Vakalatnama Attestation Mandatory Safeguard Against Impersonation And Unauthorised Litigation, Basis Of Advocate’s Authority To Act : Andhra Pradesh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed a writ petition by local residents seeking a direction to prevent public authorities and the local body from closing a claimed access road between two habitations, after finding that the petitioners had not placed cogent material to establish the existence of the alleged road or any enforceable legal right for a writ of mandamus. In the course of the order, the Court dealt with complaints by some petitioners that they had not signed the vakalatnama, and held that attestation of a vakalatnama—being the litigant’s written authority for an advocate to appear and conduct proceedings—is a mandatory safeguard against impersonation and unauthorised institution of cases. Justice Satti recorded that such denials amount to “unholy litigation” that affects advocates and the profession, cautioned advocates to ensure proper attestation, and directed the Registry to verify attestation during scrutiny.
The writ petition was filed by ten residents of various colonies in Banumukkala Village seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the authorities in attempting to close a 30-foot road between Rajareddy Nagar and Papireddy Nagar as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners contended that the road had been in use for nearly seven decades and was the only access for ingress and egress to their residential areas. They alleged that on 08.09.2025, the respondent authorities attempted to close the road without notice.
Also Read: Supreme Court Flags Pendency in NIA Cases; Issues Notice To Chief Secretaries Of 17 States/UTs
The respondents denied the existence of any such road, stating that the land in Sy.Nos.67-1 and 68-1 was classified as Vagu Poramboke and reserved for natural water flow and flood protection. It was contended that flood protection works were being undertaken along Zurreru Vagu and that no road existed in revenue or Panchayat records. The petitioners relied primarily on photographs but did not file village maps or documentary proof. No rejoinder was filed to the counter-affidavit. During the proceedings, three petitioners denied signing the vakalatnama, leading to an inquiry by the Registrar (Judicial).
The Court held that the petition was devoid of merit, noting that the pleadings “lack coherence” and that, despite asserting a road existed, the petitioners “failed to file any supporting documents… except for the photographs.” It found that the photographs “do not establish the existence of the road as pleaded by the petitioners.” The Court also recorded that the counter alleged the “right bank of Zurreru Vagu is being used as an unauthorised track,” and that “no reply was filed” to that specific plea.
On the scope of mandamus, the Court observed, "Unless the petitioners demonstrate the existence of the road by placing cogent material, in the teeth of the averments in the counter affidavit, this Court is handicapped from recording a positive finding in that regard vis-à-vis issuance of a Mandamus.”
On the requirement of pleadings in writ proceedings, the Court recorded, “In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition… in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.”
With respect to public trust principles, the Court noted, “Vagus, waterbodies and natural resources are held by the State in trust for the benefit of the public under the Public Trust Doctrine and cannot be encroached upon or diverted for private use.”
During the pendency of the petition, the Judicial Registrar’s inquiry report recorded that some petitioners had denied executing the vakalatnama, and on this issue the Single Judge held, “... a valid presumption is available whenever an attestation was made regarding the signatures made by the parties on the vakalat. The scope of the enquiry regarding the issue, in the considered opinion of this Court, is summary. In the report, it was also mentioned that the petitioners, 3,6 and 9, signed on a paper without knowing the contents. Thus, in one way, the petitioners 3,6 and 9 are not denying their signing. However, such a plea was raised pending the litigation, and again 9th petitioner asserted to sign the vakalat. This court, in view of the contents of the report, prima facie, believes that the petitioners 3,6 and 9 signed the vakalat.”
Regarding vakalatnama attestation, the Court observed, “Attestation of a Vakalatnama is not a mere procedural formality; however, it is a mandatory safeguard to ensure the genuineness of authorisation and to prevent impersonation or unauthorised institution of proceedings. It assures the Court that the litigant has consciously and validly conferred authority on the advocate to act and plead on his behalf, thereby preserving the sanctity of judicial proceedings. In other words, the attestation of a vakalat, by the competent authority, protects advocates from the unholy claim by a litigant at a later point in time vis-à-vis denial of signature. It also protects the interests of litigants regarding the scope and authority conferred by them on the advocate. At the same time, the due attestation also assists the Courts in the administration of justice qua the recognised agents.”
The Single Judge cited the Appellate Side Rules, which regulate how vakalatnamas are filed, executed, and accepted in the High Court to ensure genuine authorisation in appellate matters, and also referred to Order III Rule 4 of the CPC, which requires a pleader to act only on the basis of a written appointment signed by the party. The Judge observed: “… this statutory mandate reinforces the requirement that an advocate can represent a litigant only upon a proper written appointment being made and placed on record. Civil Rules of Practice also prescribes the similar procedure. A conjoint reading of the Appellate Side Rules, Civil Rules of Practice and Order III Rule 4 CPC underscores that the attestation and proper execution of a vakalatnama are essential safeguards to ensure that an advocate‟s authority is legitimately conferred and that the Court can rely upon it without any doubt. Attestation, when coupled with certification of execution, prevents unauthorised representation and impersonation, and provides confidence that the person signing the document is indeed the litigant or a duly authorised agent. The attestation causes the legal sanctity to the relationship. Without a valid attestation, the vakalat may be treated as 'defective'.”
The Court directed, “Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registrar (Judicial) shall instruct the registry to verify the attestation on vakalatnamas during the ‘scrutiny’ scrupulously. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Subramanyam Daraboina, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Sri Soma Raju, Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development; Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat
Case Title: Sankula Nagarjuna & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: APHC010476022025
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 24152 of 2025
Bench: Justice Subba Reddy Satti
