Terming the submissions of the applicants as irrelevant, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed an application seeking enquiry into the allegations that Advocate General Prashant Singh charged exorbitant fees for appearing in some matters, including one involving a PIL relating to the grant of recognition to Nursing Colleges.

The Writ Petition before the High Court was filed by the applicants seeking a direction that an enquiry be conducted and appropriate legal action be taken against the erring officers if any financial illegality is found.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi and Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal asserted, “Indeed, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner appear irrelevant inasmuch as it is an expenditure made by the government during the course of litigation. In number of petitions, the MPNRC is party, which is an autonomous body having nothing to do with the government departments and as such they are free to appoint any counsel or to pay the professional fees for the term, to which, the counsel and organisation have agreed to.”

“Such allegations without any fulcrum or proof of making payment of exorbitant professional fees to the Advocate General of other law officer(s) cannot be looked into by this Court”, it further added.

Factual Background

As per the letter issued by the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of M.P., addressed to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, a question was raised on the floor of the Legislative Assembly alleging that the Advocate General charged exorbitant professional fees, and the same was paid to him. It was also alleged that in the present PIL relating to Nursing Colleges, the Advocate General and other counsels appearing on behalf of the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council (MPNRC) had been paid professional fees on behalf of the State-organisation even though no separate fee was required to be paid to the law officers representing the 'Government Departments'.

Arguments

It was apprehended by the Counsel for the petitioner that all this exercise was being done by the State authorities for attempting to derail the proceedings of PIL. The PIL was at the verge of conclusion and the Court had directed the respondent authorities to produce the relevant record of proceedings related to the grant of recognition to the Nursing Colleges as they were not found suited and did not have the requisite infrastructure to possess the recognition.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, noted that the Petitioner’s submission was irrelevant as the expenditure was made by the government during the course of litigation. It was explained by the Bench that MPNRC is an autonomous body and it can make its financial norms. The Court has nothing to do with the same.

“We do not find violation of any government policies or any other illegality. Neither any material has been placed before us as to what amount has actually been paid to the Advocate General or to other law officers of the State, nor any circular has been produced providing that a private organisation cannot engage any counsels who are not in the panel of State counsels and they have to pay the requisite fees to their counsels”, it said.

The Court further observed, “Therefore all those letters, which have been referred are restraining the government departments from making payment of independent fees to the law officer(s) of the State but autonomous bodies, Corporations, legal bodies, government companies of the State having its autonomy and they can engage their counsel for their own funds and they are also free to engage the Advocate General and other law officers of the State and independent payment of professional fees, according to their norms, can be made to the engaged counsel, whether it is the Advocate General or any other law officers of the State.”

Explaining that the appointment of Advocate General is made under Article 165 of the Constitution of India and he receives such remuneration as the Governor may determine, the Bench said, “Nowhere it is prescribed that the Advocate General cannot represent any autonomous body/Corporation of the State or cannot charge an independent professional fees.”

As per the Bench, such type of allegations are not required to be scrutinized nor would such allegations adversely affect the minds of this Court, which can cause any apprehensive derailment of the proceedings already initiated. “..we do not want to enlarge the scope of the case and even otherwise, we do not find any illegality prima facie in the case of engaging lawyers by the autonomous body i.e. MPNRC and paying the professional fees as per their norms”, it held.

Thus, the Bench dismissed the application.

Cause Title: Law Students Association vs the State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Case No.: WP-1080-2022)

Click here to read/download Order





Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Sanjay DwivediJustice Achal Kumar Paliwal

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.