Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

1. Little did the framing fathers of the Constitution and the legislators visualize that the privilege and liberty granted to an individual to approach the court of law and to appear for himself and for others either as an attorney or as an advocate could and would be misused and abused to such an extent as has been done by this one individual Mr. Deepak Khosla.

2. 32 learned Judges of this High Court (including former and sitting judges), judges of the subordinate courts, the Company Law Board and the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of former judges of this Court and a former judge of the Supreme Court have recused themselves since 2008 from hearing the cases in which either Mr. Deepak Khosla is a party or appearing as an attorney or as an advocate.

3. Various judicial orders imposing costs and even initiating contempt proceedings both civil and criminal have not deterred him from continuing with his conduct.

4. The Courts in India are perceived as temples of justice and the Judges as its priests. The legal profession is considered world over as a very honourable profession. The members of the profession hold a special place in the society. They are looked upon by others as leaders, advisors, mentors, guides etc. One individual by his conduct has attempted to pollute the stream of administration of justice and the very purity of the Courts' atmosphere.

5. Mr. Deepak Khosla started appearing in a litigation first as an authorised representative of his wife and father and of a company but later on during the pendency of the litigation has gone on to study law and has joined the legal profession.

6. Members of the legal profession are required to maintain higher standards of behaviour and conduct than an ordinary citizen.

7. Despite entering the legal profession and donning the robes of a member of the legal profession the behaviour and conduct of Mr. Deepak Khosla has not changed.

8. By Order dated 24.04.2012 the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 16/2012 held that the High Court has inherent power distinct and separate from power of contempt to injunct/sanction vexatious or frivolous litigation, vexatious/habitual litigants, contumelious litigant and issue appropriate directions, including prohibiting the said litigant from appearing and arguing matters in person and for others and from initiating or filing proceedings, except with permission of the Court. The Division Bench further directed that the Order dated 04.01.2012, passed by a learned Single Judge, would be treated as a Show Cause Notice. The order of the Division Bench has been upheld by the Supreme Court by order dated 19.09.2012 in SLP(C) No. 15004/2012.

9. The present order is being passed pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench by Order dated 24.04.2012.

10. For the disposal of the Show Cause Notice in terms of the directions of the Division Bench, it is necessary to examine the behaviour and conduct of Mr. Deepak Khosla in the Courts.

11. By Order dated 25.09.2008, in Co.A.(SB) 6/2008 a learned Single Judge of this Court has recorded as under:

“In view of the scandalous averments contained in this application, it appears that the applicant has no confidence in me and, therefore I recuse myself from hearing this application.”

12. By Order dated 28.01.2009 in Co.A.(SB) 7/2008 another learned Single Judge of this Court held as under:

“3. The applications before this court are in the nature of a review of hearing wherein a brother colleague has recused himself for reasons of scandalous averments contained in CA No. 1000/2000. It is well settled that consideration of any application has to abide by judicial record which is placed before the court. Fully conscious of the well settled legal position, unfounded allegations, before even submissions could be completed by counsel, have been made.

4. ...............

7. .....At this stage, Mr. Deepak Kh