In a sharp rebuke to the Delhi Development Authority, the Delhi High Court has ordered the civic body to immediately clear long-pending professional fees owed to an advocate — with 9% annual interest calculated from the date each bill fell due.
Justice Sachin Datta did not mince words. Public authorities, the Court said, cannot behave in a manner that undermines the very professional relationships they rely upon. Evading payment to counsel engaged by them is not merely a contractual lapse — it chips away at institutional credibility and the rule of law itself.
At the heart of the dispute was an advocate 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. A formal vakalatnama backed the engagement. Payments were made for appearances until January 2016. After that, silence — at least financially.
The counsel claimed that fees for appearances from February 2016 until his disengagement in November 2016 were never released. Letters were written. Reminders sent. A legal notice followed in April 2022. Still, no resolution.
The matter even went through mediation — 21 sittings over several months — but ended without settlement.
DDA resisted the petition on multiple fronts. It questioned whether any final fee arrangement had been settled, argued that disputed facts required a civil suit rather than writ jurisdiction, and claimed that payments already made exceeded prescribed government norms. It also alleged duplicate billing where the main application and a miscellaneous application were heard on the same day.
The Court, however, found the record unambiguous. Engagement letters, vakalatnamas and the formal letter of disengagement collectively established the advocate’s authorised representation before the NGT. The Court described the DDA’s attempt to create controversy over payment as “unfortunate.”
Crucially, the judgment also settles a larger principle: a writ petition is maintainable to recover an advocate’s fees from a State instrumentality where the engagement and appearances are not in dispute. An advocate, the Court said, should not be forced into prolonged civil litigation merely to recover professional dues from a public body.
Calling it regrettable that the petitioner had been made to “run from pillar to post,” the Court directed the DDA to immediately release the outstanding payments with interest. It did permit deductions for any proven instances where separate bills were raised for the main and miscellaneous applications heard on the same day, as reflected in the duplicate billing table placed before it.
The message was unmistakable: government bodies cannot invoke technicalities to dodge payment for services they willingly availed.
