Delhi High Court Orders Madhya Pradesh Government to Pay Outstanding Legal Fees
The Delhi High Court has delivered a stern rebuke to the Madhya Pradesh government, ordering it to clear outstanding legal fees amounting to ₹78.65 lakh owed to senior advocate Anoop George Chaudhari. Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the bench, ruled that the state cannot evade its financial obligations after availing the professional services of a senior lawyer. The court further mandated that the payment be issued with an annual interest rate of 9%, calculated from 2021.
A Question of State Accountability
Expressing deep concern over the state’s conduct, Justice Datta remarked that it is a matter of institutional embarrassment when a lawyer is forced to approach the judiciary to recover legitimate dues. The court emphasized that a state’s dignity is compromised when it denies payment for legal services it actively solicited and benefited from.
- The Legal Context: Anoop George Chaudhari represented the Madhya Pradesh government and the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board before a Supreme Court Constitution Bench.
- The Case: The litigation involved the constitutional interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, specifically concerning the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
- The Dispute: Between October and December 2019, the advocate appeared on 14 separate occasions. While he submitted 35 bills totaling over ₹1.76 crore, the government withheld payment for years, forcing him to file a petition in 2021.
Government’s Defense Dismissed
During the proceedings, the Madhya Pradesh government attempted to stall the claim by arguing that the official file regarding Mr. Chaudhari’s appointment was missing and contested the high valuation of the fees. The Delhi High Court dismissed these arguments as untenable.
The court relied on official Supreme Court cause lists and statements from the then-Chief Secretary, SR Mohanty, to confirm that the state had indeed utilized Mr. Chaudhari’s services. Justice Datta noted that the state could not hide behind administrative technicalities or the absence of records to avoid paying for legal representation that it had already accepted.
After filtering out instances of duplicate billing, the court calculated the fees at ₹6.05 lakh per hearing for 13 appearances, resulting in the final settlement amount of ₹78,65,000, which the state is now legally bound to settle immediately.
