P. Venkatamuni Reddi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil - right of advocate - section 34 of advocates act, 1961 and rule 12 (2) of advocate fee rules - advocate general appeared on behalf government as respondent - assistance by two juniors on request of advocate general - both junior advocates entitled to 1/3 of regulated fee - appointed advocate general resigned and another advocate general appointed - third junior also appointed as assistant on request of advocate-general - right to claim fees arises when assistance rendered - services of third junior are legal - held, all three junior advocates entitled to share one 1/3 of regulated fee of advocate general. - - the singularity of the word 'junior counsel' would include the plurality as well. as well as sri nagaseshaiah, as junior counsel. may 15, 1978 permitting sri ramachandra reddy to take the services of sri nagaseshaiah and sri venkatamuni reddy as junior counsel, accorded permission to sri subrahmany 'reddy to take the assistance of sri rajeeva reddy as well.order1. both the writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. in c.c.c.a. no. 99/77 the government is the respondent. they directed the advocate-general to enter appearance on behalf of the government. sri p. ramachandra reddy, the then advocate general requested the government in his letter dt. mar., 27, 1978 to appoint two junior counsel and pursuant thereto, the government issued g.o.ms. no. 813 revenue, dt. may 15, 1978 appointing sri p. nagaseshaiah, and sri p. venkatamuni reddy (petitioner in w.p. no. 20054/87) as junior counsel to assist the advocate general. in para 2 of the said g.o. it is stated that both the junior counsel should take 1/3rd of the regulated fee to which the advocate-general is entitled subsequently, sri ramachandra reddi resigned and sri k. subrahmanya reddy was appointed as advocate-general. thereafter by his letter dt. nov., 8, 1983 to the government, sri subrahmanya reddy requested to permit him to engage the services of sri c. v. rajeeva reddy (petitioner in w.p. 585/88) advocate to assist him in the above appeal. the government, in memo no. 521 dt. dec., 27, 1983 permitted the advocate-general to engage the services of sri c. v. rajeeva reddy and in para 2, it is stated that he will share the fee equally with the other two juniors viz. sri nagaseshaiah and the petitioner of the one-third of the fee to which the advocate general is entitled as per the rules. under rule 12 of the advocates fee rules, the advocate is entitled to the regulated fee and under sub-rule (2) thereof, the junior is entitled to one-third of the fee as regulated under sub-section (1) thereof. the appeal, ccca 99/77 was disposed of on sept., 18, 1984, then the regulated fee of one-third, has been equally distributed between sri p. nagaseshaiah, sri p. venkalamuni reddy and sri c. v. rajeeva reddy.3. sri p. venkalamuni reddy, petitioner in w.p. no. 20054/87 assails the legality of para 2 of government memo nos. 521 dt. dec., 27, 1983. he contends that once he has been appointed along with sri nagaseshaih to share one-third of the fee, there is a promise made by the government that he will be entitled to 1/6th of fee which the advocate general is entitled to and the appointment of a third person is detrimental to his right, therefore, the government is estopped by the doctrine of promissory estoppel to engage any other counsel or giving direction to share the one-third fee payable to the advocate general along with him. i am unable to agree. the very object of appointing a junior counsel is to assist the senior counsel who is entitled to the fee as regulated under rule 12(1) of the advocate fee rules. in this case, in view of the magnitude of the case involved, the government directed the learned advocate general to appear on behalf of the government in c.c.c.a. no. 99/77 and the advocate general is entitled to take the assistance of a junior counsel by operation of note to clause (2) of rule 3 of the andhra pradesh advocate-general (duties, leave and remuneration) order, 1961 issued through g.o.ms. no. 1640 home (courts-c) department dt. aug. 21,1961, which reads :'except in special cases the advocate-general will not be allowed the assistance of a junior counsel for work in courts. in special cases when such assistance becomes necessary, the previous sanction of the government shall be obtained, though the selection of a suitable person shall be left (o the advocate-general.'therefore, it is clear that the advocate general has the free choice to select a person to assist him as a junior counsel. the singularity of the word 'junior counsel' would include the plurality as well. when the advocate-general has been given power to select a junior counsel, it is open to him to select more than one junior counsel. in this case, sri ramachandra reddy, the then advocate-general selected the petitioner sri p. venkatamuni reddy. as well as sri nagaseshaiah, as junior counsel. therefore, sri subrahmnaya reddy felt that sri rajeeva reddy would be suitable to assist him in c.c.c.a. no. 99/77 and that accordingly he has requested the government as per the letter dt. nov. 8, 1983. the government have accepted the request made by sri subrahmanya reddy the learned advocate general. under those circumstances, once the assistance of the junior counsel has been sanctioned by the government, the question then is as to how the one-third fee is to be shared. obviously the government, in cognizance of the sanction accorded in g.o.ms. no. 813 dt. may 15, 1978 permitting sri ramachandra reddy to take the services of sri nagaseshaiah and sri venkatamuni reddy as junior counsel, accorded permission to sri subrahmany 'reddy to take the assistance of sri rajeeva reddy as well. under those circumstances the services taken by sri subrahmanya reddy of sri rajeeva reddy as junior counsel, cannot be considered to be illegal.4. the next question is whether sri rajeeva reddy is not entitled to any fee or whether the petitioner has got any indefeasible right to the one-third regulated fee as prescribed under sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the advocates fee rules. the right to remuneration would arise on the date when the assistance was rendered to the advocate-general. it would be axiomatic to mention that when the cases are posted for hearing then the question of preparation would arise. we need not go into the question whether the petitioners have in fact, rendered any assistance or not. the question is whether the three junior counsel are entitled to the regulated fee equally or not when the government has given sanction to take the assistance of sri rajeeva reddy in ccca 99/77 it is implicit that sri rajeeva reddy also rendered services as junior counsel to the learned advocate general. when the regulated fee is to be shared by sri nagaseshaiah, sri venkatamuni reddy and sri rajeeva reddy equally then they are entitled to equal remuneration under the orders issued by the government. the government is competent to regulate as to how the amount is to be shared. merely because the petitioner was authorised to assist the advocate general, he cannot automatically say that he together with sri nagaseshaiah alone are entitled to the regulated fee. to avoid this contingency, the contention of the petitioner (sri munivenkata reddy) is that he has not been informed of the order passed by the government and therefore any order passed by the government without notice to him is not binding on him. in the affidavit of sri k. padamanabhan, the section officer of the advocate general's office, detailed the circumstances under which the appearance of the parties have been made, the dates on which the recommendations for engaging the services of the junior counsel have been made and he further stated that after the receipt of the government memo no. 521 dt. dec. 27, 1983, the learned advocate general directed him to inform the petitioner and sri nagaseshaiah, of the order passed by the government and he states thus :'i have accordingly informed mr. p. nagaseshaiah and mr. p. venkatamuni and showed the memo'.5. in the counter-affidavit filed by sri p. nagaseshaiah, he stated that sri subrahmanya reddy has asked him whether he has got any objection for engaging a third counsel along with him and he has stated that he has no objection to the course of action proposed by sri subrahmanya reddy. he further stated that sri padmanabhan has informed him of the memo issued by the government. though the petitioner has been asserting that he has not been informed of the same, there is no need for the advocate general directly to inform the petitioner when he instructed the section officer to inform the petitioner and sri nagaseshaiah, and when the same was informed to sri nagaseshaiah, sri nagaseshaiah accepted the same, sri padmanabhan further states that he also informed the petitioner and the memo was also shown to him. therefore, i accept his statement and conclude that the petitioner has been informed of the memo passed by the government. in this view, the decisions cited by the petitioner, viz., bishnu charan v. state, : (1973)iillj528ori and bachhittar singh v. state of punjab, : air1963sc395 are of no material consequence. therefore the need to go into the ratio therein is unnecessary.6. the doctrine of promissory estoppel would arise only in a case where a party has accepted a promise made and acted to his detriment and then it cannot be taken out to the detriment of the party.7. as already stated, the right to claim fee arises only when the petitioner renders assistance. therefore when the ccc appeal was posted for hearing, sri nagaseshaiah, sri venkatamuni reddy and sri rajiv reddy equally assisted the learned advocate-general. therefore, all of them are entitled to share the one-third of the regulated fee of the learned advocate-general. accordingly i do not find any justification in the contention raised by the petitioner (in wp no. 20054/87).8. it is further contended that the right to remuneration arises only to the junior counsel who filed their appearance within thirty days from the date when the notice was issued for appearance. rajiv reddy filed his appearance long after that date. therefore, he is not entitled to the remuneration to be shared with the petitioner and sri nagaseshaiah. i am unable to accept the contention. no doubt, the rules postulate of filing an appearance. but, in actual practice, it is common knowledge that appearances would always be filed not within the time prescribed. the rigour of filing appearance is only to put the party on notice that if no appearance is filed it would be to the detriment of the respondent and it is their lookout and the orders cannot be treated to be ex parte. it is common knowledge that appearances would always be filed at any time before the cases come up for hearing and even after appearing in the list and the right to remuneration-would never be denied for late filing of appearance. under the rules, the fee certificate is to be filed at any time seven days after the date of the judgment, namely, one week after the disposal of the appeal or the writ petition, etc. the right to remuneration of a junior counsel is incidental to the assistance he renders to the senior counsel therefore, it is not a question of the date on which the appearance is filed but it is the date on which the assistance is rendered to the senior counsel. considered from this perspective, i find no justification in the contention raised by sri venkatamuni reddy in this regard.9. though sri venkatamuni reddy (petitioner in wp no. 20054/87) seeks to raise mala fides against sri subrahmanya reddy, i refused to countenance the same as being unwarranted and unfounded.10. writ petition no. 20054/87 is accordingly dismissed. as a consequence, the direction issued by the government to deposit the amount in the bank or overnment to deposit the amount in the bank or give security, which is the subject matter of the writ petition no. 585/88 is unnecessary. accordingly, writ petition no. 585/88 is allowed. in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in both the writ petitions. advocate's fee rs. 350/- in each.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Both the writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. In C.C.C.A. No. 99/77 the Government is the respondent. They directed the Advocate-General to enter appearance on behalf of the Government. Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy, the then Advocate General requested the Government in his letter dt. Mar., 27, 1978 to appoint two junior counsel and pursuant thereto, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 813 Revenue, dt. May 15, 1978 appointing Sri P. Nagaseshaiah, and Sri P. Venkatamuni Reddy (petitioner in W.P. No. 20054/87) as junior counsel to assist the Advocate General. In para 2 of the said G.O. it is stated that both the junior counsel should take 1/3rd of the regulated fee to which the Advocate-General is entitled Subsequently, Sri Ramachandra Reddi resigned and Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy was appointed as Advocate-General. Thereafter by his letter dt. Nov., 8, 1983 to the Government, Sri Subrahmanya Reddy requested to permit him to engage the services of Sri C. V. Rajeeva Reddy (petitioner in W.P. 585/88) advocate to assist him in the above appeal. The Government, in Memo No. 521 dt. Dec., 27, 1983 permitted the Advocate-General to engage the services of Sri C. V. Rajeeva Reddy and in para 2, it is stated that he will share the fee equally with the other two juniors viz. Sri Nagaseshaiah and the petitioner of the one-third of the fee to which the Advocate General is entitled as per the rules. Under Rule 12 of the Advocates Fee Rules, the advocate is entitled to the regulated fee and under Sub-rule (2) thereof, the junior is entitled to one-third of the fee as regulated under Sub-section (1) thereof. The appeal, CCCA 99/77 was disposed of on Sept., 18, 1984, Then the regulated fee of one-third, has been equally distributed between Sri P. Nagaseshaiah, Sri P. Venkalamuni Reddy and Sri C. V. Rajeeva Reddy.

3. Sri P. Venkalamuni Reddy, petitioner in W.P. No. 20054/87 assails the legality of para 2 of Government Memo Nos. 521 dt. Dec., 27, 1983. He contends that once he has been appointed along with Sri Nagaseshaih to share one-third of the fee, there is a promise made by the Government that he will be entitled to 1/6th of fee which the Advocate General is entitled to and the appointment of a third person is detrimental to his right, therefore, the Government is estopped by the doctrine of promissory estoppel to engage any other counsel or giving direction to share the one-third fee payable to the Advocate General along with him. I am unable to agree. The very object of appointing a junior counsel is to assist the senior counsel who is entitled to the fee as regulated under Rule 12(1) of the Advocate Fee Rules. In this case, in view of the magnitude of the case involved, the Government directed the learned Advocate General to appear on behalf of the Government in C.C.C.A. No. 99/77 and the Advocate General is entitled to take the assistance of a junior counsel by operation of Note to Clause (2) of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Advocate-General (Duties, Leave and Remuneration) Order, 1961 issued through G.O.Ms. No. 1640 Home (Courts-C) Department dt. Aug. 21,1961, which reads :

'Except in special cases the Advocate-General will not be allowed the assistance of a Junior counsel for work in Courts. In special cases when such assistance becomes necessary, the previous sanction of the Government shall be obtained, though the selection of a suitable person shall be left (o the Advocate-General.'

Therefore, it is clear that the Advocate General has the free choice to select a person to assist him as a Junior Counsel. The singularity of the word 'Junior Counsel' would include the plurality as well. When the Advocate-General has been given power to select a junior counsel, it is open to him to select more than one junior counsel. In this case, Sri Ramachandra Reddy, the then Advocate-General selected the petitioner Sri P. Venkatamuni Reddy. As well as Sri Nagaseshaiah, as junior counsel. Therefore, Sri Subrahmnaya Reddy felt that Sri Rajeeva Reddy would be suitable to assist him in C.C.C.A. No. 99/77 and that accordingly he has requested the Government as per the letter dt. Nov. 8, 1983. The Government have accepted the request made by Sri Subrahmanya Reddy the learned Advocate General. Under those circumstances, once the assistance of the junior counsel has been sanctioned by the Government, the question then is as to how the one-third fee is to be shared. Obviously the Government, in cognizance of the sanction accorded in G.O.Ms. No. 813 dt. May 15, 1978 permitting Sri Ramachandra Reddy to take the services of Sri Nagaseshaiah and Sri Venkatamuni Reddy as junior counsel, accorded permission to Sri Subrahmany 'Reddy to take the assistance of Sri Rajeeva Reddy as well. Under those circumstances the services taken by Sri Subrahmanya Reddy of Sri Rajeeva Reddy as junior counsel, cannot be considered to be illegal.

4. The next question is whether Sri Rajeeva Reddy is not entitled to any fee or whether the petitioner has got any indefeasible right to the one-third regulated fee as prescribed under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Advocates Fee Rules. The right to remuneration would arise on the date when the assistance was rendered to the Advocate-General. It would be axiomatic to mention that when the cases are posted for hearing then the question of preparation would arise. We need not go into the question whether the petitioners have in fact, rendered any assistance or not. The question is whether the three junior counsel are entitled to the regulated fee equally or not when the Government has given sanction to take the assistance of Sri Rajeeva Reddy in CCCA 99/77 it is implicit that Sri Rajeeva Reddy also rendered services as junior counsel to the learned Advocate General. When the regulated fee is to be shared by Sri Nagaseshaiah, Sri Venkatamuni Reddy and Sri Rajeeva Reddy equally then they are entitled to equal remuneration under the orders issued by the Government. The Government is competent to regulate as to how the amount is to be shared. Merely because the petitioner was authorised to assist the Advocate General, he cannot automatically say that he together with Sri Nagaseshaiah alone are entitled to the regulated fee. To avoid this contingency, the contention of the petitioner (Sri Munivenkata Reddy) is that he has not been informed of the order passed by the Government and therefore any order passed by the Government without notice to him is not binding on him. In the affidavit of Sri K. Padamanabhan, the section Officer of the Advocate General's Office, detailed the circumstances under which the appearance of the parties have been made, the dates on which the recommendations for engaging the services of the junior counsel have been made and he further stated that after the receipt of the Government Memo No. 521 dt. Dec. 27, 1983, the learned Advocate General directed him to inform the petitioner and Sri Nagaseshaiah, of the order passed by the Government and he states thus :

'I have accordingly informed Mr. P. Nagaseshaiah and Mr. P. Venkatamuni and showed the Memo'.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri P. Nagaseshaiah, he stated that Sri Subrahmanya Reddy has asked him whether he has got any objection for engaging a third counsel along with him and he has stated that he has no objection to the course of action proposed by Sri Subrahmanya Reddy. He further stated that Sri Padmanabhan has informed him of the Memo issued by the Government. Though the petitioner has been asserting that he has not been informed of the same, there is no need for the Advocate General directly to inform the petitioner when he instructed the section Officer to inform the petitioner and Sri Nagaseshaiah, and when the same was informed to Sri Nagaseshaiah, Sri Nagaseshaiah accepted the same, Sri Padmanabhan further states that he also informed the petitioner and the Memo was also shown to him. Therefore, I accept his statement and conclude that the petitioner has been informed of the Memo passed by the Government. In this view, the decisions cited by the petitioner, viz., Bishnu Charan v. State, : (1973)IILLJ528Ori and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, : AIR1963SC395 are of no material consequence. Therefore the need to go into the ratio therein is unnecessary.

6. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would arise only in a case where a party has accepted a promise made and acted to his detriment and then it cannot be taken out to the detriment of the party.

7. As already stated, the right to claim fee arises only when the petitioner renders assistance. Therefore when the CCC Appeal was posted for hearing, Sri Nagaseshaiah, Sri Venkatamuni Reddy and Sri Rajiv Reddy equally assisted the learned Advocate-General. Therefore, all of them are entitled to share the one-third of the regulated fee of the learned Advocate-General. Accordingly I do not find any justification in the contention raised by the petitioner (in WP No. 20054/87).

8. It is further contended that the right to remuneration arises only to the junior counsel who filed their appearance within thirty days from the date when the notice was issued for appearance. Rajiv Reddy filed his appearance long after that date. Therefore, he is not entitled to the remuneration to be shared with the petitioner and Sri Nagaseshaiah. I am unable to accept the contention. No doubt, the Rules postulate of filing an appearance. But, in actual practice, it is common knowledge that appearances would always be filed not within the time prescribed. The rigour of filing appearance is only to put the party on notice that if no appearance is filed it would be to the detriment of the respondent and it is their lookout and the orders cannot be treated to be ex parte. It is common knowledge that appearances would always be filed at any time before the cases come up for hearing and even after appearing in the list and the right to remuneration-would never be denied for late filing of appearance. Under the Rules, the fee certificate is to be filed at any time seven days after the date of the judgment, namely, one week after the disposal of the appeal or the writ petition, etc. The right to remuneration of a junior counsel is incidental to the assistance he renders to the senior counsel Therefore, it is not a question of the date on which the appearance is filed but it is the date on which the assistance is rendered to the senior counsel. Considered from this perspective, I find no justification in the contention raised by Sri Venkatamuni Reddy in this regard.

9. Though Sri Venkatamuni Reddy (petitioner in WP No. 20054/87) seeks to raise mala fides against Sri Subrahmanya Reddy, I refused to countenance the same as being unwarranted and unfounded.

10. Writ Petition No. 20054/87 is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, the direction issued by the Government to deposit the amount in the bank or overnment to deposit the amount in the bank or give security, which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition No. 585/88 is unnecessary. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 585/88 is allowed. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in both the writ petitions. Advocate's fee Rs. 350/- in each.