A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan was reviewing a couple of orders passed by the government in relation to limiting the fee of the government advocates in matters of arbitration among other things. The court held that the government cannot reduce a legal professional merely to a position of a contract worker and limit his fee/put a ceiling accordingly. The impugned government orders were struck down.
Brief Facts:
The Government had passed an order titled “G.O.Ms. No. 339/Public (Law Officers) Department” dated 08.05.2018, wherein the fees for the Law Officers appearing before Arbitrators/Arbitral Tribunal and High of Madras both at Principal Seat and Madurai Bench and in other original side matters had been determined and fixed. Consequent to the introduction of this Government Order, further Government Orders had been passed fixing the fees of the petitioner, and the relief sought in the writ petitions had been amended from a writ of mandamus to a writ of certiorari mandamus. The question before the court was whether or not the fee of a lawyer can be fixed through a government order.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was stated that the petitioner will have to abide by the fees determined in the Government Order and that the claim made for the sums as stated by the writ petitioner are exorbitant and therefore it was stated that the writ petition should be dismissed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that there cannot be the introduction of a new policy in a pending matter. He also stated that the law on the date of the transaction should be taken into account and there cannot be a retrospective application of a newly introduced policy. Further, the introduction of a new Government Order cannot be made applicable to completed transactions. As per him, the law on the date of the cause of action alone must be taken into consideration. Thus, the fee fixed on the date of the appointment engaging the Law Officer alone must be taken into consideration.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the Government Order passed by the Bureaucrats cannot be a benchmark to estimate the skills and knowledge of an advocate who defends a government order or advances the cause of the policies of the Government. It is only in courts of law that these policies are challenged and they are upheld and get a stamp of approval. After a reading of the “G.O.Ms. No. 339” the court felt that the Government had reduced a legal professional wedded to the nuances of the law to a contract worker. As per the court, that cannot be done and should not be done. The Government must come forward to appreciate the effective work done by a professional in upholding the letter and spirit of the policies of the Government.
Thus, as per the court, determining a ceiling of Rs. 10 lakhs for appearances in arbitration matters or in civil suits defies logic. The Government Order was held to be extremely irrational. It is not known why that amount was determined. It was just another amount fixed by the Executive and the court held that it cannot be thrust on a professional. The Government was always at liberty to fix rules and guidelines but Government Orders determining a ceiling as fees for a professional cannot be accepted by any court of law, said the Madras High Court.
Decision of the Court:
The consequential “G.O. (D) No. 182 HW and MP (HF2) Department” dated 21.12.2021 and “G.O. (D) No.29 Highways and Minor Ports (HV2) Department” dated 01.02.2021, were both struck down. The writ petitions were allowed with a direction to the Government to consider the fee bills raised by the petitioner in the light of the professional assistance rendered by the petitioner.
Case Title: V. Ayyadurai vs The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Coram: Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan
Case No.: W.P.Nos.19905, 20129 of 2020 and 298 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. V. Ayyadurai
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. J. Ravindran; Mr. M. Sivavarthanan; Mr. C. Vigneswaran
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments