The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Madurai City Municipal Corporation to settle the professional fee bills of its former Standing Counsel, P. Thirumalai, which had been pending resolution for over a decade.
The Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the proceedings of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation dated July 14, 2008, and sought a direction for the settlement of a claim amount of Rs. 13,05,770/- with 18% interest.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, presiding over the matter, allowed the petition with specific directions to the District Legal Services Authority to assist the petitioner in obtaining certified copies of judgments required to process the bills. The Court invoked the principle, “Pay the worker before his sweat dries,” emphasizing its applicability in labour jurisprudence and the case at hand.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, P. Thirumalai, served as the Standing Counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for over 14 years, spanning from 1992 to 2006, representing the body in Madurai District Courts.
The dispute arose regarding the non-settlement of his fee bills. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court in W.P.(MD)No.9282 of 2006, which was disposed of on November 14, 2006, with a direction to the Corporation to consider his representation. Subsequently, the impugned order was passed.
According to the petitioner, the total due was Rs. 14,07,807/-, out of which only Rs. 1,02,037/- was paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 13,05,770/-.
Arguments of the Parties
The Respondent Corporation, represented by Standing Counsel Mr. S. Vinayak, submitted that the local body was ready to honour the claim provided the bills were in order. The Corporation contended that the petitioner failed to enclose copies of the judgments and decrees along with the fee bills.
In its counter affidavit, the Corporation alleged that “on account of non-submission of the judgments within time, in quite a few cases, particularly public auction cases, the corporation faced heavy loss and that was why, the writ petitioner was removed from the panel of lawyers.”
Mr. B. Vijay Karthikeyan, counsel for the petitioner, produced a list of 818 cases handled by the petitioner. He argued that the petitioner is currently in “penurious circumstances” and unable to afford the cost demanded by advocate clerks (Rs. 750 per copy) to obtain certified copies for all cases to comply with the Corporation’s requirement.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Swaminathan proceeded on the premise that the petitioner’s financial struggle was factually correct.
The Court made significant observations regarding the disparity in legal fees paid by government bodies. Justice Swaminathan remarked:
“I cannot help wondering at the scandalously high amounts paid to some of the law officers and the senior counsel by the government and quasi government institutions including local bodies.”
Citing a specific instance, the Court noted:
“The Madurai Kamarajar University is in financial doldrums… I am told that a particular senior counsel was paid Rs.4,00,000/- per appearance by the university. The university which is pleading that its financial situation is such that it is unable to pay the dues of its retired staff has no difficulty in paying exorbitant fees to its counsel.”
The Court further criticized the practice of appointing a high number of law officers:
“In order to appease various constituencies, the ruling governments appoint needlessly high number of law officers… When too many are appointed, necessarily each of them will have to be given work. That leads to allotment of matters that do not even require their services.”
The Court referred to the Allahabad High Court’s observations in Ishan International Educational Society vs. Shri. Mukul Singhal (2022 LiveLaw (AB) 271), noting that it is time an audit is undertaken regarding payment of fees.
The Decision
To resolve the impasse, the High Court issued the following directions:
- The petitioner is permitted to submit the list of 818 cases to the Chairman/Secretary of the Legal Services Authority, Madurai District Court.
- Upon verification of the petitioner’s appearance, the Legal Services Authority shall arrange to obtain certified copies within two months.
- The Legal Services Authority shall raise an invoice for the costs, which the Madurai Corporation is directed to pay directly to the Authority.
- The petitioner shall submit fee bills enclosing the copies received.
- The Corporation must settle the bills within two months thereafter.
The Court denied the request for interest, reasoning that the petitioner challenged the order after a lapse of 18 years and the initial bills were not in order.
Case Details
- Case Title: P. Thirumalai Vs. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation
- Case Number: W.P(MD)No.26707 of 2022
- Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
- Coram: Justice G.R. Swaminathan
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. B. Vijay Karthikeyan
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. S. Vinayak
