While the State denied having engaged Chaudhari, the High Court noted that order sheets in the matter proved otherwise.
Further, the State's former Chief Secretary had also admitted to having engaged Chaudhari.
In view of the same, Justice Sachin Datta said that the fees should be paid to Chaudhari with an interest of 9% per annum from the year 2021, when the petition was filed before the High Court, till the date the final payment is made.
In its 55-page order dated August 31, the Court deprecated the conduct of the State of Madhya Pradesh, observing that an advocate’s right to receive payment for services rendered is not merely a legal entitlement but also a matter of honour.
“The dignity of the legal profession, and the effective representation of the State itself before the courts, alike demand that the fees of counsel engaged by the State be paid promptly, and that disputes, where genuinely they exist, be raised contemporaneously and in good faith,” the Court said.
While the State denied having engaged Chaudhari, the High Court noted that order sheets in the matter proved otherwise. Further, the State's former Chief Secretary had also admitted to having engaged Chaudhari.
In view of the same, Justice Sachin Datta said that the fees should be paid to Chaudhari with an interest of 9% per annum from the year 2021, when the petition was filed before the High Court, till the date the final payment is made.
In its 55-page order dated August 31, the Court deprecated the conduct of the State of Madhya Pradesh, observing that an advocate’s right to receive payment for services rendered is not merely a legal entitlement but also a matter of honour.
Justice Datta underscored that if States are permitted to avail the services of the senior members of the Bar in the hour of need, and then to consign their bills to a maze of departmental denials, the inevitable consequence is that talented members of the Bar will be discouraged from appearing for the State at all.
“The dignity of the legal profession, and the effective representation of the State itself before the courts, alike demand that the fees of counsel engaged by the State be paid promptly, and that disputes, where genuinely they exist, be raised contemporaneously and in good faith,” the Court said.
