Allahabad HC imposes Rs 5 lakh cost on advocate for unauthorized representation, leveling malafide allegations against State

Read order: Dr. Mukut Nath Verma vs. Union of India

LE Correspondent

Prayagraj, August 27, 2021: While dismissing the writ with a cost of Rs 5 lakh for unauthorisedly filing a petition on behalf of the accused and his family members, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the petitioner being a practicing lawyer is expected to verify the serious allegations himself before leveling the same against the respondents (State).

Departmental proceeding, suspension and pension of an employee are all service law matters and beyond the scope of criminal miscellaneous writ petition, added the High Court.

Observing that serious allegations have been made against the State, which appear to be mala-fide in order to malign their image, a Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal said that an inference of mala fides has been sought to be drawn in the course of vague pleading that the respondent authorities are allegedly helping the mining mafias. 

As per own allegation of the petitioner, he has been authorized as legal representative and advocate by Mani Lal Patidar (IPS, Ex-Superintendent of Police, Mahoba U.P.) by way of e-mail to appear on his behalf to collect relevant and necessary papers and represent before the SIT and other authorities, the HC noted.

The Division Bench found that the petitioner has been continuously filing various applications at different forums, but has not disclosed the source of finance of the litigation for his alleged client, i.e. the accused Mani Lal Patidar. 

Non-disclosure of this fact itself indicates some hidden motive in filing the present writ petition, added the Bench. 

Finding that the accused Mani Lal Patidar is absconding against whom proceedings u/s 82, Cr.P.C. has been and anticipatory bail applications were rejected, the High Court said that the present writ petition is apparently an abuse of the process of law by the petitioner herein, which has stated himself to be an advocate.

The High Court further went on to state that swearing by the petitioner on personal knowledge is without foundation as well a conscious attempt to mislead the Court.

Therefore, the Bench imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the advocate, noticing an inference of mala fides, and directed the Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action against him for filing frivolous petitions.