IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 9025 of 2007 Between: Movva Ranga Rao S/o. Venkateswara Rao D.No. 13-5-2, Pinapadu, Tenali, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by Deputy Secretary. 2 District Collector, Guntur. 3 The Director of Social Welfare, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the action of the respondents for not pahing the interest 12% P.A. on Rs. 1,69,888/- from 7-3-1988 to till date of payment as arbitrary, illegal, and unjust and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and issue a direction to the respondent to forthwith pay interest on Rs. 1,69,888/- at 12% P.A. and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 9025 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay interest at 12% per annum from 07-03-1988 till payment on the amount of Rs.1,69,888-00 for belated payment of the professional fee by the respondents. The petitioner served as an Assistant Government Pleader in the Courts of the Junior Civil Judge and Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District during 1983-89. There was a dispute as to the amount of fee payable to the petitioner. The petitioner alleging payment of a lower amount than what he was entitled to lodged a complaint in that behalf with the respondents. Eventually, the first respondent directed the second respondent to look into and settle the claim of the petitioner. There being no action thereupon the petitioner filed W.P.No. 7418 of 2005 substantially for a direction to the second respondent for payment of the fee amount due. The said writ petition was disposed of on 06-10-2005 directing the second respondent to settle the fee payable to the petitioner in terms of the Memo dated 25-01-1994 issued by the first respondent declaring that the petitioner is entitled to payment of fee in each decreed case under Rule 30 (7) read with Rule 32 of the A.P. Law Officers (Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1967. After the disposal of the writ petition as above and eventually, proceeding dated 20-11-2006 was issued along with a cheque for Rs.1,69,888-00. No interest for the belated payment of fee was however paid. Hence the writ petition. The relief sought by the petitioner should more appropriately be urged by way of a suit in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction but not in a public law proceedings as the claim of the petitioner for interest is not qua any statutory liability of the State. It has not been so pleaded or urged either. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is however at liberty to pursue appropriate alternative remedies in accordance with law. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 23-06-2008 Pvks/*