D.N. Jha, J. - (1.) Sri K.S. Bajpai, an Advocate of this Court, has filed this unfortunate writ petition praying for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite-parties, (1) District Magistrate, Lucknow/Chairman, Mandi Samiti, Lucknow, (2) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Lucknow, through its Secretary, and (3) Sri R. A. Misra, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Lucknow, to make payment of his legal fee and expenses incurred by him as indicated in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.
(2.) On petition being presented before this Court, notices were served and counter affidavit has been filed by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. In the counter affidavit it has been asserted in reply to averments made in para 12 that bills of the petitioner were received in the office of the opposite-party No. 2 but as the petitioner had not informed about the progress of the cases in which fee bills were submitted and as a very high fee was claimed against the terms intimated by the opposite-party No. 2, it was not possible to make the payment of fee. The another material point asserted is that it was made clear to the petitioner that no separate fee will be paid to the petitioner for the opinion rendered by the petitioner as he was conducting those cases in High Court and as he was also appointed Standing Counsel. This term was accepted by the petitioner. Unfortunately, in the instant case the respondents have not filed any letter to indicate as to what terms and conditions were offered by them, nor they have filed any document to show that there was any specific contract between the petitioner for payment of fee in respect of cases conducted by the petitioner in the Court. These allegations have been categorically denied in the rejoinder affidavit. It may be mentioned that on an application being presented by the petitioner for clarification of the order, dated 20th July, 1984 the file was summoned from the office and it transpired that although the writ petition had been filed in 1984, but the matter had been lingering admission. Both the parties agree that the matter be finally disposed of instead of being kept in cold storage.
(3.) In order to dispose of the case finally, we proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the averments and cross-averments put forth in the respective affidavits. From annexure 1 filed with the application dated 18th of February, 1986 it transpires that the Chairman had mentioned that Sri Bajpai was paid at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per case and after lapse of three years when again Sri Bajpai was contacted to do the case he demanded fee at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per case excluding the clerk fee and miscellaneous expenses. On an interim order being issued by this Court it has been brought to our notice that some amount has been paid to the petitioner.;