Read Time: 05 minutes
The government of India stated that it has an extensive panel of advocates at the Supreme Court representing the government's interests and that the petitioner was never engaged by it
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench recently dismissed a petition filed by a practicing advocate seeking Rs 1 crore in legal fees and expenses from the Union government for six cases he had filed independently. Court observed that there was no basis for the claim, as the government had never engaged him for legal representation.
A division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla heard the case and upheld a communication issued by the Ministry of Law & Justice, which had rejected Advocate Ashok Pandey’s demand. The letter, dated July 26, 2024, stated that the petitioner was not on the government’s panel of advocates and that the cases he had filed were on his own volition. Since the government had never assigned him the matters, it was not liable to pay any fees or expenses incurred by him.
During the hearing, Pandey, who appeared in person, argued that he had worked on the cases in the interest of justice and was entitled to compensation. However, the court found no merit in his arguments. The judges noted that the Ministry had clearly communicated its position, and there was no legal obligation for the government to reimburse fees for cases not officially assigned to him. Court observed that independent legal actions taken without official sanction could not later be used as a basis for demanding fees from the government.
The Ministry’s letter, which was reviewed by the court, had also stated that Pandey’s request was initially forwarded to the Department of Justice and later to the President’s Secretariat, but was ultimately found to be without merit. The government’s response made it clear that it had a panel of designated lawyers to handle its legal matters, and Pandey was not among them. The court held that this reasoning was sound and saw no grounds to interfere with the Ministry’s decision.
After the court dismissed the petition, Pandey made an oral request for a certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution, which would allow him to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court. The judges refused the request, stating that the case did not involve any substantial constitutional question or any issue of general public importance that warranted further consideration.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Ashok Pandey Vs. Union Of Bharat Thru. Secy. To The President New Delhi And 2 Others
Please Login or Register
