Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 765 (JHR)

Arvind Kumar Mehta v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-08-02

R.K.MERATHIA

body2004
ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that his two bills amounting to Rs. 24,650/ and 9,775/-, submitted as far back as in the year 2001, have not been paid inspite of his representation made to the concerned Secretary through the Advocate Generals Office. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the matter will be looked into. 4. It is unfortunate that the petitioner, an Advocate of this Court had to file this writ petition for payment of his professional fees, for which he submitted bills as far back as in the year, 2001. If there was any dispute regarding them, the same should have been informed to the petitioner along with admitted payment. 5. In the circumstances, respondent No. 2 will look into the matter and do the needful. If the bills are not disputed, the same should be paid. if any part of the bills are disputed, reasons thereof should be communicated to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within four weeks from the receipt of this order. 6. It was stated at the bar that several bills are pending for payment since long. 7. Learned Secretary will also see that if other bills of other State counsels are pending, the admitted amounts should be paid and the reasons for the disputed amounts, if any, should be communicated. This exercise with regard to other pending bills of learned Advocates should be completed with two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. It is desirable that a system is evolved under which action is taken on the bills within three months at the most, for paying the undisputed bills and communicating the disputed amount, if any. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. 10. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed off.