Judgment J. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by Mr. S. K. Lahri an Advocate of this Court for direction to the Collector, Jalor to release the fee-bill along with interest etc. with effect from 22-11-94. It is stated at bar by Mr. Lahri that a cash payment of fee-bill has been made to him only yesterday. ( 2 ) THE petitioner had appeared in the case State v. Pukhraj, Second Appeal No. 49/94 and conducted the same successfully before the Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur. The petitioner had sent a fee bill for payment of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- vide letter dated 29-11-94 (Ann. 2 ). The petitioner was engaged by the Department and he conducted the same successfully. He attended about five hearings, before the Settlement Commissioner. Even the certified copy of the decision was supplied to Department. Fee bill was not paid, consequently, the counsel had to issue a legal notice dated 8-8-95 and again a registered notice dated 2-4-96. It is stated that Tahsildar, Bhinmal had been requesting the Collector for payment of the fee-bill to counsel. Number of notices were also issued on different dates. Ultimately, the petitioner preferred the writ petition before this Court. The writ petition is pending since 1996. ( 3 ) EVEN though in normal circumstances, the High Court may not entertain the writ petition for a direction to pay counsels fees, but in the present case, it is the duty of the Collector to see that legal process is not hampered by failing to make payment of fees to the members of the Bar. The proper assistance can only be given to the court by the State Government if the legal community is not compelled to knock at the door of the court for realisation of their fees, where the counsel on behalf of state are not only duly respected but also properly paid their fees. ( 4 ) IT is surprising that when the collector, Jalore was asked to appear in person in court on 14-10-98 only then the feebill of petitioner has been paid to petitioner on 13-10-98. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed with the cost. ( 4 ) IT is surprising that when the collector, Jalore was asked to appear in person in court on 14-10-98 only then the feebill of petitioner has been paid to petitioner on 13-10-98. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed with the cost. The Collector, Jalore shall pay interest on the delayed fee at the rate of 12% p. a. from the due date i. e. at least from the date of decision of the case i. e. 13-2-95 till 13-10-98, when the amount of fee bill has actually been paid. The cost is assessed as Rs. 500/-, which shall be borne by respondent No. 2. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed as indicated above. Petition allowed.