ORDER
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
1. Heard the petitioner who is appearing in person.
2. This writ application was filed by the petitioner praying the following reliefs:
(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding and/or directing the respondent No. 3 and/or respondents and each of them and their servants and/or agents to forthwith make over payment of all long outstanding fee bills of the petitioner with interest and costs;
(b) A writ in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondents and/or their servants prohibiting themselves from giving any effect to the said impugned letter 11-12-1997 in respect of all final bills of Advocate in the Arbitration case Dilip Kumar Dutta v. F.C.I. sanctioning Rs. 9956-00 only in place of Rs. 40,459-50 in respect of fee and cost bills;
(d) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) (b) and (c) above;
(c) Order for payment of interest the costs of Litigation expenses;
(f) Such further relief and/or reliefs;
3. It is the submission of the petitioner who is the learned advocate of this Court, appearing in person, that despite rendering of professional service to the Food Corporation of India as empanelled advocate of the said Corporation all the bills as submitted has not been fully paid. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit giving the details of the bills and the amount as still payable. It has been further contended by the petitioner that the taxi fare though was agreed upon to be paid has not been paid. It is also another case of the petitioner that since he was engaged to deal with the taxation matters his fees cannot be equated with the shipping matter. In a nutshell the entire writ application is based on the factual matrix that the petitioner has not been paid proper fees with reference to the duty as discharged by him.
4. This writ application has been opposed by the F.C.I. by filing affidavit-in-opposition contending, inter alia, that all the fees were legally payable as per the circular has already been paid and no payment is due. Further point has been made that the writ application is not maintainable. By an exhaustive affidavit-in-reply the petitioner reiterated his earlier stand by contending, inter alia, that submission of the opposition to this effect that all amounts as payable to the petitioner as fees were released, was nothing but a false statement.
5. This writ application was initially moved and heard by Barin Ghosh, J. when the learned advocate Mr. S.C. Prasad appeared on behalf of the petitioner prayed for release of the matter and Barin Ghosh, J. by the order dated 20th April, 2004 ultimately released the matter. The matter was assigned on 26th April. 2004 by the Hon’ble Chief Justice to Pinaki Chandra Ghosh, J. On 19th July, 2004 the petitioner appeared in person and prayed release of the matter from that Court and His Lordship. Pinaki Chandra Ghosh, J. released the matter. The matter was again assigned to the Hon’ble Justice Arunabha Barua by an order dated 21st July 2004 by the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice. By an order dated 28th July, 2004 Arunabha Barua, J. (as His Lordship then was) released the matter. On 4th August, 2004 the matter was assigned before this Court. On diverse dates the matter was heard, On 17th February, 2006 the petitioner who appeared in person took adjournment for four weeks to answer the legal question about the maintainability of the writ application as it is a simpliciter money claim. Today before hearing of the matter the petitioner in person prayed before this Court to release this matter. Such prayer was refused by this Court. Accordingly, the matter was heard at length. The, only question involved in the writ application for decision as to whether the writ is maintainable claiming the fees of any learned advocate which allegedly has not been paid by his client. The engagement of a lawyer is within the domain of contractual terms and conditions of the client and the lawyer. In the instant case F.C.I, even if an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, but the engagement of a lawyer by such authorities is within the commercial transaction and contractual domain of the Corporation. The engagement of a lawyer and payment of fees since within the field of contractual matter and when the claim of the petitioner has been disputed, this Court is of the view that the matter does not involve for any adjudication having public element thereof. It is simply a private dispute between one learned advocate and his client about non-payment of fees and this Court is of the view that it is absolutely on the private domain for which writ is not maintainable. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case of Improvement Trust, Ropar v. S. Tejender Singh Gujral reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 577 wherein the Apex Court held that writ petition for recovery of contractual fees by a lawyer from his client is not maintainable as it is within the domain of contractual matter. The Apex Court accordingly held that High Court was wrong in entertaining such type of writ application and thereby had set aside the impugned order of the High Court. Paragraph 3 of the said judgment for effective adjudication is set out herein below:
3. 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. In the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge on 26-7-1991 and dismiss the writ petition. The result is that the Letters Patent Appeal pending before the Division Bench of the High Court would also come to an end. The Appeal is allowed accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
6. Furthermore, from the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the F.C.I, it appears that F.C.I, had disputed the claim of the petitioner by contending, inter alia, that the professional fees of the petitioner has been paid, Hence, there is a disputed question of fact which requires adjudication. Such adjudication surely to be done on oral and documentary evidence, in a writ proceeding which is not possible to be finalized. There is no doubt that in a writ proceeding disputed question of fact could be decided in the event by documentary evidence namely the annexures, the same is possible to be resolved. However, writ Court seldom exercise of power to resolve any disputed question of fact by converting the Writ Court as a Civil Court by taking evidence,
7. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers’ relying upon the earlier judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Rourkella Sramik Union v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. .
8. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, has relied upon the judgment in the case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thillaivillalan to submit that the writ is maintainable.
9. It appears that in the said case the Division Bench of the High Court on adjudicating the appeal on the basis of the figures furnished by the Corporation identified the amount of fees as was still payable and having regard to such special fact as the Corporation accepted that the amount was still payable, the judgment was delivered by the Apex Court by not disturbing the findings of the Division Bench. This judgment has no applicability in the instant case as the Corporation has disputed the claim by contending that no amount is payable and all amounts have been paid. The contention of the Corporation as appears from paragraphs 6, 9 and 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition reads to this effect:
6. The fees payable in the instant matter has already been settled by the FCI authorities in terms of the said rate of fees and an amount of Rs. 6,727/- (Rupees six thousand seven hundred twenty seven only) in full and final settlement of the case has been paid to the writ petitioner vide Cheque No. 490335 dated 9-12-1997. Subsequently, the writ petitioner has also been paid his bills of fees, the details of which has been duly incorporated in a separate chart which is annexed hereto and marked with Annexure “R-l”. The writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable.
9. With reference to paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the said writ application, the bills of the petitioner was passed as per FCI’s rate of fees etc. and accordingly payment has been made to him after adjustment of advance payments made to him. In this regard, it is stated that he had not served any letters about his rate of fees during pendency of the case and even he has not mentioned any rate of fees while claiming advance fees/ cost.
16. With reference to paragraph Nos. 22 to 25 of the said application, it is stated that Sri R.C. Prasad, Advocate is not entitled to get any amount as his alleged claim has already been settled at the material time and he did not furnish his rate of fees while accepting the said brief or taking advances.
10. The case of Mrs. Mukti Maitra v. State of West Bengal reported in 90 CWN page 1023, as referred to by the petitioner, has also no applicability in this case as therein Government admitted the amount as payable but the payment was withheld unreasonably. On that effect the High Court entertained the matter.
11. The case reported in AIR 1999 Rajas than 39 (sic) as referred to by the petitioner also has no relevancy for adjudication of this case. During the pendency of the writ application the amount was paid and accordingly the court passed necessary order of interest though the Court observed that in normal circumstances the High Court may not entertain the writ petition for a direction to pay the counsel’s fees.
12. The case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. A.K. Saxena as referred to by the petitioner is supporting the case of the respondent that writ is not maintainable. The relevant paragraph being paragraph 5 reads to this effect.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent insists that full fees for all the matters must be paid to him. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants states that no fees are payable to the respondent. In our view, it is not for this Court, as it was not for the High Court to adjudicate upon such a disputed question of fact. The High Court should not have given the directions it did also because at the time the High Court passed the impugned order. Writ Petition No. 27380 of 2001 was pending. In this writ petition the respondent had claimed payment of his fees.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the said legal position no relief could be granted to the petitioner as the writ application is not maintainable.
14. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition will not debar the petitioner to initiate any appropriate civil proceeding in accordance with law if he so desires.
15. There will be no order as to costs.