The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.6146 of 2006 Dated 5th August, 2010 Between: S.Ravindranath …Petitioner And AP Transco and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.G.Ramachandra Rao Counsel for the respondents: Mr.G.Vidyasagar The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.7,74,310/- towards legal fees to the petitioner. I have heard Sri G.Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate and was Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. During his tenure as the Standing Counsel, he has attended to several cases entrusted to him by the respondents. According to him, he is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.7,74,310/- towards his legal fees. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 wherein it has been stated that a sum of Rs.1,35,675/- was found payable to the petitioner and that after deducting a sum of Rs.5,597/- towards income tax at source, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,30,078/- and accordingly, the said amount was paid through cheque bearing No.281984, dated 10-04-2006, drawn on the State Bank of Hyderabad. Though in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2, it is stated that the petitioner refused to receive the said cheque, in the reply-affidavit, the petitioner admitted to receiving the said amount. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has unjustly reduced the claim of Rs.1,02,085/- payable towards his legal fees in Industrial Dispute Nos.163 to 170 and has paid a meagre sum of Rs.31,950/- without showing any basis. In the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2, it has been stated that in the seven Industrial Dispute (for short ‘ID’) cases, a sum of Rs.20,000/- (i.e., Rs.2500/- per ID) and Rs.11,950/- towards conveyance charges were allowed. Respondent No.2 has, however, admitted that in the cases pertaining to Industrial Disputes, the fees payable is the same as in a civil suit subject to a minimum of Rs.250/-. Respondent No.2 has, however, not indicated the basis, on which he has computed the fee at Rs.2,500/- in each ID. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the respondents, fairly stated that respondent No.1 will re- examine the issue and take appropriate decision in this regard. He has also assured that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation, the respondents will re-examine his claims, take a fair & appropriate decision and pay whatever fees the petitioner is found entitled to receive. In view of the above-submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation, on which respondent No.1 shall examine and take a fresh decision, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing in case any dispute persists between the parties. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 5th August, 2010 lur