O.Kunjikoya Thangal vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5846 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 29TH MAGHA,1942

                           WP(C).No.16069 OF 2012(G)


PETITIONER:

                 O.KUNJIKOYA THANGAL
                 ADVOCATE, SADATHI MANZIL, VALIYA PARAMBA P.O., PULIKKAL
                 (VIA), ERNAD TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673637.

                 BY ADVS.
                 SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
                 SMT.NIMA JACOB

RESPONDENTS:

       1         STATE OF KERALA
                 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT,
                 GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

       2         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
                 COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM-676507

       3         THE AIR PORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, CALICUT AIRPORT, KARIPPOR,
                 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673647.


                 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SR.
                 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN-SC
                 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

OTHER PRESENT:

                 SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE-G.P.

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.16069 OF 2012(G)

                                     2




                             JUDGMENT

This is a case where a counsel has approached this Court

seeking that his fees be directed to be paid by 1 st and 3rd

respondents, who were his clients earlier.

2. The petitioner says that he is practicing in the

District Court, Malappuram and that he was engaged by the

respondents to appear for them in various land acquisition

matters, for development of the runway of the Calicut Airport.

3. The petitioner says that all these matters were

decreed, wherein, his fees have been certified to Rs.3,000/-

each; thus, for nearly 66 matters, he is entitled to a total of

Rs.1,72,000/-, which is to be paid by the respondents. He says

that when he approached the District Collector for payment of

this fees, said Authority issued Ext.P4 dated 19.06.2010,

directing the Director of the Airport Authority of India, Calicut

Airport, to pay the amount to him after deducting the applicable

Income Tax. The petitioner says that, inspite of Ext.P4, no

action has been taken by the Airport Authority and therefore,

that he has been constrained to approach this Court.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Shamsudin, learned counsel WP(C).No.16069 OF 2012(G)

appearing for the petitioner; Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned

Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Sujin, appearing on behalf of

the 3rd respondent - Airport Authority of India and the learned

Government Pleader, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, appearing for

respondents 1 and 2.

5. Upfront, I must say that the controversy in question

was one that should have been avoided by all parties. The claim

of the petitioner against his erstwhile clients for payment of

Advocate fee, certainly ought to have been handled by the

respondents in a more dignified manner; but at this stage, I can

only rue, but cannot efface the fallout.

6. Keeping the spirit of my observation above,

Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel, very fairly

conceded that since the decrees in question certify an amount

of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the petitioner each, to be borne

equally by the Government and his client, they are willing to pay

half of the claim, if this Court is so inclined to order. He

submitted that, as far as the balance half is concerned, it should

be honoured by respondents 1 and 2, since the records would

reveal that originally his client was not even in the picture and WP(C).No.16069 OF 2012(G)

that litigations were launched only as against the requisitioning

Authority, namely respondents 1 and 2.

7. On hearing the learned Senior Counsel as afore, I

asked the learned Government Pleader, Sri.Sunil Kumar

Kuriakose, as to whether Government is willing to pay the

balance half, to which he submitted that since the petitioner

was the Government Pleader at the relevant time, it would not

be possible to pay him the said amount. He conceded that even

though the decrees show that the advocate fees is to be

apportioned between the defendants equally, said burden

should be honoured in full by the 3rd respondent - Airport

Authority of India, particularly because in identical cases, they

have done so, as is evident from Ext.R2(a).

8. The afore submissions make it clear that while the

Airport Authority is willing to pay 50% of the claim made by the

petitioner, Government appears reluctant to do so.

9. Sri.P.Shamsudin, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, though initially contended that Government cannot

resile from their obligation because, even though his client was

a Government Pleader, he was engaged by them for the cases in WP(C).No.16069 OF 2012(G)

question independently; but that in order to obtain an amicable

resolution of the controversy, his client is willing to accept One

Lakh Rupees in full and final settlement of his fees and that if

this is done within a short period to be fixed by this Court, he

will not raise any further claim.

10. I, therefore, asked Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned

Senior Counsel, if his client would be willing to pay this amount

to the petitioner and he submitted that since he has already

agreed to pay one half of the original claim of Rs.1,72,000/-, he

leaves it to this Court to issue appropriate orders.

Taking note of the afore submissions and since the

petitioner has now agreed to accept Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh) in full and final settlement of his fees, I deem it

appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to pay this amount to

him, because, as per the offer of the learned Senior Counsel,

they are clearly agreeable to pay Rs.86,000/- and the balance is

only Rs.14,000/-. I am certain that it is in the best interest of

everyone, since the disputes will obtain full resolution in this

manner.

Resultanty, this writ petition is ordered, directing the 3 rd WP(C).No.16069 OF 2012(G)

respondent to pay an amount of Rupees One Lakh to the

petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment; failing which, it will carry interest at

the rate of 9% from the date of respective decrees, until it is

actually paid.

SD/-

                                          DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                  JUDGE
 WP(C).No.16069 OF 2012(G)






                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS)

NO.111/2007 DATED 5.6.2007 APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2006 ISSUED BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM DATED 19/06/2010.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/05/2008.

EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT MADE TO SRI P G MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER DATED 27/09/2001.

EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 06.09.2013.

EXHIBIT-R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.06.2013.