Delhi High Court fines litigant for extortion through NGO; refers his lawyer's conduct to Bar Council

The Delhi High Court was recently expressed shock after noting that a litigant before it, with the help of his lawyer, had been filing cases on allegations of unauthorised construction in an apparent bid to extort money from others [Azad Market RWA (Regd) vs Smt. Mamta Yadav].

Justice Mini Pushkarna expressed alarm and shock that the petitioner (litigant) has been misusing the legal process to extort money.  

“These facts are alarming and shocking, which disclose the deplorable conduct of the petitioner in filing cases for extorting money from people, by misusing and abusing the process of this Court. On the one hand, the Court has to deal with cases of unauthorized constructions strictly with an iron hand; at the same time, the Court has to ensure that the process of the Court is not misused by anyone in order to extort money from the persons undertaking such construction. A proceeding before a Court is a solemn process for furthering the cause of justice, and not for aiding unlawful objectives of certain individuals,” the Court stated. 

The Court proceeded to imposed costs of ₹10 lakhs on the litigant, Anil Lodhi, who said he was the General Secretary of Azad Market RWA, for his conduct. It said that this order should be attached to all future petitions that Lodhi or a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) affiliated to him may file.

It also noted that many of Lodhi's cases had been filed through the same lawyer, advocate Babu Lal Gupta. Notably, the Court found that the main address given for NGO that Lodhi claimed to be a trustee of, was the address of the lawyers' chamber allotted to advocate Gupta.

An inquiry by a district judge revealed that the said chamber was often left locked. Lawyers from neighbouring chambers said that they were unsure of how the chambers were actually used and that it was not used on a daily basis.

The Court ultimately decided to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Delhi, which was directed to conduct an inquiry into whether advocate Gupta had violated any of the rules or regulations of the Bar Council.

"The matter is referred to the Bar Council of Delhi, to consider the conduct of Mr. B.L. Gupta … to assess whether there are any violations of the applicable Rules & Regulations of Bar Council of Delhi, on part of Mr. B.L. Gupta, Advocate in relation to the subject matter herein, and requisite action that is required to be taken, with regard thereto," the August 7 ruling said.

The Court was considering a petition filed by the Azad Market RWA through its General Secretary, Anil Lodhi, seeking directions against alleged illegal and unauthorized construction at three locations in the national capital.

The Court, however, found it odd that the construction complained of was not in the vicinity of the Residents Welfare Association (RWA) that Lodhi claimed to represent.

On inquiry, the Court noted that Lodhi had filed similar petitions against illegal encroachment in the past, including through an NGO named Green Gold Earth of World which Lodhi was affiliated to.

The Court observed that according to a report by the office of the Registrar of Societies, the NGO was not registered.

The Court deduced that there was a pattern at play, where the petitioner filed cases alleging illegal construction for oblique motives. The property owners against whom the latest case was filed also claimed that Lodhi had approached them to extort money.

"The facts brought before this Court are of concerning and disturbing nature. Herein, petitions are being filed by purported NGOs against properties with respect to unauthorized construction, for motives which are clearly oblique in nature. The present case sits at an even more egregious footing as the NGO in question, i.e., 'Green Gold Earth of World‘, is not even a registered NGO," the Court stated.

Further, the Court observed that Lodhi was made the trustee of the NGO by advocate Gupta.

The Court concluded that both Lodhi and Gupta appeared to be complicit in filing such petitions.

It concluded that the litigant had misused the court process under the garb of social work with oblique motives.

The petitioner approached it with unclean hands and by suppressing facts, the Court added before closing the case with costs of ₹10 lakh to be paid by Azad Market RWA through its General Secretary Anil Lodhi, within six weeks.

Anil Lodhi appeared in person on behalf of Azad Market RWA.

Advocates Varun Chandiok, Alok Kumar and Anubhi Goyal appeared for a respondent Mamta Yadav.

Advocates Varun Nischal and Saira Tagra appeared for one of the property owners.

Advocates Alok Gupta, Ranjeet Singh and Shreesh Pathak and standing counsel Sangeeta Bharti represented the Delhi Jal Board.

Panel Counsel (Civil) Anubhav Gupta, advocates Tushar Sannu and Parvin Bansal appeared for the Delhi Government.

Advocates Manish Srivastava, Moksh Arora and Santosh Ramdurg appeared for BSES. Advocates Biraja Mahapatra, Nalia Hingorani and Rajat Sherna appeared for IPCC (respondents).

[Read Judgment]