High Court · 2025

Mr. Ravi Gupt a, Senior Advocat e, who is based in Delhi and Rs.1.50 has been paid as expenses t o his assist ant .

5. The pet it ioner has not placed on record any m at erial which fixes a cap on t he quant um of fees t hat can be paid by t he St at e t o a Designat ed Senior Counsel engaged by t he St at e, and whose services have been ut ilized for appearance in a case against t he St at e. I n t he absence of any such m at erial, which place any cap on t he fees t hat can be paid by t he St at e, t he pet it ion, in our opinion, is highly m isconceived and is not hing, but an abuse of t he due process of law.

6. I t was incum bent upon t he pet it ioner t o place all such m at erial while canvassing t he pet it ion. During t he hearing, he had at t em pt ed t o m ake a t wist in t he narrat ive by st at ing t hat t he Senior Counsel did not appear before t he Court at all, and despit e his non- appearance, t he St at e has m ade paym ent of fees. To 3 support his t wist t o t he st ory, he would place reliance on t he order- sheet , and he would subm it t hat t he Court has not recorded t he presence of t he Senior Counsel.

7. Learned Chief St anding Counsel would subm it t hat it was he, who personally briefed t he Senior Advocat e in t he case, and would subm it t hat t he fact of t he Senior Advocat e having st ayed in Nainit al on t he relevant dat es of hearing has been affirm ed by t he m anagem ent of Manu Maharani Hot el, Nainit al, which issued endorsem ent t o t he Senior Superint endent of Police, Nainit al, wherein t hey have cat egorically st at ed t hat t he Senior Advocat e was a guest in t he hot el on t he relevant dat es of hearing.

8. There being sufficient m at erial t o presence of learned Senior Advocat e, m ere om ission t o record t he nam e of t he Senior Advocat e in t he order- sheet , in our opinion, would not be a ground enough t o infer adversely against t he presence of a professional. The professional fees being charged by a professional is at t he discret ion of t he professional and t here being no rule placing a cap on t he quant um t hat can be paid as professional charges, t he inst ant writ pet it ion is highly 4 m isconceived and a absolut e wast e of t he j udicial t im e.

9. That apart , as not ed, t he pet it ioner has described him self as a farm er and a social act ivist , whereas in Writ Pet it ion ( CRL) No.1444 of 2024, which was dism issed by t his Bench a short while ago, he has described him self as an RTI act ivist ; t hat his effort s under t he RTI Act t o obt ain inform at ion and fight against corrupt ion have been m ade t o go in vain and high and m ight y m ade an at t ack on him .

10. This Court exam ined t he veracit y of t he phot ographs produced by t he pet it ioner and t he pet it ioner ’s version and found t hem t o be hollow. Be t hat as it m ay, in t he inst ant writ pet it ion an assert ion t he learned Chief St anding Counsel and t he corroborat ing m at erial in form of an endorsem ent of t he Manu Maharani Hot el, acknowledging t he fact t hat t he Senior Advocat e was a guest in t heir hot el on t he relevant dat es of hearing, it can be safely presum ed t hat t he presence of t he Senior Advocat e in Nainit al, t hat t oo, on a working day, was for t he purpose of m aking his appearance t o assist t he Court in t he pending lit igat ion. The om ission in t he order- sheet 5 cannot , in our opinion, be appreciat ed as m at erial which would rebut t he record m aint ained by t he hot el and which record is one which is m aint ained in t he course of t heir business.

11. I n t hat view of t he m at t er and t here being no law capping t he professional fees t hat can be paid by t he St at e, t he writ pet it ion is wholly and highly m isconceived, and is, accordingly, rej ect ed.

12. As a sequel t heret o, pending applicat ion, if any, shall st and closed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A LOK M A H RA , J. Dt : 24 t h April, 2025 NI SHANT NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd6 3133605ca57cdc00ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185 F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD1961690560487E67 0C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR 6