Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., S.Mohan, J.
Joginder Singh Wasu
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 3202 of 1979
Date of Decision : 10/29/93
Advocates Appeared: Arora T.S. : Bansal G.K. : Gujaral M.S. : Yadav R.S.
Government of India Act, 1935 - Section 55 - Constitution of India - Article 165 – Appeal against conviction – Jurisdiction – Trial Court - AS a result of these, a meeting was convened Home secretary to Government of Punjab to consider issue in the presence of the appellant. Several suggestions were made in the course of a detailed discussion – Appellant however insisted on restoration of original terms. By a communication he conveyed his views to the secretary Home Department, government of Punjab - Appellant would have it that the terms for restoring fee structure found with government - To that effect a proposal was made by Home Department and was submitted to the then Chief Minister who accepted the proposal to revoke the notification and the file was marked to the secretary for issue of orders. But, the Law Department advised that the matter be placed before the Cabinet - Cabinet resolved that a Sub-Committee might look into the matter and report back to the Cabinet - At this stage Congress government went out of office – Held, relationship between the Advocate-General and the State government is essentially that of an Advocate and a client in relation to his appearance in court and arguing the case before the court on behalf of the State. No doubt, the appellant came to be appointed on certain terms envisaged under notification did stipulate for each of the writ petitions irrespective of the fact whether it was a batch case or cases covered by earlier judgments of the court. But we are unable to accept e contention of appellant that the notification can never be amended - In fact notification clearly stipulates "as amended from time to time – Therefore fees fixed in clause 6 under notification cannot remain unaltered - In passing, we may observe that to accept the argument of the appellant would mean it cannot be amended even for enhancing the fees - It so happens in this case there is a reduction of fees - That it should remain static for all times to come is an argument which we find difficult to accept. Nor can it be contended that during his term it cannot be changed at all. No doubt, the appellant was greatly affected by the amendment proposing one set of fees in batch cases as well as cases covered by earlier judgments. It also requires to be noted that a meeting was convened for rationalization and revision of fees payable to the Advocate-General and the law officers. The matter was discussed at some length. Before these conclusions could fructify into a rule, the then government fell down. Once, as observed above, the relationship between the parties, namely, the Advocate-General and the State is that of an advocate and a client, a client may propose the fees. It is open to the advocate to stipulate a higher fee. If that is not agreed to he cannot compel client that must be entrusted with the brief for him to conduct on the fee stipulated by him. May be, the State government, for reasons best known to itself, is not agreeable to the old fee structure. The position of the State Advocate-General may be described in the words of William Shakespeare - Otherwise it would place undue and needless heavy burden on the public UER - But the same yardstick cannot be applied when the Advocate-General has made a statement across the bar since the Advocate-General makes the statement with all responsibility – Appeal dismissed
Judgment
S.MOHAN, J.
(1) THE appellant was appointed Advocate-General of the State of Punjab by the President of India by Notification No. 1178-2JJ-72 dated 24/01/1972. The terms of appointment are that he would be paid salary of Rs. 1,500.00 per month and that in the matter of his duties and other terms he will be governed by the rules framed under Article 165 of the Constitution of India vide Notification No. 8746-JJ-53/38717 dated 6/07/1953 amended from time to time. Clause (f) of para 6 of the 1953 Notification reads thus:
"(F) In civil writ cases and in letters patent appeals arising therefrom which shall not be considered as civil miscellaneous cases, the fee shall be one hundred rupees for civil writ or letters patent appeal."
(2) THUS, the fee of the Advocate-General was fixed at Rs. 100.00 for each writ petition. Even though a number of writ petitions are disposed of on the same point of law or facts or even when the matter is covered by an earlier judgment he would be entitled to the fee amounting to a sum equivalent to the number of writ petitions disposed of, multiplied by Rs. 100.00.
(3) THE appellant was receiving fees as per these stipulations for over three years. However, on 27/08/1975 he was visited with the following communication:
"HOME (JAILS & JUDICIAL) DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
7/08/1975
NO; 12679-2JJ-75/25572.In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 165 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the governor of Punjab is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the rules regulating the remuneration and duties of the Advocate-General published with Punjab government Notification No: 8746-JJ-53/38717, dated 6/07/1953 [hereinafter referred to as the Advocate-General Punjab (Remuneration and Duties) Rules, 1953], namely:
1. These rules may be called the Advocate-General Punjab (Remuneration and Duties) (First Amendment) Rules, 1975.
2. In the Advocate-General Punjab (Remuneration and Duties) Rules, 1953, in rule 6 or clause (f), the following shall be substituted namely:
(F) in civil writ cases, letter patent appeals and in applications for getting certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme court arising from such civil writ cases and aeals, which shall not be considered as civil miscellaneous cases the fee shall be one hundred rupees per such civil writ or letters patent appeal or application, as the case may be: Provided that in respect of such cases
(A) which are decided by one judgment on account of common questions of law or fact being involved; or
(B) which are decided on the basis of an earlier judgment on account of being covered by that judgment;
FULL fee shall be payable only in one case in which main judgment is delivered and one half of the fee shall be payable in each connected case subject to the condition that total fee payable in the main case as well as in the connected cases shall not exceed one thousand rupees.
R.P. Ojha
SECRETARY to Government, Punjab,
HOME Department."
(4) AS a result of this, the fee payable in cases which are decided by one judgment, in batch cases, or on the basis of an earlier judgment on account of the matter being covered, would be only Rs. 100.00. In any event, the total fee was not to exceed Rs. 1,000.00 where the matters are covered by a prior judgment. The appellant protested to the Chief Minister about the alteration of fee structure which resulted in substantial reduction and requested that the enforcement of the notification may be kept in abeyance. A further reminder in this regard was issued on 1/10/1975.
(5) AS a result of these, a meeting was convened on 14/07/1976 by the Home secretary to Government of Punjab to consider the issue in the presence of the appellant. Several suggestions were made in the course of a detailed discussion. The appellant, however, insisted on the restoration of or
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
