THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1280/2012
SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person
versus
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO AND ORS ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 1280/2012
SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person
versus
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. N. Ganpathy and Mr.
M. Lamba, Advocates for R-1, 6 and 7
Mr. Vikrant Pachnando, Advocate for Mr. Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel for GNCTD/R-3
Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocate for R-4
Ms. Sapna Chauhan and Mr. Pradeep Singh, Advocates for UOI/R-5
Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. S.P. Chaursiya, Advocate for CBI/R-12
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
O R D E R
25.05.2012
CM APPL. 2770/2012
Replies to application to some directions regarding her security have not been filed so far by the respondents. No further time to file reply to this application is granted, as prayed, since already sufficient time has been granted.
List the matter now for hearing on 19th July, 2012, the date already fixed in the main matter. The petitioner says that her application should be heard today but considering the heavy Board it will not be possible to hear this matter today.
Today during the course of hearing of the matter the petitioner had objected to the presence of one S.I. Sanjay Singh in Court stating that since she has leveled very serious allegations against him as well as his immediate boss Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, S.H.O. Sunil Kumar Sharma and the Additional Commissioner Ajay Chaudhary he should be asked to leave the Court and further that these police officers have been intimidating her and pressurizing her to give up this legal battle she feels apprehensive about her life and so she has sought protection. These grievances shall
also be considered on 19th July, 2012.
The Commissioner of Police as well as all other concerned authorities entrusted with the task of protecting the citizens of the country are directed to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioner, who is contesting this battle in person as a whistle blower. Counsel for the Delhi Police says that it is undoubtedly the duty of the police to protect all the citizens and so it will be ensured that no harm is caused to the petitioner by anyone, including policemen.
P.K. BHASIN, J
MAY 25, 2012/pg
Mr. Vikrant Pachnando, Advocate for Mr. Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel for GNCTD/R-3
Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocate for R-4
Ms. Sapna Chauhan and Mr. Pradeep Singh, Advocates for UOI/R-5
Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. S.P. Chaursiya, Advocate for CBI/R-12
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
O R D E R
25.05.2012
CM APPL. 2770/2012
Replies to application to some directions regarding her security have not been filed so far by the respondents. No further time to file reply to this application is granted, as prayed, since already sufficient time has been granted.
List the matter now for hearing on 19th July, 2012, the date already fixed in the main matter. The petitioner says that her application should be heard today but considering the heavy Board it will not be possible to hear this matter today.
Today during the course of hearing of the matter the petitioner had objected to the presence of one S.I. Sanjay Singh in Court stating that since she has leveled very serious allegations against him as well as his immediate boss Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, S.H.O. Sunil Kumar Sharma and the Additional Commissioner Ajay Chaudhary he should be asked to leave the Court and further that these police officers have been intimidating her and pressurizing her to give up this legal battle she feels apprehensive about her life and so she has sought protection. These grievances shall
also be considered on 19th July, 2012.
The Commissioner of Police as well as all other concerned authorities entrusted with the task of protecting the citizens of the country are directed to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioner, who is contesting this battle in person as a whistle blower. Counsel for the Delhi Police says that it is undoubtedly the duty of the police to protect all the citizens and so it will be ensured that no harm is caused to the petitioner by anyone, including policemen.
P.K. BHASIN, J
MAY 25, 2012/pg
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“IN
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) No.1280/2012
SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through In person
versus
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. and ORS ..... Respondents
SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through In person
versus
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. and ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Manpreet Lamba, Adv. R-1, 6 and 7
Mr.R.V. Sinha, Adv. R-2
Mr.Mithilesh Kr. Mishra, Adv. R-3
Ms.Sapna Chauhan, Adv. R-5
Mr.P.K. Sharma, Adv. R-12/CBI
Ms.Firdouse Qutbwani, Adv. R-13
Mr.Anirudh Wadhwa, Adv. R-14
Ms.Shagun Parashar, Adv. R-15
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R
18.04.2013
1. The petitioner submits that she is in the process of drafting and filing an application seeking transfer of the matter from this court and prays for an adjournment.
2. The petitioner has also expressed the grave concern to her life and security on the ground that she has been rendered homeless and is living out in her own car.
3. When this was expressed before us on the 27th of February, 2013, we had proposed to examine the possibility of assistance being given to the petitioner under any scheme which may be under implementation by the Government. The petitioner had expressed complete abhorrence to the suggestion which was recorded by this court in the order dated 27th February, 2013. The petitioner submits that she has rejected the proposal because according to her the only facility available with the State is that of the Nari Niketan and Nirmal Chhaya, which does not befit her status as an advocate. This stand is unfortunate as there is every possibility of some facility being available where the petitioner could be accommodated.
Inasmuch as the petitioner is completely opposing the order even calling for a report with regard to the possibility of any reasonable facilities being made available to her by the Ministry of Women and Child Welfare, we are unable to make any directions on this issue. The petitioner submits that she is seeking directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
4. The petitioner states that her only submission is that the suggestion that she be sent to Nari Niketan or Nirmal Chhaya is atrocious and that she has not said anything else. This court has not made this suggestion at all.
5. The petitioner has vehemently complained that she is being poisoned and running since mid May, 2010. It is her contention that the respondents are actively conniving and conspiring against her and trying to poison her. Allegations are made by the petitioner that the Chief Medical Officer of the Delhi High Court Medical Centre as well as doctors in theMax Hospital
Given the grave apprehensions being expressed by the petitioner against almost every possible authority as well as the fact that she submits that she is sleeping in public places in a vehicle, we are deeply concerned about the life and property of the petitioner. The petitioner certainly needs adequate protection.
6. In view of the above, we direct as follows: -
(i) List the writ petition on 22nd April, 2013, as requested by the petitioner.
(ii) A direction is issued to the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters,New Delhi to ensure that
adequate steps are immediately taken to secure the life and property of the
petitioner.
(iii) The Registrar General of this Court shall monitor the compliance of our directions.
(iv) All pending applications be also listed on the next date of hearing.
(v) The registry shall list any application which is filed by the petitioner in accordance with the Delhi High Court Rules.
CM No.2477/2013
7. We had expressed reservation about the maintainability of the application, inter alia, on the ground that the prayer made in this application is way beyond the prayer made in the main writ petition.
8. On request of the petitioner, list on 16th May, 2013.
9. On request of the petitioner, dasti copy under the signature of the Court Master of this Court shall be delivered to the petitioner at 11.00 a.m. on 20th April, 2013 (Saturday).
CM Nos. 2770/2012, 7175/2012, 8677/2012, 8856/2012 and 18642/2012
List on 16th May, 2013.
GITA MITTAL, J
Mr.R.V. Sinha, Adv. R-2
Mr.Mithilesh Kr. Mishra, Adv. R-3
Ms.Sapna Chauhan, Adv. R-5
Mr.P.K. Sharma, Adv. R-12/CBI
Ms.Firdouse Qutbwani, Adv. R-13
Mr.Anirudh Wadhwa, Adv. R-14
Ms.Shagun Parashar, Adv. R-15
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R
18.04.2013
1. The petitioner submits that she is in the process of drafting and filing an application seeking transfer of the matter from this court and prays for an adjournment.
2. The petitioner has also expressed the grave concern to her life and security on the ground that she has been rendered homeless and is living out in her own car.
3. When this was expressed before us on the 27th of February, 2013, we had proposed to examine the possibility of assistance being given to the petitioner under any scheme which may be under implementation by the Government. The petitioner had expressed complete abhorrence to the suggestion which was recorded by this court in the order dated 27th February, 2013. The petitioner submits that she has rejected the proposal because according to her the only facility available with the State is that of the Nari Niketan and Nirmal Chhaya, which does not befit her status as an advocate. This stand is unfortunate as there is every possibility of some facility being available where the petitioner could be accommodated.
Inasmuch as the petitioner is completely opposing the order even calling for a report with regard to the possibility of any reasonable facilities being made available to her by the Ministry of Women and Child Welfare, we are unable to make any directions on this issue. The petitioner submits that she is seeking directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
4. The petitioner states that her only submission is that the suggestion that she be sent to Nari Niketan or Nirmal Chhaya is atrocious and that she has not said anything else. This court has not made this suggestion at all.
5. The petitioner has vehemently complained that she is being poisoned and running since mid May, 2010. It is her contention that the respondents are actively conniving and conspiring against her and trying to poison her. Allegations are made by the petitioner that the Chief Medical Officer of the Delhi High Court Medical Centre as well as doctors in the
Given the grave apprehensions being expressed by the petitioner against almost every possible authority as well as the fact that she submits that she is sleeping in public places in a vehicle, we are deeply concerned about the life and property of the petitioner. The petitioner certainly needs adequate protection.
6. In view of the above, we direct as follows: -
(i) List the writ petition on 22nd April, 2013, as requested by the petitioner.
(ii) A direction is issued to the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters,
(iii) The Registrar General of this Court shall monitor the compliance of our directions.
(iv) All pending applications be also listed on the next date of hearing.
(v) The registry shall list any application which is filed by the petitioner in accordance with the Delhi High Court Rules.
CM No.2477/2013
7. We had expressed reservation about the maintainability of the application, inter alia, on the ground that the prayer made in this application is way beyond the prayer made in the main writ petition.
8. On request of the petitioner, list on 16th May, 2013.
9. On request of the petitioner, dasti copy under the signature of the Court Master of this Court shall be delivered to the petitioner at 11.00 a.m. on 20th April, 2013 (Saturday).
CM Nos. 2770/2012, 7175/2012, 8677/2012, 8856/2012 and 18642/2012
List on 16th May, 2013.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
APRIL 18, 2013
APRIL 18, 2013
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 and CM APPL. Nos. 2770/2012, 7012/2012, 7175- 76/2012, 8677/2012, 8856/2012, 18642/2012, 19370/2012, 19501/2012, 19683/2012, 19820/2012, 105/2013, 326/2013, 428/2013, 522/2013, 1223/2013, 1679/2013, 2477/2013, 3380/2013, 3855/2013, 10492-93/2013
SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. N. Ganpathy and Mr. Manpreet Lamba, Advocates for respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7
Mr. A.K. Singh, proxy counsel for Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate for CVC/R-2
Mr. P.K. Singh, Advocate for
Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocate for R-4
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for Delhi Police with Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocate
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for UOI
Mr. A.K. Singh and Mr. Bakul Jain, Advocates for Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing counsel for CBI
Mr. P.V. Saravana Raja and Mr. Abhilashattri, proxy counsels for
Mr. C. Mukuns and Mr. Firdouse Qutbwani, Advocates for R-13
Ms. Archna, Advocate for R-16
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
O R D E R
10.01.2014
Today, at the outset, the petitioner made a submission for adjourning the matter as she has made a request to the Chief Justice of India as well as to the Chief Justice of this Court for transfer of this writ petition to the Hon?ble Supreme Court for hearing. We, however, rejected the request for adjournment. So the petitioner has made further submissions in the matter. Due to paucity of time matter is adjourned to 24th January, 2014 for further submission.
Today Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned counsel for the Delhi Police submitted that on an independent assessment of the situation the police has come to the conclusion that there is no immediate threat perception to the petitioner as she has been projecting every now and then and therefore, now it should be left to the discretion of the police authorities as to whether any protection is to be provided to her or not depending upon the inputs which the police may get. The petitioner strongly refutes this submission. Considering all the facts and circumstances we are not inclined to withdraw our earlier orders directing the police to extend full protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner till further orders of this Court.
P.K. BHASIN, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JANUARY 10, 2014
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
April 22, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment