Madras High Court
R.Dhanapal Raj vs Ministry Of Finance on 6 April, 2022
W.A.No.825 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.4.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.825 of 2022
R.Dhanapal Raj .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Church Road, Hutments
New Delhi.
2. Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary
Ministry of Law and Justice
New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Director
Directorate of Enforcement
3rd Floor, III Block
No.26, Haddows Road
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondents
Prayer: APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 27.1.2022 in W.P.No.5092 of 2015.
___________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.825 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.K.A.Ravindran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
2. The writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
27.1.2022 passed in W.P.No.5092 of 2015.
3. The writ petition was preferred by the appellant on the
ground that the fee towards the bills raised by the appellant was
not accepted and even after discharging of work on behalf of the
respondents, the appellant was not paid the amount of bills raised
by him. Having no other alternative, the appellant filed the writ
petition.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.825 of 2022
4. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge
by the impugned order precisely on the ground that it involves
disputed questions of fact because there was a serious dispute on
the bills raised by the appellant for payment and this Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution, could
not go into the disputed questions of fact.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that if there was a dispute about the bills raised by the appellant, it
was not clarified as to what was the objection to the bills raised. It
was otherwise as per the terms of appointment as a lawyer. The
dispute raised by way of filing counter was only for the sake of it
and the learned Single Judge should not have carried himself away
by the counter. Rather, considering the claim made by the
appellant, the writ petition ought to have been allowed.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.825 of 2022
7. The order under challenge has made a reference to the
claim of the appellant towards professional bills. In the counter, it
has been stated that a dispute was raised about the claim of the
bills towards effective or non effective hearing of the case for
payment of fee. The appellant claimed fee showing some dates to
be of effective hearing dates while, according to the respondents, it
was a case of non effective hearing. Therefore, the dispute as to
effective or non effective hearing dates could not have been
addressed by the learned Single Judge while exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. The
appellant was also given liberty to approach the competent Court
for adjudication of the issues.
8. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution
of India cannot be used when there exists disputed question of
facts, as finding of fact cannot be rendered by the Writ Court. It is
not that the respondents did not justify the denial of fee. In the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.825 of 2022
counter, it has been clearly adverted to and rightly accepted by the
learned Single Judge. Otherwise, the respondents had not denied
the claim for the sake of it, but had given reasons. Whether it was
justified or not is a question of fact to be determined. The learned
Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition by granting liberty to
the appellant.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C.J.)
06.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
To:
1.Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
Church Road, Hutments, New Delhi.
2.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary
Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi.
3.The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
3rd Floor, III Block, No.26, Haddows Road
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006.
RS
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.825 of 2022
M.N.BHANDARI, CJ
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J
RS
W.A.No.825 of 2022
06.4.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
