Lawyers should not pressurise court for favourable order to save their fees: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently condemned a lawyer who told the Court that if his case is dismissed, he would stand to lose his legal fee [Kushi & Associates Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others]..In an order passed on August 2, Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia said that an advocate’s profession is not a business or commercial activity that they pressurise the court for a favourable order so that they can recover their fee from their client.“They are supposed to put forward the case of their client by exercising their professional skills, but they should not try to make the profession, a commercial activity. They cannot pressurize the Court to pass a favorable order, so that they can recover the fee from their client. The Courts are not supposed to be concerned about the recovery of fee of an Advocate from his client … Accordingly, the aforesaid conduct of counsel for petitioner in making unparliamentary comments is hereby condemned,” the Court said..The Court was hearing an architectural firm’s plea against its non-inclusion in the list of firms selected for renovation of colleges in Madhya Pradesh.At the outset, the bench noted that only a bald statement had been made that the architectural firms which were allotted different colleges, were not qualified.The State also told the Court that the architectural firms awarded the contract of consultancy had not been made party to the case. .However, the counsel representing the petitioner-firm submitted that the State’s counsel was trying to twist the facts. The counsel also refused to implead the successful architectural firms, as per the order.“When this Court raised a query with regard to the scope of judicial review in contractual matters, then it was submitted by counsel for petitioner that it is not a contractual matter but it is a case of selection of architectural firm,” Justice Ahluwalia further recorded in the order..The bench also said since it was of the view that the petition had not been drafted with required pleadings, it had given an option for adjournment to the petitioner.However, the counsel is stated to have responded that the Court must then restrain the respondent authorities from issuing allotment orders to the successful architectural firms or else he should be heard. On this submission, the Court asked the counsel to conclude the arguments. “Except by submitting that the petitioner is the most suitable architectural firm, nothing was submitted by counsel for petitioner as to how the architectural firms which have been selected and have been allotted the Colleges are ineligible. Neither there is any pleading in that regard nor any submission was made by counsel for petitioner thereby pointing out ineligibility of the selected architectural firms,” the single-judge said..Dealing with the matter on merits, the Court said the petitioner cannot be granted relief without setting aside the selection and allotment of the architectural firms.“Therefore, successful architectural firms are the “necessary party” for adjudication of the claim of the petitioner,” it observed.The Court said it was petitioner counsel’s arrogance to call State’s counsel objection on non-joinder of necessary party as twisting of acts.“This Court could not understand the arrogant attitude of counsel for petitioner specifically when the objection raised by the State counsel was a legal objection which was also otherwise relevant under the facts and circumstances of the case.”.The Court also refused to accept the argument that the case did not involve a contractual matter but only selection of architectural firms.“If the contention of counsel for petitioner that it is not a contract but it is a selection is accepted, still this Court is of the view that the High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot test the suitability of an architectural firm unless and until it is pointed out that the architectural firm which has been selected does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as mentioned in expression of interest & concept design invitation,” it added..After the Court’s inclination to dismiss the case was clear and it said that the order would be dictated in the chamber as it was already 04:40 PM, the lawyer is stated to have sought an adjournment.However, the Court rejected the request and said it was a glaring example of bench hunting.“When the prayer for adjournment was refused, certain comments were passed by counsel for petitioner which were unparliamentary and were not expected from a Lawyer. However the gist of the comments was that the fee of this case is the livelihood of the Advocate and in case if it is dismissed then he would lose certain money (This is the summary assessed by the Court and not the actual words spoken by the petitioner. The actual words are not being reproduced),” the order said..The petition was later dismissed on merits. “Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference,” Justice Ahluwalia said..Advocate Sukhendra Singh represented the petitioner.Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly represented the State.[Read Judgment]