The Delhi High Court clarified that a writ petition under Article 226 seeking payment of professional fees from a State is maintainable even where factual disputes exist, and it fixed the quantum of fees based on the record of Supreme Court appearances.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Anoop George Chaudhary, a senior advocate and former Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh, filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 13196/2021) seeking release of outstanding professional fees and penal interest of 24% per annum for his appearances before the Supreme Court of India in two matters - the Indore Development Authority (IDA) batch and the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board batch.
Key Facts
- 27.03.2019: Standing Counsel Mr. Harsh Parashar wrote to State authorities requesting instructions to engage a senior advocate and forwarded the fee structure of a particular senior advocate.
- 01.04.2019: A reminder letter was sent on the same request; no response was received.
- October - December 2019: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court heard the IDA and Housing Board matters. The petitioner appeared on fourteen dates: 16.10.2019, 23.10.2019, 06.11.2019, 07.11.2019, 19.11.2019, 20.11.2019, 21.11.2019, 26.11.2019, 27.11.2019, 28.11.2019, 03.12.2019, 04.12.2019, 10.12.2019 and 11.12.2019.
- 01.12.2019: The petitioner raised 35 consolidated fee bills (appearance and conference fees) dated this day, each referencing AGC/12/01/2019.
- 11.12.2019: The Constitution Bench concluded the hearing and reserved judgment.
- 04.12.2019: The Court de-tagged the Housing Board matter from the IDA batch, noting it did not involve Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- 08.01.2020: Standing Counsel Mr. Parashar sent a letter to the petitioner forwarding the bills for remittance.
- 06.03.2020: The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, recording the petitioner’s submissions.
- November 2021: The petitioner instituted the present writ petition.
- 04.06.2022: Indore Development Authority filed a reply.
- 28.10.2022: Madhya Pradesh Housing Board filed a counter-affidavit denying any engagement.
- 31.10.2022: The Court granted a last opportunity to the State to file a counter-affidavit; none was filed.
- 06.01.2023: Registrar noted that the State’s right to file a counter-affidavit was closed.
- 16.05.2023: The State filed a counter-affidavit admitting the petitioner’s engagement but disputing liability.
- 13.03.2024: The Court directed the Advocate General to “look into the matter and sort out the same”.
- 02.08.2024: The Advocate General’s office filed a report stating that no record of appointment or bills existed.
- 18.08.2025: The Court ordered the State to appear before it.
- 13.10.2025: Standing Counsel Mr. Parashar appeared before the Court and submitted a written note.
- 13.10.2025: The Court ordered a meeting of senior officials, including the Chief Secretary, to resolve the fee issue.
- 01.11.2025: The meeting was convened; the Chief Secretary acknowledged the petitioner’s engagement in the IDA matter.
- 03.11.2025: Report of the meeting was filed.
- 17.12.2025: Petitioner filed an additional affidavit.
- 20.12.2025: State counsel submitted a note with authorities.
- 13.03.2026: Court posed three specific queries regarding authorization, number of hearings, and terms of engagement.
- 21.03.2026: Petitioner filed a supplemental note answering the queries.
- 23.03.2026: Court directed the State to provide details of recent matters and fees paid.
- 02.04.2026: State filed an application seeking additional documents, attaching letters dated 11.02.2026 and 02.05.2024, and the fee schedule notification dated 04.07.2012.
- 23.03.2026 (subsequent order): Court held the petition maintainable and set the fee quantum.
- 31.08.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Procedural History
- 27.03.2019 - Letter to State requesting engagement of senior advocate.
- 01.04.2019 - Reminder letter.
- Oct-Dec 2019 - Appearances before Constitution Bench; bills raised on 01.12.2019.
- Nov 2021 - Writ petition filed.
- 04.06.2022 - Reply by Indore Development Authority.
- 28.10.2022 - Counter-affidavit by Housing Board.
- 31.10.2022 - Last opportunity order (no response).
- 06.01.2023 - Registrar’s order closing right to file counter-affidavit.
- 16.05.2023 - Counter-affidavit filed by State.
- 13.03.2024 - Court’s direction to Advocate General.
- 02.08.2024 - Report filed by Advocate General’s office.
- 18.08.2025 - Order summoning State.
- 13.10.2025 - Standing Counsel’s appearance and Court’s meeting order.
- 01.11.2025 - Meeting held; statements recorded.
- 03.11.2025 - Report of meeting filed.
- 13.03.2026 - Court’s specific queries.
- 21.03.2026 - Supplemental note filed.
- 23.03.2026 - Court’s detailed directions and fee determination.
- 31.08.2026 - Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought (a) an appropriate writ directing the State to release the outstanding professional fees for his Supreme Court appearances, and (b) penal interest at 24% per annum.
The Legal Issue
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for recovery of professional fees against a State where the claim arises from a contractual engagement and where disputed questions of fact exist, and what quantum of fees is payable.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner was engaged by the State’s Standing Counsel on 27.03.2019 and 01.04.2019, as evidenced by the letters and the forwarding of fee bills on 08.01.2020.
- The Supreme Court’s order sheets record his appearance on fourteen dates, establishing a contemporaneous official record.
- The State’s own officials, including the Chief Secretary, admitted the engagement during the meeting of 01.11.2025.
- The fee bills were forwarded for “remittance as raised” and were never contested for six years, invoking the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.
- Reliance on ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corp. of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 and Gunwant Kaur (1969) 3 SCC 769 that writ jurisdiction is not barred by factual disputes.
For the Respondent
- No formal appointment order or written fee schedule existed; therefore the claim is a contractual dispute not suitable for writ jurisdiction.
- The State cited Improvement Trust, Ropar v. S. Tejinder Singh Gujral (1995) 4 SCC 577 and Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. (2023) to argue that fee recovery cannot be entertained via a writ.
- The State contended that the petitioner raised duplicate bills for the same hearing and that the appearance fee of Rs 5,000 per day under the 04.07.2012 notification was applicable, not the claimed Rs 6,05,000 per appearance.
- The State raised a preliminary objection that the petition sought enforcement of a disputed contractual claim, which is non-maintainable under Article 226.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reiterating the settled principle that the plenary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not automatically defeated by the presence of disputed questions of fact. It quoted:
"In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable." The Court distinguished the present case from Improvement Trust by noting that the State itself had, over several years, accepted the petitioner’s appearance, recorded it in the Supreme Court order sheets, and forwarded the bills for payment. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate barred the State from now denying the engagement.
The Court examined the relevance of ABL International and Gunwant Kaur, emphasizing that a writ court may take oral evidence where the record is insufficient, but where the material facts are established by contemporaneous official records, the rule of self-restraint does not apply. The petitioner's appearance was documented on fourteen dates; the Supreme Court’s own order sheets constitute conclusive evidence of his engagement.
On the quantum of fees, the Court held that the rate of Rs 6,05,000 per appearance, as reflected in the bills raised on 01.12.2019, was the agreed rate and could not be altered retrospectively. However, where duplicate bills were raised for the same hearing in both the IDA and Housing Board matters, only a single fee per day was allowable. Consequently, the payable amount was calculated on thirteen valid appearance dates, totalling Rs 78,65,000.
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on the 04.07.2012 notification, observing that the petitioner did not fall within the categories of “Standing Counsel” or “Senior Panel Advocate” under that schedule; his engagement was of a special nature and therefore outside the notification’s purview.
Finally, the Court affirmed that the petitioner’s claim is a monetary entitlement enforceable by a writ, and that the State’s delay and contradictory positions amounted to arbitrariness violating Article 14.
The Verdict
The petition was partly allowed. The State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 78,65,000 (Rupees Seventy-Eight Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand only) together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing (31 August 2026) until payment. Payment must be made within six weeks of the judgment. The State’s claim for duplicate appearance fees on 15.10.2019 and the conference fees were rejected. All pending applications in the proceedings stand disposed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Writ Jurisdiction Not Barred by Disputed Facts
Practitioners can now rely on Article 226 to enforce monetary claims against a State even where factual disputes exist, provided the material facts are established by official records or admissions.
- File a writ petition when the State has accepted services and benefited from them.
- Use contemporaneous documents (order sheets, letters, bills) to pre-empt the “disputed facts” defence.
Quantum Determined by Record of Appearances
When claiming professional fees, the fee rate must be supported by the actual engagement and cannot be altered by later objections.
- Calculate fees on each distinct day of recorded appearance.
- Exclude duplicate bills for the same hearing across connected matters.
State Must Honor Engagements
The doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevents a State from repudiating a contract it has already benefited from.
- Ensure the State’s own officials acknowledge the engagement in writing.
- Promptly raise any objections; silence for years will be construed as acceptance.
