Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
Ms. A.Ch. Vedavani D/o Vijaya Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10844 of 2015, Contempt Case No. 237 of 2016
Decided On : 15-03-2022
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – Advocate – Professional ethics - Seeking to issue a writ of mandamus to - Claiming arrears of unpaid legal fee - Appointed as Standing Counsel - Petitioner is that she was appointed as Standing Counsel for Zilla Parishads Mandal Praja Parishads and Grampanchayats for region of Rayalaseema by virtue - Thereafter she reappointed as Standing Counsel vide - After completion of her tenure she handed over all pending files to her successor on - She submitted legal bills periodically but same were withheld by Respondents without any reason - As such she submitted a representation to Commissioner Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Government of Andhra Pradesh (i.e.) 2nd Respondent requesting to clear unpaid legal fee bills – But no action has been taken by 2nd respondent - Aggrieved by same present writ petition has been filed.
Finding of the Court:
It is alleged that reason for abnormal delay in claiming legal professional fee bills is due to political considerations - After change of Governments bills submitted by counsels rendered legal services in previous Governments are being withheld - If said allegation is true in court opinion it is not acceptable and it is regrettable - It is to be noted that they are rendering Legal services to State and its instrumentalities but not for any individual - Political executives may change - But Government remains at all times - For the reasons stated above this Court holds that withholding professional fee bills of Law Officers and Standing Counsels for unreasonable period is illegal arbitrary unjust and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India - This Court further holds that every Advocate who is rendering Legal provisional Services to State and its instrumentalities in capacity of Advocate-General Additional Advocate-General Law Officer and Standing Counsel are entitled for professional fee within reasonable period from submission of Bill.
Result: Closed
The legal document emphasizes that Advocates providing legal services to the State and its instrumentalities are entitled to receive their professional fees within a reasonable period after submitting their bills (!) (!) . The Court has held that withholding such fees for an unreasonable duration is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violates the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (!) (!) , (!) .
Furthermore, the Court has directed the State Government and its instrumentalities to ensure prompt payment of pending legal fee bills, specifically within four weeks from the date of submission, failing which interest at 12% per annum shall accrue from the date of bills' submission (!) (!) . This obligation extends to all levels of legal officers, including Law Officers and Standing Counsels, who must be paid timely to avoid hardships and uphold their rights (!) (!) .
The instructions issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh regarding the appointment, qualifications, and conditions of service for Law Officers and Standing Counsels further reinforce that these legal professionals should not be advised or instructed to appear against the State or its instrumentalities, and their honorarium or fees should be fixed and paid regularly (!) (!) (!) . The Court underscores that non-payment or delayed payment of legal fees undermines the dignity and rights of advocates and causes serious hardships, which are contrary to the noble and professional ethos of the legal profession (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the Court has mandated that all pending legal fee bills be cleared within a stipulated timeframe and has warned against future delays, emphasizing that such delays violate the advocates' rights and the principles of justice and fairness. The Court also highlighted the importance of accountability and promptness in fulfilling the legal obligations towards advocates serving the State and its agencies (!) (!) (!) .
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition No. 10844 of 2015 has been filed by an Advocate, who was the former learned Standing Counsel for Zilla Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats for the region of Rayalaseema seeking to issue a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not paying arrears of legal fees inspite of claiming the same through various bills and finally consolidated claim bills, dated 21.02.2015 as illegal, void and arbitrary and consequential direction to the Respondents to pay the arrears of legal fees to the petitioner forthwith.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Standing Counsel for Zilla Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Grampanchayats for the region of Rayalaseema by virtue of G.O.Rt. No. 262, dated 15.02.2007. Thereafter, she reappointed as Standing Counsel vide G.O.Rt. No. 1903, dated 02.11.2010. After completion of her tenure, she handed over all pending files to her successor on 24.01.2015. She submitted legal bills periodically, but, the same were withheld by the Respondents without any reason. As such, she submitted a representation, dated 21.02.2015 to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh (i.e.) 2nd Respondent herein requesting to clear the unpaid legal fee bills. But, no action has been taken by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. This Court on 16.04.2015 ordered Rule Nisi and issued notice to the Respondents returnable within four weeks. In WPMP No. 14331 of 2015, this Court by order, dated 16.04.2015, passed the following order:
4. On careful perusal of the case record, it appears none of the Respondents filed their counter-affidavit in the writ petition. Only on 03.08.2021 the 2nd Respondent filed counter-affidavit.
5. Complaining the willful disobedience of the Respondents in implementing the order of this court, dated 16.04.2015 in W.P.M.P. No. 14331 of 2015, the petitioner filed C.C. No. 237 of 2016.
6. This Court ordered notices to the Respondents in contempt case on 19.02.2016. The Respondents took several adjournments till 06.01.2017 representing that they are taking steps to implement the order. But, the order is not complied. On 06.01.2017, this Court ordered appearance of Sri. B. Ramanjaneyulu, the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh, who is the 1st Respondent in the contempt case, directing him to appear before the Court and to explain as to why fee has not been paid to the petitioner. On 27.01.2017, the 1st respondent appeared before the Court along with his counter-affidavit. On that day, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time for filing reply and accordingly, the contempt case is adjourned for four weeks and appearance of the 1st respondent is dispensed with. Thereafter, the matter went several adjournments. The Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 also filed their counters.
7. After considering the averments made in the counters filed by the Respondents, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for fee in respect of District Water Management Agency, as separate Standing Counsel is appointed for the same and that the petitioner is claiming in some of the cases where the Respondents are only formal parties, this Court came to an opinion that it is not for this Court to decide whether the petitioner is entitled for legal fee or not and it is for the concerned Respondents to pass orders. If petitioner is not entitled for the legal fee, they shoul
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
