Advocate-Client Relationship Is Contractual, Writ Petition For Recovery Of Fees Not Maintainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, recently, dismissed a writ petition filed by an advocate under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions for the clearance of his professional bills pending since 2017. 

The petitioner had appeared as counsel in various petitions on behalf of the State Agricultural Marketing Board and Mandi Samiti and claimed that despite repeated reminders, the respondents failed to release his payments, especially during the pandemic period. 

The bench of Justice Pranay Verma, following the Supreme Court Judgments, reiterated,

"A writ petition would not lie for recovery of amount of remuneration of an Advocate under a contract. The relationship between an Advocate and his client is certainly a contract hence this writ petition for recovery of the fees bill would not be maintainable". 

The respondents, represented by Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. It was argued that such claims could not be entertained under Article 226 and that the proper forum for such a remedy would be a civil court. 

However, the petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Ashok Kumar Sethi, submitted that a writ petition for recovery of unpaid advocate fees was maintainable. 

The court, relying on the judgment of Ropar v Tejinder SIngh Gujral [1995 SUPP (4) SCC 577], observed that no writ petition can lie for recovery of an amount under a contract.

Further, citing the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co v AK Saxena [2004 (1) SCC 117], the court reiterated that disputed claims of unpaid remuneration of an advocate could not be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy for the recovery of fees lay in approaching a civil court. 

Concluding the matter, the court held that since the relationship between an advocate and client is contractual in nature, a writ petition for recovery of contractual dues, including legal fees, was not maintainable. 

The bench, thus, dismissed the petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent civil forum. 

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ashok Kumar Sethi with Advocate Ayush Gupta

For Respondent: Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar

For Advocate General: Advocate Kushal Goyal

Case Title: Ashok Airen v Family Welfare and Agriculture Department [Writ Petition No. 14594 of 2020]

Click here To Read the Order