JUDGMENT D.Ramesh, J. - The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondent University in passing the resolution resolved in its 13th Executive Council Meeting held on 13.11.2019 under agenda item no.3.5 denying the payment of the professional fee and the decision communicated in letter Lr.No.C3/JNTUA/Estt./Payment of fee/Sri PSRN/.2020 dated 13.01.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of their own rules/resolutions, contrary to its resolution of appointment on 14.7.2016 of petitioner, without application of mind and consequently set aside the resolution resolved in 13th Executive Council Meeting held on 13.11.2019 under agenda item no.3.5 and direct the respondent to pay the professional fee as per Advocate Fee Rules, 2010 along with interest @ 24%pa from the date of his claim on 02.12.2016. 2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh since 1986. The petitioner completed his B.L Degree from Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur in the year 1986 and enrolled as an Advocate on 17.10.1986 on the rolls of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and started his practice at combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Apart from High Court, the petitioner also appearing in several cases in City Civil Courts and City Criminal Courts, Arbitration Matters, National Consumer Forum, Delhi, A.P.State Consumer Forum and District Forums like that and A.P. Administrative Tribunal and Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Considering his length of service, the petitioner was appointed as Standing Counsel for Sri Krishnadevarayana University, Anantapur in the year 1998 and continued as such up to 2005 and again he was appointed in the year 2014. He was also appointed by the Executive Counsel for Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati from August 2003 to March 2007 and also worked as Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Limited from June 1999 to 07.12.2010. 3. Considering the abilities and long standing practice, the respondent University has appointed the petitioner as their Standing Counsel as per the Executive Council resolution dated 30.6.2016 with a fixed remuneration of Rs.34,000/- per month for appearing in the matters at High Court only. 4. 3. Considering the abilities and long standing practice, the respondent University has appointed the petitioner as their Standing Counsel as per the Executive Council resolution dated 30.6.2016 with a fixed remuneration of Rs.34,000/- per month for appearing in the matters at High Court only. 4. While that being so, basing on the summons received from City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the Registrar of the respondent University through letter dated 26.8.2016 requested the petitioner to represent O.S.No.798/2015 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, State of Telangana and as the matter is above one crore and business transaction and is triable by the Commercial Court, the same is transferred to designated Commercial Court i.e. XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, Telangana State and renumbered as COS No.39/2017. Along with the letter, he also enclosed copy of the suit and Vakalat to file appearance in the said matter onbehalf of the University. After filing Vakalat by the petitioner with a junior, the petitioner had prepared the written statement by taking several grounds. 5. The petitioner was appointed as Standing Counsel to represent the matters at High Court only. For that reason the summons were served on the respondent. Hence he has requested the petitioner through letter dated 26.8.2016 to file Vakalat as well as represent the matters onbehalf of the University. Accordingly the petitioner has filed Vakalat on 02.9.2016 and represented the matter onbehalf of the University in the said suit. After that the petitioner has requested the respondent University for payment of half fee through his letter dated 02.12.2016 wherein he categorically stated that as per the Government of Andhra Pradesh Law Department memorandum no.7214/163/L1/208 dated 29.10.2008 clearly stipulates that if the law officers appear other than the Courts where they were appointed as standing counsel, in such cases they are entitled to claim fee as per Andhra Pradesh Advocate Fee Rules 1990. Further if the Standing Counsel completes more than 20 years as bar member, he is entitled to claim 1/3rd fee for his junior as per Rule 38 of A.P.Advocate Fee Rules, 1990. Accordingly, he has prepared a bill and submitted along with his letter for the payment of half fee which comes to Rs.16,66,633/-. Along with the letter, the petitioner has also enclosed Memorandum of Law Department and Advocate Fee Rules 1990. Accordingly, he has prepared a bill and submitted along with his letter for the payment of half fee which comes to Rs.16,66,633/-. Along with the letter, the petitioner has also enclosed Memorandum of Law Department and Advocate Fee Rules 1990. And the receipt of the said letter was not denied by the respondent. Subsequently one Sri Lakshmana Raju was appointed as Standing Counsel for JNTU, Ananthapur to represent the matters before the High Court on behalf of the respondent University through G.O.Ms.No.135 dated 12.6.2017 Law Department of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of the said appointment, the respondent University has taken all the files belonging to the University and handed over to Sri Lakshmana Raju except the file pertaining to suit in City Civil courts, Hyderabad. Even after appointment of Sri Lakshmana Raju as Standing Counsel for JNTU, Ananthapur, the University has utilized the professional services of the petitioner in C.O.S.No.39/2017 on the file of the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Even after appointment of the Standing Counsel for JNTU, the petitioner continued to represent C.O.S.No.39/2017 in the City Civil Court till final disposal of the suit on 12.9.2019. 6. It is not out of place to mention that the plaintiff has filed his chief examination affidavit on 12.9.2017 and the cross-examination was also conducted by the petitioner on 18.11.2017 and the respondent University represented by its Registrar filed his chief examination affidavit on 04.10.2018 and the respondent University represented by its Registrar was also cross-examined in the presence of the petitioner. While pending the suit, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana was bifurcated and started High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati and the same started functioning from 01.01.2019 at Amaravati. Even though the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is divided and started functioning at Amaravati, the suit in the City Civil Court in Telangana State, the petitioner was continued as Counsel for the respondent in the said suit and he used to attend the hearing without fail with his own expenses and attended number of times from 01.01.2019 to 12.9.2019 till disposal of the suit. 7. After disposal of the said suit, the petitioner has submitted his fee claim through letter dated 10.7.2019 and 12.7.2019. 7. After disposal of the said suit, the petitioner has submitted his fee claim through letter dated 10.7.2019 and 12.7.2019. Even though he has submitted a letter on 02.12.2016 for half fee, the respondent University has not taken any steps for payment of the same and after submitting the final fee letter on 10.7.2019, the petitioner has insisted the respondent University for payment of his fee. So, at the repeated requests made by the petitioner, the petitioner claim was placed before 13th Executive Council meeting held on 13.11.2019 under agenda item no.3.5. The Executive Committee in its resolution has resolved as follows: "It is resolved to not to pay any fee to the Advocate as the University has not hired him on specific terms and conditions to argue the case. Whereas the case was entrusted to him because he was Standing Council of the University on monthly payment basis during that period. Hence, no other fee shall be paid to him. Assailing the said resolution, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 8. The main ground on which the petitioner questioned the resolution is that the Executive Council has passed the said resolution without applying their mind, the first part of the resolution is contrary to the second part. By reading conjointly it shows that only to evade the fee to the petitioner, the said resolution is passed. In first part, the resolution speaks that there were no specific terms and conditions to argue suit on behalf of the respondent University and the second part says that the endorsement of case only on the ground that he was Standing Counsel for the University. Even the language used in the resolution that the Advocates cannot be hired with any specific terms and conditions is also not correct. The Advocates would be engaged by entrusting Vakalat to appear on behalf of the parties. Once the party gives Vakalat and engages Advocate for taking professional assistance, they cannot deny the fee which the Advocate claims as per Fee Rules. The Advocate Fee Rules are statutory and issued under the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 371-A of Advocates Act 1961. Hence the petitioner is entitled for professional fee as per the Advocate Fee Rules and also the Government memo dated 29.10.2008. The Advocate Fee Rules are statutory and issued under the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 371-A of Advocates Act 1961. Hence the petitioner is entitled for professional fee as per the Advocate Fee Rules and also the Government memo dated 29.10.2008. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the impugned resolution dated 13.11.2019 communicated to the petitioner on 13.01.2020 is not only illegal but also violative of their own Rules/Resolutions and also it is contrary to the resolution of appointment of the petitioner on 14.7.2016. Without application of mind, after availing the professional services from the petitioner to protect the interest of the university to a tune of Rs.8,82,25,000/- and knowing fully well that immediately after filing Vakalat the petitioner has claimed half fee through his letter dated 02.12.2016 itself. He further contended that if suppose, the respondent University is under impression that the petitioner was engaged as Standing Counsel they should have replied to the claim filed by the petitioner through is letter dated 02.12.2016. The respondent University without making any correspondence or without raising any objection with regard to the claim made by the petitioner through its letter dated 02.12.2016 till the disposal of the suit and after disposal of the suit rejecting the claim of the petitioner by way of a resolution is illegal and contrary to the resolution passed by the respondent in appointing the petitioner as Standing Counsel through letter dated 14.7.2016. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has made half claim immediately after filing Vakalat on 02.12.2016 and he has categorically stated that he is entitled for fee for appearing in a suit as per memorandum of the Government dated 29.10.2008 and the same was intimated to the respondent University and the University has not raised any objection and continued the petitioner's professional services by filing written statement and also chief affidavit and concluding arguments by taking the professional services of the petitioner shows that it is a deemed acceptance by the respondent University. 9. The respondent University has filed its counter. 9. The respondent University has filed its counter. In the counter it has accepted that the petitioner was Counsel for the respondent University in COS.No.39/2017 on the file of the XXIV Additional Chief Judge Court, Hyderabad, State of Telangana and it has also admitted that he was appointed as Standing Counsel for respondent University vide letter dated 14.7.2016 and his condition of services shall be in accordance with the instructions issued by G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 06.12.2000. In para 8 they have clearly stated that after receipt of summons in O.S.798/2015 on the file of X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, they have entrusted the Vakalat to the petitioner only on the ground that he is the Standing Counsel for the University at Hyderabad. Further they have stated that in fact the University was not informed at any point of time that the petitioner filed Vakalat along with a junior and they have denied that the allegations are not correct and further they have denied that the memo dated 29.10.2008 was not applicable to the instant case. Their contention is that the said memo is only applicable where the cases were disposed of. But in the instant case, the suit is not closed but the plaint is returned for presentation in proper Court. So the suit is not closed. Hence the memo relied on by the petitioner is not applicable to the instant case. Except that in the counter they have not denied about receipt of the letter for half fee from the petitioner on 02.12.2016 and also the contents in the letter. They have not denied that even in 2017 new Standing Counsel was appointed by the Government and all the files were entrusted to the said Standing Counsel except this suit and they have only stated that the petitioner's services were engaged as Standing Counsel as per the letter dated 14.7.2016. Hence they have considered fee claimed by the petitioner through his letter dated 10.7.2019 along with his appointment letter dated 14.7.2016 and the impugned resolution is passed accordingly. 10. They further contended that if the petitioner is entitled for any legal amount as per the Advocates Act, the only option for him is to file a suit but not writ petition. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 11. Heard both sides. 12. 10. They further contended that if the petitioner is entitled for any legal amount as per the Advocates Act, the only option for him is to file a suit but not writ petition. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 11. Heard both sides. 12. Considering the rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's services were engaged by the respondent University through a letter dated 26.8.2016. It is also not in dispute that after filing Vakalat, the petitioner has claimed his fee as per Government memo dated 29.10.2008 through his letter dated 02.12.2016. Further it is not in dispute that even after appointment of new Standing Counsel in the year 2017, the petitioner's services were utilized for the suit till its disposal. 13. It is very clear that the Government of Andhra Pradesh Law Department in Memorandum no.7214/163/L1/2008 has given clarification without any ambiguity. For better appreciation of this case, the same is extracted below: 2. Whereas, if the Law Officers appeared other than the Courts where they were appointed, in such cases they are entitled to claim fees as per A.P.Advocates Fees Rules, 1990. i) In the case of Sri P.Sreeramulu Naidu, who was appointed as Standing Counsel for A.P.F.D.C.Ltd, in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh cannot be paid any fees or honorarium, if he appeared in any cases in the High Court. But, he is entitled to claim fees, if he appeared for any cases i.e. suits (Money/Title/Partition) in any lower courts and in the A.P.A.T and in Arbitration Tribunal as per A.P.Advocate Fee Rules, 1990. So, he is entitled to claim separate fees for appearing in various courts other than High Court of A.P. ii) He is entitled for separate fee for his appearance before the High Court of Madras as per A.P. Advocate Fee Rules, 1990. iii) If the Standing Counsel is completed more than 20 years as a Bar member, he is entitled to claim 1/3rd fee for his junior, as per Rule 38 of A.P. Advocate Fees Rules, 1990. iv) The Standing Counsel is entitled to claim fees of Rs.500/- only (Rupees Five hundred only) as fees for each and entire Contempt Case, as per the instructions issued in Memo.No.6003/L1/05, Dt.08.8.2005. 14. iv) The Standing Counsel is entitled to claim fees of Rs.500/- only (Rupees Five hundred only) as fees for each and entire Contempt Case, as per the instructions issued in Memo.No.6003/L1/05, Dt.08.8.2005. 14. In view of the above Government Memo received by the respondent along with the letter dated 02.12.2016, it is made clear that petitioner's services were continued with regard to C.O.S.No.39/2017 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, Telangana State. It is also very clear that the claim made by the petitioner much earlier i.e. immediately after filing of the Vakalat vide letter dated 02.12.2016 for which the respondent has not raised any objection and continued the professional services despite after appointing new Standing Counsel for JNTU, Anantapur i.e. respondent, which is nothing but deemed acceptance of the respondent University. Hence at this point of time, they are not entitled to reject the claim of the petitioner that to after disposal of the suit as per the objections filed by the petitioner in written statement. 15. In view of the above, the impugned resolution passed by the respondent University in 13th Executive Council meeting of JNTU, Anantapur held on 13.11.2019 is set aside and the respondent University is directed to re-consider the claim petition made by the petitioner in his letter dated 10.7.2019 as per memorandum no.7214/163/L1/2008 dated 29.10.2008 and pass fresh orders within three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.