Allahabad High Court rejects lawyer's plea for ₹4.8 crore pending fee from State

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected four petitions filed by an advocate who claimed that the Uttar Pradesh government owes him ₹4.8 crore as professional fee for representing it as a special counsel in various appeals.

A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary at the outset deprecated the conduct of the State government for compelling the counsel to approach the Court.

It observed that the payment of professional fees ought to be a very privileged and private affair between an advocate and a client. It added that such dispute should not be brought before the Court and must be resolved by mediation/conciliation.

In the judgment delivered on August 14, the Court also emphasised that counsel should show restraint in dragging a client to a court for payment of fees.

"In either of these cases, a party may win, but it is the trust and faith which always loses, which may not be the best of things in dispensation of justice. A litigation between a counsel and his client would tantamount to defeating the very bedrock of trust and faith, which is the basic foundation for an advocate and client relationship," the Bench said.

The Court was dealing with petitions moved by a lawyer before the Lucknow bench. The counsel said that he has been representing the State government for past 16 years and was authorised to receive notice and appear in all special appeals involving the Basic Education Department.

He said that the government in 2011 ordered that the fee prescribed for special counsel appointed by the government would be in the range of ₹15,000 to ₹5 lakh in a single case/matter.

The petitioner argued that he represented the State as a special counsel and was entitled to ₹5 lakh fee. For about 96 cases, he claimed ₹4.8 crore.

In response, the State government opposed the maintainability of the petitions on the ground that disputed questions of fact were involved which required adjudication by a civil court.

It also said that the petitioner was engaged as a panel lawyer in 2008 to conduct special appeal cases before the Lucknow bench and in 2009, he was merely authorized to receive notices for all the special appeals filed against the Basic Shiksha Parishad. He was removed in 2011.

It also argued that the 2011 government order regarding fee only applied to special counsel engaged outside the panel. The fee of panel advocates was increased from ₹1,800 to ₹3,500 only in 2013 and thus the petitioner was entitled for fee of ₹1800 only, the government said. 

Considering the submissions, the Court said a writ petition filed by an advocate for recovery of his professional fees was not maintainable.

The Court also found that the petitioner had failed to submit any documents to show that he had submitted his bills to the government.

It also noted that there was no admission or acknowledgment of dues by the government.

"Keeping in view that the engagement of the petitioner is essentially contractual in nature and the well settled proposition that disputed monetary claims arising out of contractual engagements, unless they involve an undisputed statutory liability or an admitted obligation, we hold that the present writ petition is not maintainable in the given facts and circumstances of the case," the Court said.

However, the Court also examined the 2011 government order relating to engagement of special counsel. It observed that the order merely gave a guidance to various departments that fee of a special counsel will be between ₹15,000 to ₹5 lakh.

"A facial reading of the said government order merely signifies that the fee for a special counsel would be in the range of ₹15,000 to ₹5,00,000 per case and does not in any manner fix the fee for a special counsel for the maximum fee of ₹5,00,000 in all cases allotted to him," the Bench noted.

It added that since the government never agreed to the fee of ₹5 lakh claimed by the petition, a dispute exists between the parties.

"Thus, a complex web of disputed facts is involved in the present case, which obviously cannot be adjudicated and decided by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. them. To add further chaos, to the existing confusion, it has also been contended that this government Order is not applicable to Basic Shiksha Department," the Court said.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition while granting liberty to the lawyer to approach a competent civil court.

Advocates Pradeep Tiwari, Prashant Kumar Singh, Ran Vijay Singh, Ranvijay Singh, Rishabh Tripathi and Shivam Sharma appeared for respondents.

[Read Judgment]