CHIRANJI LAL TAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH counsel for the respondents' state that this matter has become infructuous, as the main notices, annexures Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been withdrawn by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact.

(2.) THE petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

(3.) IN the facts of this case, I do not find any unreasonableness or irrationality in the approach of the petitioner to engage the advocate of his choice and naturally, the advocate on his part is within his rights to charge his fee in the matter. So, this amount of Rs. 11,000 paid by the petitioner to his advocate to render his professional services in this matter to him is a reasonable amount and it has to be awarded to the petitioner. So far as the litigation expenses are concerned, the amount of Rs. 2,000 is also reasonable and for which the petitioner is entitled. Respondent No. 2 is the concerned person who is a creator of this litigation. He has realised his mistake and ultimately the impugned notice has been withdrawn. Respondent No. 2 is the person concerned who is to be directed by this court to pay the costs to the petitioner.