M PEER REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is an advocate practising at Sanga Reddy in Medak District and is assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge rejecting his claim for legal fees raised by him against the respondent No. 2, on account of having conducted on his behalf 101 land acquisition original petitions under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and 329 interlocutory applications. The appellant had filed three writ petitions viz. 9049, 9050 and 9089 of 1989. While W.P. Nos. 9050 and 9089 of 1989 were allowed, the claim in W.P. No. 9049 of 1989 was rejected on the learned Judge taking the view that the payment of fees to the appellant is governed by sub-rules (5) and (7) of Rule 30 of the Law Officers Fees Rules. The learned Judge found that as the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1967 (for short "Law Officers Fees Rules) do not make any provision for payment of fees in respect of original petitions under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, no fees was payable for having conducted those cases and in view of the bar contained, in Rule 30(5) in respect of interlocutory applications, no fees was also payable in respect of such applications.

(2.) Rule 30 of the Law Officers Fees Rules, so far as relevant, is extracted below: 30. Fees payable to Government Pleaders Additional Government Pleaders and the Assistant government Pleaders in Courts Subordinate to the High Court :-- The fees payable to the Government Pleaders, the Additional Government Pleaders and the Assistant Government Pleaders in Courts subordinate to the High Court, shall be as follows:--

(3.) It is the admitted case of the parties that in respect of all the 101 cases, fees was fixed by the court. Rule 30( I)(i) vests power in the Government, where the fees has been fixed by the court, to determine at its discretion, if the fees fixed is too high, a smaller amount in accordance with the provisions in Rule 36 irrespective of the fact whether the costs including the fees are recoverable by the Government from the other party or not. Rule 36 while vesting the same power in the Government regarding the reduction of the fees fixed either by the court or under the regulation (under the Andhra Pradesh Advocate Fees Rules), stipulates two guidelines for exercise of the discretion, the first being that the fees fixed by the courtiis recoverable by the Government from the other party may ordinarily be allowed; and the second being a reasonable fees to be allowed when the court awards only proportionate costs as recoverable by the Government from the other party or when the case is decided either in favour of the Government (without any costs being recoverable) or against the Government.