$~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 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 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 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 - 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. 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 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 – 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 - 22. The petitioner has further submitted that Mr. Alakh Prasad Sinha, the General Secretary and authorized representative of RVK, and Mr. Deepak 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– 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 – 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- 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 BNS2. 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 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 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:- “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 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’ 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 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 - “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. 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 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 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) 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, 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 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. 261. 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 28 of 28