IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33102 of 2006(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.B. SAJEESH, ADVOCATE, 3RD FLOOR, METRO PLAZA, MARKET ROAD, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (LAISON) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 4. THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATION, SANCHASR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, DEPARTSMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, JUDICIAL SECTION, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN, SC, BSNL FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.BABY THOMAS, CGC FOR R4,R5 ASG SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33102 of 2006 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 12.3.05 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.2.04 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETIITONER EXT.R2(A)- COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.8.07 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A.To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).33102/2006 -------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner says that he was appointed as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the period from 18.6.1998 till 18.10.2004. According to the petitioner, during the said period, he has conducted cases on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and that despite the claim made by him for settlement of his bills, payment has not been made. It is therefore the writ petition is filed for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to settle the professional charges in respect of bills preferred by the petitioner. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, they have stated that on receipt of Ext.P1 claim from the petitioner, it was scrutinized and details were also sought from their subordinate officers. It is stated that on such examination, it was found that there was no outstanding bill which is to be paid to the petitioner and this has been conveyed to the petitioner by Ext.R2(a) letter dated 30.8.2007. Although respondents have made certain allegations against the petitioner for having W.P.(C).33102/06 2 retained the files even after requiring him to return the files for the purpose of this case, I am not inclined to go into this controversy. From the counter affidavit it is evident that, according to the respondents, no amount is remaining outstanding to the petitioner and that has been conveyed to the petitioner also. In view of the dispute raised in the counter affidavit, it is not possible to adjudicate the claim in this writ petition. 3. In the circumstances, if the petitioner has any claim against respondents 1 to 3, it is for the petitioner to approach competent Civil Court or other appropriate forum and get his claim adjudicated. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs