Allowed

Basavaraj S/O Mahantappa Angadi, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2021WP/104093/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Dharwad Bench allowed a writ petition for certiorari and mandamus. It quashed a legal opinion denying professional fees and an order refusing payment. The Court directed respondents to release the fees to the petitioner within three months with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned legal opinion and order quashed; Respondents directed to release professional fees to petitioner within 3 months with 6% interest.

Basavaraj S/O Mahantappa Angadi, Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.104093/2015 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

BASAVARAJ S/O MAHANTAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, 3^RD CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

THE GENERAL MANAGER, LAQ AND R AND R OFFICE, UKP. NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶13

THE SPECIAL OFFICER, LEGAL CELL, UKP, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING A LEGAL OPINION DATED 04.12.2000 BY

¶17

¶18

THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; I.(A) CERTIORARI QUASHING AN ORDER BEARING NO.GM/UKP/LAZ/2B/CWD-142/2009-10 DATED 04.03.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, AT VIDE ANNEXURE-H; MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.08.2014 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AND TAKE NECESSARY STEPS FOR THE RELEASE OF PROFESSIONAL FEE DUE TO THE PETITIONER AT VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶22

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing a legal opinion dated 04.12.2000 by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-F.

¶23

i.(a) Certiorari quashing an order bearing No.GM/UKP/LAZ/2B/CWD-142/2009-10 dated 04.03.2016 passed by the respondent No.2, at vide Annexure-H.

¶24

ii. Mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 22.08.2014 given by the

¶25

¶26

petitioner and take necessary steps for the release of professional fee due to the petitioner at vide Annexure-G.

¶27

iii. And grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶29

and learned HCGP for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶30

In addition to reiterating the various

¶31

contentions put forth in the memorandum of writ petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, it is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner representing respondent No.2 in the proceedings before the Lok Adalath which entitled him to collect/receive fees for the said appearances, respondent No.3 has submitted a legal opinion at Annexure-F, which is contrary to the material on record as well as the earlier proceedings at Annexure-A which clearly indicate that the

¶32

¶33

petitioner would be entitled to the said fees for his appearances. It is also pointed out that though this Court did not direct the General Manager/respondent No.2 to take a decision with regard to payment of fees to the petitioner, respondent No.2 has conducted the impugned proceedings at Annexure-H dated 04.03.2016 and has come to the erroneous conclusion that the petitioner would not be entitled to the fees towards the said appearances as fixed in Annexure-A. it is therefore contended that legal opinion at Annexure-F and the impugned proceeding at Annexure-H deserve to be quashed.

¶34

Per contra, learned HCGP for respondents

¶35

submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

As rightly contended by the learned counsel

¶37

for the petitioner in the light of Annexure-A, which clearly fixes the legal fees payable in favour of the petitioner coupled with the fact that respondent No.3

¶38

¶39

did not have jurisdiction or authority of law to submit the said legal opinion, which is contrary to Annexure-A apart from the fact that the General Manager/respondent No.2 was also not directed by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2016 to pass the impugned order at Annexure-H which is purported to have been passed by him, I am of the opinion that impugned legal opinion at Annexure-F and the impugned order at Annexure-H passed by respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 respectively deserve to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the concerned respondents to pay the fees payable in favour of the petitioner as requested in the representation at Annexure-G dated 22.08.2014 in accordance with law.

¶40

In the result, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. Petition is allowed.

¶43

¶44

ii. Impugned legal opinion at Annexure-F dated 04.12.2000 submitted by respondent No.3 as well as the impugned order at Annexure-H dated 04.03.2016 passed by respondent No.2 are hereby quashed.

¶45

iii. The concerned respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 22.08.2014 submitted by the petitioner and take necessary steps to release professional fees due to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-A within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with interest at 6% per annum for delayed period from 07.11.2015 till the date of payment

¶46

SD JUDGE

¶47

CLK

Basavaraj S/O Mahantappa Angadi, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaraj S/O Mahantappa Angadi, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekappa Kariyappa Benakannavar, Vs Smt. Mamatazabegam

Hanumanthappa S/O Bhimanna Vs S. Rajashekar S/O Shanmukhappa

Smt. Neelam W/O Oshripad Betgeri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Kashinath S/O Padadanagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Tirakreddy S/O Venkreddy Alavandi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited Vs Smt.Subhadra W/O Late Mr.Irappa Badiger