P. Ramar vs The Director General of Police and The Superintendent of Police

M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a relief of Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to pay

a sum of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Thirty only)in respect of professional fees rendered by the Petitioner for the period from

01.04.2001 to 30.01.2003.

The Petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Sri villiputhur, for the past 23 years. He has served as a Additional Public Prosecutor -cum-Additional

Government Pleader in the sub-Court, Sivakasi, in the year 1996 and has conducted the cases on behalf of the State Government.

It is the case of the Petitioner that he has transmitted his fee Bills for the period 01.04.2001 to 30.01.2003 to the Second

Respondent/Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. After receipt of the Bill, the Second Respondent/Superintendent of Police,

Virudhunagar District, has addressed a letter to the First Respondent vide Na. Ka. No. C5/10495/02 dated 11.02.2005, stating that if they have

received the finance grants from the Government and the same shall be sent to them. The Second Respondent has furnished a copy of the letter to

the Petitioner also.

A plea of the Petitioner is that he has not received the bill amount of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Thirty only) and he has sent

a reminder to the Second Respondent on 22.08.2005. Even then the said amount of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Thirty Only)

has not been paid to him later on 27.09.2005. He has gone to the Office of the First Respondent/Director General of Police, Chennai and enquired

about the letter sent by the Second Respondent pertaining to his bill amount.

According to the Petitioner he has been informed by the Crime Section of the First Respondent no letter has been received from the First

Respondent in respect of the Bill amount. On 28.07.2005, the Petitioner sent a letter to the Second Respondent mentioning that in the Office of the

First Respondent he has been informed that the letters purported to have been sent by them and requested the Second Respondent to clear the Bill

amount of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Thirty only).

The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondents have not answered to the reminders sent by him to clear his Bill amount and the Respondents

have not paid the due amount of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Thirty only) so far. Therefore, he has been perforced to address a

letter to the First Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Only)being the amount due to him for the work turned

out by him as Additional Public Prosecutor before the sub-Court, Sivakasi, pertaining to the period from 01.04.2001 to 30.01.2003.

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents submits that as per the instructions of the Director General of Police, the Bills

have been sent by the Petitioner for the period from 04/2001 to 12/2001 and bills from 1/2002 to 1/2003 have been returned to the Petitioner on

07.07.2004, requiring the Petitioner to arrange and send month war Bills with Nondrawal Certificate for the same. The Petitioner has sent a month

war fees particulars in full shape amounting to Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Thirty only)to the Office of the Second Respondent

on 13.09.2004 and the same has been sent to the Office of the First Respondent on 10.11.2004 and in letter dated 28.10.2004, with information

to the Petitioner. Also, the First Respondent/Director General of Police, Chennai, has sent a proposal to the Government in letter No.

227855/Crime 3(1)/06 dated 21.11.2006 for sanction of fee of Rs. 52,030/ (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Thirty only) as claimed by the

Petitioner. At this stage, it is useful for this Court to refer the paragraph ''5'' in the counter filed by the Second Respondent which runs as follows:

With reference to the averments made by the Petitioner in para 3, it is submitted that the subject matter was previously dealt in Building Section

in the Office of the First Respondent and the same is now being dealt in crime section for administrative convenience. The first Respondent in

memo RC. No. 229243/Crime II(1)/2005, dated 03.01.2006, asked the second Respondent to send copy of the proposal dated 28.10.2004 on

the ground that it has not been received in the office of the first Respondent. The copy of the letter dated 28.10.2004 with enclosures was sent by

the second Respondent to the first Respondent on 03.11.2006 in letter dated 02.11.2006 after obtaining copies of claims from the writ Petitioner.

The first Respondent sent the proposal to the Government in letter No. 227855/Crime 3(1)/2006 dated 21.11.2006. Then the Government

returned the proposal to the first Respondent in Government letter 110694/cts VI/2006-1 dated 08.12.2006 with instruction to send the proposal

directly to the Collector, Virudhunagar for settlement of retainer fees phone bills etc to the writ Petitioner. The same was endorsed by the first

Respondent to the second Respondent in memorandum RC. No. 227855/Crime 3(1)/2006, dated 03.01.2007. Accordingly out of the total claim

of Rs. 52,030/-proposal for sanction of Rs. 23,500/-towards settlement of retainer fee and phone bills has been sent to the Collector,

Virudhunagar by the second Respondent in letter C. No. C5/10495/2002 dated 17.03.2007 and another proposal for sanction of Rs. 28,530/-

towards settlement of Pleader fees was sent to the first Respondent by the second Respondent in letter C. No. C5/10495/2002, dated

19.03.2007. The first Respondent has forwarded the proposal for sanction of Rs. 28,530/-to the Government in letter No. 227855/Crime

3(1)/2006 dated 09.04.2007.

8.A core reason assigned on the side of the Respondents is that the Second Respondent has taken action to sanction of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty

Two Thousand and thirty Only) and that due will be settled quickly any further loss of time and the delay is purely on the administrative reasons

and further that the assurance is given for settlement of the dues to the Petitioner within a short period.

Admittedly, as on date the Petitioner''s claim amount of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Thirty only)towards his professional

work as an Additional Public Prosecutor before the sub-Court, Sivakasi, for the period from 01.04.2001 to 30.01.2003 has not been paid to him.

Though in the counter of the Second Respondent averment has been made that the due amount of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and

Thirty only) claimed by the Petitioner will be settled quickly without any further loss of time, a candid fact remains that the Petitioner has not been

paid his fee of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Thirty only) for the period mentioned supra.

Since the Petitioner has claimed his professional fees for the work turned out by him as Additional Public Prosecutor for the period from

01.04.2001 to 30.01.2003 before the sub-Court, Sivakasi, this Court, taking note that the amount has not been paid till date and on the basis of

Equity, Fair Play and even as a matter of prudence directs the First Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 52,030/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and

Thirty only)as claimed by the Petitioner for his professional work/Advocate fees for the period from 01.04.2001 to 30.01.2003, within a period of

five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the communication failing which, it is made clear that it is open to the Petitioner to take appropriate

proceedings further in the manner known to law.

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.