THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.11948 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a practicing Advocate in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, with a very long standing. At one point of time, he was appointed as Additional Advocate General. He continued as Government Pleader for quite long time. A Contractor, by name, Mr.K.Marappan, was awarded irrigation contracts for execution, in Anantapur District; by the Irrigation and Command Area Development Department. Disputes arose in relation to the said contract and the matter was referred to arbitration. After the award was passed by the Arbitrator, number of proceedings ensued in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, such as O.P.Nos.118, 119 and 120 of 1988. The respondents engaged the petitioner to defend them in the said proceedings. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1062 dated 28.08.1990, fixing his fee at Rs.4,38,400/-. The trial Court disposed of the O.Ps., through a common judgment, dated 07.10.1989. As many as six Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and six Civil Revision Petitions came to be filed before this Court in the year 1990. The respondents engaged the petitioner to defend them in the proceedings before this Court. Accordingly, he appeared and defended the respondents. The batch of matters came to be disposed of on 31.12.2007. It is stated that substantial relief was granted to the respondents. The petitioner addressed a letter to respondents 4 and 5 requesting them to arrange for payment of the fee. The 5th respondent, in turn, addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer, the 3rd respondent, on 23.12.2008, stating that the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.4,38,400/- for appearing in the trial Court, and that he may be permitted to pay the same amount for his appearance in the High Court. The Executive Engineer, the 4th respondent, however, addressed a letter dated 19.05.2009, to the petitioner, informing him that according to G.O.Ms.Nos.241, dated 20.04.1990, the petitioner is entitled to be paid the daily fee of Rs.500/-, subject to a maximum of Rs.10,000/- and requested him to furnish the details of appearance. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not paying the fee. On behalf of respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. They admit the factum of the petitioner having been engaged in the trial Court as well as in the High Court and his having been paid the fee of Rs.4,38,400/- for his appearance in the trial Court. However, they placed reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.241, dated 20.04.1990, in the context of payment of fee for the appearance of the petitioner in the High Court. Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that when the Government itself issued G.O., specifically sanctioning him a sum of Rs.4,38,400/-, for his appearance in the trial Court, he was entitled to claim much more than that, for his appearance in the High Court. He submits that when a Junior Advocate claimed the proportionate fee for assisting him in the trial Court, the respondents did not accede to the request, and this Court in W.P.No.12203 of 1991, directed such payment. Learned Government Pleaders for Irrigation and Finance submit that the petitioner was paid the fee in accordance with the rules in vogue. It is not uncommon that even the highest authorities at the Government give many surprises, which do not either stand to scrutiny of law, or logic. It is a matter of record that the respondents availed the services of the petitioner, to defend them in the proceedings pending in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur. The arrangement was so perfect that special G.O. came to be issued, stipulating the fee to be paid to the petitioner. After the trial Court disposed of the proceedings before it, almost double the number of the same came to be instituted before this Court. One set of it is by the Government and another by the contractor. The petitioner was engaged in those proceedings also. Whether one looks the matter from the point of view of the stage, number of proceedings, or the stature of the Court, the fee that was to be paid by the Government for prosecuting their cases or defending them in the cases instituted by the Contractor in this Court, ought to have been more. However, the petitioner was reconciled to the claim of the same fee, as was paid to him for his appearance in the trial Court. The 5th respondent promptly addressed a letter to the Development Engineer, seeking permission to pay that amount. What exactly transpired among the respondents is not immediately before this Court. However, the letter, dated 19.05.2009, of the 4th respondent has surprised, if not shocked, the petitioner. He has taken a stand that the maximum fee that can be paid to the petitioner is only Rs.10,000/-, that too, after the petitioner furnishes particulars of his appearance. There cannot be better instance of arbitrariness and capriciousness, than this. If this is the treatment accorded by the respondents to a Senior Counsel and a Former Additional Advocate General, whose services they have utilized, it would in fact be a sad reflection on the functioning of the entire set up. There does not any logic, law, or reason that can be pressed into service, to sustain, or justify such brazenness. This Court takes serious exception to the treatment accorded by the respondents to the petitioner. Hence the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,38,400/- to the petitioner, towards his professional fee for defending them in C.M.A.Nos.93 of 1990 and batch and C.R.P.Nos.304 of 1990 and batch. If the amount is paid within two months from today, it shall not carry any interest. In default, it shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of disposal of the batch of cases, i.e. 31.12.2007, till realization. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.05.07.2010. GJ