JUDGMENT R.J. Kochar, J.
1. Considering the seriousness of the matter and dignity of the legal profession, we are constrained to decide this petition, at this stage, itself.
2. We have heard the learned counsel on both the sides. We have perused the proceedings. We have also gone through the order passed by the earlier Division Bench (A.P.Shah & R.K.Batta, JJ.) on 13th December, 2002, at the time of hearing of the petition.
3. The learned A.G.P. has prayed for an adjournment on the ground that he has not received any instructions in the matter inspite of the order dated 13th December, 2002 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. We are not inclined to grant the prayer of the learned A.G.P. for adjournment, as it is crystal clear from the proceedings and from the conduct of the State Government that it not only wants to lower the dignity of this noble profession by ill-treating their own Special Public Prosecutor but also by defying the order passed by this Court on 13th December, 2002. We have, therefore, refused to adjourn the matter on the ground that the learned A.G.P. is awaiting instructions from the Desk Clerk sitting in the Mantralaya. The period from 13th December, 2002 till this date is more than enough to comply with the order passed by this Court. In fact, we are constrained to observe that the State Government is in contempt of the order passed by this Court and, we take judicial notice of such unbearable conduct on the part of the State Government, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. According to us, the conduct of the State Government in defying the order passed by this Court has to be seriously deprecated. It is very significant to note that as yet even affidavit-in-reply by way of return is not filed to controvert the factual averments or allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. For all these reasons, we have decided to take-up this matter peremptory at this stage, to be decided finally.
4. Rule to be heard forthwith by consent.
5. The facts in the petition are in very narrow compass. The petitioner is practicing as an Advocate. By an order dated 18th July, 2001, the Government of Maharashtra, was pleased to appoint the petitioner as a Special Public Prosecutor, for conducting the Sessions Case No.2/2000, arising out of Crime No.124/1999, Goregaon Police Station, in the Additional Sessions Court, Gondiya, District-Bhandara. His appointment was subject to the conditions of service laid down in the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984. It appears that prior to the said appointment, consent was asked by the Government of Maharashtra from the petitioner and he gave his consent by a letter dated 30th June, 2001. In the said consent letter, he had quoted his professional fees to be Rs. 2000/- per day/appearance with T.A. and D.A. as per Rules, for to and fro trips to be paid separately. Obviously, after receipt of said consent, the Government of Maharashtra, by its Notification dated 18th July, 2001, had appointed the petitioner as a Special Public Prosecutor. It further appears that after the work was completed, the learned Advocate-petitioner sent his professional bill along with his letter dated 11th February, 2002 to the Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, Civil Lines, Nagpur. Along with said covering letter, he has billed the State Government to the tune of Rs.55,440/-. He had also annexed the required Certificate of the effective dates on which the petitioner was required to attend the matter. This Certificate was issued by the Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (S.C.S.T.Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) Gondiya. It appears that the petitioner has been very careful to preserve the evidence of his journey to Gondiya, and he has also annexed the Xerox copies of such journey tickets and other documents to show the expenses incurred by him. The petitioner reminded the State Government through its Joint Secretary - Shri K.S.Deshmukh, by writing a letter dated 7th March, 2002. Since there was no reply from the concerned Officer, he addressed one more letter dated 17th June, 2002 to the Principal Secretary, Law & Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Finally, the Desk Officer of the State Government replied the letters written by the petitioner by a letter dated 7th June, 2002, wherein the Desk Officer writes that the petitioner should submit his bill according to the provisions of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984. This reply from the State Government was replied by the petitioner, setting out all the details and, how he had submitted the bill. As usual, there was no response from the State Government. The petitioner again wrote a letter dated 16th July, 2002 to remind Shri V.G.Munshi, as then he was as the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai, before his elevation. All the efforts of the petitioner were in vain and finally, he received a reply dated 9th July, 2002 from the same Desk Officer Shri L.B.Bediskar that the petitioner should submit his bill, under the provisions of the said Act and he should not enter into any correspondence with the State Government. Such a letter received by the petitioner left him with no alternative but to knock the doors of this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. We are deeply aggrieved and we have received a great shock to realize how the noble legal profession is being treated by the Desk Officers in the most cavalier manner and the bureaucrats sitting in the Mantralaya have shown scant regards for this Court. It appears that his attempt to knock the doors of the then Principal Law Secretary also failed and he also could not come to the rescue of the professional to salvage the prestige of the noble profession. We wish the then Principal Law Secretary ought to have come to the rescue of the petitioner, particularly, when there was no dispute regarding the bill or the other requirements, in accordance with law. He represents the Judiciary and the legal profession in the State Executive and we expect the incumbents of this post to assert themselves for the cause of the judiciary as the whole system. The State Government has not filed its affidavit in reply or return to controvert any of the factual averments made by the petitioner in the petition, though the petition was filed on 11th October, 2002, and the copy of the petition was served on the Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the respondent on 13th December, 2002, when the Division Bench of this Court had passed the aforesaid order wherein it is clearly recorded that there was no reason as to why the fees of the petitioner should not be paid. According to the learned Judges, it was a fit case where the State Government should have considered the claim of the petitioner sympathetically. With a view to give one opportunity to the State Government to atone its negligence in this matter, petition was adjourned to 27th December, 2002. Since thereafter nothing has happened. Even today the learned A.G.P. has no instructions and he was helpless to pray for an adjournment, which we have refused to grant.
7. According to us, there was a legal and valid contract between the petitioner and the State Government. The petitioner had given his consent to accept the assignment as a Special Public Prosecutor in his letter dated 30th June, 2001 and he had also clearly quoted his terms and conditions. It is after the receipt of the said consent letter from the petitioner, by a Notification dated 18th July, 2001, the petitioner was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor, subject to the conditions of service laid down in the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984. After completion of his assignment, he has submitted his memorandum of fees along with the prescribed conditions. Even the Sessions Court has certified the days of the effective appearance of the learned Advocate. We repeat that there is absolutely no dispute in respect of the facts stated by the petitioner and, therefore, we see no reason whatsoever to deny the claim of the petitioner, who has fulfilled all the conditions, under the Act. It only reflects the arrogance of the bureaucrats sitting in the Mantralaya to run down the noble legal profession in every respect, as and when, such opportunity is available.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has rightly pointed out the Rule 44 framed under the aforesaid Act, that the Law Officer appointed under the said Act, is entitled to fees on the terms to be agreed upon between them. We reproduce the said Rule, as under :-
"Rule 44 -Engagement of Special Counsel or Special Public Prosecutor -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing chapters regarding appointments of Law Officers for the conduct of the Government litigation work, Government in the Law and Judiciary Department shall be at liberty to engage any other advocate as Special Counsel or Special Public Prosecutor for conducting any case or class of cases in any court on the terms to be agreed upon between them."
9. We, therefore, see no reason on the facts, on the question of law and the right of the petitioner to get his professional fees from the State Government for the work done by him, as per the contract and under the provisions of law. We highly deprecate the conduct of the State Government in defying the order passed by this Court and in treating the petitioner and the legal profession in the most indignified manner. They have not only thrown the correspondence of the petitioner in the dustbin but they have also enough arrogance as power-drunk bureaucrats even throwing the order passed by this Court in the dustbin. It is time that they are shown their proper place. The contemptuous conduct of the bureaucrats of the State Government in this matter is highly arbitrary and unreasonable, and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of the State Government to honour its contract and commitments. If it behaves in this manner, no good Advocates would offer their services to the State in any litigation of importance. What is shocking is the unholy silence of the State Government on the issue even after when the matter has come before the High Court. There is not even a ghost of any reason why it does not want to pay the professional bill of the petitioner. This is nothing but the most cavalier attitude of the bureaucrats towards the Court proceedings.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed with exemplary costs which we quantify to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner along with the professional bill, which he has already submitted. Rule is made absolute with costs in the aforesaid terms.
11. The State Government shall pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner including the costs within two weeks from the receipt of this order. We grant liberty to the petitioner to mention before us, if the petitioner does not receive the aforesaid amount within two weeks.
12. All concerned to act on an ordinary copy of this order authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court. The learned A.G.P. shall send such authenticated copy to the Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai, immediately.