IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14333 of 2009 Between: Kanuri Swami Naidu S/o. Late Suryanarayana Murthy R/o. Y.N. College Street, Narasapur, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner Narasapuram Municipality Narasapuram, West Godavari District. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent in not paying the fees and other charges to the Petitioner, who appeared as a Standing Counsel to the Respondent Municipality from 1990 to 2007 is arbitrary, bad and illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to settle and pay the bills to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KURITIBHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14333 of 2009 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in not paying the legal fee to the petitioner as per the fee bill dated 26.10.2007 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner is a practicing advocate. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Standing Counsel for Narsapuram Municipality and had represented the respondent Municipality in several cases in different Courts from 1990 to 2007. In response to his representations, the respondent Municipality by letter dated 29.7.2008 requested the petitioner to furnish certain details in the summary of case statement sent by him earlier so as to enable them to arrange the payment as per the bills presented. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted all the particulars required by the respondent. However, the legal fees to which he is entitled to has not been paid till today in spite of reminders dated 1.12.2008, 1.5.2009 and 26.6.2009. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. Having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality and appeared in different cases on behalf of the respondent during his tenure, and having perused the material on record which shows that the petitioner has submitted the bills and also furnished the particulars sought by the respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to process the bills submitted by the petitioner forthwith and make the payment to which the petitioner is entitled as per law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:17.07.2009 mrb