W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 1 of 28

$~J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment pronounced on: 02.02.2026

+ W.P.(C) 10990/2025

SATYA PRAKASH RAVIDAS ..... Petitioner

Through: Petitioner in person.

versus

THE SECRETARY

BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq

Srivastava, Mr. Abhijeet Chakravarty,

Mr. Sourabh Kumar and Mr. Vedant

Sood, Advocates for R-1/BCD.

+ W.P.(C) 13444/2025

SATYA PRAKASH RAVIDAS ..... Petitioner

Through: Petitioner in person.

versus

THE SECRETARY BAR

COUNCIL OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanish

Srivastava and Ms. Yamini Singh,

Advocates for R-1/BCD.

Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. Anil Dutt, Mr. Yogit

Mehra, Mr. Paras Choudhary, Mr.

Amartya Bhushan, Ms. Lavi Agarwal,

Advocates for Raj Vidya Kender.

Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC along

with Mr. Umar Hashmi, Mr. Harshit

Chitransh and Ms. Iqra Sheikh,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 2 of 28

JUDGMENT

1. At the outset, it is noted that both petitions arise from overlapping

causes of action and involve common issues. Accordingly, it is considered

appropriate to hear and adjudicate both petitions together.

2. In W.P. (C) 10990 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed as under –

“a) Issue a writ of 'quo warranto' calling upon Respondent No.2 to

show under what authority she claims to represent Raj Vidya Kender

in legal proceedings including CS (OS) 470/2019, despite the absence

of a valid resolution or governing body authorization;

b) Direct Respondent No.1, the Bar Council of Delhi, to initiate

proceedings under 'Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961' against

Respondent No.2 for professional misconduct;”

3. In W.P. (C) 13444/2025, the petitioner has prayed as under –

4. The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that he is

associated with the affairs of Raj Vidya Kender (RVK), a society registered

under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, formerly known as the Divine

United Organization (DUO).

5. It is submitted that the background of the present petitions traces back

to events of 07.05.2015, when an email purportedly sent from RVK’s

official ID levelled allegations of embezzlement of ₹550.30 crores against

one Deepak Raj Bhandari. It is submitted that this communication was

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 3 of 28

widely circulated among the members of RVK, causing considerable

confusion and concern. However, on the same date, another email from the

same official ID clarified that the earlier message was the result of a hacking

incident and that an unknown individual had obtained unauthorized access

to the society’s official email account. It is submitted that on 08.05.2015,

RVK circulated yet another email assuring its members that an internal

inquiry had been initiated and that appropriate action would be taken against

the persons responsible for disseminating fraudulent communications.

6. It is submitted that thereafter, RVK (as plaintiff no. 1) and Mr.

Deepak Raj Bhandari, a Nepalese national (as plaintiff no. 2), instituted CS

(OS) 470/2019 before this Court against the petitioner. The petitioner

emphasises that the record in CS (OS) 470/2019 reveals multiple

irregularities and procedural lapses, including the absence of valid

authorization and misleading representations, in the initiation and

prosecution of the suit.

7. The petitioner asserts that RVK is presently being run by an unelected

and unauthorized body. Consequently, any litigation purportedly instituted

in the name of RVK, including CS (OS) 470/2019, is without legal

authority, as no resolution passed by a duly elected governing body exists

authorizing the institution of such proceedings.

8. In support of these assertions, the petitioner places reliance on the RTI

replies dated 27.09.2023 and 20.11.2023 issued by the concerned Registrar

of Societies.

9. The petitioner further contends that the Registrar of Societies, through

a communication dated 27.05.2024, has admitted that Raj Vidya Kendra is a

defunct society and has indicated that the Registrar of Societies functions

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 4 of 28

merely as the registering authority and that a serious error had occurred in

recording the name of a non-existent person in the society’s records. It is,

however, noticed that the petitioner has not enclosed this communication

with the present petitions. The said letter is annexed as Annexure P-2 in

W.P.(C) No. 13723/2025, also instituted by the petitioner against RVK,

which is also being disposed of vide judgment of even date.

10. The letter dated 27.05.2024, annexed as Annexure P-2 in W.P.(C)

No. 13723/2025, is reproduced as under -

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 5 of 28

11. A perusal of the aforesaid letter reveals that the same does not

assert/insinuate, what the petitioner seeks to attribute thereto.

12. According to the petitioner, an unelected and unauthorized body

engaged Advocate Dr. Karnika Seth (respondent no. 2 in W.P. (C) 10990 of

2025) to represent RVK in legal proceedings.

13. The case of the petitioner is that there exists no resolution passed by a

duly elected governing body of RVK authorizing the institution of CS (OS)

470/2019 against the petitioner and that Advocate Dr. Karnika Seth chose to

initiate legal proceedings against the petitioner without any lawful

authorization.

14. The petitioner further contends that the Court’s order dated

09.10.2019 (passed in the said matter), enclosed with the summons issued to

the petitioner on 10.10.2019, was deliberately removed by Advocate Dr.

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 6 of 28

Karnika Seth, resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner.

15. It is claimed that Dr. Seth (Advocate) made false and misleading

submissions before this Court on behalf of an unauthorized and unelected

group claiming to represent RVK, causing harm both to the petitioner and to

the society. The petitioner submits that RVK was established for the purpose

of propagating the teachings of Shri Prem Rawat, and that anti-social

elements sheltered by the unelected governing body have benefitted

personally by falsely claiming that lawful elections were held on 02.01.2025

and 10.12.2024. According to the petitioner, these claims are fabricated as

no Ad-Hoc Committee was constituted, no notice was issued to the 9,22,741

members, no General Body Meeting was held, and no information was

shared with or approval obtained from Shri Prem Rawat.

16. The petitioner further contends that the person shown as Vice

President of RVK, one “Udayanand,” is a fictitious individual. Accordingly,

the petitioner argues that any elections allegedly held on 02.01.2025 or

11.12.2019, and any authorization purportedly issued are null and void. It is

thus contended that Dr. Seth has no authority to represent RVK or to initiate

or contest proceedings on its behalf.

17. The petitioner further alleges that several advocates, namely Mr. Anil

Dutta (respondent no. 3 in W.P. (C) 13444/2025) , Mr. Paras Chaudhary

(respondent no. 4 in W.P. (C) 13444/2025), and Mr. Lavi Agarwal

(respondent no. 5 in W.P. (C) 13444/2025), and along with Mr. Jayant

Bhushan, senior advocate (respondent no. 6 in W.P. (C) 13444/2025), Mr.

Yojit Mehra, and Mr. Amartya Shushan, have entered into an engagement

agreement dated 10.04.2025 with the fictitious individual “Udayanand.” As

the existence of “Udayanand” is itself unverified, the petitioner asserts that

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 7 of 28

the agreement is void.

18. On the basis of the above allegations, the petitioner contends that the

said advocates chose to represent RVK on the instructions of fictitious and

unauthorised persons, and that such conduct violates the professional

standards warranting action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

19. Authorization dated 10.04.2025 (annexed as P-13 Colly in W.P.(C)

No. 13444/2025) is reproduced as under –

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 8 of 28

20. However, a perusal of the authorization dated 10.04.2025 does not

substantiate the petitioner’s assertions. The agreement records only the

names of Mr. Anil Dutta (Respondent No. 3), Mr. Paras Chaudhary

(Respondent No. 4), and Ms. Lavi Agarwal (Respondent No. 5). The name

of Respondent No. 6 does not find mention therein. Further, it does not

reflect any engagement by “Udayanand” in his individual capacity. The

agreement reveals that RVK engaged Mr. Anil Dutta, Mr. Paras Chaudhary,

and Ms. Lavi Agarwal to represent the society in W.P.(C) No. 2902/2025.

21. The petitioner has also annexed a resolution passed in a meeting of

the Governing Body of RVK held on 23.03.2025, as annexure P-13 Colly in

W.P.(C) No. 13444/2025. The said resolution bears the signature of one

“Udayanand,” described therein as Vice President of RVK. Resolution No. 2

thereof records a decision to engage an advocate to examine the issues and

to advise RVK with respect to proceedings before this Court. The resolution

further authorises Mr. Alakh Niranjan Prasad Sinha, General Secretary of

RVK, to engage an advocate to represent RVK before the High Court of

Delhi and to sign all necessary papers, including vakalatnama, in that

regard. Resolution dated 23.03.2025 annexed as Annexure P-13 Colly in

W.P.(C) No. 13444/2025, is reproduced as under -

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 9 of 28

22. The petitioner has further submitted that Mr. Alakh Prasad Sinha, the

General Secretary and authorized representative of RVK, and Mr. Deepak

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 10 of 28

Raj Bhandari, have also appointed Mr. Anil Dutta, Mr. Paras Choudhary,

Mr. Sarthak Garg and Ms. Lavi Agarwal, to be the Advocates of Raj Vidya

Kender in a criminal contempt case filed by RVK against the petitioner

pursuant to authorization dated 07.08.2025. The same is reproduced as

under–

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 11 of 28

23. It is further submitted that advocates Mr. Anil Dutta, Mr. Paras

Chaudhary, Mr. Sarthak Garg, and Mr. Lavi Agarwal addressed a letter

dated 08.08.2025 to Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Criminal), seeking

consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioner for

making scandalous remarks against a learned Judge of the Delhi High

Court. Letter dated 08.08.2025 is reproduced as under –

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 12 of 28

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 13 of 28

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 14 of 28

24. Thereafter, an opinion dated 13.08.2025 was issued by Ms. Rupali

Bandhopadhyay, Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) (respondent no. 2

in W.P. (C) 13444/2025). Opinion dated 13.08.2025 is reproduced as under-

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 15 of 28

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 16 of 28

25. It is submitted that providing such an opinion shall be considered as

an offence under section 3 (5)

1

of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS)

and under section 61 BNS

2

.

Submissions of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) in W.P. (C) 10990 of

2025

26. At the outset, it is submitted that the present petition is a gross misuse

of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that the petition has

been filed solely to harass a practising woman advocate and to obstruct

adjudication of the pending civil suit. It is emphasised that the petition seeks

to re-litigate issues already decided by competent courts and therefore

warrants dismissal with exemplary costs and a direction restraining further

filings on the same subject.

27. It is pointed that the petitioner previously filed Criminal Writ Petition

W.P. (Crl) 3931/2024 seeking similar reliefs against respondent no. 2 under

Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The petitioner also sought dismissal of

CS(OS) 470/2019 on the same grounds. The said writ petition was dismissed

by a Coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 17.04.2025, which also imposed

1

(5) When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of

such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

2

61. Criminal conspiracy –

(1) When two or more persons agree with the common object to do, or cause to be done—

(a) an illegal act; or

(b) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal

conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in

pursuance thereof.

Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely

incidental to that object.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy,—

(a) to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term

of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Sanhita for the punishment of

such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence;

(b) other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 17 of 28

costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioner for suppression of material facts.

28. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench held that issues relating to

the authorization of Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta to institute the suit on behalf of

Raj Vidya Kender fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court

in CS(OS) 470/2019.

29. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the judgment dated 17.04.2025

before the Supreme Court through SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8151–8152/2025. The

Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 14.07.2025. Hence, it is submitted that

the issues raised by the petitioner stand conclusively settled.

30. It also emphasised that similar applications seeking action against

respondent no.2 were also dismissed by the Civil Court in CS(OS) 470/2019

on multiple occasions (orders dated 08.02.2024, 05.03.2024, 06.05.2024),

and that the appeals and SLP against said orders had also been dismissed. It

is submitted that these material orders have been suppressed in the present

petition.

31. It is also the case of the respondent that all assertions regarding the

conduct or authorization of Raj Vidya Kender fall squarely within the

domain of the pending civil suit. The petitioner, as defendant, is free to

contest the validity of authorization before the learned Civil Court and must

lead evidence in accordance with law.

32. It is also submitted that the petitioner had filed Complaint No.

285/2023 before the Bar Council of Delhi, alleging that respondent no. 2

misled her clients. The petitioner sought cancellation of her enrolment. After

hearing the petitioner on 31.05.2024, the full House of the Bar Council

passed following order –

“On 31.05.2024: Complainant is present. Heard. Complaint

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 18 of 28

perused. There is no professional relationship between the

complainant and the respondent. The allegation of the complainant

is that the respondent misguided her client i.e. Society named Raj

Vidya Kender. In case any grievance is there, the complaint should

have been filed by Raj Vidya Kender Society and not the

complainant, Prima-facie no case of professional misconduct is

made out. Complaint is accordingly dismissed.”

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

33. As regards W.P.(C) 10990/2025, it is noticed that the petitioner has

instituted multiple cases and applications before this Court and the Supreme

Court and has also filed complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi, seeking

the same or substantially similar reliefs against the same individual. All such

proceedings have been dismissed.

34. It is noted that a civil suit, CS (OS) 470/2019, was instituted by Raj

Vidya Kender (RVK) as Plaintiff No. 1 and by Mr. Deepak Raj Bhandari as

Plaintiff No. 2, against the petitioner herein (who was arrayed as Defendant

No. 1). The relief sought in the suit was to restrain the petitioner from

allegedly defaming the two plaintiffs and to claim damages for such alleged

defamation. Advocate Dr. Karnika Seth was engaged for filing the said suit.

35. The petitioner thereafter filed several applications in CS (OS)

470/2019 questioning the authorization of Advocate Dr. Karnika Seth and

seeking action against her. The first application, I.A. 3112/2024, sought

cancellation of Advocate Dr. Karnika Seth’s enrolment with the Bar Council

of Delhi. This application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide

order dated 08.02.2024. The order dated 08.02.2024 is reproduced as under

–

“1. The present application under Section 151 CPC, has been filed

on behalf of the defendant No. 1, with the following prayers:-

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 19 of 28

“In light of the above-mentioned paragraphs and in the interest of

justice, I need more context to provide an accurate revision.

However, here's a possible revision based on the given text: it is

respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to:

a) "Issue a notice of default to counsel for plaintiffs Dr.

Karnika Seth, Enrolment Number D/624/2000, and

remove her from her position for pleading in this

matter."

b) Cancel Enrolment Number D/624/2000 of Dr. Karnika

Seth from the Bar Council of Delhi.

c) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble court may deem

fit and proper in the circumstances of the facts of the

case.”

2. Essentially, the defendant No. 1 is questioning the appearance of

learned counsel and is seeking cancellation of her Enrollment

Number from the Bar Council of Delhi.

3. The relief claimed do not fall within the domain of this Court.

Without commenting on the contents of the application and

refraining from imposing any cost, at this stage, the application is

dismissed.

4. The defendant No. 1 is hereby warned to refrain this conduct of

attacking the counsel, without any basis and not focussing on the

litigation.”

36. The petitioner then filed a second application, I.A. 5226/2024. This

application was dismissed on 05.03.2024 with costs of ₹25,000/-. Order

dated 05.03.2024 is reproduced as under –

“1. The present application has been filed on behalf of Defendant

No. 1 in pressing for issuing directions. It is submitted that the

learned counsel for the Plaintiff No. 1 is not authorised to appear

and therefore necessary directions may be issued.

2. A similar application had been filed and considered and dismissed

on 08.02.2024. Defendant No. 1 has been warned time and again

from filing such application but apparently, he thinks that he is most

competent to file such applications.

3. The application is dismissed subject to costs of Rs. 25,000 to be

deposited to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Fund.”

37. The petitioner thereafter filed a third application, I.A. 10058/2024.

This application too was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 20 of 28

dated 06.05.2024 with further costs of ₹50,000/-. Order dated 06.05.2024 is

reproduced as under –

“1. It is submitted that the applicant/defendant No. 1 has formulated

four questions of law which read as under: -

“(i) Whether or not the validity of the representative of plaintiff No.1

(society) or the advocates for plaintiffs (who are pleading without

passing resolution by the properly elected general governing body of

society confirmed by the response of the concerned Registrar of

society)) can be questioned before this Hon'ble court of law?

(ii) The absence of a dear answer regarding the validity of the

representative of plaintiff No. 1 (society) and the advocates for

plaintiffs creates a dilemma for this Hon’ble court. It is important to

provide a clear reason along with the decision the order dated

05.3.2024, stating all the consequences that led to that decision.

(iii) The plaintiff No. 1’s representative, Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta,

has filed this present suit in his personal capacity with the oblique

motive of money lynching and has hired his advocates, including Dr.

Karnika Seth, on behalf of a society named RVK. This action is

contrary to the standard provisions of a democratic society.

(iv) Plaintiff No. 2 is merely a senior Volunteer in plaintiff No. 1

according to plaint filed by plaintiffs. But the plaintiff No. 2 is a

Nepali citizen running Nine pvt Ltd companies having control over

plaintiff No. 1 according to the para 15 of order dated 11.09.2019 of

this Hon’ble court.”

2. It is further submitted that the aforesaid four questions of law are

to be answered by the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice.

3. Submissions heard.

4. From the bare perusal of the questions of law as prayed above, it

is evident that these questions pertain to the facts of the case and not

to the questions of law.

5. Therefore, the application is without merit which is hereby

dismissed with the costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the plaintiffs,

within 15 days.

6. Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that

earlier this Court vide Order dated 05.03.2024 imposed costs of Rs.

25,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates’

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 21 of 28

Welfare Fund but it has not been deposited by the defendant No. 1

till date.

7. The defendant No. 1 is directed to pay the costs of Rs. 25,000/-

imposed vide Order dated 05.03.2024 along with the costs of Rs.

50,000/- imposed today within two weeks, failing which, the matter

be put up before the Joint Registrar for recovery of costs payable by

the defendant No. 1, as Land Revenue.”

38. The orders dated 05.03.2024 and 06.05.2024 were subsequently

challenged by the petitioner before the Division Bench in FAO (OS)

73/2024. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated

20.05.2024. Relevant portion of the order dated 20.05.2024 is reproduced as

under –

“2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned

Single Judge has passed the orders dated 5th March, 2024 and 6th

May, 2024 without giving any reasons and without

comprehending the underlying cause of action. He further states

that the learned Single Judge has erred in imposing costs of

Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- on the appellant and the said costs

have been imposed without assigning any reasons.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is in

agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the

application being IA No.10058/2024 raises questions of fact and

not law. Consequently, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to

refer the questions framed by the appellant to the Division Bench.

4. This Court also finds that intemperate, baseless and defamatory

allegation has been made in IA No.10058/2024 by the appellant

against a lady advocate appearing for the respondent-plaintiff.

Consequently, this Court expunges paras 6(ii) and 6(xii) of IA

No.10058/2024.

5. Accordingly, the present appeal being bereft of merit is

dismissed alongwith the application.”

39. The petitioner thereafter filed an SLP [being SLP (C) No.

30100/2024] challenging the order dated 20.05.2024, which also came to be

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 22 of 28

dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13.12.2024.

40. The said order dated 13.12.2024 was again assailed by way of

REV.PET.(C) No. 397/2025, which was also dismissed vide order dated

02.04.2025.

41. The petitioner had also filed a complaint dated 02.11.2023 bearing

complaint no. 285 of 2023 before the Bar Council of Delhi alleging

misconduct by Advocate Dr. Karnika Seth and seeking cancellation of her

enrolment. The Full House of the Bar Council of Delhi considered the

petitioner’s deposition/submissions and dismissed the complaint vide order

dated 31.05.2024. Order dated 31.05.2024 is reproduced as under –

“On 31.05.2024: Complainant is present. Heard. Complaint

perused. There is no professional relationship between the

complainant and the respondent. The allegation of the complainant

is that the respondent misguided her client i.e. Society named Raj

Vidya Kender. In case any grievance is there, the complaint should

have been filed by Raj Vidya Kender Society and not the

complainant, Prima-facie no case of professional misconduct is

made out. Complaint is accordingly dismissed.”

42. The petitioner has also filed Criminal Writ Petition W.P.(Crl)

3931/2024 seeking substantially the same relief. Vide judgment dated

17.04.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the issue of

authorization to institute CS (OS) 470/2019 on behalf of RVK falls

exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court seized of the said suit.

The Co-ordinate Bench also took note of the orders dated 08.02.2024,

05.03.2024, and 06.05.2024 dismissing the petitioner’s repeated applications

seeking action against Advocate Dr. Karnika Seth. The Criminal Writ

Petition was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000/-. The relevant portion of the

judgment is reproduced as under -

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 23 of 28

“Findings and Analysis

5. This Court has heard the parties and perused the record.

6. The Petitioner contends to be member of a registered society i.e.,

Raj Vidya Kender (‘RVK’) vide Registration No. S/8845/1977 and it

appears that he had proposed to contest for the post of President in

this Society, in 2019.

7. A civil suit i.e., CS (OS) 470/2019 was filed by Society RVK, as

plaintiff no. 1, through its authorized representative namely Dr.

Suresh Chand Gupta [who represents himself as the president of

Society RVK] and one Deepak Raj Bhandari, as plaintiff no. 2 [who

represents himself as senior volunteer of the Society RVK] against

the Petitioner herein (who was impleaded as defendant no. 1 in the

said suit) seeking the relief to restrain the Petitioner from defaming

the said two (2) plaintiffs and a decree for damages with regards to

the defamation committed by defendant no. 1 i.e. Petitioner

herein.The plaintiffs had engaged Advocate KS for filing of the civil

suit. The said suit has been registered on 07.09.2019 and summons

were issued to the Petitioner. In addition, the Civil Court has vide

order dated 19.07.2023 issued an ad-interim restraint against the

Petitioner herein from posting defamatory remarks against the

plaintiffs therein.

8. The Petitioner contends that Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta was not

authorized to institute the suit on behalf of the Society RVK and this

fact was known to Advocate KS and she has, therefore, allegedly

misled the Civil Court to issue summons. It is stated that Advocate

KS incorrectly stated on 09.10.2019 to the Civil Court that there was

a duly convened meeting of the Society RVK held on 27.09.2019,

wherein a resolution was passed authorizing the plaintiff no.1 to

institute the civil suit; however, till date no such resolution has been

passed and neither any meeting has been held by a proper elected

governing body of Society RVK. The Petitioner relies upon the RTI

reply dated 20.11.2023 issued by the concerned Registrar of

Societies to contend that no meeting of the Society RVK was held on

27.09.2019.

9. On these pleas, Petitioner contends that he has acquired a cause

of action to initiate the present Criminal Writ Petition as well as file

various applications before the Coordinate Bench hearing the civil

suit to take legal action against the Advocate KS and reject the plaint

in CS(OS) 470/2019.

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 24 of 28

10. The Petitioner has placed reliance on the orders dated

11.09.2019 and 09.10.2019 passed in CS(OS) 470/2019.

11. The Petitioner has stated that on account of the alleged

misconduct and wrongful institution of the suit against the Petitioner

who belongs to the Schedule Caste Community, the Petitioner has

filed a complaint dated 02.11.2023 against Advocate KS before the

BCD.

12. The issue with respect to authorization of Dr. Suresh Chand

Gupta to institute the suit on behalf of plaintiff no. 1 i.e., Society

RVK falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court where

the suit [CS(OS) 470/2019] is pending. The issue of the absence of

the authorization of plaintiff no. 1 can be raised by defendant no.1

(i.e., the Petitioner herein) in his written statement. It appears,

however, that the Petitioner herein has failed to file his written

statement within time permissible in law and his right to file the

written statement has been closed vide order dated 23.03.2023.

13. Pertinently, the Petitioner filed an application1 in the civil suit

seeking cancellation of the enrolment of Advocate KS from BCD. The

said application was dismissed by the Civil Court (Ld. Single Judge)

vide order dated 08.02.2024. The Petitioner filed a second

application2 in the civil suit seeking directions to restrain Advocate

KS from appearing on behalf of Society RVK. This application was

dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge vide order dated 05.03.2024 after

imposing costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The Petitioner filed a third

application 3 agitating the issue of the authorization of Advocate KS

to represent plaintiff no. 1 Society RVK and the authorization of the

individuals who had signed on its behalf. This application was also

dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge vide order dated 06.05.2024 by

imposing further costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

14. The Ld. Single Judge’s orders dated 05.03.2024 and 06.05.2024

were impugned by the Petitioner herein before the Division Bench in

FAO (OS) 73/2024. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench

vide order dated 20.05.2024 after observing that it concurred with

the learned Single Judge that the issues raised in the third

application were questions of facts and not law. The Division Bench

also observed that the Petitioner herein had used intemperate and

defamatory language against the lady Advocate (Advocate KS) in the

appeal and therefore, expunged the said paras.

15. The SLP filed by the Petitioner impugning the Division Bench’s

order dated 20.05.2024 also stands dismissed on 13.12.2024.

However, admittedly the Petitioner has till date not deposited the

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 25 of 28

costs of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the Ld. Single

Judge.

xxx

Issue 2: Prayer (a) seeking a direction to BCD to take legal action

against Advocate KS and prayer (b) seeking direction to BCD from

restraining to neglect its duty towards the Petitioner

18. The Petitioner in prayer clause (a) seeks a direction to BCD to

take action against the Advocate KS under Section 35 of the Act of

1961. Prayer clause (b) seeks a direction to BCD from restraining to

neglect its duty towards the Petitioner.

19. The appropriate authority which can take any legal action

against an advocate is BCD, which the Petitioner invoked by

submitting the complaint dated 02.11.2023. In fact, Supreme Court

in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India4 has

categorically held that power to punish an advocate for proven

professional misconduct vests exclusively in the statutory authority

created under Act of 1961, i.e., State Bar Council.

20. Respondent No. 2 i.e., BCD has placed on record the order dated

31.05.2024 by which the Petitioner’s complaint dated 02.11.2023

has been dismissed by the Full House of Bar Council of Delhi after

hearing the Petitioner. In view of the order dated 31.05.2024, the

reliefs sought against Respondent No. 2 was not maintainable even

on the date when the present writ petition was filed. The Petitioner

has not explained to this Court its omission in disclosing the order

dated 31.05.2024.

21. In support of these prayers, Petitioner has also referred to

Section 6 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and has sought initiation

of proceedings against Advocate KS.

22. In this regard, this Court would also like to take note of the

orders dated 08.02.2024, 05.03.2024 and 06.05.2024 passed by the

Ld. Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 470/2019 dismissing applications

seeking initiation of legal proceedings against Advocate KS. The said

orders were challenged before the Division Bench and the appeal

was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.2024. The SLP filed against

the order of the Division Bench has also been dismissed on

13.12.2024. These material orders have also been suppressed by the

Petitioner.

23. In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in the petition and

finds the Petitioner guilty of suppressing material facts. For this

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 26 of 28

suppression, the Petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- to

Harijan Sevak Sangh, Harijan Niwas, Gandhi Ashram Kingsway

Camp, New Delhi-110009. Non-joinder of necessary party

24. This petition seeks relief against Advocate KS, however, she has

not been made a party. This petition in the absence of Advocate KS

could not have been maintained. However, this Court has even

otherwise not found any merit in the relief sought and has dismissed

the petition on merits.

25. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed along with pending

applications.

26. The proof of payment of cost shall be filed within two (2) weeks.

27. Keeping in view the propensity of the Petitioner to suppress

orders passed by Coordinate Benches, a copy of this order be sent to

Advocate KS and the Coordinate Bench in CS(OS) No. 470/2019 so

that it forms part of the record.”

43. The petitioner challenged the said judgment dated 17.04.2025 by

filing SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8151–8152/2025. The Supreme Court dismissed the

said SLP on 14.07.2025.

44. Having considered the above, this Court finds no reason to entertain

the present petition. Firstly, the issue concerning the authorization to

represent RVK lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in

CS (OS) 470/2019 and is to be adjudicated in those proceedings. Secondly,

the competent authority empowered to take action against an advocate is the

Bar Council of Delhi, which the petitioner has already approached by filing

a complaint dated 02.11.2023. That complaint has been duly considered and

dismissed by the Full House of the Bar Council of Delhi vide order dated

31.05.2024. Thirdly, the petitioner’s contention that Advocate Dr. Karnika

Seth instituted CS (OS) 470/2019 without lawful authorization has already

been examined and rejected by the Civil Court, by the Coordinate Bench of

this Court in W.P.(Crl.) 3931/2024 and by the Supreme Court (in SLP (C)

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 27 of 28

No. 30100/2024 and SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8151–8152/2025.

45. In these circumstances, no ground is made out to entertain the present

petition.

46. Similarly, with respect to the relief sought in W.P.(C) 13444/2025,

this Court finds no reason to entertain the petition. It is evident that the

petitioner has developed a pattern of filing multiple petitions on

substantially similar facts. Despite repeated adjudications against him, the

petitioner continues to re-agitate issues that have already been conclusively

determined.

47. Further, as already noted, the competent authority to take disciplinary

action against an advocate is the Bar Council of Delhi. It has been brought to

the notice of this Court that the petitioner invoked this remedy by filing

Complaint No. 146/2025 against Advocates Mr. Anil Dutta (respondent no.

3), Mr. Paras Chaudhary (respondent no. 4), Mr. Lavi Agarwal (respondent

no. 5), along with Senior Advocate Mr. Jayant Bhushan (respondent no. 6),

Mr. Yojit Mehra, and Mr. Amartya Shushan. The said complaint was

dismissed by the Full House of the Bar Council of Delhi vide order dated

12.09.2025. Even otherwise, this Court does not find any merit in the

complaint/s against the concerned advocates.

48. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner

has levelled serious and unfounded allegations against a sitting Judge of this

Court. In consequence thereof, RVK sought permission from the Standing

Counsel (Criminal) (respondent no. 2 in W.P.(C) 13444/2025) under Section

15(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate criminal contempt

proceedings against the petitioner. Consent was accordingly granted by the

Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) vide letter dated 13.08.2025,

W.P.(C) 10990/2025 & W.P.(C) 13444/2025 Page 28 of 28

pursuant to which Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 15/2025 has been instituted.

Instead of addressing the issues in accordance with law, the petitioner has

chosen to file the present petition against the learned Standing Counsel

(Criminal). This Court finds no justification to entertain such a petition.

49. In view of the above, no grounds are made out for granting any relief

in W.P.(C) 13444/2025.

50. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed.

SACHIN DATTA, J

FEBRUARY 2, 2026/sv