Uttarakhand High Court
Bhuwan Chandra Pokhariya vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 24 April, 2025
2025:UHC:3002-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
24TH APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.112 OF 2024
Bhuwan Chandra Pokhariya ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others .......Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Pokhariya,
petitioner in-person.
Counsel for the State : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief
Standing Counsel with Mr. Gajendra
Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard the petitioner party-in-person, learned
Chief Standing Counsel and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent-State.
2. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are
as follows:-
"i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
appointing a high-level investigation/ inquiry from an
independent agency/ commission to inquire the matter
for engaging special counsel from Delhi at the instance
of respondent No.6 and Respondent No.4 for
representing the State Government for WPPIL
No.48/2022 and making huge payments to him from
public funds without due approval and in violation of the
provisions of Legal Remembrancer Manual. Government
Order dated 30.05.2015 and 02.09.2020 and to punish
the wrongdoers accordingly.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
2025:UHC:3002-DB
mandamus directing and commanding the respondent 5
to clarify whether the 7 different signatures used in
official files on his behalf have actually been endorsed
by him or not and in case, it is found the same have not
been endorsed by him than this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to direct an independent investigating agency
to inquire the serious matter of misuse of signatures of
the Hon'ble Chief Minister so that the wrong-doers and
beneficiaries of such act be punished accordingly."
3. The petitioner, whose earlier petition for
protection, i.e. Writ Petition (CRL) No.1444 of 2024,
has been rejected by this Court today, has described
himself as a farmer and social activist, has, in the
instant writ petition, claims to have raised various
issues of public interest, including that of corruption. In
the present petition, he is raising the issue of misuse of
public funds on account of excessive payment for
engaging special counsel without following due
procedure in order to satisfy the private mining and
dredging operators in the State, involving high-ranking
persons. In sum and substance, the prayer is to
investigate as to how huge amounts have been paid to
the Senior Advocate as appearance fees.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the
engagement of the Senior Advocate is without following
the due procedure. A perusal of the pleadings does not
2025:UHC:3002-DB
detail as to what is the due procedure that is required
to be followed by the State to engage the services of a
designated Senior Advocate. The very pleadings would
reflect that a sum of Rs.8.50 Lakh has been paid to one
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate, who is based in Delhi
and Rs.1.50 has been paid as expenses to his assistant.
5. The petitioner has not placed on record any
material which fixes a cap on the quantum of fees that
can be paid by the State to a Designated Senior
Counsel engaged by the State, and whose services
have been utilized for appearance in a case filed
against the State. In the absence of any such material,
which place any cap on the fees that can be paid by the
State, the petition, in our opinion, is highly
misconceived and is nothing, but an abuse of the due
process of law.
6. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to place
all such material while canvassing the petition. During
the hearing, he had attempted to make a twist in the
narrative by stating that the Senior Counsel did not
appear before the Court at all, and despite his non-
appearance, the State has made payment of fees. To
2025:UHC:3002-DB
support his twist to the story, he would place reliance
on the order-sheet, and he would submit that the Court
has not recorded the presence of the Senior Counsel.
7. Learned Chief Standing Counsel would submit
that it was he, who personally briefed the Senior
Advocate in the case, and would submit that the fact of
the Senior Advocate having stayed in Nainital on the
relevant dates of hearing has been affirmed by the
management of Manu Maharani Hotel, Nainital, which
has issued an endorsement to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Nainital, wherein they have
categorically stated that the Senior Advocate was a
guest in the hotel on the relevant dates of hearing.
8. There being sufficient material to infer
presence of learned Senior Advocate, mere omission to
record the name of the Senior Advocate in the order-
sheet, in our opinion, would not be a ground enough to
infer adversely against the presence of a professional.
The professional fees being charged by a professional is
at the discretion of the professional and there being no
rule placing a cap on the quantum that can be paid as
professional charges, the instant writ petition is highly
2025:UHC:3002-DB
misconceived and a absolute waste of the judicial time.
9. That apart, as noted, the petitioner has
described himself as a farmer and a social activist,
whereas in Writ Petition (CRL) No.1444 of 2024, which
was dismissed by this Bench a short while ago, he has
described himself as an RTI activist; that his efforts
under the RTI Act to obtain information and fight
against corruption have been made to go in vain and
high and mighty made an attack on him.
10. This Court examined the veracity of the
photographs produced by the petitioner and the
petitioner's version and found them to be hollow. Be
that as it may, in the instant writ petition an assertion
of the learned Chief Standing Counsel and the
corroborating material in form of an endorsement of
the Manu Maharani Hotel, acknowledging the fact that
the Senior Advocate was a guest in their hotel on the
relevant dates of hearing, it can be safely presumed
that the presence of the Senior Advocate in Nainital,
that too, on a working day, was for the purpose of
making his appearance to assist the Court in the
pending litigation. The omission in the order-sheet
2025:UHC:3002-DB
cannot, in our opinion, be appreciated as material
which would rebut the record maintained by the hotel
and which record is one which is maintained in the
course of their business.
11. In that view of the matter and there being no
law capping the professional fees that can be paid by
the State, the writ petition is wholly and highly
misconceived, and is, accordingly, rejected.
12. As a sequel thereto, pending application, if
any, shall stand closed.
________________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
_____________
ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dt: 24th April, 2025
NISHANT
NISHANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd6
3133605ca57cdc00ec2b7462b452b326,
KUMAR
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185
F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD1961690560487E67
0C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.29 14:44:05 +05'30'
