JAMES KOSHY Vs. K S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Determination of a lis on a professional fee is always a delicate one, since the relationship between the client and the lawyer is a matter of trust and fiducial. Earlier times a Barrister cannot sue his client nor can he be sued for negligence because their relationship was not originated in contract. A lawyer has an obligation not only to the client but also an obligation to assist the Court for proper administration of justice. In later times lawyers assistance became gratuitous like any other profession and depended upon pecuniary compensation. This was due to multiplicity of judicial proceedings and that the law has become complicated and the situation warranted competent lawyers who are willing to spend time and energy to vendilate grievances of their clients, Legal compensation is now not determined by any accepted standard. Generally it is a matter of personal equation. Reputation, skill and knowledge of law and eminence in the bar reflected the professional fees paid by the client. In the instant case the lawyer and the client is governed by the express stipulation in the matter of professional fee and this Court is now called upon to determine whether those conditions have been complied with by the parties in determining the professional fees.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the Corporation stating that a Writ Petition would not lie to resolve a dispute on professional fees due to a lawyer, a question of law raised by the Corporation against their erstwhile lawyer. Respondent is the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, a State Government Undertaking, therefore, an instrumentality of the State. The rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies as held by the Supreme Court in Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 is a rule of convenience and discretion, a self imposed restraint on the Court rather than a rule of law. It does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or invalid as being contrary to law a petition at the instance of person adversely affected by it would lie to the High Court under Art 226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the ground that an appeal lies to the higher officer or the State Government. When a citizen files a writ and if there is no complicated questions of fact to be determined it is too harsh to direct the party to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievances undergoing long drawn litigation. Supreme Court in L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre 1995 (5) SCC 482 held as follows:

(3.) The terms and conditions of appointments of the petitioner have been clearly laid down in this case and there are no disputed questions of facts: Petitioner was appointed as Standing Counsel and Legal Adviser to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as per order dated 9.7.1991 which enclosed the terms and conditions of his appointment. Clause.12 of the agreement stipulated that the provisions contained therein would be in addition to the general provisions contained in the terms and conditions of the appointment of Corporation advocates at other centres. Those terms and conditions were also enclosed along with Ext. P2. K.S.R.T.C. later revised the terms and conditions contained in Ext P2 by order dated 16.3.1995 and the revised rates of fee came into force with effect from 21.1.1995. During the period of petitioner's appointment from 15.7.1991 to 28.11.1996 he conducted 9445 cases on behalf of the Corporation before the High Court as well as before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Some of the bills submitted by the petitioner of professional fees and expenses were already paid by the Corporation.