IN 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
  
  Through: Mr.R.N. Singh, Advocate with
  
  Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocate for R-4/Indian Railways.
  
  Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for R-5/UOI.
  
  Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel with
  
  Mr. Santosh Prasad Chaursiya and Mr. Nitish Sharma, Advocates for R-
  12/CBI.
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   07.03.2012
  
  
  
  1. On 05.03.2012, the petitioner, who appears in person, had stated
  that she had filed an affidavit in the Registry on 02.03.2012. As the
  same was not on record, the matter was adjourned for today.
  
  2. A perusal of the file shows that in this duration, the petitioner
  has filed three additional affidavits, the first one is dated 03.03.2012
  and the other two are both dated 05.03.2012. In the two affidavits filed
  by the petitioner on 05.03.2012, she has requested this Court to recuse
  itself from hearing the present petition. The averments made in both the
  affidavits are completely baseless and the allegations levelled, a
  figment of the petitioner?s imagination. The same have
  
  W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page No.1 of 4
  
  
  
  been made only to overawe the Court. However, the Court is neither
  overawed nor is it cowed down by the averments made by the petitioner in
  the affidavits and it declines her request to recuse itself in the
  matter.
  
  3. It is relevant to note that the petitioner is a practicing
  advocate. Simply because she is appearing in person does not mean that
  she can claim the same latitude that an ordinary litigant appearing in
  person can. She is well aware of the manner in which a member of the Bar
  is expected to conduct herself in Court. She is also expected to be aware
  of the fact that a certain decorum is required to be maintained by
  counsels, while addressing arguments in Court. The petitioner ought to be
  mindful of the tone and tenor of the averments made by her in the
  affidavits filed on record. The averments made by the petitioner in the
  first affidavit dated 05.03.2012, particularly, paras 30 and 37 thereof
  and in the second affidavit of the same date, particularly, para 23
  thereof as also many of her utterances today are scandalous and on the
  face of it, contemptuous. Despite the same, for the present, the Court
  is refraining from initiating contempt proceedings against the
  petitioner, while warning her to maintain decorum in Court and behave in
  a manner that behoves a counsel while addressing arguments and
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page No.2 of 4
  
  
  
  filing affidavits. In future, any misdemeanour on her part shall be
  viewed seriously.
  
  4. Coming to the writ petition, issue notice. For the present, it is
  deemed appropriate to confine the notice to respondents No.1 to 7 and
  respondent No.12.
  
  5. Counsels for respondent No.4/Indian Railways, respondent No.5/UOI
  and respondent No.12/CBI accept notice. They state that they have
  received copies of the paper book as filed by the petitioner originally,
  but they have not been served with copies of the additional affidavits
  filed by her subsequently. The petitioner shall furnish copies of the
  
  additional affidavits to the counsels for the respondents. Counter affidavits be filed within four weeks with copies to the petitioner, who
  may file rejoinders before the next date of hearing.
  
  6. Process fee be filed by the petitioner for effecting service on
  respondents No.1 to 3, 6 and 7 by Regd. AD post, through ordinary process
  as also by courier, returnable before the Registrar on 25th April, 2012,
  for completion of service and pleadings.
  
  List in Court on 19th July, 2012.
  
  CM 2770/2012 (for interim orders)
  
  1. This application is filed by the petitioner for being provided
  protection and for being relocated to a safe house. On being asked if
  
  W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page No.3 of 4
  
  
  
  she is seeking any directions to respondent No.3/Delhi Police to offer
  her protection, the petitioner states that she is being extended threats
  by the police and therefore, does not want any directions to be issued to
  Delhi Police for protection. Instead, she states that respondent
  No.5/UOI be directed to provide her protection.
  
  2. Counsel for respondent No.5/UOI submits that no such arrangement
  for grant of protection as sought by the petitioner can be made by
  respondent No.5/UOI.
  
  3. Orders on the present application can be passed only after perusing
  the replies of the respondents. Replies to this application be filed
  within three weeks with copies to the petitioner, who may file
  rejoinders, if necessary, before the next date of hearing.
  
  List on 9th May, 2012.
  
  
  
  
  
  HIMA KOHLI, J
  MARCH 07, 2012
  
  rkb
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 1280/2012 Page No.4 of 4
  
  
  
  22.