Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20735 (KAR)

SRI. L. VENKATA RAMA REDDY v. THE CHAIRMAN

WP/16969/2026 · 2026-06-09

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27487 WP No. 16969 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.16969 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. L. VENKATA RAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OFFICE AT L.V.R. ASSOCIATES, NO.126, BASEMENT FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, RMV 2ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094. …PETITIONER (BY MS. CHARISHMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LTD., T.T.M.C. BUILDING, 'A' BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LTD., T.T.M.C. BUILDING, 'A' BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R2) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27487 WP No. 16969 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES TO THE PANEL ADVOCATES BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT; B. DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PAY THE LEGAL FEE FOR CASES LISTED IN ANNEXURE L, L1, L2, AND L3 AS PER BILLS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEXURE -A DATED 06.12.2014 MML/LAW/530/LEGAL FEES/2014-15/3187 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Sri Mahesh R.Uppin, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Petitioner is directed to serve two sets of petition along with annexures on the said counsel. 3. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to - a. Call for records pertaining to payment of legal fees to the Panel Advocates by the 2nd respondent. b. Issue a writ, order, direction, or writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to pay the legal fee for cases listed in Annexures-L, L1, L2, and L3 as per - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27487 WP No. 16969 of 2026 Bills raised by the Petitioner, in accordance with Annexure-A dated 06-12-2014 vide No. MML/Law/530/Legal Fees/2014-15/3187. c. Issue a writ, order, direction, or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to pay interest at a rate per annum determined by this Hon'ble Court for each year of delay in payment of legal fee for cases listed in Annexures-L, L1, L2, and L3. d. Issue a writ, order, direction, or declaration that the 2nd respondent has no legal authority to alter the legal fees in violation of the resolution of the Board of Management and Annexure A dated 06-12-2014 vide No. MML/Law/530/Legal Fees/2014-15/3187. e. Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the bill for legal services rendered by the petitioner has not been paid by the respondents. The legal notice which has been issued at Annexure-D has also not been considered by the respondents. Whenever any representation in this case by way of legal notice has been issued, it is for the respondents to consider and pass necessary orders within a reasonable time either accepting or rejecting the claim made. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27487 WP No. 16969 of 2026 5. In the present case, the representation has been made on 01.08.2022. It is required to be considered and pass necessary orders by the respondents. Hence, this Court passes the following ORDER (i) The writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) A mandamus is issued, the respondents are directed to consider the legal notice vide Annexure-D dated 01.08.2022 and pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17