Highlighting the aspect of payment of exorbitant fees to the Additional Advocate Generals and Law Officers, the Madras High Court has advised that an audit be undertaken regarding the payment of fees to such officers. The High Court also held that good governance requires that funds from the public exchequer are drawn on a measured basis and not given away capriciously to a favoured few.

The Madras High Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the impugned order passed by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation and also seeking a direction to settle the claim amount of the petitioner, a former Standing Counsel, to the tune of Rs 13,05,770 with 18% interest per annum.

The Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan stated, “Marking appearance is a matter of money. It is time an audit is undertaken regarding the payment of fees to the law officers. I am conscious that the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently declined to order an enquiry into the payment of exorbitant fees to the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh by Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council. While Courts cannot enquire into the quantum of fees paid to the senior counsel and Additional Advocate Generals, good governance requires that funds from public exchequer are drawn on a measured basis and not given away capriciously to a favoured few.”

“It is a matter of embarrassment that in the State of Tamil Nadu, there are close to dozen Additional Advocate Generals. When I entered the bar in 1991, we had only Advocate General. There was no Additional Advocate General at all. When too many are appointed, necessarily each of them will have to be given work. That leads to allotment of matters that do not even require their services. When the cases are called, the government counsel seek adjournment or pass-over on the ground that the Additional Advocate General has been engaged but is elsewhere. I hope that at least in Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court such practices will cease and the Additional Advocate Generals will turn a new leaf from 2026”, the order read.

Advocate B.Vijay Karthikeyan represented the Petitioner while Standing Counsel S.Vinayak represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The writ petitioner was the standing counsel for Madurai City Municipal Corporation for over 14 years from 1992 to 2006. He represented the Corporation in the Madurai District Courts. It was his grievance that the Corporation had not settled his fee bills. He filed a Petition seeking payment. It was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider his representation and pass an appropriate order. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order came to be passed. Challenging the same, the writ petition was filed before the High Court. According to the petitioner, the Corporation had to pay a sum of Rs 14,07,807, but it paid only a sum of Rs 1,02,037, and the balance amount of Rs.13,05,770 remained to be paid.

The Madurai City Municipal Corporation claimed that on account of non-submission of the judgments within time, in quite a few cases, particularly public auction cases, the corporation faced heavy loss, and the writ petitioner was removed from the panel of lawyers.

Reasoning

The Bench proceeded on the premise that the submission as regards the financial wherewithal of the petitioner was factually correct. “In any event, I do not want to doubt the statement of a counsel that he is unable to even engage a clerk for obtaining certified copies for the 818 cases in which he had appeared”, it added.

The Bench thus permitted the petitioner to approach the Chairman / Secretary of the Legal Services Authority, Madurai District Court and hand over the list of cases in which he had appeared. The Bench also directed the Chairman / Secretary to the Legal Services Authority to verify the list given by the petitioner. “Upon verifying that the writ petitioner had appeared in those cases, the Legal Services Authority shall arrange to obtain the certified copies and issue the same to the writ petitioner. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereupon, the writ petitioner shall submit his fee bills by enclosing the copies that will be issued by the Legal Services Authority. The Corporation of Madurai shall settle the fee bills without interest within a period of two months thereafter”, it ordered.

The Bench further noted, “The petitioner's total claim appears to be a pittance compared to the number of his appearances. Citing procedural aspects, the payment has been withheld. I cannot help wondering at the scandalously high amounts paid to some of the law officers and the senior counsel by the government and quasi-government institutions, including local bodies.”

The Bench thus disposed of the petition by expressing dismay at the appointment of a needlessly high number of law officers.

Cause Title: P.Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation (Case No.: W.P(MD)No.26707 of 2022)

Click here to read/download Order


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.