HC questions Centre on lawyers’ fee bills

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Centre, Haryana, Punjab and UT to specify whether or not a policy could be framed for settling the matter of non-payment of fee to lawyers “once and for all”.

The HC Bench also asked them to specify the status of pending bills of advocates. The High Court Bar Association was granted the liberty to assist the court in the matter.

The direction by Justice Rajan Gupta came about a fortnight after the HC had said it would decide whether non-payment of an advocate’s fee bills amounted to infringement of right to life and livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

As the case came up for resumed hearing, Assistant Solicitor General of India Chetan Mittal said he would inform the Bench whether the matter was considered by the ministry concerned at any stage, if so the decision taken.

Another advocate Ranjana Shahi, representing the Union of India since 1999, particularly the Department of Central Excise and Customs, submitted that her fee bills running into “lakhs of rupees” had not been cleared.

Advocate BS Taunque, an ex-serviceman who joined the Bar in 1999, also alleged that his bills running into “several lakhs” had not been cleared, though he had been representing the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.

During the course of hearing, Bar Association Secretary RS Randhawa intervened to submit that he, too, wished to assist the Bench on the matters involved and, if necessary, move an application for becoming a party.

Justice Gupta granted the Bar Secretary the liberty and asserted that the larger question framed in the case vide order dated July 7, whether inordinate delay in clearing bills amounted to infringement of right to life and livelihood, was required to be answered.

Meanwhile, Assistant Solicitor General of India Chetan Mittal, Advocate General and Standing Counsel for UT shall seek instructions regarding the status of pending bills and whether any policy can be framed for settling this issue once and for all.

The points for determination were framed after Justice Gupta was told that the petitioner — Indu Mehta’s husband, a senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, conducted a number of cases on its behalf before he died in March 2013. But payments of most bills were not cleared during his lifetime.