Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Cost For Writ Petition Filed Without Petitioner’s Signature
A writ petition was filed without the petitioner’s signature using the advocate’s contact details.
Justice Mini Pushkarna
The Delhi High Court imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on both a litigant and her counsel for filing a writ petition that lacked the litigant’s signature, highlighting a serious misuse of the judicial process.
The case pertained to allegations of unauthorized construction in Delhi. The petition was filed before the Court with only the signature of the advocate and not that of the named petitioner. This irregularity was brought to the Court’s notice by the counsel representing the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
The DDA’s counsel pointed out that not only was the writ petition unsigned by the petitioner, but the mobile number and email address provided in the initial complaint filed before the Special Task Force (STF) regarding the alleged illegal construction also belonged to the counsel, not the petitioner.
The Court observed that the contact details listed in the STF complaint were identical to those of the advocate representing the petitioner, suggesting that the complaint and petition may have been initiated solely by the lawyer.
A Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna strongly criticized the conduct of both the petitioner and the counsel. The Court condemned the apparent practice of advocates filing complaints concerning unauthorized construction in their own names and subsequently moving the Court under the guise of representing others, without obtaining proper authorization or signatures from the alleged petitioners.
The Court said, “On account of the glaring facts presented before this Court, with regard the conduct of the petitioner and the counsel thereof, this Court has taken a very serious view of the matter, where complaints against unauthorised construction are being filed by advocates themselves, and writ petition is being filed without the signatures of the purported litigant.”
During the proceedings, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) also informed the Court that appropriate action was already underway with respect to the unauthorized construction at issue.
In view of the misconduct and misrepresentation, the Court dismissed the petition and directed, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted above, the present writ petition is dismissed with cost of ₹50,000 to be borne jointly by both the petitioner and the counsel, to be paid towards the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust.”
The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar on July 21, 2025, to ensure compliance with the order regarding the payment of costs.
Cause Title: Madhu Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., [2025:DHC:4867]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Farhad Alam
Respondents: Advocates Abhinav Singh and Somnath Shukla, Standing Counsel Prabhsahay Kaur, along with Advocates Kavya Shukla and Harshita Rai, Senior Panel Counsel Vinish Phoghat
