Bimal Chetri vs State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. M Nath, learned standing counsel for the P&RD produced parawise comments of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhubri. The issue

before this court is that the petitioner was engaged as the counsel to conduct WP(C) 5727/2012 and connected Writ Appeal No. 363/2015 along with

Writ Appeal No. 167/2017. The said engagement was on verbal instruction. The petitioner as the conducting counsel of the respondent Chief

Executive Officer, Dhubri Zilla Parishad remained present, argued and finally the matters were disposed of. Thereafter, the petitioner raised his bill.

Though a part payment was made, however, the left over amount is yet to be disbursed to the petitioner. In view of the same the parawise comment

of the said Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhubri is relevant which is extracted hereinbelow:

“PARAWISE INSTRUCTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH WP(C) 5219/2020 (BIMAL CHETRI VS THE STATE FO ASSAM) ON

BEHALD OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 3, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, DHUBRI.

Para 1:- No comment.

Para2:- It is a matter of record and hence nothing is to explain separately.

Para 3:-

Para 4:- It is an admitted fact that some amounts were paid towards Advocate’s fee bill which were supposed to adjust with the final bills to be

submitted at the disposal of the writ petition and writ appeal in question but subsequently it is found that the bill which has been submitted by the

petitioner is not at all eligible for payment since the bill is not in proper form and also not supported by the documents pertaining to the conduct and

hearing of the case in question.

That, further it is submitted that the bills submitted bears no entitlement for payment.

Moreover, the amount shown against the Junior Advocate under the petitioner is not entitled to get payment from the answering respondent.

That, for reasons stated above the bills for final payment could not be processed.

It is further to be submitted that on scrutiny the amount Rs. 1,15,000.00+Rs. 50,000.00 totaling Rs. 1,65,000.00 (Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand)

only paid as advocate part payment appears excess and left nothing for further payment towards the fee fill of the petitioner.

Para 5:- The contents of this para is self explanatory by the petitioner needs nothing to comment.

Para 6:-

Para 7:- As stated in para 3 & 4 above.

Para 8:-

Para 9:-

Para 10:-

Para 11:- Not applicable in the instant case.

Under the above fact and circumstances it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and hence the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed with cost.

Chief Executive Officer,

Zilla Parishad, Dhubriâ€​.

From the aforesaid parawise comments the deficiencies at the time of the submitting bills by the petitioner is apparent. Accordingly, this writ petition

stands disposed of thereby allowing the petitioner to submit the bill afresh satisfying the requirements referred in the parawise comment to the extent

possible on the part of the petitioner whereafter, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhubri shall take a call and bring a logical conclusion to

the bill raised by the petitioner and release the same after deducting the amount already disbursed to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be carried

out within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order along with fresh bill raised by the petitioner. The said bill shall be

annexed with a copy of this writ petition also.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.