Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, Single Bench of Justice Pranay Verma held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for recovery of professional fees by an advocate based on a contractual claim. The court dismissed the petition while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue alternative legal remedies as permissible under law. The judicial pronouncement clarified that disputes arising out of contractual obligations between an advocate and his client do not warrant adjudication under writ jurisdiction. The court, citing binding precedent, found that such claims must be addressed before a competent civil forum and that Article 226 jurisdiction is not available for monetary recovery of professional remuneration.

While acknowledging the petitioner’s plea for payment of long-pending bills for legal services rendered, the bench recorded that consistent judgements from the Supreme Court have unequivocally barred the maintainability of writ petitions for contractual dues. The dismissal of the petition was thus mandated by established jurisprudence, with the court declining to entertain the matter under its writ jurisdiction.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restructures Judicial Appointments | LDCE Quota Restored To 25% | Three Years’ Bar Practice Mandatory For Entry-Level Judges

The present case involved a writ petition filed by the petitioner, an advocate, seeking directions against the respondents for payment of outstanding professional fees. The petitioner had appeared as counsel in multiple writ petitions, writ appeals, and other cases on behalf of the Marketing Board and Mandi Samiti. According to the petitioner, despite repeated reminders, the legal bills have remained unpaid since 2017, a situation further exacerbated by the pandemic.

In his plea, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:

"(1) Request for directions to the Respondents for clearing the bills of various Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals and other cases in which the Petitioner had appeared as a counsel for the Marketing Board as well as the Mandi Samiti and in spite of various reminders the bills are not being paid in this pandemic situation and the bills are pending since 2017.

(2) To award costs of the Petition from the respondent.

(3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case against the Respondents and in favour of the Petitioner's be granted."

The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, asserting a legal right to be compensated for his professional services. He claimed that the respondents had consistently failed to clear his dues despite multiple communications and prolonged follow-ups.

The petition was contested by respondents No.2 to 5, who raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. They contended that the reliefs sought by the petitioner were of a contractual nature and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. They argued that such claims should be adjudicated by a civil court.

To substantiate their position, the respondents relied on several Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Notably, they cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Improvement Trust, Ropar Vs. S. Tejinder Singh Gujral and Others, 1995 SUPP (4) SCC 577, where the apex court categorically held that no writ petition can lie for recovery of professional fees under a contract.

Additional authorities relied upon by the respondents included:

• New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A.K. Saxena, 2004 (1) SCC 117,

• Vijay Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, W.P. (C) No.217/2018,

• K.N. Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2006 SCC OnLine All 334,

• Mr. T.S. Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No.9526/2019,

• Shafi Ibrahim Kazi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, W.P. No.953/2019.

The respondents maintained that in all these decisions, it had been held that disputes regarding unpaid remuneration of advocates were contractual in nature and could not be entertained under writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, they pointed out that in the present case, there was a serious dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement to the claimed fees, making the matter unsuitable for summary adjudication under Article 226.

In response, the petitioner’s counsel, a senior advocate, argued that the petition was maintainable and deserved to be decided on its merits. The petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

• Government of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. R. Thillaivillalan, AIR 1991 SC 1231,

• Ms. A. Ch. Vedavani Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2022 (0) Supreme (AP) 163,

• Order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.34764/2018, Mathew B. Kurian Vs. National Council for Teacher Education and Others.

According to the petitioner, these cases supported the view that unpaid professional dues could be subject to judicial scrutiny in writ jurisdiction.

The matter proceeded to final hearing, with both sides presenting arguments and authorities in support of their respective positions. The court thereafter proceeded to evaluate the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the settled legal position and competing judicial pronouncements.

The court examined the precedents cited by both parties. It recorded that in S. Tejinder Singh Gujral (Supra), the Supreme Court had clearly stated: "We find that the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-advocate for the recovery of his professional fees from the petitioner. No writ petition can lie for recovery of an amount under a contract. The High Court was clearly wrong in entertaining and allowing the petition. There is no separate law for the advocates."

The court further noted that the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) held: "When there is dispute about unpaid remuneration of an advocate, it is not for the High Court to adjudicate upon such a disputed question of fact. The remedy of the Advocate is to resort to the legal remedies for recovery of his fees."

Quoting from Vijay Kumar Shukla (Supra), the court stated: "The Apex Court has raised a serious doubt whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India should be entertained at the instance of an Advocate for recovery of his fees and that also when there is a serious dispute about entitlement to receive fees based on certain bills."

According to the court, these observations applied equally to writ petitions under Article 226. It also observed: "It may be mentioned that in this petition a serious dispute has been raised by respondents 2 to 5 as regards the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the professional fee which has been claimed by him."

The court stated that the relationship between an advocate and client is contractual, and disputes arising therefrom must be resolved through appropriate civil proceedings: "Thus, it has been held by the Apex Court consistently that 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."

Addressing the judgments cited by the petitioner, the court recorded: "In R. Thillaivillalan (Supra) the issue as regards maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a lawyer for recovery of his professional fees was neither raised nor decided."

Regarding the other authorities, the court noted: "The judgments in the case of Ms. A. Ch. Vedavani (Supra) and Mathew B. Kurian (Supra) have not considered the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases referred to as above hence cannot be said to be binding upon this Court."

Also Read: Gauhati HC Dismisses Hindi Lecturer’s Plea | No Provincialisation Without Vacancy Or Concurrence | Negative Equality Claim Rejected

The court thus concluded that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not support the maintainability of the petition. It reiterated the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions and recorded that the petition cannot be entertained.

Concluding its analysis, the court recorded its decision in the following terms:

"Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is found to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to resort to such legal remedies in respect of the relief claimed herein as may be permissible under the law."

No costs were awarded by the court.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Shri Ashok Kumar Sethi, Senior Advocate with Shri Ayush Gupta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri Kushal Goyal appearing on behalf of Advocate General; Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, Advocate for the respondent No.2 to 5

Case Title: Ashok Airen Versus Farmer Welfare and Agriculture Department and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-IND:14847
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 14594 of 2020
Bench: Justice Pranay Verma