin Randall] … Will need for consortium agreement BEFORE RFP

·         BHEL RFQ certificates [Seema Sapra / James Winget/ Ashish Malhotra]  … Will need for consortium agreement BEFORE RFP

Bharat Forge [Atulya, Sep 15]

·         Identify items they want to quote [Atulya/Ramesh, Jun 15] … Done

·         Get firm quotes with back to back terms [Atulya/ Amol/ Ramesh, Sep 15]

·         Supply agreements with back to back terms [Atulya/ Amol/ Ramesh/ Seema/ Jamie, Oct 1]

Refreshing model / bid [Jim Gerson/ Gaurav Negi/ Monish, Oct 1] … Need full team Kickoff [Jim]

·         EPC quotes for factories and township [Atulya/ Ramesh/ Joel, Jul 15]

·         EHS/ site assessment etc [Atulya/ Ramesh/ Joel, Aug 15]

·         Bengal site assessment for GE or BHEL-GE JV factory [Atulya/ Ramesh/ Joel, Aug 1]

·         Cost validation [Jim Gerson, Aug 15]

·         Discussions with township management vendors [Atulya/ Ramesh/ Joel, Aug 15]

·         Scrub Service model [Alpna/ Gina, Sep 15]

·         Run Tollgates [Ashish/ Jim/, various by Oct 15]

Ensure E-Loco concessions get incorporated in D-Loco bid [Prat/ Ash, Sep 15]

Timeline risks

·         EMD asking for more time pending deal closure with Cat … EMD told IR that they expect it to close by End of Sep

·         Railway Minister changing"

 

The statements in this email that corroborate the Petitiner's complaints against General Electric interalia are:

 

·         Shortlist: Jul 30 – Aug 9 … Pushing for before Jul 30

·         RFP Release: Aug 16-31 … Pushing for before Jul 30

·         Price bid: Oct 31 – Nov 15 … Pushing for before Oct 30

General Electric was lobbying for an expedited bid-process to prevent EMD from being able to submit a bid.

 

·          CSR making rounds … unclear if they will bid

Letter to IR on D-Loco [Prat/Brett/Tara, Jun 15] … act after RFQ Submission only if CSR bids

General Electric intended to use the tailored IPR clauses in the 2010 DLF RFQ to prevent the Chinese competitor (CSR) from participating in the tender.

 

Closed item – no 6000HP at 23T/axle … 2X6000HP Permanently Coupled Co-Co units at 23 Tons / Axle … idea late in the game, unlikely but we are exploring

General Electric was lobbying to introduce these changes aimed at keeping other competitors out of the Bidding Process.

 

Ensure E-Loco concessions get incorporated in D-Loco bid [Prat/ Ash, Sep 15]

Having managed with the help of pliable and corrupt officials from the Planning Commission and the Railway Ministry's Electrical Engineering Directorate to have favourable terms included in the ELF PCMA (approved by the Cabinet in 2009) even before it was released to the Bidders, General Electric's ultimate goal was to get these concessions incorporated into the DLF PCMA.

 

Timeline risks

·         EMD asking for more time pending deal closure with Cat … EMD told IR that they expect it to close by End of Sep

General Electric was lobbying for an expedited bid process to prevent a bid from EMD. Having earlier already successfully lobbied for Cabinet approval for a single bidder provision, General Electric was trying to engineer a situation where it would be the sole bidder.

 

Timeline risks

...

·         Railway Minister changing"

The court should direct Mr Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric Company to explain on affidavit why a change of the Cabinet Railway Minister was a "risk" to General Electric's bid.

9 July 2010

Pre-bid meeting held for ELF

12 July 2010

Technical Bids submitted by General Electric and by EMD for the DLF 2010 tender (Bidding Process). 

 

Issue of shell company

 

General Electric Company used an Indian subsidiary (GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) as the Bidding entity. GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited is a shell company which until 12 July 2010 had not carried on any prior business activity. This shell company was selected as the Bidding entity by General Electric Company to avoid having to make mandatory disclosures required under the RFQ read with the Government of India, Department of Disinvestment 'Guidelines for qualification of Bidders seeking to acquire stakes in Public Sector Enterprises through the process of   disinvestment' issued vide Office Memorandum No. 6/4/2001DDII dated July 13, 2001.

 

Even the registered office of this shell company, GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited, as disclosed in the two applications for prequalification submitted by this shell company for ELF and DLF on 17 May 2010 and on 12 July 2010 respectively, was "care of" the registered office of another company. This shell company did not even have its own separate office.

 

12 July 2010

Issue of tampered/ forged customer certificate

 

General Electric's technical bid for the 2010 Marhowra tender submitted on July 12, 2010 is also tainted because a forged/ tampered document has been submitted to the Government of India with this bid. General Electric employees illegally and without authorization "forward-dated" an undated customer certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railways and submitted this tampered/ forged document to the Indian Railways on July 12, 2010 as part of Respondent 7's  request for prequalification for the multi-billion dollar Diesel Locomotives Tender.

12 July 2010

Issue of internal General Electric emails/ documents evidencing corruption and illegal lobbying

 

The petitioner has produced before this court a copy of an email sent by Mr.   Pratyush Kumar on July 12, 2010 to James Gerson, Steve Seip, Kamal Shivpuri, Joanne Kleinhanz, Gina Trombley, Robert Parisi, Ashfaq Nainar, Ramesh Mathur, Kevin Randall, James Winget, Randy Biletnikoff, Christopher Morgen, Michael Lafferty, Paul Zeigler, Alan Hamilton, Vageesh Patil, Deepak Adlakha, Puneet Mahajan, Alpna Khera, Atulya Dubere, Amol Nagar, Praveena Yagnambhat, Ed Hall, Gaurav Negi, Ashish Malhotra, Himali Arora (all from GE) and to the petitioner. This email was copied to Lorenzo Simonelli, David Tucker, Brett BeGole, Russell Stokes, Monish Patolawala, Joel Berdine, Tara Plimpton, Eric Ducharme, John Flannery, Tammy Gromacki, Alexander Artman, Karan Bhatia and Richard Herold (all from GE). 

 

The subject of this email was "Draft Workplan for D-Loco India Bid" and it   contained an attachment "India D-Loco Update 12 Jul 10 V2.ppt". The attachment to this email was drafted by a group of GE executives sitting in Mr. Pratyush Kumar's office cabin on July 12, 2010 after lunch-time. This group led by Mr. Pratyush Kumar also comprised of Mr. Ramesh Mathur, Ms. Alpna Khera, Mr. Gaurav Negi, and Mr. Ashish Malhotra. The email was thereafter sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar at 6:05 pm.

 

This email states the following:

"Team, we have pulled together a draft workplan for D-Loco bid … with estimated dates and names (which are our best guesses and will require your input). We will set up a kickoff call with the core team (Pitchers – Catchers for each activity). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Prat"

 

The attachment to this email "India D-Loco Update 12 Jul 10 V2.ppt" is a six page power-point document. This email and the attached file are already before the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 on pages 222-228 as part of Annexure P-7 to the writ petition.

 

The first page of the attachment is a title page which states:

 "GE Transportation

India Diesel Locomotive

12 Jul 2010"

 

The second page contains a flowchart that is titled "D-loco Process Forward" with the words "Expected timeline" under it. This flowchart has nine boxes depicting nine milestones in the tender process. This flowchart depicts how Mr. Pratyush Kumar (GE) expected the diesel locomotive tender process would unfold. It depicts key milestones and underneath each milestone are bullet points that highlight key achievements or key targets for GE. These bullet points also point out the factors/agents that have had an impact on the outcome or were expected to impact the outcome.

 

The first box is for February 18, 2010 and it states "Cabinet approves reversal to JV". Under this box are two bullet points. The first reads "Single Bidder provision intact". The second reads "Electorate directorate played key role".

 

The second box is for March 23, 2010 and it states "issue new RFQ". Under this box are two bullet points. The first reads "No focal point in mechanical:   Missing Shakeel". The second reads: "Use momentum of E-loco to push".

 

The third box is for May 12, 2010. This date is struck out and replaced by July 12, 2010. This box states "RFQ submission". Under this box are two bullet points. The first reads "EMD requested delay". The second reads "Only 2 Bidders – EMD and GE". The first three boxes are shaded as they depict completed events as on the date of the email, i.e., July 12, 2010.

 

The fourth box is for July 30, 2010 and it states "Announce qualified bidders". Under this box is a single bullet point that reads: "Align RFP with E-Loco."

 

The fifth box is for August 9, 2010 and it states "Issue RFP'. Under this box are two bullet points. The first reads "Some positive changes". The second bullet point reads "E-Loco changes must flow through".

 

The sixth box is for September 14, 2010 and it states: "Pre-Bid meeting(s)".   Under this box is a single bullet point that reads "Ensure spec / bid changes".

 

The seventh box is for November 1, 2010 and it states "RFP Submission". Under this box are two bullet points. The first reads "EMD expected to bid". The second reads "Tender & Appreciation committees will decide preferred bidder".

 

The eight box is for December 30, 2010. It states "Issue LOA". Under this box are two bullet points. The first reads "Rail Minister – approval required". The second reads "May require cabinet blessing".

 

The ninth and last box on this page is for March 31, 2011. It states "Appointed Date". Under this box is a single bullet point that reads "Contract clock starts".

 

The first box in the flowchart titled "D-loco Process Forward" conveys that General Electric was pleased that the single bidder provision remained intact in the February 18, 2010 Cabinet decision. General Electric had lobbied for the tender to be awarded even if there was a single bid. At the same time, General Electric was lobbying for an expedited bid process and for the bid process to be completed before Caterpillar's acquisition of EMD closed. EMD would not have been in a position to bid until its acquisition by Caterpillar was complete. General Electric was therefore lobbying for and expedited bid so that EMD not be in a position to bid, with the result that the Railway Ministry would have accepted General Electric's bid even as a single bidder.

 

Even though this flow-chart concerns the diesel locomotive factory tender, this chart notes that the Electric directorate of the Railway Board played a key role in this Cabinet decision to allow a single bid tender. [It is also pointed out that by June 18, 2010, Mr. Jeffrey Immelt had decided that General Electric would not bid for the Madhepura electric locomotive factory tender.]

 

Issue of corrupt dealings between General Electric and Mr Shakeel Ahmed, a Railway official

 The second milestone on this flow-chart is the issuance of the diesel locomotive RFQ (Request for Qualification). The first bullet point states "No focal point in mechanical: Missing Shakeel". The language used here suggests a contrast with the situation in the electric directorate. This language conveys that Mr Pratyush Kumar (General Electric) had no "focal point" in the "mechanical" directorate of the Railway Board. It also conveys that Mr Pratyush Kumar (General Electric) did have a focal point in the Electric Directorate. In the Mechanical Directorate, however, General Electric was "missing" Shakeel Ahmed. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed was a Railway   Ministry official in the Mechanical directorate in 2008-2009, when GE had bid for the diesel locomotive factory project. The language used by Mr. Pratyush Kumar conveys that Mr. Shakeel Ahmed had been General Electric's "focal point" in the mechanical directorate in 2008-2009. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed was 'missing' in 2010 as he had retired. The reference to "focal point" by Mr. Pratyush Kumar is a reference to a pliable and corrupt Railway Official who could be relied upon to favour General Electric and to help deliver the outcomes that General Electric wanted. Just to be clear, the reference to "focal point" is not a reference to the Railway Ministry official designated to accept the tenders and to communicate with the bidders. [The relevant officer named in the 2010 diesel locomotive factory RFQ for this purpose was Mr. Santosh Sinha, Director, (Mech Engg)/Works, Ministry of Railways. See Clause 2.13.3 of the 2010 diesel locomotive factory RFQ.] Mr. Pratyush Kumar confirms in this document that General Electric was "missing" Shakeel Ahmed who General Electric had earlier relied upon for support and help in the Mechanical directorate of the Railway Board. Mr. Pratyush Kumar's email dated 12 July 2010 confirms that in 2008-2009, during the earlier tender for the same project, General Electric had access to, was in contact with, and obtained help from Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, a Railway Ministry official in the Mechanical directorate.

GE employees corruptly obtained advice and assistance from a Railways Ministry official/ advisor Mr. Shakeel Ahmed during GE's diesel locomotive bid in 2008-2009.

[The petitioner has independent and personal knowledge of General Electric's corrupt dealings with Mr Shakeel Ahmed during the 2008-2009 DLF tender. In June 2010, the petitioner was informed of such corrupt dealings by a US based executive (Mr Steve Seip) and a US based lawyer (Mr James Winget) for General Electric. The petitioner, then working as in-house counsel for General Electric, was on a phone-call with Steve Seip and James (Jamie) Winget (both from General Electric) towards the end of June 2010. This phone-call was to discuss certain changes that the petitioner had suggested to the technical prequalification application documents for the diesel locomotive RFQ that was being prepared. Steve Seip opposed the petitioner's changes and his only reason was that the documents prepared by him were based upon the precedent of the documents that had been submitted by General Electric for its RFQ application for the DLF tender in 2008. The petitioner in her capacity as Legal Counsel for GE Transportation in India disagreed with the draft documents prepared by Steve Seip and supported her recommendations for modifications to these documents upon her interpretation of the RFQ guidelines. After some discussion on this phone-call, the petitioner was able to convince James Winget about her suggestions and it was agreed that the petitioner's suggestions would be incorporated in the technical bid application to be submitted by General Electric. 

Steve Seip from General Electric then told the petitioner and James Winget on this phone call that the DLF RFQ application that was submitted by General Electric to the Railway Ministry in 2008 had been vetted by Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, a senior official in the Railway Ministry. Mr Steve Seip described the procedure followed for this vetting in detail. He stated that each document contained in GE's 2008 DLF RFQ application was after drafting, first sent to Mr. Shakeel Ahmed in the Railway Ministry for his approval and was included in General Electric's RFQ application only after such approval. This RFQ application vetted by Mr Shakeel Ahmed from the Railway Ministry was then submitted by GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited to the Railway Ministry.  

This kind of consultation with and assistance from Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, a Railway Ministry official, who was directly involved in the tender process for the Railway Ministry was a corrupt and undesirable practice under the RFQ and rendered GE for disqualification and blacklisting.

An investigation into these charges will recover documentary evidence from General Electric confirming that a Railway Ministry official, Mr Shakeel Ahmed vetted General Electric's RFQ application for the DLF Project before it was submitted to the Railway Ministry in 2008. A detailed investigation and the examination of General Electric executives and lawyers (including Mr Steve Seip and Mr James Winget) by investigating authorities will provide additional details and evidence of these corrupt dealings and will also provide evidence of bribes paid by General Electric to Mr Shakeel Ahmed in lieu of his help and evidence of how these bribes were paid.

GE's corrupt access to and use of Mr. Shakeel Ahmed in 2008-2009 is also recorded in the above internal General Electric email dated July 12, 2010 sent by Pratyush Kumar to a number of persons including to the Petitioner.

The statement "No focal point in mechanical: Missing Shakeel" in the above internal General Electric document establishes and is a written admission by General Electric that in 2008-2009, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, an official in the Railway Ministry was assisting General Electric in its bid for the DLF Marhowra Project. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed was at that time a high-ranking public official in the Railways Ministry and he was an adviser for the public private partnership projects, which included the Marhowra and Madhepura locomotive factory tenders. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed's dealings with General Electric and the assistance he rendered to General Electric (including his having vetted General Electric's bid documents in 2008-2009 as confirmed to the petitioner by Mr Steve Seip and Mr James Winget from General Electric) in its bid to secure the multi-billion dollar diesel locomotive factory tender amount to corrupt practices.

 

Mr. Shakeel Ahmed's LinkedIn profile shows that from 2006 till October 2009, he was Executive Director/ Public Private Partnership & Adviser (Projects) for the Indian Railways. His LinkedIn profile describes his job as follows:

"Innovative business models for setting up large Railway Production Units in JV on the basis of Procurement-cum-maintenance Contract developed from scratch.
• Innovative business model for setting up production units on the basis of long term procurement contract developed.
• Preparation of complex two stage bid documents and a host of agreements requiring knowledge of procurement, finance, legal and regulatory issues, taxation, company law provisions, transfer of technology, domain knowledge of manufacturing/maintenance etc.
• Preparation of complex bid documents for appointment of reputed consultants on quality-cum-cost criteria done and consultants appointed."

 

After his retirement from the Indian Railways, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed has been working as Chairman cum Managing Director of Hindustan Copper Limited since October 2009. Mr Shakeel Ahmed is being investigated by the CBI for corruption during his tenure at Hindustan Copper.]

 

Mr. Pratyush Kumar's flowchart also confirms that General Electric had corrupt contact with and access to Railway Ministry officials in the electric directorate during 2010. These corrupt railway officials were helping General Electric in various ways including by modifying the bid process and bid documents to suit and benefit General Electric.

 

The next bullet point in the second box of the flowchart confirms that General Electric had access to pliable Railway Ministry officials in the Electric directorate. It reads "Use momentum of E-loco to push". It conveys that not only was General Electric assured of momentum by pliant railway officials in the electrical engineering directorate regarding the 2010 Madhepura tender, but that General Electric planned to use the momentum of the ELF tender to speed-up the tender process for the DLF tender and to lobby for changes to the bid documents for the diesel locomotive factory (DLF)  tender. It conveys that General Electric was satisfied with and assured of adequate momentum in the electric locomotive tender because of its influence and corrupt links with officials in the electrical engineering directorate of the Railway Ministry.

 

The fourth milestone in the flowchart is the announcement of the qualified bidders. The bullet point under the fourth box states "Align RFP with E-Loco". Once again this provides evidence and an admission by General Electric that it was lobbying for the yet to be issued RFP (PCMA) for the DLF Project to be aligned with the RFP for the ELF Project because General Electric had managed to introduce favourable changes ("concessions")  in the ELF RFP with the help of pliable and corrupt Railway Ministry officials in the electrical engineering directorate and with the help of Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr. Gajendra Haldea from the Planning Commission.

 

The fifth milestone in the flowchart is the issuance of the diesel locomotive RFP. The first bullet point here reads "Some positive changes". In his email,   Mr. Pratyush Kumar refers to some changes to the diesel locomotive RFP which were "positive" for General Electric. On the date of this email (12 July 2010), General Electric had in its possession the 2008-2009 cabinet-approved RFP for the DLF Project. The 2010 RFP for the DLF Project had not yet been released on July 12, 2010. (The DLF RFP was only released on 11 October 2010.) How did Mr. Pratyush Kumar from General Electric know on July 12, 2010 that there were some positive changes in the yet to be released DLF RFP? From February 2009 till July 2010, General Electric had had no official interaction with the Railway Ministry, or with the Planning Commission on the question of the new DLF RFP that was still to be issued. So how did Mr Pratyush Kumar (General Electric) know the contents of the 2010 DLF RFP on 12 July 2010 three months before the RFP was released? This once again confirms that General Electric had advance access to and advance knowledge of the internal workings of the Railway Ministry and unlawful access to internal government documentation on the DLF and ELF tenders and to internal confidential government deliberation and decision-making on the Bid Process for these tenders much before such information/ documentation was publicly released. General Electric could not have "officially" or lawfully known on July 12, 2010 the contents of the still to be issued DLF RFP.  

 

This court should direct a senior officer of General Electric Company to state on affidavit how General Electric was aware of "positive changes" in the DLF RFQ on 12 July 2010 when this RFQ was not released until 11 October 2010.

 

The second bullet point of the fifth milestone in the flowchart is even more revealing. It reads ""E-Loco changes must flow through". General Electric's   internal documents confirm that General Electric wanted the "concessions" introduced at its behest into the 2010 ELF RFP to be incorporated into the 2010 DLF RFP. The changes introduced into the 2010 ELF RFP benefited General Electric and it wanted these "concessions" to be incorporated into the 2010 DLF RFP. These internal General Electric documents also establish that General Electric was using its participation in the 2010 ELF tender to lobby for and influence changes to the bid documents for the DLF factory tender and to influence the DLF tender bid process.  

 

The sixth milestone in the flow chart is the pre-bid meetings. Under this box, Mr. Pratyush Kumar notes that General Electric must "Ensure spec / bid changes". Once again this confirms that General Electric wanted further changes to the product specification and the bid documents in the yet to be issued DLF RFP. The use of the verb 'ensure' suggests that GE was confident of achieving this. This bullet point must be read along with the statement under the fifth box. i.e., "E-Loco changes must flow through".

 

This flow-chart shows that General Electric had "managed" to influence the drafting of the 2010 RFP for the ELF tender and the PCMA contract terms in this document were modified to introduce "concessions" to General Electric. General Electric in its own internal documents records its intent to ensure that these "concessions" introduced into the 2010 ELF RFP be also incorporated into the DLF RFP. This is clear from the internal General Electric flowchart, which contains incriminating statements like "Use momentum of E-loco to push"; 'Align RFP with E-Loco"; "E-Loco changes must flow through"; and "Ensure spec / bid changes". Also confirmed from this flow-chart is the corrupt access that General Electric enjoyed in 2010 to pliable officials in the Railways electrical engineering directorate.  It appears from internal General Electric documents that General Electric did not enjoy similar access to officials in the Railways mechanical engineering directorate, which was managing the DLF Project. The Railway Board has a number of directorates. The tender for the proposed diesel locomotive factory is being managed by the mechanical engineering directorate. The tender for the proposed electric locomotive factory is being managed by the electrical engineering directorate.

 

The third page of the power-point file attached to Mr. Pratyush Kumar's email dated July 12, 2010 contains a timeline titled "D-Loco Bid Critical Path". This contains external and internal targets for GE.

 

Pages 4, 5 and 6 of the document attached to Mr. Pratyush Kumar's email contain a chart titled "Work-plan". This chart has five columns: (i) Key work streams; (ii) Activities; (iii) Pitcher/India – Catcher/ Erie; (iv) Team; (v) Timing and (vi) Deliverable. This chart has thirteen rows under the column headings setting out thirteen 'Key work streams'. These are: (i) RFP Documentation; (ii) Tollgates/ Exec Reviews; (iii) Site development; (iv) Facilities development; (v) Product; (vi) Service; (vii) Sourcing; (viii) Financial modelling / Tax Optimization; (ix) Commercial discussions – customer; (x) BHEL partnership; (xi) Bharat Forge partnership; (xii) Competitive analysis; and (xiii) External stakeholder engagement.

 

The entries for the ninth work stream "Commercial discussions – customer" read as follows:

Key work streams

Activities

Pitcher – Catcher

India -Erie

Team

Timing

Deliverable

Commercial discussions – customer

RFP terms

 

Pre-Bid

Ash Nainar – James Gerson

Ash Nainar

Prat Kumar

Dave Tucker

Brett Begole

Russell Stokes

Ongoing …

conclude RFP by Sep 15

E-Loco terms for D-Loco

 

 

 

The entries for the thirteenth work stream "External stakeholder engagement" read as follows:

 

Key work streams

Activities

Pitcher – Catcher

India -Erie

Team

Timing

Deliverable

External stakeholder engagement

Keep the momentum for the bid

Manage environment

Prat Kumar/ John Flannery – Lorenzo Simonelli

John Flannery

Prat Kumar

Ash Nainar

Lorenzo Simonelli

Dave Tucker

Karan Bhatia

Rich Herold

On-going

 

 

The date of Mr. Pratyush Kumar's email is July 12, 2010. On that date, GE had submitted the RFQ for the diesel locomotive factory tender. The RFP for this tender was not issued until 11 October 2010. On 12 July 2010, General Electric was not even a short-listed bidder for the DLF tender. General Electric submitted its application for pre-qualification for this tender only on 12 July 2010. Yet on 12 July 2010, internal General Electric communications record that commercial discussions with the Government of India had been ongoing on the RFP/ PCMA terms even at the Pre-Bid stage and the goal/ deliverable was to have the ELF PCMA concessions incorporated into the DLF PCMA and that the DLF RFP/ PCMA would be concluded by September 15, 2010. These statements in internal General Electric documentation are a clear admission of corrupt activities, illegal lobbying and of corrupt influence on the Bid Process and the Bid documents.

The court should direct a senior officer of General Electric Company to explain on affidavit the statement in this internal General Electric document that the RFP would be concluded by September 15, 2010. Was the decision of the Railway Ministry to conclude the RFP being taken at the behest of and instructions from General Electric? 

On July 12, 2010, Mr. Pratyush Kumar committed to the deliverable "E-Loco terms for D-Loco", i.e., GE wanted the concessions from the ELF RFP to be incorporated into the DLF RFP. Mr. Pratyush Kumar also stated that discussions with the Railway Ministry on this "deliverable' were 'on-going' and that he expected the RFP to be concluded/ finalised by September 15, 2010. Discussions between the Railway Ministry and the bidders on the DLF RFP terms would formally commence only after the bidders were short-listed/ pre-qualified and after the RFP was issued The RFP was not issued until 11 October 2010. Yet Mr. Pratyush Kumar stated on July 12, 2010 that these discussions were ongoing. These written statements in an internal General Electric document establish that General Electric was in corrupt contact with Indian government officials and was engaged in prohibited lobbying for this tender.

 

The prescribed two-stage tender process is that bidders are first prequalified on prescribed technical and financial criteria. The RFP is thereafter issued to qualified bidders. Subsequent to this, pre-bid conferences are held by the tendering Authority (in this case the Railways Ministry) where all prequalified bidders who have purchased the RFP are invited. Commercial discussions do take place at this stage between the bidders and the tendering Authority, but these discussions take place through a formal and transparent process where all bidders are present and are notified. During these pre-bid conferences, short-listed bidders can ask for clarifications, make suggestions, and raise objections orally or in writing. These interventions by the short-listed bidders are then discussed openly in the presence of the representatives of all short-listed bidders. Written communications received from any single short-listed bidder are formally shared by the Authority with all other short-listed bidders. Any clarifications issued by the tendering Authority and/ or any modifications made to the RFP terms consequent to suggestions received are also formally communicated in writing simultaneously to all short-listed bidders.

 

Given the above formalised process, Mr. Pratyush Kumar's statement in an internal GE document sent to several GE executives and officers on July 12, 2010 that commercial discussions between General Electric and the Railway Ministry on the DLF RFP terms were ongoing with the objective of concluding the DLF RFP by September 15, 2010 and that he along with other GE executives (Ash Nainar, James Gerson, Dave Tucker, Brett Begole and Russell Stokes) would deliver "E-Loco terms for D-Loco", unambiguously and irrefutably establishes that General Electric executives were in corrupt contact with and were engaged in prohibited lobbying of Railway Ministry and Planning Commission officials.

 

This constitutes an admission by General Electric of corrupt dealings and contact with Railway Ministry and Planning Commission officials in connection with the tenders for the DLF Project. 

1 October 2010

Railway Ministry issued letters to GE Global Sourcing India Limited and to EMD Locomotive Technologies short-listing them for the 2nd (RFP) stage of the Bidding Process for the 2010 DLF tender

6 October 2010

Pre-bid meeting held for ELF. 

8 October 2010

RFP issued for ELF 2010 tender to short-listed bidders

 

(According to the Railway affidavit filed on 14 January 2013 in response to CM 19501/2012, the Empowered Committee of Secretaries met for ELF on 17 May 2010, 31 May 2010, 10 June 2010, 26 July 2010, and 30 September 2010 to consider and approve changes to the Bid documents and PCMA for ELF).

 

Changes were made to the Cabinet- approved ELF PCMA by the Empowered Committee of Secretaries as a result of these meetings. These changes have been described in internal General Electric documents reproduced herein as "concessions".

 

The meetings of the Empowered Committee of Secretaries on 17 May 2010, 31 May 2010, and 10 June 2010 to discuss the ELF PCMA correspond to the period when General Electric executives organised meetings between Railway Ministry officials and McKinsey executives who were evaluating the ELF tender for General Electric.

 

The first pre-bid meeting for ELF was on 9 July 2013. At whose behest then did the Empowered Committee of Secretaries introduce changes into the PCMA before this date and at whose behest did the Empowered Committee of Secretaries meet for the ELF on17 May 2012, 31 May 2012, and on 10 June 2010?

 

It is submitted that the Railway Ministry should be directed to produce the following documents on record in these writ proceedings:

1.      The ELF PCMA approved by the Cabinet in 2009

2.      The draft ELF PCMA/ RFP issued on 11 June 2010

3.      The ELF PCMA/ RFP issued on 8 October 2010

 

Dates for submission of financial bids for ELF repeatedly postponed.

11 October 2010

RFP issued for DLF 2010 tender to short-listed bidders

 

Dates for submission of financial bids for DLF repeatedly postponed.

6 Nov 2010

Issue of illegal lobbying by General Electric

 

A November 6, 2010 Bloomberg news story quotes General Electric Chairman Mr Jeffrey Immelt (respondent 8 herein) as having stated:

 

"We've been hoping to bid on the modernization of the rail sector for 10 years," Immelt said, speaking a day after the country's festival of lights. "If we ever do get a chance to bid on locomotives in India, this will be my Diwali, even if we don't win."

 

Mr Jeffrey Immelt made this statement in a public event during US President Barrack Obama's visit to India in November 2010.

 

This statement by Mr Jeffrey Immelt, again confirms as does Mr John Rice's statement to General Electric investors in 2009, that General Electric had been lobbying for the DLF Project for 10 years and that the Project was specially conceived and created (with Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia's help) only to benefit General Electric.

 

This statement by Mr Jeffrey Immelt and Mr John Rice's statement dated 10 February 2009 constitute public "admissions" (these even amount to public boasts) by General Electric executives at the highest level that the DLF Project of the Indian government has been created at General Electric's behest and for its benefit.

19 January 2011

Pre-bid meeting held for ELF.

14 Mar 2011

Issue of illegal lobbying by General Electric

 

In March 2011, Mr Jeffrey Immelt again visited India and on 14 March, 2011, a Wall Street Journal article quoted Mr. Immelt as having stated in a public event held in India:

"We have invested for a long period of time for the opportunity to successfully bid on a competitive basis to modernize the railways of India –  it is extremely important to us that that investment gets made," Mr. Immelt said. "To not even have a chance to bid is frustrating."

He said, in what appeared to be only a half-joke, that if the company doesn't get the chance to bid for the contract while he is still at the helm, "my own self-worth would be diminished immensely."

Just in case anyone in the audience didn't get the point, he added: "I would like that on the record."

 

The petitioner submits that the above statement by Mr Jeffrey Immelt made after the petitioner had sent formal complaints against General Electric in connection with the DLF and ELF tenders to the Railway Ministry, looks like a threat from General Electric to the Government of India that 'it should proceed with the bid process or else'. Mr Jeffrey Immelt's statements made in India during high-profile visits and in public events covered widely in the international and national press in November 2010 and in March 2011 were not only inappropriate but amounted to lobbying and to pressurising the Government of India to submit to General Electric's demands concerning the diesel locomotive factory Project. Mr Jeffrey Immelt ought to have displayed better judgment before threatening the Government of India. A multi-billion dollar tender that would in effect transfer public funds from the Indian exchequer to a foreign private party and would also transfer the entire Indian assured market for diesel locomotives to a foreign private party is certainly not to be demanded from the Indian government or to be awarded to General Electric by the Indian government in response to threats delivered at public events by General Electric's Chairman and CEO. An insinuation that General Electric would get "annoyed" if the Government of India did not proceed as demanded is certainly a threat to the Indian government. Other press reports from this time contained other threats that General Electric would withdraw from India and statements by General Electric executives criticising Indian government decision-making and so-called policy paralysis and suggesting that this would impact investment in India negatively. General Electric's public announcement at this time that it would invest in a factory in India and its eventual investment in Maharashtra is nothing but a carrot offered to the Indian government to cover up the complaints of corruption against General Electric and to hand over the DLF contract to General Electric.

 

The petitioner submits that Mr Jeffrey Immelt would never make a similar statement with respect to a government contract either in his own native country, the United States, or elsewhere in the developed world. Mr Jeffrey Immelt was openly condescending and disrespectful to the Government of India and about government processes in this country precisely because he believes and knows that public officials and public contracts here can be purchased through bribes.

30 May 2011

Issue of non-investigation by CVC of complaint of forged customer certificate

 

Respondent No. 2 (the CVC) registered a complaint bearing No. 107/11.1 acting on the Petitioner's email dated January 11, 2011 reporting the submission of a forged customer certificate by General Electric with its technical bid for the DLF RFQ on 12 July 2010. A copy of the letter dated May 30, 2011 received by the Petitioner from Respondent No. 2 is attached to the writ petition as Annexure P-5.

The letter dated May 30, 2011 sent to the petitioner by the CVC referred to the petitioner's email letter dated January 11, 2011 and stated that this email   complaint had been registered as complaint no. 107/11/1 and had been forwarded to Mr A K Maitra, Advisor (Vig), Railway Board for investigation and submission of a report. The email complaint sent by the Petitioner on January 11, 2011 stated that the Kazakhstan Railways customer certificate submitted by GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited for the Marhowra RFQ on July 12, 2010 was a tampered and forged document. 

29 February 2012

Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 and CM 2770/ 2012 seeking stay of the 2010 ELF and DLF tenders filed.

 

The prayers in this writ petition are:

"

  1. Summon the records of Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 on the 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)).

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. Direct that Respondent No. 2 inquire into the commission of criminal offences (including forgery, bribery and public corruption) 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

7 March 2012

Notice issued on writ petition and on CM 2770/ 2012 to

General Electric Company – respondent 1

CVC – respondent 2

Delhi Police, respondent 3

Railway Ministry – respondent 4

PMO – respondent 5

GE India Industrial Private Limited – respondent 6

GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited – respondent 7

 

Writ Petition adjourned to 19 July 2012.

 

CM 2770/ 2012 adjourned unheard to 9 May 2012.

19 March 2012

Pioneer news story

 

The Pioneer newspaper published a news report on March 19, 2012 titled "US loco giant pits Montek against planners". It is relevant to quote the entire news report here. It reads:

 

"In the midst of political turmoil over the railway fare hike, an intense fight is going on in higher echelons of bureaucracy over the selection of bidders for two locomotive factories that then Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav had announced for his parliamentary constituency in Bihar in 2009. In the 2009 Railway Budget, Lalu had announced setting up of one electric locomotive factory at Madhepura and another diesel loco factory in Marhowra on PPP model.

 

The process of selection of bidders has pitched two key Ministries — Railways and Finance — against the Planning Commission. Top officials of Railway Board and Finance Ministry have objected to the proposals of Plan panel to change the Cabinet-approved bidding process and supply conditions for these two pending projects, which have reached nowhere in three years.

 

The official communication and file notings available with The Pioneer show that top officials of Railway Board and Finance Ministry protested over the changing of the Cabinet decisions to favour certain bidders by Plan panel deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia's Advisor Gajendra Haldea. For executing the bidding process, the Cabinet in 2009 formed an Empowered Committee consisting of officials drawn from Railway Board, Finance Ministry and Planning Commission. The controversies started when Haldea mooted some changes last year in the Cabinet-approved proposal.

 

In case of Madhepura project, senior officials of the Railway Board and Finance Ministry noted down that the minutes of the meeting were also "changed" and "misquoted" to propose major changes in the bidding documents to favour the US giant, General Electric.

 

In a series of communications between the Empowered Committee members, Finance Ministry and Railway Board officials have stated that Haldea's proposal to change the Cabinet approved bidding procedures and supply conditions would place an extra burden of more than Rs16,405 crore.

 

Sources told The Pioneer, in several meetings of the empowered group, heated exchanges took place and some members alleged that these changes were introduced to suit General Electric — the lone bidder for the project. In the bidding process of Marhowra project also, top officials of the Railways and Finance Ministries protested Haldea's high-handedness. "Haldea apparently thinks that India is a Banana Republic that can be forced to accept a con game….," noted Sanjiv Handa Member (Mechanical) of Railway Board in a note seen by the Railway Board Chairman.

 

In the same note, Additional Member (Production Unit) SK Sharma of the Railways wrote that "it is unfortunate that professionalism, probity and regard for highest standards of integrity of the mechanical directorate are being questioned by resorting to sensationalism, misinformation and slander, rather than reasoned debate. It is for the investigators to determine whether this was part of a larger agenda aimed at compromising the Indian Railways interest."

 

The Finance Ministry officials also expressed displeasure on changing of Cabinet-approved bidding and supply conditions. A Railway Board note of June 28, 2011 read, "Economic Affairs Secretary R Gopalan specifically asked financial commissioner the decisions of the Empowered Committee at the behest of the bidders will need to be seen with regard to their financial aspects so as to ensure that gaming by the bidders is ruled out and Railways interest will not be compromised. The minutes do not include these concerns of the Secretary, Economic Affairs."

 

In a communication to Montek on February 9, Planning Commission Member Secretary Sudha Pillai questioned the authority of Haldea for approving the changed proposals, which he himself mooted. "Subsequently, several amendments that were proposed to the terms approved by the Cabinet were also admittedly authored by him. These proposals altering the terms of the proposed contracts in significant ways were quickly endorsed by the Infrastructure Division (headed by Haldea), bypassing me on some occasions.

 

"However, these amendments when subjected to detailed discussion and scrutiny by the Empowered Committee were found to have serious implications which had not been adequately addressed. It was clear that these amendments were not subjected to independent and impartial scrutiny. This created a very embarrassing situation for me as a member of the Empowered Committee," said Sudha Pillai in a communication to Montek." 

 

This news report was published on March 19, 2012 after the Delhi High Court had issued notice on Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 on March 7, 2012. This report also confirms that contract terms and bid processes were manipulated in order to benefit General Electric. This news report goes on to name Planning Commission officials who stand accused in internal Government of India documents of manipulating the bids for the impugned tenders in order to help General Electric obtain the lucrative diesel locomotive factory contract. This report also names and quotes government of India officials who have objected to such manipulations. These manipulations to contract terms and bid processes not only benefit General Electric but are also to the detriment of other qualified bidders; to the detriment of other qualified suppliers who were excluded from the bid process entirely; to the detriment of the public interest; and to the detriment of the interests of the Government of India and the public exchequer.

 

This court should direct the Planning Commission, the Railway Ministry and the Finance Ministry to produce on the record of these writ proceedings, the documents mentioned in the Pioneer news report.

 

As reported by the Pioneer newspaper, government officials from several departments have accused Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia and his close aide and advisor Mt Gajendra Haldea of favouring General Electric and of introducing changes to the ELF and DLF bid documents at the behest of General Electric and at the cost of the Indian exchequer. Charges have been levelled that Mr Gajendra Haldea also mis-recorded/ altered minutes of government meetings to prevent objections to such unjustified concessions from being recorded. 

 

The account narrated in the Pioneer newspaper shows that Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr Gajendra Haldea were interfering in the governmental process of finalising the bid documents for ELF and DLF even though neither of the two had an official role to play in this process.

 

Several corruption scams that have been exposed in India, show that corruption and improper and malafide decision-making is usually facilitated by government advisors/ ministers/ bureaucrats taking decisions without any accountability by interfering in formal decision-making procedures and later distancing themselves from any responsibility for the unsupportable decision.

 

The 2G scam has disclosed how the PMO and the Attorney General contributed  to the improper and corrupt decision-making in allocating 2G licences at a huge loss but managed to evade all responsibility/ blame for these decisions because their role was played outside the official decision-making procedures.

 

Even in the Enron scandal, the approval to the misconceived Dabhol power project (in which General Electric was also involved) was given by Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, even though this approval needed to come from the CEA. Corruption is facilitated within the government by by-passing official decision-making procedures so that the person actually taking the corrupt decision can later disclaim any accountability. No one has till date been held to account for the massive pecuniary, resource, and opportunity loss caused to the Indian State and to the Indian public by the completely infeasible Dabhol/ Ratnagiri project which has again stopped functioning.

 

Even in the present case, both Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr Gajendra Haldea were interfering without any authority in a task that had been delegated by the Cabinet to an Empowered Committee of Secretaries. Neither Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia nor Mr Gajendra Haldea were members of this committee. With what authority then and on whose behalf was Mr Gajendra Haldea proposing changes to the ELF and DLF bid documents and also approving these changes bypassing even the Secretary to the Planning Commission who was an appointed member of the Empowered Committee? With what authority was Mr Gajendra Haldea participating in meetings of the Empowered Committee and altering minutes of these meetings despite protests by other participants?

 

The petitioner herself attended 2-3 pre-bid meetings for the ELF/ DLF tenders in 2010 along with General Electric executives. The petitioner recalls the presence of Mr Gajendra Haldea at some of these meetings. Whenever Mr Gajendra Haldea was present for Railway pre-bid meetings he essentially chaired those meetings with all railway officials including railway board members deferring to him. 

      

Mr Gajendra Haldea is a retired bureaucrat and his official engagement is as an advisor to Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. Mr Gajendra Haldea's official position therefore does not confer on him the authority to chair railway pre-bid meetings. Where does Mr Gajendra Haldea derive this informal authority within Indian government processes? It is clear that Mr Gajendra Haldea is merely a representative of Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia.

 

Yet experience with past scams and corruption within the government shows, that in case of any questions being raised later on the propriety of the ELF and DLF bid documents, the blame would have fallen only on the Empowered Committee and on Railway Ministry officials with Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr Gajendra Haldea evading/ disclaiming all blame/ responsibility for changes sponsored by them.

2 April 2012

Outlook India news story

 

More sordid details about the corruption plaguing the ELF and DLF tenders were published by Outlook India, a reputed Indian news magazine in a news-feature in its April 2, 2012 issue titled "The Great Railway Bazaar". This news exposed the "creeping privatisation" and the accompanying corruption in the Indian Railways and asked the question: "Is the lifeline of the nation—the Indian Railways—being put on the block, bit by bit?' This news story highlighted that privatisation of fixed rail infrastructure was creeping in. The report stated:

 

"Eye On Infrastructure - Models are being developed to allow private players to enter in fixed rail infrastructure—stations, high-speed lines, manufacturing of locos, coaches, wagons—in the form of public private partnership (PPP) projects.'

 

It also noted that tailor-made tenders and manipulated bid-processes were being resorted to by government agencies and officials involved in these high-value PPP projects.

 

The Outlook India report stated:

 

"Change The Rules - Planning Commission bid to change bidding process for two PPP locomotive plants in Bihar rings a bell with similar PPP moves in power, highways, airports. Current PPP projects: Rs 1,166 crore. PPP projects in the pipeline: Rs 99,064 crore."

           

The news report highlights the involvement of the Planning Commission and Mr. Sam Pitroda in the push behind this privatisation drive. It states:

 

·         Senior government and railway officials say Dinesh Trivedi's railway budget was crafted with the major backing of the Planning Commission in a manner not seen during the tenures of previous railway ministers Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mamata Banerjee.

·         Trivedi's proximity to railway reforms panel head Sam Pitroda is grist for the gossip mills in Rail Bhavan. There are some who view a potential conflict of interest in Pitroda residing at Trivedi's Delhi home while his house was being readied.

·         Trivedi has gone on record in TV interviews to say that he had approached American investor Warren Buffett to "invest" in railway bonds and promised to clean up the railways to ensure this.

This report exposes the corruption and rule-tweaking in the impugned locomotive factory tenders. The Outlook India article states:

"Experts point out that huge concessions are expected to be granted to attract private investments. Currently, there are over a dozen departments handling various PPP projects. The proposal to have a dedicated railway board member looking at PPPs has been shot down by the new minister. This is unfortunate as there is no transparency or accountability in how these projects are being formulated or operated. All this should set alarm bells ringing.

Apart from genuine fears about corruption and tweaking of rules, there is also the concern that millions of consumers who rely on the railways could end up suffering and paying higher tariffs. …

The controversies have already begun. The basic flaw with the railways following the PPP mode to augment resources for infrastructure development is the lack of a sound model. Currently, the railway ministry is relooking at the proposal for setting up two new locomotive factories in Bihar. During his tenure as railway minister in 1998-99, Nitish Kumar had ordered a feasibility study on increasing locomotive manufacturing capacity in the country for domestic use and exports. "But it was only in 2009 that Laloo Prasad Yadav pushed ahead with the idea of setting up more loco manufacturing units through the PPP mode in Bihar," says a former railway board member.

 

But despite two cabinet approvals, the process of awarding the contract has been put on indefinite hold after differences cropped up between members of the railway board and the Planning Commission. In fact, even within the Planning Commission, questions have been raised about changing of contract terms to benefit General Electric. Such changes were to be done only by an inter-ministerial group. As charges of tweaking terms of contracts fly against Planning Commission advisor Gajendra Haldea, he defends himself, saying, "The bid document and bid process for electrical locos was completely transparent, fair and competitive."

 

Associated with the process of evolving the PPP structure, Haldea states that "any suggestion that I made any changes at my level in the contract is complete hogwash". He points out that there are only four manufacturers of the kind of locos being procured and all of them are competing for the contracts. Highly-placed sources in the know point out that the freeze in decision-making on the Bihar and other PPP projects is mainly due to Mamata Banerjee's unease with what's happening. That is why a second committee of experts was set up to study the implications of various PPP proposals to safeguard the railways' interest.

 

Not all PPPs have gone wrong, avers former railway board chairman Vivek Sahai, who says experiments like the wagon investment scheme have proved to be a win-win situation for both the railways and the private party. However, as the Bihar PPPs show, for setting up manufacturing units (like the two proposed locomotive plants) it is still uncharted territory. Many contracts are coming under scrutiny for questionable clauses to suit investors."

 

The Outlook India news story quotes Mr. Gajendra Haldea, (advisor to Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia) as having stated (about the electric locomotive factory tender) that 'there are only four manufacturers of the kind of locos being procured and all of them are competing for the contracts.' This statement by Mr. Gajendra Haldea's is false and misleading. As pointed out hereinabove, General Electric does not manufacture electric locomotives at all. Therefore General Electric is not a manufacturer of electric locomotives as misrepresented by Mr Gajendra Haldea to Outlook magazine and to the public at large. In 2008-2009, General Electric was ineligible for the Madhepura electric locomotive factory project. The tender eligibility conditions were diluted and tailored in the 2010 Madhepura RFQ to enable General Electric to participate in this tender. The Government of India must inform this Hon'ble Court as to how a company (General Electric), that does not even manufacture electric locomotives, and which not possess the demonstrated technology to do so, was short-listed in a multi-billion dollar global tender to set up a factory to manufacture electric locomotives on government land, with assured government funds, and with an assured and guaranteed government order for 800 electric locomotives to be supplied and maintained over a period of ten years. As already explained hereinabove, the eligibility conditions in the 2010 Madhepura RFQ prevented all other international manufacturers/ consortiums (apart from Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier) from participating in this tender. The bid specifications for the 2010 RFQ were tailored to ensure that the competition would be open only to Siemens, Bombardier, Alstom and General Electric. Several other potential suppliers were kept out. While Siemens, Bombardier and Alstom are reputed manufacturers and suppliers of electric locomotives, the Government of India needs to explain why was the electric locomotive factory tender opened up to General Electric and why were other potential bidders including from Japan and China not allowed to participate in the bid.

 

Along with its April 2, 2012 news-report, Outlook India also published a letter written by Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia on August 9, 2011 to Mr. Dinesh Trivedi, the then Minister for Railways. In this letter, Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia encouraged Mr. Dinesh Trivedi to take up for action the issues highlighted in the note attached to Mr. Ahluwalia's letter. Item 6 in the attached note is titled "Railway Production Units" and reads:

 

"6. Railway Production Units

It is well known that much of our existing rolling stock, both wagons and locomotives, is outdated and needs to be modernised. The White Paper also makes reference to this as far as wagons are concerned, but the same is equally important for locomotives. This is especially so given the increased importance of energy efficiency in a world which faces challenges due to climate change.

For existing factories for production of rolling stock it is worth delinking them from the Railways as a service provider, and spinning them off into separate public sector units. Railway staff in the existing production units can, if they wish, remain on the rolls of the Railways until they retire, but new staff should be recruited by the corporation as a PSU. Spinning of Railway production units into separate corporations may be resisted because of tax implications but it should be possible to agree with the Finance Ministry to a tax-reimbursement arrangement for the next ten years.

As for new factories, these should be built outside the Railways through strategic partnership with qualified parties who can bring the right technology and can be given incentives to indigenise production. The Railways have seen a great deal of robust investor interest for production of state-of-the-art locomotives and also passenger coaches. However, far too much time has been wasted. We need to bring these initiatives to closure, in order to enhance public confidence in our resolve to modernise the Railways".

 

Evident from this note authored by Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, is the fact that the ELF and DLF Projects have been created at his instance and were not even part of the Railway Ministry white paper.

 

Larger public interest issues

 

Accepting the premise that the Indian railway locomotive stock needs to be modernised and upgraded, the ELF and DLF Projects as conceived are clearly not the right approach.

 

The end result of the DLF and ELF Projects will be to hand over the locomotive manufacturing industry in India to multinationals. Even with indigenised production (which in any case will never be 100% indigenised), the ELF and DLF Projects will at best create assembly units for locomotives in the Government partnered JVs. The technology, patents and profits will remain with the multinationals.

 

It is also pointed out that with more and more aggressive world trade rules, the Government of India will not be able to insist on indigenisation of manufacture.

 

Also, there is a larger public and national interest aspect at stake of the future of the manufacturing sector in India. India has had indigenous locomotive manufacturing capacity for at least the last 70-80 years. TELCO   (now TATA Motors) was a leading locomotive manufacturer after Independence, The government then thought it necessary to nationalise locomotive manufacture and the DLW and ELW units were established.

 

Locomotive manufacture is not rocket science. If the government is now reversing its decision to nationalise the locomotive industry by again opening up this sector to private firms, then why should Indian industrial firms not be invited/ encouraged to get into this sector.

 

The consequence of the government's decision for the ELF and DLF projects as presently conceived will be that in ten years time, locomotive manufacture in India will be dominated by the two multinational firms selected for ELF and DLF. Their only competitors will be the existing public sector manufacturers like DLW and ELW, which will have neither the incentives nor the resources nor the management nor confirmed orders to compete with the multinational manufacturers. Both DLW and ELW will slowly deteriorate.

 

These multinational manufacturers will then dominate the locomotive manufacture industry in India.

 

It is also the obligation of the Indian state to promote Indian industry.  Does the Government of India want India to de-industrialise? Do we want a country where all locomotive manufacturing is carried on by foreign multinationals? India lacks and has been trying to develop the manufacturing capability to manufacture aircraft. Do we also want to lose indigenous capacity to build locomotives?

   

19 July 2012

Writ Petition and CM 2770/ 2012 for stay of the impugned tenders listed before Justice Rajiv Shakdher who adjourned the matter unheard to 12 October 2012. 

12 October 2012

Writ Petition and CM 2770/ 2012 for stay of the impugned tenders listed before Justice Rajiv Shakdher who adjourned the matter unheard to 12 April 2013.

 

Notice of the writ petition issued to respondents 13 to 17 (Siemens, Alstom Projects India Limited, Bombardier Transportation India Limited, EMD Locomotive Technologies and BHEL), however the order passed was unclear.

8 November 2012

Petitioner moved CM 18324/ 2012 seeking clarification that notice of the writ petition had been issued to respondents 13 to 17. This was clarified.

 

(Respondents 13 to 17 (Siemens, Alstom Projects India Limited, Bombardier Transportation India Limited, EMD Locomotive Technologies and BHEL), have all been served in this matter and all (except BHEL) have entered appearance through counsel.

19 November 2013

Petitioner moved CM 18642/ 2012 seeking interalia issue of notice of the writ petition to the corporate officers of General Electric (respondents 8. 9. 10 and 11), which direction was issued in court but was unclear in the order signed by Justice Rajiv Shakdher.

26 November 2012

Petitioner moved CM No.18862/2012 seeking clarification that order dated 19 November 2012 issued notice of the writ petition to respondents 8.9, 10, and 11.

 

Justice Rajiv Shakdher again ambiguously stated in his order: "According to me, no clarification is necessary."

26 November 2012

Justice Rajiv Shakdher passed an unsustainable and uncalled for order directing the court registry not to list further applications filed by the Petitioner.

 

The writ petition had been earlier fixed for hearing by Justice Rajiv Shakdher for 12 April, 2013.

 

This meant that the writ petition would not have come up for hearing before the court until 12 April, 2013 and the petitioner would have been unable to move any application seeking interim relief in the meantime.

27 November 2012

First attempt by Prime Minister Manomohan Singh, PMO and Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia to over-reach this court

 

Taking a clear advantage of the unsustainable order dated 26 November 2012 of Justice Rajiv Shakdher, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh and Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia attempted to over-reach the court and push through the impugned tenders by convening a meeting to review progress on the tenders for the ELF and DLF Projects and by directing that: "The bids for the Madhepura Project will be called by 31 December 2012 and the project will be awarded before the Railway Budget. The IMG set up under the CCEA approval will consider and approve any necessary changes to documents. Timelines for the Marhowra Project will be announced by December 15."

 

This meeting at the PMO was attended by Prime Minister Manmohan singh, Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Mr C Rangarajan, Mr Pavan Bansal, Mr Surya Prakash Reddy (MoS for railways), Mr Ranjan Chaudhary (MoS for Railways), Mr Vinay Mittal (Chairman Railway Board), Mr Pulok Chatterji (PMO, Mr B V R Subrahmanyam (PMO), Mr Krishan Kumar (PMO).

 

Were the participants at this meeting made aware of these writ proceedings and the complaints and evidence produced on record in these proceedings?

5 December 2012

A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court passed the following order dated December 5, 2012 listing this writ petition for hearing on January 23, 2012.

 

"5 December 2012

CM 19197/ 2012

1.      In view of the prayers made in the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the writ petition has to be treated as one pertaining to "Tenders" and as per the rules of this Court required to be listed before a Division Bench.

2.      The application stands disposed off directing the Registry that the writ petition should henceforth be listed before the roster bench, on January 23, 2013". 

6 December 2012

Second attempt by Prime Minister Manomohan Singh, PMO and Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia to over-reach this court

 

In another attempt to over-reach the court, the PMO issued a Press Release stating:

 

"Madhepura/Marhowra PPP Loco Factories:The bids for the Madhepura Project will be called by 31 December 2012 and the project will be awarded before the Railway Budget. The IMG set up under the CCEA approval will consider and approve any necessary changes to documents. Timelines for the Marhowra Project will be announced by December 15."

6 December 2012

Petitioner filed CM 19370/ 2012 pointing out that Mr Nanju Ganpathy/ AZB & partners had been appearing for Respondents 1, 6 and 7 (the three General Electric respondents) since 9 May 2012 without vakalatnamas.

7 December 2012

Vakalatnamas were filed by Mr Nanju Ganpathy/ AZB & Partners for the three General Electric respondents but these were defective as they did not disclose the source of authority of the signatory.

10 December 2012

CM 19370/ 2012 was listed before court when Mr Nanju Ganpathy lied to the court that vakalatnamas had been filed earlier but were not on record. It was also stated that fresh vakalatnamas had been filed on 7 December 2012.  (These vakalatnamas are defective).

12 December 2012

CM 19501/ 2012 moved by petitioner for stay of the impugned tenders.

 

The order passed directed:

"As desired by learned counsel for respondent No.4, the application is directed to be listed on December 19, 2012, by which date learned counsel for respondent No.4 would obtain instructions and inform the likely date by which financial bids are intended to be invited and opened by the Indian Railways pertaining to the two tenders qua which the writ petition relates i.e. the tenders pertaining to Marhowra and Madhepura; being tenders Global RFQ No.2010/ME (PROJ)/4/MARHOWRA/RFA and RFQ No.2010/ELECT. (DEV0 440/1(1))."

14 Dec 2012

CM 19683/ 2012 filed by Petitioner for declaration that the vakalatnamas filed on behalf of General Electric respondents on 7 December 2012 were defective and invalid.

This application has not been heard.

17 Dec 2012

CM 19820/ 2012 filed placing on record additional facts in support of CM 19501/ 2012 seeking stay of the 2010 tenders.

17 December 2012

Issue of PMO pressure on Railway Board

 

Railway Board chairman wrote to Principal Secretary of Prime Minister conveying endeavour to meet the deadlines imposed by the Prime Minister on 27 November 2012.

19 December 2012

C.M.No.19501/2012 for stay of the impugned tenders was listed before court and the following order was passed:

 

"1. Learned ASG informs that the matter pertaining to finalization of the two tenders referred to in the order dated December 12, 2012 needs various procedural steps to be taken and that the first step would be the approval by Empowerment Committee of Secretaries comprising Chairman Railway Board, Financial Commissioner Railways, Member Electrical Railway Board, Member Mechanical Railway Board, Secretary Planning Commission, Secretary Department of Economic Affairs and Secretary Department of Legal Affairs to the bid documents and accord approval thereto, which step is likely to be completed by December 31, 2012. It is only thereafter that the financial bids would be invited on or around March 31, 2013. Meaning thereby, that by January 16, 2013 i.e. the date fixed in the matter to consider issues which were noted in the order dated December 10, 2012, the financial bids may not be invited; far from the tender being finalized.

 

2. List the application on December 20, 2012."

20 December 2012

CM 19501/ 2012 for stay of the impugned tenders listed before court but not heard.

21 December 2012

CM No.19501/2012 for stay of the impugned tenders and CM No.19820/2012 (providing additional facts in support of CM 19501/ 2012) listed before court, but not heard. 

 

Order passed directed as follows:

 

"1. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India states that reply would be filed to the two applications positively by January 09, 2013.

 

2. Rejoinder, if any, desired to be filed by the petitioner may be handed over to the Court but after advance copy is served to counsel for respondent No.4 latest by January 15, 2013.

 

3. The two applications would be listed on the date fixed i.e. January 16, 2013."

14 Jan

2013

Reply filed on behalf of Railway Ministry to CM 19501/ 2012.

14 Jan 2013

CM 522/ 2013 filed seeking declaration that vakalatnamas filed on behalf of General Electric respondents on 17 December 2012 are also defective and invalid.

This application has not been taken up for consideration.

15 Jan 2013

Petitioner filed partial rejoinder to Railway reply to CM 19501/ 2012.

16 January 2013

CM No.19501/2012 for stay of the impugned tenders and CM No.19820/2012 (providing additional facts in support of CM 19501/ 2012) listed before court but not heard because Bench stated that it could not devote adequate time to hear the matter. Matter sent to Chief Justice with recommendation to constitute a Special Bench.

Chief Justice rejected the possibility of a Special Bench as infeasible.

23 January 2013

CM No.19501/2012 for stay of the impugned tenders and CM No.19820/2012 (providing additional facts in support of CM 19501/ 2012) listed before court but not heard because Bench released the matter.

24 January 2013

CM No.19501/2012 for stay of the impugned tenders and CM No.19820/2012 (providing additional facts in support of CM 19501/ 2012) listed before court but not heard because Bench released the matter.

30 January 2013

CM No.19501/2012 for stay of the impugned tenders and CM No.19820/2012 (providing additional facts in support of CM 19501/ 2012) listed before court but not heard because Bench released the matter.

1 February 2013

CM No.19501/2012 for stay of the impugned tenders and CM No.19820/2012 (providing additional facts in support of CM 19501/ 2012) listed before court but not heard because Bench released the matter.

4 February 2013

Writ Petition, CM No.19501/2012 for stay of the impugned tenders, CM No.19820/2012 (providing additional facts in support of CM 19501/ 2012) and all other pending applications listed before Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Midha. Matter adjourned to 16 May 2013 without hearing because Bench stated it did not have time to hear the matter.

26-27 February, 2013

Petitioner-whistleblower a woman lawyer starts to sleep in her car at night parking it on public streets because she has no place to stay after her applications for protection, housing, medical treatment, and financial assistance remain unheard.

28 Feb 2013

False, unauthorised and evasive affidavit filed purportedly on behalf of CVC by Mr R V Sinha, who has not produced a vakalatnama on record. 

8 March 2013

Issue of Planning Commission interference in Bid Process for ELF and DLF

 

As per Railway affidavit dated 15 May 2013, on directions of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the PMO constituted Informal Group of Ministers (IGOM) to resolve and forge consensus on issues relating to ELF Project terms because of divergence of views between the Railway Ministry and the Planning Commission.

18 March 2013

CM 3380/ 2013 moved by Petitioner for impleadment of Siemens AG and for issue of notice to Siemens AG.

 

Directions given in court for notice of CM 3380/ 2013 to Siemens AG, but signed order excluded this portion.

1 April, 2013

CM 3855/ 2013 moved by Petitioner for impleadment of Siemens AG and for issue of notice to Siemens AG. Application adjourned without hearing and without reasons to 18 April 2013. This application was then adjourned to 16 May 2013 and later to 18 July 2013.

3 April 2013

Petitioner filed four additional affidavits in the writ petition.

 

One of these affidavits placed on record true copies of email correspondence exchanged between the Petitioner and General Electric in 2010, 2011 and 2012 after General Electric terminated the Petitioner's employment in violation of its whistleblower protection policies and whistleblower protection laws. These documents establish that General Electric's alleged internal investigation was fraudulent and intended to cover up the petitioner's whistleblower complaints. These documents provide additional evidence in support of the petitioner's complaints of corruption, forgery, bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice and other illegal activities that General Electric's employees engaged in, in connection with the impugned Madhepura and Marhowra tenders and in connection with the 2008-2009 tender for the Marhowra Project and in connection with ongoing shareholder lawsuits filed against General Electric Company in the New York District Court, SDNY. 

 

The second affidavit placed on record copies of emails sent by the Petitioner to the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, the Police Commissioner and to various other authorities between 1 April 2013 and 26 February, 2013 recording interalia how the petitioner has been compelled to spend the night   in her car since the end of February 2013.

 

The third affidavit placed on record copies of some emails sent/ received by the Petitioner during her employment with General Electric in 2010. These documents are relevant for the present matter as they establish the truth to counter the false attempt by General Electric (acting through an unauthorised signatory and unauthorised counsel) to tarnish the petitioner's reputation and work tenure at General electric. The petitioner had more relevant emails in her possession but some of these were removed from the petitioner's home in Jangpura Extension on 30 May 2012 (before the petitioner had scanned them) during the unlawful eviction carried out in the Petitioner's absence and when all her belongings including these emails were removed with police assistance and have till date not been returned to the petitioner.

 

The fourth affidavit interalia placed on record important information pertaining to the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma, which is repeated below in this application.

3 April 2013

Unauthorised, false and perjurious Sur-rejoinder filed on behalf of General Electric by AZB & Partners purporting to represent the General Electric respondents without proper vakalatnamas.

3 April 2013

As per Railway affidavit dated 15 May 2013, Railway Ministry wrote to PMO seeking to raise both ELF and DLF issues before the IGOM constituted by the Prime Minister.

11 April 2013

Writ Petition listed before Registrar.

 

Counsel for respondent 14 (Bombardier Transportation India Limited) and Counsel for respondent 16 (EMD Locomotive Technologies) sought time to file counter affidavits.

22 April 2013

Issue of third and most outrageous attempt by the Government of India   to overreach the court

 

As per Railway affidavit dated 15 May 2013, Informal group of Ministers (IGOM) meeting held – decision taken to cancel the 2010 Bidding Process for both ELF and DLF and to issue new RFQs for both ELF and DLF

 

This IGOM was comprised of Mr P Chidambaram, Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr Pavan Bansal.

26 April 2013

Issue of third and most outrageous attempt by the Government of India   to overreach the court

 

As per Railway affidavit dated 15 May 2013, Railway Ministry submitted note to Cabinet seeking approval for cancellation of 2010 tenders for ELF and DLF, and seeking approval for initiation of new tenders for both ELF and DLF by issuing news RFQs.

 

1 May 2013

Issue of third and most outrageous attempt by the Government of India   to overreach the court

 

As per Railway affidavit dated 15 May 2013, Cabinet meeting held where proposal for cancellation of the impugned tenders approved with direction that new RFQs for ELF and DLF be issued by 6 May 2013 and new RFPs for ELF and DLF be issued by 6 July 2013.

6 May 2013

Issue of third and most outrageous attempt by the Government of India   to overreach the court

 

New RFQs for ELF and DLF issued by Ministry of Railways

15 May 2013

Issue of third and most outrageous attempt by the Government of India   to overreach the court

 

Affidavit of Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash disclosing these new developments filed without serving a copy on the petitioner. This affidavit was deliberately filed in court late on 15 May 2013 so that it would not be available on the court record on 16 May 2013.

16 May 2013

Issue of third and most outrageous attempt by the Government of India   to overreach the court

Affidavit filed by Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash not on the court record. No appearance for the Railway Ministry either by the ASG (Mr Rajiv Mehra) or by the Railway Counsel (Mr R N Singh).

 

Court not informed of these new developments.

 

Writ petition adjourned unheard to 18 July 2013.

 

CM 6096/ 2013 moved by Petitioner seeking recusal by Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Deepa Sharma adjourned to 18 July 2013.

 

Several unwarranted statements made in the order dated 16 May 2013 by Justice Gita Mittal and several unwarranted directions issued.

22 May 2013

Writ petition again listed before court on 22 May 2013 along with CM 6417/ 2013. Once again there was no appearance by Counsel for the UOI (PMO), the CVC or the Railway Ministry despite the fact that this new application expressly seeks relief against the CVC and the Railway Ministry and advance copies of this application were served on all parties.

29 May 2013

Petitioner-whistleblower continuing to sleep in her car without protection since 27 February 2013.

 

Delhi Police has failed to comply with the court's order dated 18 April, 2013 asking the Police Commissioner to take immediate steps to adequately protect the petitioner's life and property.

 

 

Issue of Mr Vinod Sharma  

 

17.  The reply filed by Respondent No 4 to CM 19501/ 2012 is nothing but a document cleverly crafted by government lawyers aimed at concealing the true facts from this court and intended to cover up the corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and other illegal and undesirable activities complained of by the petitioner which are the subject matter of the present petition.

 

18.  The most glaring example of this attempt to deceive this Hon'ble Court is the response of respondent 4 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma, who having earlier advised the Railway Ministry on the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra, was in clear violation of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ terms advising General Electric on its 2010 bid for the Marhowra Project. In order to expose this attempted deception by respondent 4 in its reply dated January 14, 2012 to CM 19501/ 2012, the petitioner describes below the elaborate and planned deception that has obviously been masterminded by government counsel. That the Assistant Solicitor General himself, Mr Rajiv Mehra is appearing for the respondent 4 and has overseen the drafting of this perjurious and false affidavit filed by respondent 4 through Mr Gopal Krishan Gupta [executive director, mechanical engineering, railway board] and Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash [executive director, electrical engineering (development) railway board] is a matter of great regret.

 

19.  The affidavit dated January 14, 2013 filed by respondent 4 states at page 12 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma that: "A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra". It is submitted that this statement is unsubstantiated and false and that the authors of the Railway affidavit know that this statement is untrue and unsubstantiated and therefore to protect themselves, the affidavit uses the words "evidently discloses". The phrase "evidently discloses" is commonly used to distance oneself from a statement of fact and to deny any personal responsibility for the statement of fact being asserted. Both Mr G K Gupta and Mr N R Dash therefore in their affidavit dated January 14, 2013 have denied personal responsibility and ownership of the statement of fact – did or did not Mr Vinod Sharma at any point act as an advisor or in fact advise the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project.

 

20.  Turning now to the source of this 'evident disclosure', the petitioner submits that as elaborated hereinbelow this 'evident disclosure' is based upon reference to irrelevant and incomplete documents.

 

21.  The Railway affidavit states that it wrote to RITES on 27 December 2012 seeking clarifications on this issue which is described in the affidavit as an issue with respect to PWC. This letter sent by Mr G K Gupta and addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RITES Ltd is at page 129 of the railway affidavit. This letter does not even mention or describe the issue pertaining to Mr Vinod Sharma and does not mention that the writ petition complains that Mr Vinod Sharma and General Electric's dealings in 2010 constituted a corrupt practice on account of Mr Vinod Sharma having previously advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project. Instead this letter states: "the petitioner has raised certain issues related to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers, who had been engaged by M/s RITES as consultant for setting up of Diesel Locomotive Factory, Marhowra". The next sentence of this letter is very revealing. Instead of providing a copy of this writ petition to RITES with this letter dated December 27, 2012, Mr G K Gupta misleads RITES by lying that "The contents of Writ Petition are posted on website of Delhi High Court". The letter goes on to state that "You may kindly get the same examined and submit your comments …". The letter also states: "Concerned officers may discuss and seek any clarification on the matter with undersigned on 28.12.12." There is a Railway Ministry stamp on this letter dated December 31, 2012. There is no stamp acknowledging receipt of this letter at RITES.

 

22.  The letter dated December 27, 2012 deliberately omitted to mention/ describe the nature of the complaint concerning Mr Vinod Sharma. A blatant lie was resorted to avoid attaching a copy of the writ petition with this letter. Instead of sending a proper and complete query in writing to RITES, the letter did not set out the query and was left deliberately opaque. It appears that the real discussions between officials of respondents 4 and RITES to cover up the Vinod Sharma issue and to create misleading documentation with intent to mislead this court took place in private meetings and over the phone. Note that the letter bears a stamp (for dispatch?) dated December 31, 2012 but the letter mentions personal meetings to discuss the issue on December 28, 2012.

 

23.  Turning to the letter dated January 7, 2013 allegedly received from RITES and attached at page 130 of the affidavit of respondent 4 dated January 14, 2012, it is pointed out that this letter has not been issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of RITES. This letter appears to have been issued under the name of one Mr Anil Vij with the words GGM/ RW&IE printed underneath. The letter does not bear a full signature and instead has merely been initialled and even these initials are illegible.

 

24.  Before examining in detail the contents of the RITES letter dated January 7, 2013, some incomplete facts and dates that emerge from the affidavit of the Railways and the RITES letter are set out below:

(i)                 11-10-2006 – Railway Board approved appointment of RITES and approved engagement of a consultancy firm by RITES. [The RITES letter describes this as a Railway Board letter communicating to RITES "that Railway Board has approved appointment of RITES for providing consultancy services to the Ministry of Railways to engage consultancy firm for advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell.".

(ii)               2-3-2007 – RITES engaged PWC as consultant on behalf of the Railway Ministry by issuing letter of award of contract to PWC.

(iii)              6-3-2007 – RITES signed an agreement with PWC on behalf of the Railway Ministry.

 

25.  The petitioner now turns to the RITES letter dated January 7, 2013 filed with the Railway affidavit dated January 14, 2013 and draws attention to the following:

(i)                 The RITES letter states that the railway board letter dated 11-10-2006; the letter of award dated 2-3-2007 issued to PWC; and the agreement signed with PWC on 6-3-2007 are annexed to the RITES letter as Annexure 1, Annexure 2 and Annexure 3 respectively. However, the copy of the RITES letter placed on record does not contain any of these three documents as annexures.

(ii)               In the opening paragraph, the RITES letter refers to "issues relating to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers raised by the petitioner" and without elaborating on these and without describing these issues, the RITES letter states that these have been examined.

(iii)             The RITES letter in paragraph (III) state that: "As regards the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma raised by the petitioner, it is brought out that the relevant records have been checked and as per the Technical Proposal – Part II of M/s PwC of December, 2006, the Team Composition of PwC for the consultancy assignment mentioned in Para I above, was as under:-". The letter then includes a table with 9 names for Technical/ Managerial Staff and a further 7 names as Support Staff. Mr Vinod Sharma's name is not included in this table.

(iv)             The next statement in the RITES letter is: "Further, at no stage during the currency of the assignment, M/s PwC informed RITES. Ministry of Railways about any change in the team composition.

(v)               The last relevant statement in the RITES letter reads: "Thus from the information furnished by PwC, it is seen that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not a part of the PwC team that worked on the consultancy assignment." 

 

26.  A copy of a Railway Ministry document downloaded by the petitioner from the website of the Railway Ministry has been annexed to CM 19501/ 2012 as Annexure P-1. This  document titled "Annexture_1_4.pdf" and downloaded from http://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/O&M/Annexture_1_4.pdf. contains the following statement on the role of PwC as the consultant to the Indian Railways for the Marhowra diesel locomotive factory tender:

"Ministry of Railways have appointed a Consultant M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers for advisory on setting up of new unit.

Final report for the first part, which is on strategy, has since been received and the consultant has been given a go-ahead for the second part of the report i.e. bid process management.

A final decision on Joint Venture will be taken based on the response in the bidding process.

Status on selection of developer for setting up new Manufacturing Units in Joint Venture:

Draft Agreements (Procurement contract, maintenance contract and shareholders' agreement) approved by the Board(MM).

Legally vetted copy of final Land Lease agreement incorporating views of AM/Adviser's Committee has been submitted by the Consultant (PWC) and put up to Board(ME) for approval.

Legally vetted copy of Procurement Contract has been received from the Consultant. Other draft agreements (Shareholders' agreement and Maintenance Contract) are under legal vetting with the Consultlant.

Procurement Specialist for validating procurement contract hired by the Consultlant, has started work. Work likely to be completed in a week's time.

After validation of Procurement Contract and legal vetting of draft agreements, final bid document (RFP) will be put up for approval by Board(MM, FC & CRB) and MR. Likely date of submission is 30-04-2008.

A fresh RFQ based on approval by Planning Commission will be issued shortly.

Further bid process will depnd on the reply to the reference made to the Ministry of Finance.

Bid process is likely to be completed by August, 2008.

The project is expected to be completed in about 2 to 2½ years after CCEA's approval is obtained for going ahead with bidding process for Joint – Venture."

 

 

27.  The petitioner submits that RITES letter dated January 7, 2013 does not confirm or state that Mr Vinod Sharma has never acted as an advisor to the Railway Ministry/ RITES for the Marhowra Project. Further, the affidavit filed by respondent 4 on January 14, 2013 also does not state that Mr Vinod Sharma has never acted as an advisor to the Railway Ministry/ RITES for the Marhowra Project.

 

28.  The RITES letter dated January 7, 2013 fails to disclose full and complete facts about RITES dealings with PwC and fails to provide direct and unambiguous evidence establishing that Mr Vinod Sharma was never an advisor to the Indian railways for the Marhowra Project. Instead, the RITES letter refers to selective, irrelevant and incomplete documentation with intent to mislead and confuse and from flawed and incomplete disclosure of information and records, it seeks to mislead this court that Mr Vinod Sharma's dealings with General Electric were not a corrupt practice under the 2010 Marhowra RFQ. It is pointed out that the RITES letter only states that: "Mr Vinod Sharma was not a part of the PwC team that worked on the consultancy assignment". This statement is unsubstantiated. The documents that this statement claims to be based upon are not produced, and appear to be irrelevant while documents/ records that would be relevant are suppressed and not referred to.

 

29.  The RITES letter merely states that the Technical Proposal Part II of PwC of December 2006 for the consulting assignment mentioned in para 1 of the letter contained a list of names which does not include the name of Mr Vinod Sharma. This document has not been produced. It appears to have no connection to the engagement of PwC for formulation and review of Bid Documents for the 2008-2009 tender for the DLF Project. The intent to misinform and mislead the court is clear.

 

30.  It is submitted that a perusal of the RITES letter in the light of the document annexed hereto as Annexure P -1, shows that PwC performed more than one consultancy assignment for RITES/ Railway Ministry in connection with different Projects and PwC has been engaged at different stages.

 

31.  The assignment refered to in para 1 of RITES letter concerns advisory on new manufacturing units under single stage bidding. The engagement of PwC to formulate bid strategy and Bid documents and to review the bids received is clearly a different and subsequent assignment.  

 

32.  The railway document quoted from hereinabove was created sometime in 2008. This document deals only with the Marhowra Project and this document contains the following statement: "Ministry of Railways have appointed a Consultant M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers for advisory on setting up of new unit." Therefore it appears that the Railway Ministry appointed PwC for advice on setting up the Marhowra Project. This appears to be an engagement subsequent to the engagement of PwC mentioned in the RITES letter dated January 7, 2013.

 

33.  It is submitted that the statement in the Railway affidavit dated January 14, 2013 on the complaint regarding Mr Vinod Sharma is false, unsubstantiated and unacceptable. The RITES letter stated : "Thus from the information furnished by PwC, it is seen that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not a part of the PwC team that worked on the consultancy assignment." This statement is false, unsubstantiated, unsupported and not borne out by the information disclosed. The consultancy assignment referred to is deliberately not produced. It appears that there was more than one consultancy assignment. It appears there was more than one PwC team working with RITES/ the Railway Ministry from working on initial feasibility studies for several manufacturing units and proceeding to consultancy assignments/ phases for specific units/ projects/ project and bid stages. This statement by RITES (who was never provided with a copy of the writ petition nor told about the actual complaint regarding Vinod Sharma) is padded and misrepresented in the railway affidavit as: "A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra". It is submitted that the RITES letter does not even mention the word "Marhowra" or the words "diesel locomotive factory' or the abbreviation DLF.

 

34.  RITES was not provided with a copy of this writ petition. RITES was not told that the writ petition complained that Mr Vinod Sharma had engaged in a corrupt practice by advising General Electric on its 2010 bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura locomotive factories after he had earlier acted as advisor to the Railway Ministry for the Marhowra locomotive factory project during his association/ employment with PWC after retirement. RITES was not shown the clause in the 2010 Marhowra RFQ that defined such conduct as a corrupt practice. Therefore RITES could not have known what would be relevant records that needed to be checked and whether RITES needed to ascertain facts directly from PWC.

 

35.  It is submitted that while the letter written to RITES is addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the response is from someone who appears to be a General Manager. It is submitted the person in whose name the RITES letter has been issued would not be the appropriate person to respond to a query of this nature. Normally, a legal officer would handle queries that pertain to legal or court matters.

 

36.  The Railway Ministry document quoted from hereinabove shows that the list of names from PwC's technical proposal part II dated December 2006 set out in the RITES letter dated January 7, 2013 is irrelevant. This Railway Ministrt document from 2008 states that: "Final report for the first part, which is on strategy, has since been received and the consultant has been given a go-ahead for the second part of the report i.e. bid process management." It also states that: "Procurement Specialist for validating procurement contract hired by the Consultlant, has started work. Work likely to be completed in a week's time." Therefore the procurement specialist for the Marhowra Project was hired by PWC only in 2008.

 

37.  That an irrelevant and wrong list of names has been reproduced in the RITES letter dated January 7, 2013 with intent to mislead the court and that this list does not establish that Mr Vinod Sharma did not advise the Railway Ministry/ RITES for the Marhowra project is borne out by the following:  

(i)                 The source of this list has not been produced. This court cannot know what this list signifies unless the document it was attached to is placed before court.

(ii)               This list is from a proposal made by PWC and not from the actual contract signed with PWC. The contract with PWC needs to be placed on record so that this court can see what the contract covered, whether this was the relevant contract, and what was the team identified in the contract. Prima facie it appears that the PWC contract referred to in RITES letter dated January 7, 2012 is not the relevant contract with PWC.

(iii)             The list is for a proposal to carry out initial feasibility studies into multiple manufacturing units at the conception stage. Therefore the list included separate technology experts for passenger coaches, wheels, diesel locomotives and electric locomotives. These persons would not be required for a advisory consultancy that drafted and reviewed bid documents for the Marhowra Project, limited to diesel locomotives. Instead the composition of the team that advised Railways/ RITES on drafting and reviewing bid documents for the Marhowra project and which helped Railways/ RITES evaluate the technical and financial bids for the Marhowra Project in 2008-2009 would necessarily be different from the proposed team set out in paragraph III of the RITES letter.

 

37.  The Railway affidavit states that:

 

"Further, RITES have intimated in the said letter that Clause 4.8.2 of the Request for Proposal issued by the RITES to PWC for their engagement on the project, reads as under:-

 

"If it is necessary to replace any person of Consultant, the latter shall immediately arrange for replacement by a person of equivalent competence. This shall however be done with the approval of MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (MoR)"

 

Therefore, in case of any change / replacement in the team composition working on the advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single State Bidding Process, PWC was required to take the approval of the Ministry of Railways.

 

It may be noted that neither RITES, nor the Ministry of Railways received any communication/request for approval of any replacement of any person in the team composition working on the advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single State Bidding Process."

 

38.  It is submitted that the above statement in the Railway affidavit is false because the RITES letter dated January 7, 2013 attached to the affidavit does not contain any statement about "Clause 4.8.2 of the Request for Proposal issued by the RITES to PWC" and in fact does not even refer to any such clause.

 

39.  The attempt to deceive this Hon'ble Court by the Railway Ministry through its affidavit dated January 14, 2013 is clear. The statements made in RITES letter dated January 7, 2013 and the Railway Ministry affidavit (on page 12) are in respect of the appointment of RITES "for providing consultancy services to the Ministry of Railways to engage consultancy firm for advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell.". Mr Vinod Sharma advised the Railway Ministry for the Marhowra Project and for the 2008-2009 tender for the Marhowra Project. The 2008-2009 tender for the Marhowra Project was not a single stage tender process. The Railway Ministry did not pursue single stage bid processes at any time for the Marhowra diesel locomotive factory or for the Madhepura electric locomotive factory. It is therefore submitted that in an attempt to deceive and mislead this Court, the Railway Ministry has used RITES officials to write the January 7, 2013 letter referring to irrelevant documents instead of relevant documents and is now attempting to rely upon this misleading letter to mislead this court through the affidavit dated January 14, 2013.

 

40.  It is submitted that for the reasons set out hereinabove, the statement in the Railway Ministry affidavit (dated January 14, 2013) on page 12 that "A true copy of the letter issued by RITES bearing No.2012/RITES/RW&IE/DLF/Marhowra dated 07.01.2013 detailing the list of persons working in the PriceWaterhouse Coopers team, as communicated to the answering Respondent is annexed" is also false, misleading and intended to deceive the court. 

 

41.  It is clear that the engagement of PWC by the Railway Ministry for the Marhowra Project referred to in the Railway document quoted from hereinabove is not the same engagement of PWC that is referred to in the RITES letter dated January 7, 2013.  The RITES letter relates to the appointment of RITES "for providing consultancy services to the Ministry of Railways to engage consultancy firm for advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell." The engagement of PWC referred to in the Railway Ministry document reproduced hereinabove is in connection with a two stage bid process with an RFQ and an RFP stage.

 

42.  For the reasons set out hereinabove, the statements made by respondent 4 in its affidavit dated January 14, 2013 in paragraphs 17, 18, 20, and 32 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma are false and incorrect. These statements and the misleading record produced and sought to be created (in the case of the RITES letter dated January 7, 2013) by the Railway Ministry are clearly the result of a planned conspiracy under advice of lawyers, by Railway Ministry officials to deceive and mislead this court with intent to cover up the corrupt nature of the dealings between Vinod Sharma and General Electric in 2010. These corrupt dealings render General Electric liable for disqualification and blacklisting under both the 2010 Madhepura and Marhowra RFQs. The Railway Ministry acting in collusion with/ under pressure from the PMO and the Planning Commission has filed false and perjurious affidavits to cover up General Electric corruption and to hand over the contract for the Marhowra Project to General Electric in violation of law, its own contract terms and government of India guidelines. 

 

43.  The failure of the Railway Ministry to unambiguously affirm on affidavit that Mr Vinod Sharma has never acted as advisor to the railway ministry for the Marhowra Project shows that the petitioner's complaint is correct and General Electric's dealings with Vinod Sharma in 2010 constituted a corrupt practice under the 2010 Marhowra RFQ.   

 

44.  The "Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 6 and 7" dated 23 March 2013, states on internal page 62:

 

" … the Answering Respondents state that GE India did in fact enter into a written agreement to govern its relationship with Mr Sharma's company, Essvee Consultants, effective August 11, 2009. This document, which did undergo legal review and does contain stringent compliance representations and warranties in stark contrast to the Petitioner's baseless allegations to the contrary, is not annexed hereto because of the confidential and proprietary nature of the agreement. The Answering Respondents will submit the agreement under sealed cover if and when directed by this Hon'ble  court".

 

45.  The Mr Sharma in question is Mr Vinod Sharma, a retired Railway Ministry official, who after retirement worked with PricewaterhouseCoopers as a consultant and advised the Railway Ministry on the Project for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra and on the 2008-2009 Bidding Process (tender) for this Project.

 

46.  GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited had participated in the 2008-2009 Bidding Process for this Project but its Bid was not accepted on account of it being found to be non-responsive. [In its affidavit-in-reply filed to CM 19501/ 2012, the Railway Ministry has stated in connection with the 2008-2009 Bidding Process for this Project that: "The sole bidder who submitted the bid was M/s GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd i.e. the Respondent No. 7. … After due scrutiny of the bid documents, the bid was discharged as the bid was found to be non-responsive to the bid conditions".]

 

47.  Mr Vinod Sharma's dealings with General Electric in 2010 in connection with the 2010 Bidding Process for the Project for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra constituted a corrupt practice as defined in Clause 4.1.3 (a) (ii) of the 2010 RFQ.

 

48.  The alleged affidavit sworn on 23 March 2013 by Mr K R Radhakrishnan states that GE India entered into a written contact with Mr Vinod Sharma's company called "Essvee Consultants" and that this contract came into effect from 11 August 2009. The petitioner has searched the company records maintained by the Ministry for Corporate Affairs and there exist no records for a company with the words "Essvee Consultants" in its name. There is no incorporated company in existence in India which begins its name with "Essvee Consultants". It also appears as if the "Essvee" stands for Mr Vinod Sharma's initials in reverse order. An internet search shows that there is a website with the domain name http://www.essveeconsultants.com/. The "company profile" on this website reads:

 

"Established in 2009, *Essvee Consultants* is a trusted placement agency providing total recuritment solutions for diverse industries having its offices in Ajmer (Rajasthan) and Faridabad (Haryana). We are engaged in providing manpower solutions in India as well as abroad. The company has been established with the sole objective of dedicatedly serving the Human Resource Sector with quality service. The company is providing consultation and value added HR services to Corporate and other small Business Houses. Our prime focus is on offering HR Services that exactly match the requirements of our esteemed clients".

 

The "management team" and "contact" pages on this website list the following three names: Sandeep Dutt Sharma, Rajesh Sharma and Rahul Sharma. All three names share the surname "Sharma" with Mr Vinod Sharma. It is pointed out that this Essvee Consultants claims to have been established in 2009.

 

49.  In his alleged affidavit-in-reply verified on 23 March 2013, Mr K R

Radhakrishnan makes the following statement:

 

"The Answering Respondents are unaware of the percentage of text from the 2010 diesel tender documents that is similar to the earlier project documents. Further, the Answering Respondents are unaware of what role, if any, Mr. Sharma or PwC served in reviewing documents associated with the 2008 diesel locomotive tender".

 

50.  A clause identical to Clause 4.1.3 (a) (ii) of the 2010 Diesel RFQ was present in the 2008 Diesel RFQ. Since a clause of this nature is usually included in all RFQs issued by the Government of India, why and how did General Electric not know or not enquire into the role of Mr Vinod Sharma in the 2008-2009 Bidding Process for the Marhowra Project? This statement is even more unbelievable given that Mr K R Radhakrishnan also states that the contract signed with Mr Vinod Sharma's company in August 2009 was subject to a full legal review. Did General Electric not engage in due-diligence with respect to Mr Vinod Sharma's prior dealings with the Marhowra Project? This again establishes that General Electric is still attempting to cover up its corrupt dealings with Mr Vinod Sharma.

 

51.  The petitioner was told by Mr Raian Karanjawala in July/ August 2011 that Mr Vinod Sharma might be related to Mr Sunand Sharma who is at present the country president for Alstom India and who has in his career worked for General Electric earlier. Mr Raian Karanjawala had asked the petitioner if Vinod Sharma was Sunand Sharma's brother. Mr Raian Karanjawala knows Mr Sunand Sharma personally and as a client.

 

52.  Both GE and Alstom's applications for the 2010 Marhowra and Madhepura tenders (respectively) were similar in that these involve consortia with BHEL. The Petitioner was told by Mr Pratyush Kumar (from General Electric) that a consortium bid along-with BHEL by GE, would assure it of winning the contract. This connection between Mr Vinod Sharma and Mr Sunand Sharma raises the possibility of cartelization between GE, BHEL and Alstom in connection with the Madhepura and Marhowra tenders.

 

 

Issue of General Electric email sent to Railway Ministry official's Gmail account on 20 May 2011 

 

53.  This email sent by Mr Ramesh Mathur to Mr Ved Mani Tiwari on May 20, 2011 has been produced by the Petitioner with her affidavit dated July 9, 2012. It is also part of Annexure P-7 at page 215 to the present Writ Petition. It reads:

 

"Dear Sir,

As desired by you, a summary of the Railway Locomotives supplied two years prior to the application due date is enclosed."

 

The attachment to this email was an excel file titled "IR AnnexII_I.xls. This email was forwarded to the petitioner on May 20, 2010 at 10:47 am (it was also sent to Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Mr. Ashfaq Nainar, Mr. Gaurav Negi, and Ms. Praveena Yagnambhat) by Mr. Ramesh Mathur with no explanation. 

 

54.  Mr. Ramesh Mathur's email to Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari was sent without the petitioner's knowledge and without any consultation with her. The petitioner is also not personally aware of why this email was sent or of any prior or subsequent communication between General Electric executives and Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari or the Railway Ministry on this issue.

 

55.  Clause 2.2.2 of the 2010 Madhepura RFQ sets out the conditions for eligibility for pre-qualification and short-listing. 2.2.2 (A) lays down the conditions to be met to establish Technical Capacity. The first proviso to clause 2.2.2 (A) reads: "Provided that at least one third of the Threshold Technical Capacity shall be from Eligible Projects which were supplied at least 2 (two) years prior to the Application Due Date."

 

56.  Therefore, at least 1/3rd of the eligibility threshold technical capacity is required to be met by locomotive supplies made two years prior to the application due date. On May 20, 2010, Mr. Ramesh Mathur sent Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari a summary of locomotive supplies made by General Electric two years prior to the application due date in an excel chart titled "IR Annex II_I.xls. The above email sent by Mr. Ramesh Mathur establishes that in the technical bid submitted on May 17, 2010 for the Madhepura Electric Locomotive factory tender, General Electric did not provide adequate information or information in the required format to satisfy the tendering Authority that the condition specified in the first proviso to clause 2.2.2 (A) had been met by GE.  This information was belatedly sent by Mr. Ramesh Mathur to Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari on the latter's personal Gmail account (and not on his official email address - deed@rb.railnet.gov.inon May 20, 2010, three days after the technical bids had been opened on May 17, 2010. That General Electric found it necessary to supplement its technical bid for the Madhepura RFQ on May 20, 2010 suggests that without the additional information/ document/ statement provided by Mr. Ramesh Mathur to Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari on May 20, 2010, General Electric's technical bid as submitted on May 17, 2010 was non-responsive and incomplete.

 

57.  Clause 2.19 of the 2010 Madhepura RFQ prescribes the tests for responsiveness. According to Clause 2.19.1, to be considered "responsive", an application must be in the format prescribed by Appendix I; must contain all required information and documents, complete in all respects; and must contain this information in the specified formats. Clause 2.19.1 provides that the Authority will first determine whether an application is "responsive" before evaluating it for pre-qualification. Clause 2.19.2 provides that the Authority reserves the right to reject a non-responsive application.

 

58.  Clause 2.16.1 of the 2010 Madhepura RFQ provides that: "No Application shall be modified, substituted or withdrawn by the Applicant or on after the Application Due Date". Clause 2.16.2 provides that "The modification, substitution or withdrawal notice shall be prepared, sealed, marked, and delivered in accordance with Clause 2.13, with the envelopes being additionally marked "MODIFICATION", "SUBSTITUTION" or "WITHDRAWAL", as appropriate. Clause 2.16.3 provides that: "Any alteration/ modification in the Application or additional information supplied subsequent to the Application Due Date, unless the same has been expressly sought for by the Authority, shall be disregarded."

 

59.  Clause 2.20.1 of the 2010 Madhepura RFQ provides that: "To facilitate evaluation of Applications, the Authority may, at its sole discretion, seek clarifications from any Applicant regarding its Application. Such clarification(s) shall be provided within the time specified by the Authority for this purpose. Any request for clarification(s) and all clarification(s) in response thereto shall be in writing".

 

60.  Clause 2.24 of the 2010 Madhepura RFQ provides that: "Save and except as provided in this RFQ, the Authority shall not entertain any correspondence with any Applicant in relation to the acceptance or rejection of any Application."

 

61.  According to Clause 2.16.1 of the 2010 Madhepura RFQ, General Electric was only permitted to modify its application until the due date. After the due date, General Electric could not have modified its application or provided additional information unless this was expressly sought for by the Authority in writing under Clause 2.16.3 or Clause 2.20.1. Under Clause 2.20.1, any request by the authority for clarification or additional information/ documents had to be in writing. The Railways Ministry (the tendering Authority) did not make any written request to General Electric asking it to provide additional/ missing information or documentation. The information sent by Mr. Ramesh Mathur on behalf of General Electric on May 20, 2010 was therefore not sent in accordance with the rules prescribed in the RFQ. This email was not in response to a formal written request from the Railways Ministry asking General Electric to provide this additional information. It was not sent in the format prescribed by Clause 2.16.2. It was not addressed to the appropriate officer designated in the RFQ as authorized to receive the bids and all queries, clarifications etc. Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari was not the designated officer authorized to receive bids, information or queries under the RFQ. Clause 2.13.3 of the RFQ named Mr. Sudheer Kumar, Executive Director, Electrical Engineering (Development), Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) as the officer designated to receive the bid documents and all queries/ information. Contact details for Mr. Sudheer Kumar including his email contact (edeed@rb.railnet.gov.in) were provided in Clause 2.13.3.

 

62.  Mr. Ramesh Mathur's email dated May 20, 2011 sent to Mr Ved Mani Tiwari violates Clause 2.20.1 and Clause 2.24 of the 2010 Madhepura RFQ. Mr Ramesh Mathur's email dated May 20, 2011 establishes that there was informal, corrupt and off-the-record communication between Railway Ministry officials (including Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari) and General Electric executives (Mr. Pratyush Kumar and Mr. Ramesh Mathur).  Such informal and off-the-record communication also took place after May 17, 2010 pursuant to which Mr. Ramesh Mathur (from General Electric) sent this email on May 20, 2010 to Mr Ved Mani Tiwari. The information supplied by Mr. Ramesh Mathur in this email was taken into account by the Railways Ministry in its decision to prequalify General Electric for this tender. This email constitutes evidence of the corrupt and cozy relationship between Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari (a Railway Ministry official acting alone or under instructions from his superior officers) and Mr. Pratyush Kumar and Mr. Ramesh Mathur from General Electric. Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari went out of his way to help General Electric prequalify for the 2010 electric locomotive tender. Mr Ved Mani Tiwari in collusion with the General Electric executives involved (Mr Pratyush Kumar, Mr Ramesh Mathur and Mr Ashfaq Nainar) acted corruptly and violated the conditions laid down in the RFQ. There will be additional evidence on this corrupt interaction between Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari, Mr. Pratyush Kumar and Mr. Ramesh Mathur. There will be evidence about how Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari used and what he did with the excel document supplied on May 20, 2010 by Mr. Ramesh Mathur of General Electric.

 

63.  Clause 2.16.3 of the 2010 Madhepura RFQ states that any information supplied subsequent to the application date shall be disregarded unless it was expressly sought for by the Authority. The Indian Railways could not therefore have relied upon the information and documentation provided by Mr. Ramesh Mathur (General Electric) in his email dated May 20, 2010 to support its decisions treat General Electric's bid as responsive, and shortlist it for this tender.

 

64.  As the decision of the Railway Ministry to treat General Electric's bid for the 2010 Madhepura as responsive and to shortlist it was based upon "wrongful" consideration of the additional information supplied by General Electric after the application due date, and because this information was supplied in violation of the RFQ terms and as part of corrupt contact and collusion between Railway Ministry officials and General Electric executives, this decision was bad in law and was liable to be set aside/ quashed. 

 

65.  Mr Ramesh Mathur's email sent to Mr Ved Mani Tiwari's gmail address also amounts to an "undesirable practice" under Clause 4.3 (d) of the 2010 Madhepura RFQ which reads:

 

""undesirable practice" means (i) establishing contact with any person connected with or employed or engaged by the Authority with the objective of canvassing, lobbying or in any manner influencing or attempting to influence the Bidding Process; or (ii) having a Conflict of Interest".

 

66.  The legal consequences that would follow on account of Mr Ramesh Mathur's email dated May 20, 2010 to Mr Ved Mani Tiwari are:

 

                                                              i.      The additional information provided by General Electric to the Railway Ministry on May 20, 2010 through Mr. Ramesh Mathur was liable to be disregarded;

                                                            ii.      The decision to prequalify General Electric for the 2010 electric locomotive tender was liable to be reversed/ set aside;

                                                          iii.      Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari (Railway Ministry), and Mr. Pratyush Kumar and Mr. Ramesh Mathur (General Electric) are liable to be investigated for corruption and punished in accordance with law;

                                                          iv.      General Electric Company and its two Indian subsidiaries (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) are liable to be blacklisted for corrupt and undesirable practices in accordance with law and the 2010 Madhepura RFQ. 

 

 

Issue of General Electric lobbying Railway Ministry officials using McKinsey consultants

 

67.  The petitioner has complained about illegal and prohibited lobbying of Railway Ministry officials by General Electric with the help of McKinsey consultants. Paragraph 23 of Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 reads:

 

"The Petitioner states that towards the end of May 2010 and the first two weeks of June 2010, GE engaged a team of McKinsey consultants who were working out of GE's office in New Delhi. These consultants and GE executives had extensive meetings with Indian Railways officials during this time. GE used these consultants to lobby for changes to the bidding documents for the Diesel and Electric Locomotive Tenders of the Indian Railways. Such contact with Indian Railways officials and lobbying was expressly prohibited under the Diesel and Electric Locomotive tender documents and amounted to a corrupt practice. GE executives from GE Transportation in Erie, United States including Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli and Ms. Tara Plimpton as well as Mr. John Flannery, Respondent No. 9 were aware of these meetings between the McKinsey consultants and the Indian Railways officials. They were regularly briefed on conference calls by the McKinsey team about this lobbying. The Petitioner learnt about the meetings between the McKinsey Consultants and the Railways officials after the fact, when she was asked to prepare a non-disclosure agreement to be executed between McKinsey and GE after the McKinsey team had already completed their assignment."

 

68.  The petitioner reproduces below some emails that were exchanged between her and GE lawyers and executives including Ms. Tara Plimpton (then General Counsel, GE Transportation) in early June, 2010. (The email trail shows that Ms. Tara Plimpton mistakenly sent her response to my Gmail address instead of the GE email address I was using (seema.sapra@ge.com). Copies of these emails dated June 1, June 2, June 3 and June 4, 2010 have also been filed with the petitioner's affidavit dated July 9, 2012. 

 

"---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Thomas, Peter G (GE Infra, Transportation) <peter.g.thomas@ge.com>

Date: Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:35 PM

Subject: Re: NDA with McKinsey

To: "Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, "BeGole, Brett (GE Transportation)" <brett.begole@ge.com>

Cc: seema.sapra@googlemail.com

 

 

Tara...I haven't been involved in the india engagement. I thought that they were working directly with Flannery/Prat.

 

Brett...do you know?

--------------------------

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US)

To: Thomas, Peter G (GE Transportation)

Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>

Sent: Fri Jun 04 08:18:27 2010

Subject: FW: NDA with McKinsey

 

Peter, who owns the McKinsey relationship and do we have an NDA that covers this scope of work in India?

 

Tara

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Sapra, Seema (GE Transportation, Non-GE)

Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 5:00 AM

To: Winget, James, Legal (GE Transportation, US)

Cc: Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US); Malhotra, Ashish (GE Transportation); Kumar, Prat (GE Transportation); Gerson, James (GE Transportation); Adlakha, Deepak (GE, Corporate)

Subject: FW: NDA with McKinsey