Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
The Supreme Court was hearing the writ of mandamus filed by a former Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh against the State Government to clear his outstanding fees. The Court expressed its doubt on whether Article 32 of the Constitution has the jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
The Court expressed its shock to find an advocate that represents the State filing a writ petition against the State for the settlement of his bills.
The petitioner pointed out that the same Supreme Court has granted relief to other similarly situated officers. However, the division bench showed the State Government order that detailed that there were no outstanding bills in the name of the petitioner and that he has received the fees he is entitled to. Therefore, the court found that filing a writ petition was not an appropriate action on the part of the petitioner and that he had already received a substantial amount.
The division bench dismissed the plea and highlighted that there are other remedies available for the petitioner to pursue.
Name of the Case: Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of UP And Ors.
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, and Justice Sanjay Karol
Click here to access the judgment.