The Allahabad High Court has held that an advocate seeking recovery of disputed professional fees from the Uttar Pradesh government cannot ordinarily invoke writ jurisdiction when the claim arises from a contractual engagement and involves disputed questions of fact.
A Division Bench of Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf dismissed four writ petitions filed by an advocate seeking nearly Rs. 4.80 crore towards alleged outstanding fees for cases handled for the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Department.
Background Of The Case
The petitioner claimed to have served as counsel for the State for around 16 years. He relied on Government Orders dated April 23, 2009 and March 2, 2011, under which he claimed entitlement to fees of up to Rs. 5 lakh per case.
The four petitions concerned matters from Sitapur, Lucknow, Hardoi and Raebareli. The total claim was approximately Rs. 4.80 crore, besides penal interest.
The State disputed both the maintainability of the writ petitions and the amount claimed. It argued that the March 2, 2011 Government Order merely prescribed a fee range and did not automatically grant the maximum Rs. 5 lakh fee for every case. The State also disputed the petitioner’s engagement for several of the cases.
Court’s Observation
The Bench first examined whether such a fee-recovery claim could be decided through a writ petition.
The Court noted that the relationship between an advocate and client in the present dispute was contractual. It found that the alleged fee bills had not been shown to have been admitted or acknowledged by the State.
The Bench observed,
“there are no admission or acknowledgment of dues/outstanding of the petitioner by the respondents-State for which a mandamus can be issued.”
The Court also rejected reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gopal K. Verma, observing that the order in that case was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution and did not decide the maintainability of a writ petition for recovery of professional fees.
Decision
The Court held that the disputed fee claims involved contractual issues and complicated questions of fact requiring evidence, which could not appropriately be adjudicated under Article 226 jurisdiction.
The four writ petitions were accordingly dismissed. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his professional fee claim before a competent civil court and clarified that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be available in accordance with law.
No order was made as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Jyotinjay Verma v. State of U.P. Through Secretary, Basic Education, Lucknow & 5 Others
Case Number: Writ-C No. 5832 of 2025, along with Writ-C Nos. 5828/2025, 6045/2025 and 8217/2025.
Judge: Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Decision Date: August 14, 2026.
 Act-300x169.webp)
