Iqbalhussain Mehmudmiyan Malik vs State of Gujarat and Others

Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner was engaged as a lawyer by the respondent No. 4 Balasinhor Nagarpalika for certain cases. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the bills were sent to the Municipality, however, no payment is received by him. Therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

Heard Mr. Malik appearing as party-in-person, Ms. Kotecha, learned AGP for respondents Nos. 2 & 3 and Ms.Neha Joshi for the respondent No. 4.

It appears that as per the petitioner, the matters are finalised by the Court, whereas, the learned Counsel for the respondent Municipality contended that all matters are not disposed of as stated by the petitioner, but some matters are still pending and in support of her contention, she has placed on record the computer status report of Second Appeal Nos. 166/87 and 236/91 and others. However, learned Counsel for the Municipality is not in a position to dispute that certain matters are already disposed of.

It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 4 is a Municipality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, its action has to be just, fair and reasonable. In the matter of payment of professional fees for a lawyer, it may not be that in every case, this Court may relegate the lawyer to file Civil Suit for recovery of the fees. But, if the Court finds that there are genuine disputed questions of facts, which may be required to be adjudicated before the order is passed for directing the Municipality to pay up the fees, the Court may relegate the lawyer to file a Civil Suit. However, if the matter can be considered on the basis of the material placed on record, or on admitted position, no useful purpose would be served in relegating the lawyer to recover his fees from the client which is a statutory body.

It appears to the Court that in the matter of payment of fees to a lawyer by statutory body, it is not necessary that whatever bill is sent by the lawyer, must be paid as fees, unless there is an agreement for such purpose. In the case where there is no agreed fees and the lawyer forwards the bill for a particular matter, it will be required for the statutory body to examine its past practice of paying the quantum of the fees concerning to the category of the case and if such fees are acceptable to the lawyer, at least it will be required for the statutory body to make the payment accordingly. Such may apply in cases where the matters are already disposed of.

Even in the matters where the case is not finalised or is pending, it will be required for the statutory body to consider the quantum of fees payable taking into consideration the work done by the lawyers concerned. In a case where the Municipality of its own has changed the lawyer in the midst of the pending proceedings and it has also agreed to pay full fees to the lawyer, it may stand on different footing. But in certain cases, where the matters are pending and at that stage, the Municipality has changed the lawyer without there being any specific agreement to pay the fees, it will be required for the Municipality to pay the fees on the principles of quantum merit to such lawyer, but it cannot be said that merely because the lawyer is changed, no fees at all would be payable to such lawyer. It hardly requires to be stated that such may apply only in cases where as per the statutory body/Municipality, the lawyer has done satisfactory work to the stage at which he was holding the brief.

Neither there is any representation by the petitioner giving all the details keeping in view the aforesaid observations nor there is any consideration by the Municipality on that basis.

Under these circumstances, I find that it would be required for the petitioner to make a detailed representation together with the proof, if any, calling upon the Municipality to make the payment of the outstanding amount keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Such representation may be made within a period of one month from today.

After the representation is received, the Chief Officer of the Municipality shall examine the same in light of the observations made hereinabove, and shall make the payment to the extent found proper within a period of two months from the receipt of such representation.

It is also clarified that in the event the Municipality has any financial constraint in paying the outstanding amount, it may make payment by installment, but not exceeding spread over of 6 months.

Petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. D.S.