IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21398 of 2008 Between: K.Vivekananda S/o Late Subrahmayam Rajahmundry E.G District ..... PETITIONER AND Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry East Godavari District Rep.by its Commissioner .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not clearing the bills of the petitioner for payment of fee and expenses claimed in various matters appeared on behalf of the respondent in various courts in Rajahmundry Town in East Godvari District by 2006 29-07-2008 etc as illegal arbitrary and violative of the natural justice consequently directing the respoindent to clear all the bills claimed by the petitioner with regard to payment of fee and expenses and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANAREDDY Writ Petition No. 21398 of 2008 Order: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Sri K. Vivekananda assailing the action of the respondent in not clearing the bills submitted by him for payment of fee and expenses claimed in various matters appeared on behalf of the respondent in various courts in Rajahmundry town, West Godavari District. 2. The petitioner was the Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation for a period of three years. His period came to an end on 25.05.2005. He submitted representations to the respondent for settlement of the bills submitted by him towards his advocate fees and expenditure. His representations remain unattended. Hence, the writ petition, invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri A. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of the respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The factual aspect of the petitioner’s submitting representations on 03.08.2005, 18.09.2006, 28.10.2006 and 29.07.2008, claiming fees and expenditure in various cases, wherein he represented the respondent-Corporation, is not in dispute. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the representations dated 03.08.2005, 18.09.2006, 28.10.2006 and 29.07.2008 and pass appropriate orders. No costs. __________________________ B. SESHASAYANAREDDY, J. Date: 10.11.2008 Nsr