The main legal point established is that a Writ Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is maintainable against an instrumentality of the State for determination of professional fees, and entitlement to professional fee and expenses is to be determined based on the terms and conditions of the appointment.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Determination of a lis on a professional fee is always a delicate one, since the relationship between the client and the lawyer is a matter of trust and fiducial. Earlier times a Barrister cannot sue his client nor can he be sued for negligence because their relationship was not originated in contract. A lawyer has an obligation not only to the client but also an obligation to assist the Court for proper administration of justice. In later times lawyers assistance became gratuitous like any other profession and depended upon pecuniary compensation. This was due to multiplicity of judicial proceedings and that the law has become complicated and the situation warranted competent lawyers who are willing to spend time and energy to vendilate grievances of their clients. Legal compensation is now not determined by any accepted

standard. Generally it is a matter of personal equation. Reputation, skill and knowledge of law and eminence in the bar reflected the professional fees paid by the client. In the instant case the lawyer and the client is governed by the express stipulation in the matter of professional fee and this Court is now called upon to determine whether those conditions have been complied with by the parties in determining the professional fees.

2. A preliminary objection was raised by the Corporation stating that a Writ Petition would not lie to resolve a dispute on professional fees due to a lawyer, a question of law raised by the Corporation against their erstwhile lawyer. Respondent is the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, a State Government Undertaking, therefore, an instrumentality of the State. The rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies as held by the Supreme Court in Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC1147 is a rule of convenience and discretion, a self-imposed restraint on the Court rather than a rule of law. It does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or invalid as being contrary to law a petition at the instance of person adversely affected by it would lie to the High Court under Art.226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the ground that an appeal lies to the higher officer or the State Government. When a citizen files a writ and if there is no complicated questions of fact to be determined it is too harsh to direct the party to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievances undergoing long drawn litigation. Supreme Court in L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 held as follows:

"If it is shown that the exercise of the power is arbitnsry, unjust and unfair, it should be no answer for the State, its instrumentality, public authority or person whose acts have the insignia of public element to say that their actions are in the field o f private law and they are free to prescribe any conditions or limitations in their actions. They must be based on some rational and relevant principles." Supreme Court in All India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (1997 (9) SCC 377) held that the legal right of an individual may be founded upon a contract or a statute or an instrument having the force of law. For a public law remedy enforceable under Art.226 of the Constitution, the action of the authority needs to fall in the realm of public law - be it a legislative act of the State, an executive act of the State or an instrumentality or a person or authority imbued with public law element. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is an instrumentality of the State and as held by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. K.S.E.B. (1999 (2) KLT 30) any decision taken by such authorities have to satisfy the test of fairness and reasonableness envisaged under Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Action of the said authority has got a public law element in it. The action of the Corporation bears pub