|
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.
|
|