Delhi HC pulls up DDA for not paying advocate’s fee

The Delhi High Court on Friday admonished the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for non-payment of an advocate’s professional fees. The Court ordered DDA to clear all outstanding dues at an interest of 9 per cent per annum from the date of each pending bill.

Justice Sachin Datta, while allowing the petition, made observations on the responsibilities of public authorities toward lawyers engaged by them. “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,” said the Court, directing for recovery of advocate’s fees from State instrumentalities.

The petitioner, Advocate Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, had been appointed in October 2013 as Special Counsel to represent the Ministry of Urban Development (now the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs) and the DDA before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), as well as in related miscellaneous matters. A Vakalatnama was executed in his favour to formalise the engagement. The Court recorded he was paid for appearances made between October 2013 and January 2016.

However, he claimed that fees for his appearances after January 2016, up to his disengagement in November 2016, were never paid. The advocate repeatedly wrote to the DDA and the Ministry seeking payment, and eventually sent a legal notice in April 2022.

The High Court later referred the matter to mediation, where 21 sittings were held between February and August 2024, but no settlement was reached.

The DDA opposed the petition on several grounds. The Court reviewed the engagement letter, the vakalatnamas executed by the DDA and the Ministry, and the letter formally ending the advocate’s engagement in November 2016. The Court held that the material on record clearly established that the petitioner had been authorised to represent the authorities in the main application and related proceedings before the NGT.

“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,” noted the Court. On whether the writ petition was maintainable, the Court noted that an advocate appointed by a public authority should not have to file a separate civil suit to recover fees when the engagement and appearances were undisputed.

“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,” said the Court, slamming the DDA, ordering immediate payment.