Prabir Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Prabir Chatterjee vs State of West Bengal and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 28, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1130232

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1130232
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Dipankar Datta
Decided On: Feb 28, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prabir Chatterjee

Respondent

State of West Bengal and ors.

Excerpt

.....it is not in dispute empanelled advocate for nearly eight years.that the petitioner had been an in my considered view, the office of the legal remembrancer owes a duty to look into the bills that have been raised by the petitioner and to say, for good reasons, to what extent he is not entitled to the fees charged by him and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissible. that would necessarily require consideration of the bills in the light of other materials to ascertain as to whether the petitioner did in fact render professional service or not. if there is any dispute in respect of any bill, it is the duty of the state to inform the petitioner accordingly, so that he may institute appropriate action before a civil court for redress, if advised. at least to this limited extent, the petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ for mandamus although it would be beyond the province of the writ court to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to release of fees claimed by him that is disputed by the legal remembrancer touching factual aspects. this writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of with a direction upon the legal remembrancer to look into the grievance of the petitioner and to release in his favour the admissible dues as early as possible, preferably within six months from date of receipt of a copy of this order. if any bill is disputed and the legal remembrancer is of the view that fees charged by the petitioner are not payable, he may be informed accordingly and in such event it shall be open to him to pursue the channel of civil litigation for relief. there shall be no order as to costs. (dipankar datta, j.) tk

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET WP1622014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRABIR CHATTERJEE Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date : 28th February, 2014.

The Court : The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since August 2003 till July 2011.

He is aggrieved because the bills raised by him for professional services rendered have not been cleared.

I have heard learned advocates for the parties.

It is not in dispute empanelled advocate for nearly eight yeaRs.that the petitioner had been an In my considered view, the office of the Legal Remembrancer owes a duty to look into the bills that have been raised by the petitioner and to say, for good reasons, to what extent he is not entitled to the fees charged by him and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissible.

That would necessarily require consideration of the bills in the light of other materials to ascertain as to whether the petitioner did in fact render professional service or not.

If there is any dispute in respect of any bill, it is the duty of the State to inform the petitioner accordingly, so that he may institute appropriate action before a Civil Court for redress, if advised.

At least to this limited extent, the petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ for Mandamus although it would be beyond the province of the Writ Court to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to release of fees claimed by him that is disputed by the Legal Remembrancer touching factual aspects.

This writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of with a direction upon the Legal Remembrancer to look into the grievance of the petitioner and to release in his favour the admissible dues as early as possible, preferably within six months from date of receipt of a copy of this order.

If any bill is disputed and the Legal Remembrancer is of the view that fees charged by the petitioner are not payable, he may be informed accordingly and in such event it shall be open to him to pursue the channel of civil litigation for relief.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.) tk

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties Prabir Chatterjee vs State of West Bengal and ors. Same Subject Education Same Judge Dipankar Datta