The Delhi High Court criticized the DDA for delaying an advocate’s rightful fees, stressing that public bodies must act honourably. The court said such conduct undermines the rule of law and damages the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship.
The Delhi High Court reprimanded the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for its delay in paying an advocate’s professional fees.
The Court mandated that the DDA settle all outstanding payments with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the due dates of each pending bill.
Justice Sachin Datta, in his ruling, emphasized the responsibilities of public entities toward the lawyers they engage,
“The public authorities, such as the DDA, are not expected to act in a dishonourable and unscrupulous manner in their dealings with their own Advocates by seeking to evade payment of fees and emoluments. Such conduct, not only brings disrepute to the public authority concerned but also strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law, since the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship constitutes the most fundamental aspect thereof. This Court is constrained to express its deep dismay at the conduct of the concerned officials who have sought to deny the petitioner’s legitimate entitlement.”
The Court ruled that a writ petition is valid for recovering an advocate’s fees from State entities.
ALSO READ: Gauhati HC Relocation| CM Himanta Biswa Sarma Resigns from Bar Association
The petitioner, who served as Special Counsel for the Ministry of Urban Development (now the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs) and the DDA before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), was engaged in October 2013. A vakalatnama formalized this engagement.
While he received payments for appearances from October 2013 to January 2016, he claimed that his fees from January 2016 until his disengagement in November 2016 remained unpaid despite his repeated requests to the DDA and the Ministry.
Ultimately, he sent a legal notice in April 2022.
Although the High Court referred the matter to mediation, which included 21 sessions from February to August 2024, no agreement was reached.
The DDA contested the petition on several grounds, arguing that a final agreement on the advocate’s fees had not been established and that he had initially sought approval for his rates. It maintained that the dispute required a civil suit resolution, as it raised factual questions, rather than falling under Article 226 of the Constitution, which allows High Courts to direct public authorities.
Additionally, the DDA claimed that payments made already exceeded permissible limits as per government office memoranda and alleged that the advocate had billed separately for hearings on the same day.
After reviewing the engagement letter, the vakalatnamas from the DDA and the Ministry, and the letter that ended the advocate’s engagement in November 2016, the Court determined that the evidence confirmed the petitioner was authorized to represent the authorities on the main application and related proceedings before the NGT.
The Court noted,
“The attempt on the part of the respondents (DDA) to create an unnecessary controversy in order to deny the legitimate entitlement of the petitioner (the advocate) is unfortunate,”
Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court opined that an advocate appointed by a public authority should not need to pursue a separate civil suit to recover fees for undisputed engagements and appearances.
“It is indeed unfortunate that the petitioner (the advocate) has been made to run from pillar to post for his legitimate dues. It does not behove the DDA or any other public authority to avail the services of an advocate and then seek to deny payment of fees/emoluments on frivolous grounds.”
The Court pointed out that the petitioner had been compensated at the same rate for earlier appearances and that no objections had been raised during years of correspondence.
ALSO READ: Gurugram Court Clash || Bar Association to Approach High Court Against Judge
In conclusion, the Court directed the DDA to immediately process payment of the outstanding fees, while clarifying that the authority could subtract any amounts billed separately for main and miscellaneous applications heard on the same day, as indicated in the duplicate billing table submitted to the Court.
Advocates Ankit Agarwal, Apoorv Srivastava, and Koustabh Desai represented the petitioner, while the DDA was defended by advocates Tushar Sannu, Pulak Gupta, Parvin Bansal, and Aqsa.
Senior Panel Counsel Amit Gupta, along with advocates Vidur Dwivedi, Atik Gill, and Karan Rawal, represented the Union of India.
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
