In a stern warning against procedural misconduct, the Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on both a petitioner and her counsel for filing a writ petition without the petitioner’s signature. The Court found that the petition, which related to allegations of unauthorized construction in Delhi, was filed using only the advocate’s signature and contact details—raising serious concerns over misuse of judicial process.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, who presided over the matter, strongly condemned the irregularities and noted that the mobile number and email address used in the original complaint to the Special Task Force (STF) regarding the alleged illegal construction also belonged to the counsel. This overlap prompted the Court to suspect that the entire proceeding may have been initiated solely by the advocate, without proper authorization from the purported litigant.
Highlighting the seriousness of the issue, the Court remarked:
“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.”
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had brought the issue to the Court’s attention, further pointing out that the original complaint filed before the STF also lacked proper petitioner’s information and bore the same contact details as the advocate.
Additionally, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) informed the Court that appropriate steps were already underway concerning the unauthorized construction at issue.
In its final order, the Court dismissed the writ 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 now been listed before the Joint Registrar on July 21, 2025, to monitor compliance with the payment order.
Case: Madhu Gupta vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others – Available on LAWFYI.IO
