A Writ Petition does not lie for recovery of an amount under a contract and disputes arising out of the terms of contracts have to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed for issuing direction to the Opposite Parties to make payment of advocate fees along with 18% interest per annum.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that Petitioner who was Addl. Standing Counsel for the Central Government had appeared in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in a Rule of Court proceeding under Arbitration Act wherein the award of Rs. 40 lakhs passed against the Opposite Parties was set aside on his persuasion. The Petitioner/Learned advocate vide letter dated 23.6.1999 sent a bill of Rs. 4,40,350/- as Counsel fees, but the said demand was not acceded to by the Opposite Parties. In spite of several request, as no heed has been paid, he filed this Writ Petition.

3. Dr. A.K. Rath, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid amount of fee/ad valorem as the award given by the Arbitrator has been set aside by the Civil Court on the argument advanced by the Petitioner.

4. Mr. J K. Misra, Learned Asst. Solicitor General, has submitted that fees of the advocate is to be paid as per the schedule and agreement between the parties and not ad valorem. Opposite Parties are willing to pay the normal fees of the Counsel. More so, it has been contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable for making recovery of the fees of the advocate. Thus the petition is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

5. The issue involved herein is no more res integra.

6. In Govt. of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. R. Thillaivillalan the Apex Court considered a case where the High Court had directed for payment of the amount of professional fees of an advocate along with interest against which the Government of Tamil Nadu had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court contending that such a relief could not have been given in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and in any case the award of interest was unjustified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that having regard to the lapse of time, if the contentions of the Appellants were accepted, it would only serve to expose both the parties to a fresh bout of litigation and, therefore, in such circumstances, it was considered reasonable to decide the matter. This decision does not expressly decide whether a Writ Petition is maintainable or not and, therefore, is of no assistance to either of the parties.

7. In the case of Dr. Hari Nandan Singh v. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad and Anr. 1992 AIEC 359, the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission had unilaterally terminated the engagement of its Counsel. The Allahabad High Court relied upon the aforesaid' Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu (supra) and directed for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 767/-. This decision, therefore, also does not support either of the parties.

8. The Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in Improvement Trust, Ropar v. S. Tejinder Singh Gujral and Ors. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 577 held that a Writ Petition does not lie for a recovery of amount by an advocate under the contract and, therefore, the High Court had committed an error in entertaining the Writ Petition for recovery of the professional fees. The relevant portion of the Judgment is as follows:

We find that the High Court had allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent-advocate for the recovery of his professional fees from the Petitioner. No Writ Petition can lie for recovery of an amount under a contract. The High Court was clearly wrong in entertaining and allowing the petition. There is no separate law, for the advocates. In the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the Learned Single Judge on 26.7.1991 and dismiss the Writ Petition. The result is that the letters patent appeal pending before the Division Bench of the High Court would also come to an en