JUDGMENT D. N. Jha, J. - Sri K. S. Bajpai, an Advocate of this Court, has filed this unfortunate writ petition praying for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the depositparties, (1) District Magistrate, Lucknow/Chairman, Mandi Samiti, Lucknow, (2) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Lucknow, through its Secretary, and (3) Sri R.A. Misra, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Lucknow, to make payment of his legal fee and expenses incurred by him as indicated in annexure no. 6 to the writ petition. 2. On petition being presented before this Court, notices were served and counter affidavit has been filed by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. In the Counter affidavit it has been asserted in reply to averments made in para 12 that bills of the petitioner were received in the office of the Appositeparty no. 2 but as the petitioner had not informed about the progress of the cases in which fee bills were submitted and as a very high fee was claimed against the terms intimated by the oppositeparty no. 2, it was not possible to make the payment of fee. The another material point asserted is that it was made clear to the petitioner that no separate fee will be paid to the petitioner for the opinion rendered by the petitioner as he was conducting those cases in High Court and as he was also appointed Standing Counsel. This term was accepted by the petitioner. Unfortunately, in the instant case the respondents have no filed any letter to indicate as to what terms and conditions were offered by them, nor they have filed any document to show that there was any specific contract between the petitioner for payment of fee in respect of cases conducted by the petitioner in the Court. These allegations have been categorically denied in the rejoinder affidavit. It may be mentioned that on an application being presented by the petitioner for clarification of the order dated 20th July, 1984 the file was summoned from the office and it transpired that although the writ petition had been filed in 1984, but the matter had been lingering admission. Both the parties agree that the matter be finally disposed of instead of being kept in cold storage. 3. In order to dispose of the case finally, we proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties. Both the parties agree that the matter be finally disposed of instead of being kept in cold storage. 3. In order to dispose of the case finally, we proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the averments and crossaverments put forth in the respective affidavits. From annexure 1 filed with the application dated 18th of February, 1986 it transpires that the Chairman had mentioned that Sri Bajpai was paid at the rate of Rs. 2200 per case and after lapse of three years when again Sri Bajpai was contacted to do the case he demanded fee at the rate of Rs. 2200 per case excluding the clerk fee and miscellaneous expenses. On an interim order being issued by this Court it has been brought to our notice that some amount has been paid to the petitioner. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and we are of the view that when the petitioner had conducted cases on behalf of the respondents, they were liable to make payment of his legal remuneration. The respondents could not have expected a free service from the petitioner. It was open to the respondents to settle the fee with the petitioner and in case they were of the view that fee demanded by the petitioner were exorbitant, they could have engaged any other Counsel, but once having extracted work from the petitioner it sounds ridiculous that the legal remuneration should not be paid to a lawyer who has rendered service. We do not think that a fee of Rs. 2,200 can be said to be exorbitant for conducting a case in High Court. It also transpires that certain miscellaneous expenses were also incurred. Naturally a lawyer is not expected to pay from his own pocket and it is the liability of the department to pay all such charges. Thus, we are of the view that the respondents have not been fair in dealing with the petitioner. It transpire that formerly the petitioner. Sri K.S. Bajpai, had been paid at the rate of Rs. 2002 (2200) per case and, therefore, with the efflux of time his demand of Rs. 2,200 as his legal fee for conducting the cases cannot be said to be exorbitant. It transpire that formerly the petitioner. Sri K.S. Bajpai, had been paid at the rate of Rs. 2002 (2200) per case and, therefore, with the efflux of time his demand of Rs. 2,200 as his legal fee for conducting the cases cannot be said to be exorbitant. We fail to understand such an attitude of the respondents is not making payment of the legal remuneration to the petitioner. It is also unfortunate that such a dispute was raised after the cases had been conducted and disposed of. 5. We, therefore, after giving our anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances, direct that the petitioner will be paid at the rate of Rs. 2,200/ per case, as indicated in annexure no. 6 and it will be open to the respondents to deduct the total amount paid on the basis of the interim order to the petitioner. The actual expenses incurred by the petitioner, while conducting the 45 cases will also be paid to him. We find that in three cases he has charged the commission fee apart from 45 cases conducted in the Court. That amount shall also be paid. It is made clear that the payment should be made within a period of one month from the date of this order. 6. The petition is allowed with costs in order to set an example that in future such a practice will not be observed by the Government Departments or Corporations, (Petition, allowed.)