Delhi HC rebuffs Madhya Pradesh's claim that Senior Advocate was not engaged; asks State to pay his fees

The Delhi High Court has directed the Madhya Pradesh government to pay ₹78.65 lakh as outstanding professional fees to Senior Advocate and the state’s former Advocate General (AG) Anoop George Chaudhari for his appearance before the Supreme Court.While the State denied having engaged Chaudhari, the High Court noted that order sheets in the matter proved otherwise. Further, the State's former Chief Secretary had also admitted to having engaged Chaudhari. In view of the same, Justice Sachin Datta said that the fees should be paid to Chaudhari with an interest of 9% per annum from the year 2021, when the petition was filed before the High Court, till the date the final payment is made. In its 55-page order dated August 31, the Court deprecated the conduct of the State of Madhya Pradesh, observing that an advocate’s right to receive payment for services rendered is not merely a legal entitlement but also a matter of honour.Justice Datta underscored that if States are permitted to avail the services of the senior members of the Bar in the hour of need, and then to consign their bills to a maze of departmental denials, the inevitable consequence is that talented members of the Bar will be discouraged from appearing for the State at all.“The dignity of the legal profession, and the effective representation of the State itself before the courts, alike demand that the fees of counsel engaged by the State be paid promptly, and that disputes, where genuinely they exist, be raised contemporaneously and in good faith,” the Court said. .The dignity of the legal profession, and the effective representation of the State itself before the courts, alike demand that the fees of counsel engaged by the State be paid promptly.Delhi High Court .It said that the spectacle of the counsel being driven to prosecute a writ petition for over six years, to recover fees for appearances, while the departments of the State trade responsibility amongst themselves, is a matter of institutional concern. “It demeans not the advocate, but the State,” the Court said. Further, the Bench added that it was disconcerting to note the diminution in the office/status of senior advocates which was reflected by the proliferation of litigation filed by senior advocates alleging unpaid fees..Chaudhari had sought fees for appearances before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal batch of matters and the connected MP Housing Board case. Both these matters concerned the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He claimed to have appeared on 14 dates between October and December 2019, raising 35 bills totalling over ₹1.76 croreThe State denied ever engaging him, with its Law Department claiming no record existed of his appearance. .It is disconcerting to note the diminution in the office/status of senior advocates.Delhi High Court .However, the Court rejected Madhya Pradesh’s argument, noting that Chaudhari’s name featured in 14 Supreme Court order sheets and in the reported judgment itself. It also recorded that Madhya Pradesh’s former Chief Secretary, SR Mohanty, had admitted at a court-directed meeting that Chaudhari was engaged after the state's first choice of senior counsel was unavailable.After considering the case, the Court partly allowed Chaudhari’s plea. “Accordingly, a single appearance fee of ₹6,05,000 is allowable for each day of recorded appearance and the second (duplicated) bills for appearance on the same day in the connected matter, is disallowed,” the Court said. .Senior Advocates Manish Vashisht, Ashish Mohan and June Chaudhri with advocates Vipul Tiwari, Sagrika Tanwar and Akash Sharma represented Anoop George Chaudhari. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Kaushik along with advocates Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Rudra Aditya Khare, Kanishk Sharma and Pranjal Singh appeared for State of Madhya Pradesh. .[Read Judgement]