IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.5514/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. SATISH R GIRJI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 101, 5TH A CROSS, 4TH MAIN VIDYAGIRI LAYOUT CHANDRA LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI BANGALORE – 560 072 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR P. PATIL & SRI. M.V.V. RAMANNA, ADVS.) AND:
THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION, N C B 21-28 P S KUMARASWAMY RAJA SALAI R A PURAM CHENNAI – 600 028 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.D.L.N. RAO, SR. ADV. A/W. SRI. ANIRDUDDH ANAND, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF BALANCE AMOUNT DUE TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE BILLS SUPPLIED EARLIER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondent to make payment of the balance amount due to the petitioner as per the bills submitted by him earlier.
2. The petitioner claims that he has assisted the Special Public Prosecutor, who had been appointed to conduct the proceedings in Criminal Appeal Nos.835- 838/2014 and 17-22/2015. In that regard, the petitioner refers to the letter dated 19.01.2015 and claims that, in view of the said letter being received in the office concerned, it would have to be accepted as the appointment of the petitioner to assist the Special Public Prosecutor and in that regard, to contend that the respondent at present cannot deny the payment, has relied upon the document at Annexure-B to contend that the remuneration payable for the earlier period between 02.02.2015 to 20.02.2015 has been paid. In that view, the petitioner having submitted the bill as at Annexure-C for the subsequent period, is seeking payment of the same.
3. The respondent has filed the detailed objection statement enclosing the documents thereto. At the outset, it is contended that the necessary parties have not been impleaded. Even otherwise, it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has not been appointed by the respondent or the department concerned. From the documents produced along with the objection statement, it is pointed that the Special Public Prosecutor, who had been appointed to conduct the case was given liberty of taking assistance of the counsel and 1/3rd of the appearance fee had been agreed to be paid. In that regard, as and when the Special Public Prosecutor submitted the bill and indicated the amount payable towards the assistant’s fee, the same has been paid. Essentially, the contention as putforth is that there is no privity between the petitioner and the respondent so as to consider the bill, if any submitted by the petitioner for the purpose of payment.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel for the respondent based on the above said pleading, a perusal of the document at Annexure-A to the petition dated 19.01.2015 would indicate that it is a letter addressed by the petitioner to the Special Public Prosecutor seeking to appoint him to assist in the Criminal Appeal Nos.835- 838/2014 and 17-22/2015. The credentials of the petitioner has been stated therein. Merely because a copy of the same is submitted to the respondent, the same cannot be considered as an order made to appoint the petitioner herein to assist the Special Public Prosecutor.
5. In that light, a perusal of the order dated 02.02.2013 would indicate that as per the notification, the Special Public Prosecutor was appointed. The benefit of assistance was also provided to the Special Public Prosecutor, who had been appointed. The name of the petitioner does not however figure therein. On appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor, the communication dated 22.06.2014 as at Annexure-R3 addressed by him to the Principle Secretary would refer to the schedule of fees that is required to be paid. In the said communication, the Special Public Prosecutor has indicated payment of 1/3rd of his fee for appearance to be paid to the assistant to be engaged by him. The said communication also does not indicate the name of the petitioner. However, subsequently, when the Special Public Prosecutor had raised the bill through the communication dated 23.02.2015, in item No.6.1 thereof had claimed the assistant fee payable to the petitioner. The said amount has been paid by the department. It is towards the said amount, the document at Annexure-B to the petition would become relevant and that by itself cannot create a right for the fee during the subsequent period.
6. Therefore, in that circumstance, it could be seen that only as and when the Special Public Prosecutor indicates the fee of the assistant, the same would become payable to such person if the claim is as per the schedule and payable to the person whose name is indicated as the assistant counsel, by the Special Public Prosecutor. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, the bill as submitted by the petitioner as at Annexure-C would not arise for consideration, unless the Special Public Prosecutor had raised the bill by including the fee of the assistant, even if that was the petitioner himself.
7. Hence, at this point, the prayer as made in the petition would not arise. If at all any bill is raised by the Special Public Prosecutor and if it is admissible, it is only then a consideration would be made by the competent authority, keeping in view the nature of the appointment that is made. Hence, the relief as sought herein cannot be granted.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST