A writ petition under Article 226 is not the appropriate remedy for recovering disputed professional fees from a state instrumentality, as such claims are private contractual disputes requiring a trial in a civil court unless there is an unambiguous admission of liability.

PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18.4.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1379 of 2024.

For Appellant : Mr.Sunit Kumar Agarwal

Appearing in person

For Respondents : Mr.P.Raghunath

for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 18.4.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1379 of 2024. By the said order, the learned Single Judge declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to resolve a dispute involving unpaid professional legal fees and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellant, appearing in person, has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellant is a former empanelled advocate for Punjab National Bank (the respondent bank). He approached the writ court seeking a direction to the respondents for the payment of outstanding bills toward professional fees and expenses, quantified initially at Rs.6,80,412/-, and subsequently enhanced in these appellate proceedings to Rs.10,00,628/- on account of newly discovered bills.

3. The appellant, appearing in person, submits that the outstanding dues are undisputed and he has rendered services to the absolute satisfaction of the bank over several years. The delay and non-payment are owing to administrative malice, as certain bank officials demanded 40% commission to release his legitimate dues. The respondent bank, as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot act arbitrarily or in breach of trust.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that while certain undisputed bills have already been settled, other claims are seriously disputed. He added that certain deficiencies in service have necessitated a closer scrutiny of the bills, rendering the entire claim a private contractual dispute.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on either side.

6. The core issue that stems up for consideration is whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the appropriate remedy for enforcing a claim for professional fees arising out of an attorney-client relationship, especially where the facts are seriously disputed.

7. A writ is an extraordinary public law remedy. It is designed to correct glaring constitutional overreaches, failures of public duty, and arbitrary abuses of State power. It is not intended to serve as an alternate recovery mechanism for commercial or professional contracts.

8. For a court to step into the realm of contract under writ jurisdiction, the appellant must demonstrate an absolute, unambiguous admission of liability by the respondent, coupled with shocking arbitrariness that offends the sense of justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. When the respondent/bank raises questions regarding the performance of a service, the matter loses its public law character and enters the domain of private civil obligations.

9. A scrutiny of the records reveals that the claims submitted by the appellant are not admitted by the bank. The bank has explicitly cited deficiencies in the legal services rendered. The appellant, on his part, has countered with grave criminal allegations of bribery and corruption.

10. On an overall consideration of the facts, the learned Single Judge, in our view, was right in holding that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve this disputed contractual matter.

We find no legal infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge that warrants our intervention in appeal.

11. The dismissal of the writ petition does