Public Authorities Not Expected To Act In Dishonourable Manner: Delhi High Court Directs DDA To Forthwith Pay Advocate’s Fee
The High Court held that it does not behove a public authority to avail services of an advocate and then deny payment on untenable grounds, and directed the DDA to immediately clear the petitioner’s outstanding professional fees.
Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a public authority cannot engage an advocate, utilise his professional services, and thereafter deny payment of fees on frivolous grounds, directing the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to forthwith release the outstanding professional bills of the petitioner.
The High Court, while making these observations, directed the DDA to forthwith make payment of the Advocate’s outstanding fee bills.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by an advocate seeking directions for payment of outstanding professional fees for appearances made before the National Green Tribunal on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and the DDA.
A Bench of Justice Sachin Datta, allowing the petition, observed that “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 Bench further stressed that “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”.
Background
The petitioner advocate was engaged as Special Counsel by the Ministry of Urban Development to represent both the Ministry and the DDA before the National Green Tribunal in environmental proceedings, with the engagement letter expressly recording that his fees would be borne by the DDA.
As reflected in the engagement communication, the decision to engage the petitioner and the obligation of the DDA to pay his fees were formally recorded. An email further confirmed that the DDA proposed to engage the petitioner and requested his professional fee terms for approval.
The petitioner submitted his fee schedule, and a note-sheet recorded approval of the proposed fee structure. He later continued to appear in the matter and related applications until the DDA formally disengaged him.
While payments were made for earlier appearances, the petitioner alleged that fees for multiple later appearances remained unpaid despite repeated communications and legal notice, leading to the present petition.
Court’s Observation
The High Court first examined whether the petitioner had in fact been engaged to represent the DDA and the Ministry. It found that the engagement letter, correspondence, and vakalatnamas placed on record clearly established that he had been authorised to appear in the main proceedings as well as related applications.
Referring to the vakalatnamas, the Court held that once such authorisation is executed, it extends to all proceedings in the matter and cannot be artificially restricted to only a portion of them.
The Court rejected the respondents’ contention that no agreement existed regarding fee rates, noting that a substantial amount had already been paid to the petitioner without dispute regarding rates, which evidenced the understanding between the parties.
It further observed that the respondents never raised objections regarding the rate of fees during the prolonged correspondence exchanged between the parties and that the fact of the petitioner’s appearances was not disputed, being verifiable from the tribunal order sheets.
The Court held that the attempt to question the petitioner’s authorisation and entitlement after years of engagement was untenable and characterised the respondents’ attempt to deny payment as an effort to create unnecessary controversy.
Addressing the maintainability objection, the Court relied on precedent holding that writ jurisdiction can be invoked for payment of professional fees where State instrumentalities act arbitrarily, even if some factual disputes exist.
The Court, while expressing “deep dismay at the conduct of the concerned officials who have sought to deny the petitioner’s legitimate entitlement”, concluded that “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.”
Conclusion
The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to payment of his outstanding professional fee bills and directed the DDA to forthwith clear them, with liberty to deduct duplicate claims relating to hearings billed twice for the same date.
The Court further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of each outstanding bill until payment. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
Cause Title: Ravi Prakash Mehrotra v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1494)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Ankit Agarwal, Apoorv Srivastava, Koustabh Desai
Respondents: Advocates Tushar Sannu, Pulak Gupta, Parvin Bansal, Aqsa, Vidur Dwivedi, Atik Gill, Karan Rawal; Amit Gupta, SPC
