S.K.Keshote, J. - (1.) BOTH counsel for the respondents' state that this matter has become infructuous, as the main notices, annexures Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been withdrawn by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact.
(2.) THE petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. The petitioner prays that the costs of this petition may be awarded to him as due to illegal notices issued by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner has to file this petition. Mr. Ranka, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has incurred about Rs. 13,000 towards expenses of filing this petition. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 states that respondent No. 3 has issued a notice in pursuance of annexure 1 the order of the Income-tax Officers (T.D.S.), Jaipur, and that has already withdrawn and no cost may be awarded against this respondent. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 has withdrawn his notice dated December 29, 1999, and thereafter, respondent No. 3 withdrew its notice thereof. On withdrawal of notice annexure 1 by respondent No. 2, it is clear that it has considered it to be not a legal notice. But for the document annexure 1 and notice issued by respondent No. 3 in pursuance thereof, there would not have been any occasion for the petitioner to come up before this court. I find sufficient merit in the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that he may not be directed to pay the cost of this petition to the petitioner. But for the document annexure 1, there would not have been any occasion or necessity for respondent No. 3 to issue the impugned notice. Litigation is not a luxury and/or amusement or entertainment. It is not pleasure or pleasant to come to the courts. Only when the Union or a State or its officers make it unavoidable, the litigants come up before the court for redressal of their grievances or for enforcement of their legal or fundamental rights. The litigation is heavily cost and in the matter of awarding the cost, the court should have to keep in mind this aspect in such matters. It is no use or desirable that on success of the litigant he has been given only the token cost or the cost for the sake of the cost of the litigation. The litigants spend huge amount in filing litigations. Under the Advocates Act or any other State or Central enactment, the scale of the fees to be charged by advocates to different categories of cases are not fixed. In a matter where the litigant has to file a litigation in the highest court of the State, it is not undesirable or unreasonable on his part to engage the services of a competent advocate. He cannot be asked to engage any advocate. In the matter of engagement of advocate his confidence in him is important. He has all the rights to elect his advocate. On the other hand, the advocate on his being approached by the litigant is free to charge his fees from the litigant to provide him his professional services in the matter. In the matter of settlement of the fees to be charged by an advocate seldom there may be any question of bargaining.
(3.) IN the facts of this case, I do not find any unreasonableness or irrationality in the approach of the petitioner to engage the advocate of his choice and naturally, the advocate on his part is within his rights to charge his fee in the matter. So, this amount of Rs. 11,000 paid by the petitioner to his advocate to render his professional services in this matter to him is a reasonable amount and it has to be awarded to the petitioner. So far as the litigation expenses are concerned, the amount of Rs. 2,000 is also reasonable and for which the petitioner is entitled. Respondent No. 2 is the concerned person who is a creator of this litigation. He has realised his mistake and ultimately the impugned notice has been withdrawn. Respondent No. 2 is the person concerned who is to be directed by this court to pay the costs to the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 13,000 as costs of this petition to the petitioner.;