State Govt Has No Duty To Pay Electricity Dues Of Bar Associations; Advocates Must Bear Costs Of Facilities They Use: Allahabad High Court

A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla thus dismissed a writ petition filed by the Civil Bar Association, Basti, which sought a mandamus directing the State to deposit the electricity bills, both arrears and future dues, of the Bar Association building located within the District Court premises.

Briefly put, the Bar Association approached the HC seeking directions to the State to bear the cost of electricity consumed in the Bar building. It submitted that it doesn't have the means to pay for the electricity dues being demanded.

It was argued that since lawyers are officers of the Court and that effective administration of justice requires adequate facilities for the Bar and thus, the state cannot refuse or ignore to pay for electricity and other charges for use of building provided to the members of the Bar through the Bar Association

Appearing for the petitioner-Association, Senior Advocate Arun Kumar Gupta, assisted by Advocate Ashutosh Pandey, strongly relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik 2011 as well as the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling in Vinod Kumar Bharadwaj v. State of MP 2013.

On the other hand, Standing Counsel Mukul Tripathi, opposed the petition, arguing that B.D. Kaushik ruling did not impose any legal obligation on the State to pay for electricity consumed by Bar Associations.

He contended that bar rooms are not part of the Court structure and are merely facilities for convenience; hence, the State cannot be compelled to pay their electricity charges.

HC's Counsel, Advocate Ashish Mishra, submitted that as per the state policy, though basic infrastructure in the shape of building having rooms, halls and toilets are constructed by the government, the liability to pay for electricity and other dues remains on the tenants to whom individual rooms are let out

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Bench noted that a writ of mandamus can only be issued when a statutory duty exists and there is a refusal to perform it.

In the present case, it said, no statutory duty exists on the State to pay for electricity dues of Bar Associations.

"No statutory duty exists on the State to either pay for arrears or the future dues of the electricity being claimed…against use of electricity by members or by the Civil Bar Association, Basti. Second, no policy decision has been made by the State Government as may commend any examination by this Court if the State Government or its functionaries are acting in arbitrary manner or contrary to the stated policy", the Court observed.

The Court further clarified that the B.D. Kaushik judgment was not related to electricity expenses but dealt with the issue of formation of Bar Associations and the 'one person, one vote' principle.

The division bench added that the Supreme Court's observations recognizing advocates as officers of the Court could not be stretched to create a financial liability on the State.

On the other hand, the court disagreed with Vinod Kumar Bharadwaj ruling wherein MP HC held the State to be responsible for electricity charges of Bar rooms.

It observed that although mutual respect and regard must exist between the Bench and the Bar, the role of advocates as officers of the Court "cannot become the basis to reach a conclusion that minimum facilities of electricity and other utilities and finances of the Bar may be provided at the cost of the State exchequer".

The Court added that lawyers largely remain a body of private practitioners and the Bar Associations they form "to protect their interests and further their common objectives" must bear the cost of the facilities they use.

Thus, the Court concluded that neither on the technicalities of law nor on the facts of the case could a mandamus be issued directing the State or the High Court to pay for the Bar Association's electricity bills.

However, the Bench allowed the Association the liberty to approach the Government with a representation or to pay the dues in such manner and in such time as it may be advised.