- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The only question is whether the respondent is entitled to a minimum fee of Rupees 2,000/- in each of the reference cases in which the reference Court has certified it to be the fee payable to the respondent The respondent appeared as a counsel for the appellant on land acquisition reference initially as Government Pleader and after he ceased as such, he filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant and appeared as private counsel. On the basis of the memorandum of costs supplied to the respondent, he claimed the amount from the appellant but the appellant has disputed the liability. On a reference made to the Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh, the Advocate General has certified that the fee claimed is correct one and the respondent is entitled to the same. However, the respondent being not satisfied with it, insisted upon the proper fixation on the fee payable to him. Since the appellants have not been making payment of the fee to which the respondent is entitled, the respondent has filed the writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court in W.A. No. 590/94, by judgment and order dated September 5, 1995 has held that once the Court has fixed the fee, the appellants are bound to pay the same and they cannot go behind the fee fixed by the Court.
(3.) The High Court seems to have proceeded on the premises that under the Advocate' Fees Rules the Court fixes the fee and that parties are bound by the same by holding that it is a contractual relation. There is a distinction in payment of the fee between the private counsel and the State counsel. As far as the State counsel are concerned, their fee is regulated by the rules prescribed by the State Government and thereunder the Government counsel is entitled to the fee or the fee fixed by the Court. In the latter event, the Government is bound to pay the fee. As regards the private counsel, the High Court of A.P. has made the rules, viz. Advocates Fees Rules. The same rules are in vogue as on date.;