The Court emphasized that public authorities must honor payment obligations to legal representatives, rejecting claims of non-agreement on fees where precedent payments were made, and affirmed the maintainability of writ petitions despite factual disputes.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN DATTA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is an Advocate, seeking appropriate directions against the respondents, to clear his outstanding professional fee bills. The prayers, as framed in the present petition, are as under:-

“a. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS, directing Respondent nos. 1 and 2 to settle the outstanding professional fee bills of the Petitioner, forthwith, and to compensate him with grant of interest for the inordinate delay and harassment caused;

b. pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of equity, justice and fair play and in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged as Special Counsel on 15.10.2013 by the Ministry of Urban Development (now Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs) to represent the said Ministry as well as the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) before the National Green Tribunal (‘NGT’) in O.A. No. 300/2013 titled as “Manoj Kumar Misra & Another v. Union of India & Others”. The engagement letter dated 15.10.2013 is in the following terms:-

3. The aforesaid communication clearly records the “decision” to engage the petitioner to represent the concerned Ministry and the DDA in the aforesaid case before the NGT. The engagement letter also encloses the vakalatanama that was to be signed by the Competent Authority of the DDA. The engagement letter further records that the fees of the petitioner would be borne by the DDA.

4. Thereafter, an email dated 15.10.2013 was addressed by the DDA to the petitioner. The same reads as follows:-

5. The aforesaid email was responded to by the petitioner in the following terms:-

6. The petitioner has placed on record a note-sheet which purportedly records the approval of the fees sought by the petitioner. The relevant extract of the said note-sheet, including the hand-written portion thereon whereby the fees of the petitioner are stated to have been approved, is reproduced as under:-

7. It is further submitted that on 29.01.2016, the petitioner was further engaged in connection with M.A. No.1346/2015 filed in O.A. No.300/2013. The relevant noting with regard thereto, as placed on record by the petitioner, is as under:-

8. On 11.11.2016, the DDA issued a communication informing the petitioner that his services were no longer required in the aforesaid matters, and thereby, the petitioner was formally disengaged from O.A. No.300/2013 and M.A. No.1346/2015. The said letter reads as under:-

9. It is the case of the petitioner that while DDA paid the petitioner for his appearances from 21.10.2013 to 25.01.2016, it failed to clear the petitioner’s professional fee for 34 appearances in O.A. No.300/2013 between 02.02.2016 and 17.10.2016; and for 10 appearances in M.A. No.1346/2015 from 21.03.2016 till the disposal of the matter on 26.07.2016. The outstanding fees of the petitioner was communicated by the petitioner to the DDA vide communication dated 28.11.2016 which is as follows:

10. The details of the outstanding fee bills, as on the said date/s, which are stated to be pending, are as under:-

11. Thereafter, protracted correspondence took place between the petitioner and the DDA for payment of the outstanding fee bills. However, the issue remained unresolved despite the petitioner escalating the matter to the Vice-Chairman, DDA. The petitioner is also stated