IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.11881 OF 2016

DATE : 09.12.2025

Between:

P.Srinivasulu …Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana & Others

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 is paying the legal fee and expenses towards W.P.No.3389/2013 on the file of the High Court of Mumbai to the petitioner inspite of claiming the same through bill dated 18- 02-2016 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently order the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the legal fee and expenses as per the bill dated 18- 02-2016 and pass such other order or orders as this Honble

Court may deem fit and proper........”

2. Heard Mr.K.Jaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in disbursing the petitioner’s legal fee and expenses pertaining to W.P. No. 3389 of 2013, which was instituted before the High Court of Bombay. The

petitioner contends that, despite submitting the related bill on 18.02.2016 claiming an amount of Rs. 3,68,712/- towards professional fee and expenses, and despite several representations and reminders made thereafter, the respondent authorities have failed to make the payment. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for settlement of the said amount.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the basis of written instructions, submits that upon verification, no record pertaining to the petitioner’s bill or claim for professional fees has been traced in the office, owing to the passage of considerable time and the administrative dislocation resulting from the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. However, the learned Government Pleader fairly submits that, despite best efforts, the original bills could not be located, and prays that this Hon’ble Court may pass appropriate orders in the circumstances.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s professional services were engaged by the respondent authorities to represent the State in W.P. No. 3389 of 2013 before the High Court of Bombay. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner submitted a bill dated 18.02.2016 claiming an amount of Rs. 3,68,712/- towards legal fees and expenses. The only ground now urged by the respondent authorities for non-payment is that the relevant records or bills could not be traced due to lapse of time and bifurcation-related administrative disarray.

7. This Court is of the considered view that such an explanation cannot absolve the State or its instrumentalities of their legal obligation to honour legitimate financial commitments towards professionals engaged by them in the discharge of official duties. The misplacement or loss of records within government offices cannot prejudice or extinguish the accrued legal entitlement of a professional to receive payment for services rendered, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar, (1995) 4 SCC 229, where it was observed that administrative negligence cannot defeat legitimate claims arising out of contractual or quasi-contractual obligations.

8. Applying the same principle, this Court holds that the respondents are duty-bound to clear the petitioner’s legitimate dues without further delay. Accordingly, this Court directs respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to process and release payment of Rs. 3,68,712/- towards the petitioner’s legal fees and expenses for representing the State in W.P. No. 3389 of 2013 before the High Court of Bombay. The said amount shall be paid to the petitioner within one (1)