Judgment:
ORDER
SHEET WP773of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CHHABI CHAKRABORTY Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE Date : 26th August, 2014.
Appearance: Mr.Subhrangsu Pande, Adv.Ms.Ina Bhattacharyya, Adv..for the petitioner.
Mr.Sabyasachi Roy Chowdhury, Adv..for the State.
The Court: This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India who is admittedly one Advocate and was in the previous panel prepared by the respondent no.3, that is, Legal Remembrancer, Government of West Bengal has prayed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith release the entire sum dues as payable to the writ petitioner towards her professional fees for appearing and conducting cases on behalf of the State of West Bengal and its various Departments.
Perused the writ application.
Heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner.
Mr.Sabyasachi Roy Choudhury, learned Advocate appears on behalf of all the respondents.
Heard him also.
A similar matter has been disposed of by this Court being WP No.762 of 2014.
This Court was informed in that writ application that Mr.Dipankar Datta, J.in WP No.239 of 2014 has disposed of the writ application in favour of a similarly placed learned Advocates on this terms :“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.” Considering the merit of the writ application and the claim of the present writ petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the same order is also to be passed as the present writ petitioner is similarly placed with the writ petitioner of WP No.239 of 2014.
Let the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Legal Remembrancer to look into the grievance of the writ petitioner and to release in her favour the admissible dues as early as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Be it further noted that if there is any dispute in any bill and the respondent no.3 being the Legal Remembrancer is of the view that the fees charged by the writ petitioner are not payable, he may inform the matter to the writ petitioner accordingly and in that event, it shall be lawful for the present writ petitioner to approach the Civil Court by filing proper application to secure the relief as claimed.
There will be no order as to costs.
The writ is thus disposed of.
(INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, J.) dg2