IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 16799 of 2010(Y) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A.ANSAR, ADVOCATE AND NOTARY, LEAGUE HOUSE, MARKET ROAD NORTH, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATHS,THIRUVANANTHAPURM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 by ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN R3 & R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 16799 of 2010(Y) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.1.2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 27.5.2008. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.1.2009 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P3 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXT.R1(b) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/04/2008 OF THE CHERANALLOOR PANCHAYATH. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.16799 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the counsel engaged by respondents 1 and 2 to appear on their behalf in O.S Nos.1661/2004, 120/2006 and 851/2004 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. Apart from these cases, the petitioner also appeared for respondents in W.P(C) Nos.6385/2004 and 37967/2003. 2. In so far as the fee claimed for O.S No.851/2004 is concerned, in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat, it is stated that they are not disputing the claim of the petitioner. In so far as the remaining two suits are concerned, it is stated that petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.15,100/- and that they have sought approval from the Director of Panchayats as per Ext.R1 (a). However, Ext. R1 (b) shows that the request is addressed to the Deputy Director of Panchayats. 3. However, on instruction from the Director of Panchayats, learned Government Pleader submits that it is the Director of Panchayats who is competent to consider W.P (C) No.16799 of 2010 2 the request by the Panchayat and that neither the petitioner nor the panchayat made any request so far to the Director of Panchayats seeking sanction for payment. 4. Similar is the case with respect to the claim of the petitioner in so far as the fee for writ petitions in which he appeared also. 5. Admittedly petitioner has conducted litigations on behalf of the Panchayat and has submitted his bills for payment of fee. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Panchayat to settle the bills at least by paying the admitted amounts that are due to the petitioner. If approval of any departmental authority is to be obtained , that again is the responsibility of the Panchayat and payment of fee cannot be inordinately delayed on that ground. In this case, admittedly the case was conducted at least three years ago and payment has not so far been made. Therefore inordinate delay has already been caused. In that view of the matter I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. W.P (C) No.16799 of 2010 3 6. Respondents 1 and 2 will ensure that the claim of the petitioner is settled within two months at least by paying the amount which according to them is due to the petitioner. It is clarified that if any approval is required to be obtained, it will be the responsibility of the respondents to obtain the same in the meanwhile. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma