ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) Petitioner, who is a senior advocate, has filed this petition, seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to clear the outstanding bills of the petitioner for professional services rendered, as detailed in para 3 (c) of the petition.

(3.) Notice to show cause was issued on 12.4.2002, by my learned Predecessor. Time was sought for filing of the counter affidavit. Today, Mr.Arvind Nayar appears on behalf of the respondent and submits that he has sought instructions. He informs that the bills of the petitioner are under process and quite a few of them have been cleared for payment. Counsel for the respondent submits that as far as bill No.092 for a sum of Rs.38,500/- is concerned, the opinion of the advocate that is the petitioner is not available on their record. Respondent would process this bill upon receipt of copy of the opinion and further verification. Mr.Nayar states that the bills of the petitioner would be cleared after verification at the prescribed and agreed rates expeditiously. Learned counsel submits that the endeavour of the respondent would be to clear all legitimate bills except for which the respondents are denying or disputing their liability. In view of this submission, nothing further survives in this writ petition. In case, respondents dispute the liability for any bill, it would be for the petitioner to seek his remedy in respect of the said bill in the appropriate civil forum.