An advocate is entitled to payment for services rendered, and disputes over fees do not bar the maintainability of writ petitions against state bodies under Article 226.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, Mathew B. Kurian, an advocate representing M/s. Peter & Karunakar and the son of the late Advocate V.M. Kurian, who passed away on 07.06.2018, seek intervention regarding the respondents' failure to settle pending legal fees. The first respondent, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), a statutory body under the 1993 Act, is a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution and subject to writ jurisdiction. The petitioner states that NCTE appointed Sri V. M. Kurian as Standing Counsel in 2000, who handled over 590 cases for nearly two decades, with bills totalling Rs. 12,11,770/- remaining unpaid despite regular invoicing. After the appointment of a new counsel in April 2018, the petitioner informed NCTE of pending bills and case files, which were delivered to the new counsel in July 2018, who assured payment. Despite repeated requests, bills from 2004 remain unpaid, with no response from NCTE.

2. The petitioner asserts that there is no dispute over the fees owed and that NCTE is capable of clearing dues. In response, the 3^rd respondent states that the bills were processed with a request for detailed information, such as case classification, document drafting, and disposal dates, as per NCTE guidelines [Exhibits R3(a) and R3(b)]. Payment will be made once these details, supported by documentation, are provided, depending on fund availability.

3. Upon admission of this writ petition, an interim order was passed directing the NCTE to pay the fee at the rate of Rs. 2,250/-. Against this order, NCTE filed W.A. No. 1435/2019 in which a stay was granted, and finally writ appeal was disposed of, maintaining the interim order and directing the writ petition to be heard. After disposal of the writ appeal, an additional statement has been filed by the 3^rd respondent raising objections to the release of some bills.

4. The contentions regarding the bills submitted as Ext.P2 and the explanations offered by the petitioner are illustrated in the tabular columns given below:

Table A – Cases where NCTE is not a party.

Table B - The following case involves duplication of the Bill.

The petitioner admits the stand of the NCTE as regards the cases listed in Tables A and B, and accordingly, no amounts are due in these cases.

Table C - In the following cases, NCTE contends that the date of the bills is before the actual date of disposal.

Explanation: The Petitioner clarifies that the dates of the bills are irrelevant, as all the above-cited cases were disposed of when Late V.M. Kurian appeared as the Standing Counsel. Bills for part payment were made in some cases during their pendency.

Table D - Cases where NCTE asserts that payment has already been made, alongwith the explanation offered by the petitioner.