Sri. L. Venkata Rama Reddy Vs the Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri. L. Venkata Rama Reddy Vs the Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition partly allowed; mandamus issued to the respondents to consider the legal notice dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure-D) and pass necessary orders within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, without expressing any opinion on the petitioner's entitlement.

Issue for consideration

Whether the 2nd respondent is obliged to pay the petitioner's legal fee for the cases listed in Annexure-L, L1, L2 and L3 as per the bills raised, in accordance with the fee schedule in Annexure-A dated 06.12.2014 (No. MML/Law/530/Legal Fees/2014-15/3187). +2 more

Court's answer

Whenever a representation by way of legal notice has been issued, it is for the respondents to consider it and pass necessary orders within a reasonable time, either accepting or rejecting the claim made.

Ratio / Principle

In the present case, the representation dated 01.08.2022 was required to be considered and necessary orders passed by the respondents.

Key takeaways

A mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the legal notice vide Annexure-D dated 01.08.2022 and pass necessary orders within four weeks from receipt of a copy of this order.ratio¶41
The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner to the claimed fees.obiter¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Writ Petition No. 16969 of 2026 (GM-RES), decided on 09.06.2026 by Justice Suraj Govindaraj: A practising advocate, a panel advocate of Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Ltd., complained that his bills for legal services rendered in cases listed at Annexures L, L1, L2 and L3 — payable in terms of Annexure-A dated 06.12.2014 (No. MML/Law/530/Legal Fees/2014-15/3187) — had not been paid despite a legal notice dated 01.08.2022. Observing that a representation made by legal notice must be considered and orders passed within a reasonable time, accepting or rejecting the claim, the Court issued a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the said legal notice and pass necessary orders within four weeks, expressly reserving its opinion on the petitioner's entitlement, and disposed of the petition as partly allowed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27487 WP No. 16969 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.16969 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. L. VENKATA RAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OFFICE AT L.V.R. ASSOCIATES, NO.126, BASEMENT FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, RMV 2^ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.

…PETITIONER

(BY MS. CHARISHMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LTD., T.T.M.C. BUILDING, 'A' BLOCK, 5^TH FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LTD., T.T.M.C. BUILDING, 'A' BLOCK, 5^TH FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R2)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27487 WP No. 16969 of 2026

HC-KAR

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES TO THE PANEL ADVOCATES BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT; B. DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PAY THE LEGAL FEE FOR CASES LISTED IN ANNEXURE L, L1, L2, AND L3 AS PER BILLS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEXURE -A DATED 06.12.2014 MML/LAW/530/LEGAL FEES/2014-15/3187 AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

Sri Mahesh R.Uppin, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Petitioner is directed to serve two sets of petition along with annexures on the said counsel.

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

“WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to -

a. Call for records pertaining to payment of legal fees to the Panel Advocates by the 2^nd respondent.

b. Issue a writ, order, direction, or writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to pay the legal fee for cases listed in Annexures-L, L1, L2, and L3 as per

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27487 WP No. 16969 of 2026

HC-KAR

Bills raised by the Petitioner, in accordance with Annexure-A dated 06-12-2014 vide No. MML/Law/530/Legal Fees/2014-15/3187.

c. Issue a writ, order, direction, or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to pay interest at a rate per annum determined by this Hon'ble Court for each year of delay in payment of legal fee for cases listed in Annexures-L, L1, L2, and L3.

d. Issue a writ, order, direction, or declaration that the 2^nd respondent has no legal authority to alter the legal fees in violation of the resolution of the Board of Management and Annexure A dated 06-12-2014 vide No. MML/Law/530/Legal Fees/2014-15/3187.

e. Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The grievance of the petitioner is that the bill for legal services rendered by the petitioner has not been paid by the respondents. The legal notice which has been issued at Annexure-D has also not been considered by the respondents. Whenever any representation in this case by way of legal notice has been issued, it is for the respondents to consider and pass necessary orders within a reasonable time either accepting or rejecting the claim made.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27487 WP No. 16969 of 2026

HC-KAR

In the present case, the representation has been made on 01.08.2022. It is required to be considered and pass necessary orders by the respondents. Hence, this Court passes the following

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is partly allowed .

(ii) A mandamus is issued, the respondents are directed to consider the legal notice vide Annexure-D dated 01.08.2022 and pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner.

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

PB