The Supreme Court in the case Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of UP And Ors observed and has stated that the plea moved cannot be entertained in exercise of the jurisdiction as stated under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, wherein the entitlement of the petitioner to the fee has been disputed.
The court disposed of the writ plea moved by former Additional Advocate General of the State of Uttar Pradesh wherein seeking writ of mandamus against the State Government for clearing the bills of the petitioners outstanding fees.
The bench comprising of Justice AS Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol in the case observed and has disposed of the plea while the bench kept open all the remedies which are available to the petitioners.
The bench stated that this court have serious doubt that if the writ plea moved under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can be entertained at the instance of an advocate representing the state for recovery of his fees and that also when there being the serious dispute with regards to the entitlement of the petitioner to recover the same. The said court is unable to pass any further orders in this writ petition. Therefore, the court disposed of the same.
The bench of Justice Oka in the case observed and was bemused that a law officer of a State Government had approached the Supreme Court wherein the writ plea is moved under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the recovery of his fees.
The bench of Justice Oka orally remarked that this court is shocked to know a lawyer filing a writ petition against the State to recover his fees. Further, the petitioner appearing in person apprised the Bench that similarly situated officers of State Governments who have approached the Apex Court have been granted relief.
