HC rejects plea against lawyer fees paid by BMC in Kangana Ranaut office demolition case

The Bombay High Court on Monday rejected plea challenging fees paid to senior advocate Aspi Chinoy for representing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in Kangana Ranaut’s petition against demolition work carried out at her Bandra office on September 9.

A division bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale was hearing plea filed by one Sharad Datta Yadav, who had filed an RTI application concerning the fees paid by civic body to the senior counsel and got a response that nearly Rs 82.5 lakh were paid to the lawyer.

The petitioner referred to the past judgment and said that matters pertaining to demolition of unauthorised structures were declared as “petty matters” and engaging the senior advocate was unnecessary.

In light of this, petitioner Yadav sought a CBI inquiry and directions from court to BMC Commissioner to file response explaining reasons behind policy of engaging service of senior counsel in “petty matters”.

The BMC’s counsels senior advocate Anil Sakhare and advocate Joel Carlos opposed the plea and argued that the civic body had the right to choose its lawyer. Senior Counsel Milind Sathe representing Chinoy submitted that Yadav’s writ plea was maintainable as it had not infringed any of his fundamental right and sought its dismissal.

“Merely because we give a patient hearing, whatever is available in the entire world cannot be argued, Justice Shinde said to petitioner.

“It is just like any private client. Government entity can appoint senior counsel. It’s BMC’s decision as to which matter is important or petty. What fee should be charged by senior advocates and advocates on record, cannot be decided by the court. At least to my knowledge, there are Supreme Court pronouncements taking view, like any other litigants, state, corporation can induct senior advocates,” Justice Shinde said.

The bench said that it was not sitting in advisory jurisdiction but the petitioner could always approach the BMC raising grievances and seeking a cap on the payment made to its counsels. “Go and file your plea there. Your remedy lies somewhere else.

Referring to Yadav’s prayer recalling Chinoy’s senior advocate designation, Justice Shinde said, “How can you have such prayers? We simply do not understand why such petitions are filed and the intentions behind it…You should have minimum knowledge of law when you come before us.”

After hearing submissions, the Court went on to reject Yadav’s petition. A reasoned order will be made available in due course.