- The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a former Additional Advocate General of the State of Uttar Pradesh seeking a writ of mandamus against the State Government to clear his outstanding fees.
- The Court expressed doubts whether such a petition can be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, especially when the entitlement of the petitioner to the fee has been disputed.
- The Bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol disposed of the plea while keeping open other available remedies for the petitioner.
- Justice Oka was surprised that a law officer of a State Government had filed a writ petition under Article 32 to recover his fees and remarked that he was shocked to see a lawyer filing such a petition against the State.
- The petitioner informed the Bench that similarly situated officers of State Governments who approached the Supreme Court were granted relief. However, Justice Oka pointed out that an order passed on April 23, 2018, indicated that the State Government had disbursed all outstanding bills to the petitioner, and the entitlement to the fees was disputed.
- When the petitioner sought relief, Justice Oka questioned the fundamental right that would be affected if the fees were not paid by the state. The petitioner responded by saying it was his hard-earned money.
- Justice Oka advised the petitioner to take recourse to the proper remedy by filing a suit to recover the money, stating that filing a writ petition under Article 32 to recover fees was not permissible. The Judge also mentioned that the petitioner had already received a substantial amount and should be satisfied.
Supreme Court Expresses Surprise Over Lawyer Filing Article 32 Petition Against State for Fee Recovery
