AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S.A. Swamy, J.—The petitioner is a practicing advocate at Hyderabad and filed the present Writ Petition questioning the inaction on the part of the District Collector in not giving sanction to the Gram Panchayat for paying his legal fees for the cases in which he represented the Gram Panchayat.
u/s 80 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act enumerated the expenses to be incurred from Gram Panchayat fund and under sub-section (vi) (sic. sub-clause (vi) of Clause (a) of Section 80(2)) it shall be the duty of the Gram Panchayat to provide for payment of any other expenses rendered obligatory by or under the Act or any other law. In fact, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 461, Panchayat Raj (Panchayat 8), dated 12-4-1965, wherein rules were framed for entrustment of the legal work by the Gram Panchayats either to the Law Officers or other counsel under the Act. As per the rules, normally the Gram Panchayat is expected to engage the services of a Government Pleader or a Public Prosecutor appearing for the Government in the legal matters. But, under Rule 5 of the Act, if the interests of the Gram Panchayat are in conflict with the Government, the Sarpanch is empowered to engage a lawyer of his choice subject to the condition that the fees payable to the advocate shall be governed by the scales of fees prescribed by the Government from time to time.
Under Rule 6, the Gram Panchayats shall sanction the legal fees only on the basis of certificate given by the District Collector as regards the reasonability of the claim, whether the legal practitioner is a Government Advocate or not.
These rules were framed under A.P. Gram Panchayats Act of 1964, which was replaced by a new Act, A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
It is the case of both the counsel that no provision was made in the new Act. But, at the same time, while the old Act was in force the petitioner herein appeared for the Gram Panchayat and defended its cases both in A.P. Administrative Tribunal and in High Court. Hence, the rules framed by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 461, dated 12-4-1965 are applicable to the facts of the case.
Admittedly, these rules were not framed by the Government in exercise of its rule making power u/s 232 (sic.) of the Act, hence they have no statutory force. It is not in dispute that every Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Act is an independent entity and it is expected to carry on its activities under the statute in accordance with the provisions of the Act, of course, the District Collector is having supervisory power over the activities of the Gram Panchayats Act to the limited extent of watching whether the Gram Panchayats are functioning within the frame work of the statute or not. If, the activities are not in violation of any statutory powers District Collector is not expected to interfere with their activities.
From this background it can be seen that the Gram Panchayat entrusted the cases to the petitioner and the relationship of a client and an advocate mostly depends upon the confidence the client imposes in an advocate and as such the Government cannot compel the Gram Panchayat to engage the services of a particular advocate. As long as the Gram Panchayat has taken a decision to engage the services of a particular advocate, the District Collector is duty bound to grant permission and he shall also certify the reasonability of the claim raised by such an advocate.
Even assuming that the Gram Panchayat did not pass any resolution, u/s 25(e) of the Act the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is empowered to exercise the powers specifically conferred or imposed on him. It is not the case of the respondents that no cases were filed against the Gram Panchayat. Hence, the Sarpanch exercised his powers bona fidely in discharge of his functions under the statute. The Collector cannot refuse to grant the permission to the Gram Panchayat/Sarpanch to engage a counsel of their choice to defend their cases.
The Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj placed before me the communication received by him from the District Panchayat Officer in Re. No. 8812/93, Pts. 1, dated 18-9-1996, wherein he stated that the Sarpanch engaged the petitioner as their advocate on their own personal behalf in the O. As. filed by the employees who were appointed without obtaining the prior permission of the District Collector concerned. But, at the same time, it should be kept in mind that the Sarpanch engaged the advocate in the interest of the administration of the Gram Panchayat and the Tribunal set aside the order of the District Collector directing the Sarpanch to remove the employees from office. Hence, it cannot be said that the Sarpanch is functioning in personal interest. It is a feeble attempt made to defeat the claim of the petitioner.
For all the above reasons, I hold that the District Collector is not justified in withholding the permission to the Gram Panchayat for engaging the services of the petitioner and not certifying the reasonability of the claim made by the petitioner. Accordingly, a writ of Mandamus shall issue to the Collector to ratify the action of the Gram Panchayat in engaging the services of the petitioner as advocate in the cases that were filed against the Gram Panchayat in A.P. Administrative Tribunal as well as in the High Court and also issue certificate with regard to the reasonability of the claim towards legal fees, keeping the orders issued by the Government in mind either under the Gram Panchayat Act or keeping the scales of the fees that are being paid to the Government Advocates.
He shall pass orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.