Madras High Court: In a case revolving around the issue whether fee bills of a counsel who had represented Madurai City Municipal Corporation (‘Corporation’) for over fourteen years could be settled despite non-submission of certified copies of judgments, a Single Judge Bench of G.R. Swaminathan*, J., held that while the Corporation was justified in insisting on certified copies, fairness required that assistance be given to the petitioner to obtain them. Thus, the Court directed the Legal Services Authority to arrange certified copies and mandated that the Corporation settle the bills within two months thereafter, though without interest.
Background:
The petitioner had served as standing counsel for the Corporation from 1992 to 2006, representing it in numerous cases before the District Courts. His grievance was that the Corporation had not settled his fee bills, despite repeated representations. An earlier writ petition had been disposed of with a direction to consider his representation, but the impugned order that followed resulted in only partial payment of Rs 1,02,037, leaving a balance claim of Rs 13,05,770.
In its counter affidavit, the Corporation stated that it was willing to settle the petitioner’s claim, but only if the fee bills were submitted in proper form. It explained that copies of judgments and decrees had to be attached to the bills, and that failure to do so had caused the Corporation heavy losses, especially in public auction cases. This lapse was also cited as the reason for removing the petitioner from its panel of lawyers. The petitioner, however, clarified that because of his poor financial condition, he could not afford the fees demanded by clerks for obtaining certified copies, which made it difficult for him to provide the required documents.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that an instruction attributed to the Holy Prophet, ‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries,’ is a principle that is only a facet of fairness and is eminently applicable in labour jurisprudence; therefore, it can also be invoked in the case on hand.
The Court proceeded on the premise that the submission made before the Court as regards the financial wherewithal of the petitioner was factually correct. The Court did not want to doubt the statement of a counsel that he was unable to even engage a clerk for obtaining certified copies for the 818 cases in which he had appeared. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Legal Services Authority, which was tasked with verifying the list of cases and arranging certified copies.
The Court highlighted that upon submission of fee bills with the certified copies, the Corporation must settle the bills within two months, though without interest. It was observed that the delay of 18 years and the petitioner’s failure to submit bills in proper form justified denial of interest. The Court further noted that the Legal Services Authority could raise an invoice for the cost of certified copies, which the Corporation must directly pay, with the petitioner’s bills settled after deducting the same.
The Court expressed dismay at the scandalously high fees paid to certain law officers and senior counsel by government and quasi-government institutions, contrasting it with the petitioner’s claim. The Court observed that while it could not enquire into the quantum of fees paid to senior counsel and Additional Advocate Generals, the principles of good governance required that funds from the public exchequer be drawn on a measured basis and not distributed capriciously to a favoured few. The Court wished to see that such practices would cease and emphasised the need for accountability in the payment of fees to law officers.
Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the Legal Services Authority and the Corporation, closing connected miscellaneous petitions.
[P. Thirumalai v. Madurai City Municipal Corpn., W.P(MD) No. 26707 of 2022, decided on 12-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: B. Vijay Karthikeyan, Advocate
For the Respondent: S. Vinayak, Standing Counsel