PRAKASHCHANDLRA Vs. SECRETARY, LEGAL AID BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is an Advocate, practising in this Court, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for recovery of his remuneration from the respondent Legal Aid Board. Initially, he was appointed amicus curiae in M.P. No. 1958/90 at the request of the Court. Eventually, the petitioners whom he was representing approached the Legal Aid Board to get him appointed as their counsel. Quite unmindful of the fact that the petitioner advocate was acting as amicus curiae he was also appointed by the Legal Aid Board as counsel for the petitioners in that writ petition. Refering to a decision of this Court reported in short -note form in Rambabu Sharma v. State of M.P. (1989 MPWN 50), the petitioner advocate contends that he is also entitled to his remuneration from the Legal Aid Board. By order dated 24.9.1993, a show cause notice was directed to be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted.

(2.) CONSIDERING the nature of the petition and the relief sought, the petitioner who happens to be a practising lawyer, has not been' able to justify the present petition firstly on the ground that he was appointed to as amicus curiae and secondly if he was that keen to recover money he could file a suit rather than a petition. It is not a case for invoking the extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court in face of the remedies available in the ordinary course of law admittedly not availed of. We leave at that. It is up to the petitioner to pursue the same and if he so desires keeping in mind the high traditions of the Bar where filing of suit for recovery of remuneration unless made a prestige issue, is not considered desirable and in accord with the high traditions of the Bar, more so, when the petitioner was appointed as amicus curiae.

(3.) PETITIONER in person; Government Advocate for respondents.