K RAMKRISHNA REDDY Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a designated Senior Advocate. The Government of A.P., issued G.O. Ms. No.128, Irrigation and Command Area Development, (IRR.X) Department, dated 27-7-2001, appointing the team of 7 Advocates, including the then Additional Advocate General, of Government of A.P., and the writ petitioner as its Counsel, to represent and put forward its case before the Supreme Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2001 in O.S. No.l of 1997, filed by the State of Karnataka. The fee payable to different Counsel, engaged through the said G.O., was stipulated by another order, being G.O. Ms. No. 198, dated 20-9-2001. Except that the quantum varied to different heads, viz., a) appearance, b) settling the pleadings, affidavits, applications etc., c) conferences, d) conferences outside Delhi, and e) expenses on account of visits to places outside Delhi. The case before the Supreme Court was ultimately closed on 3-9-2002.

(2.) The petitioner submitted 3 separate bills on 17-11-2001,17-1-2002 and 30-12-2002. The fee was mostly payable on the basis of hours of conferences, appearance etc. There did not exist any dispute as to the payment of fee for appearances. The petitioner claimed for about 250 hours. The respondent allowed the claim and paid for about 116 hours. In terms of money, the petitioner claimed Rs.30,25,000/-, and as against this, the respondents paid a sum of Rs.15,51,000/-. As regards the balance, the correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the respondents. Alleging that the representations dated 26-2-2004 and 5-6-2004, submitted by him, as regards the settlement of fee, were not considered, he filed WP No.12102 of 2004. An order was passed on 15-7-2004, in that writ petition, directing the respondents to dispose of the representations of the petitioner, within a period of six months. Enclosing a copy of the order of this Court, the petitioner submitted another representation on 19-8-2004. On a consideration of the same, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 20-10-2004, stating inter alia that the entire fee, has already been paid in terms of G.O. Ms. No.198, dated 20-9-2001. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20-10-2004. A declaration is sought, to the effect that the action of the respondents in not paying the remaining fee, for the conferences, as against the three bills referred to above, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to G.O. Ms. No.198, dated 20-9-2001. A consequential direction is also sought to the respondents for immediate payment of the bills.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as one of their Counsel, to represent the State, before the Supreme Court. They contend that the petitioner was made the payments for the hours of participation, in the conferences. It is alleged that some of the meetings were held by the Counsel with the Departmental Officers, for the purpose of settling of affidavits, counter-affidavits, and petitions, and that the same cannot be treated as conferences, in the context of payment of fees. It is also claimed that, whenever the petitioner attended the conferences, with the other senior Counsel and Additional Advocates General, the corresponding fee was paid. A factual dispute is raised, as to the exact number of hours of participation, in conferences, by the petitioner.