In a recent decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court strongly criticized a lawyer who argued that dismissing his case would result in a loss of legal fees.
On August 2, Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia emphasized that the legal profession is not a commercial enterprise where advocates can pressure the court for favorable rulings to secure their fees from clients. The court made it clear that it is not concerned with the recovery of legal fees by advocates.
The case involved an architectural firm challenging its exclusion from a list of firms selected for college renovations in Madhya Pradesh. The firm’s lawyer claimed the other selected firms were unqualified, but the court found no substantial evidence to support this assertion.
The State pointed out that the firms awarded the consultancy contracts were not included in the case. Despite this, the petitioner’s counsel refused to include them, accusing the State’s counsel of twisting facts.
When questioned about the judicial review’s scope in contractual matters, the petitioner’s lawyer insisted it was a selection issue rather than a contractual one. However, the court noted that the petition lacked the necessary pleadings and offered an adjournment, which the lawyer rejected, demanding either a restraint order against issuing allotment orders or a hearing.
The court found no evidence supporting the petitioner’s claim that the selected firms were ineligible and emphasized that without challenging the selection and allotment, relief could not be granted. The court criticized the petitioner’s lawyer for calling the State’s legal objections a distortion of facts.
The court reiterated that even if the issue was selection, the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution cannot assess the suitability of an architectural firm without evidence of non-compliance with eligibility criteria.
After indicating its intention to dismiss the case, the court declined the lawyer’s request for adjournment, labeling it a clear instance of bench hunting. The lawyer made unparliamentary comments about losing his fee if the case was dismissed, which the court condemned.
Ultimately, the petition was dismissed on its merits, with Justice Ahluwalia concluding that no interference was warranted.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Sukhendra Singh, while Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly represented the State.
