"Court Can't Decide Fees For Advocates": Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Fee Paid to Senior Advocate by BMC In Kangana Ranaut's Case

The Bombay High Court, on Monday, dismissed a plea challenging the appointment and "hefty fee" paid to Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy for representing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation(BMC) in actor Kangana Ranaut's case , in which she challenged the demolition work carried out at her bungalow, last year.

"Merely because we give a patient hearing, whatever is available in the entire world cannot be argued," a division bench of justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale observed while rejecting activist Sharad Yadav's petition.

The bench further observed that it wasn't within the court's purview to adjudicate the appointment of advocates and the fees payable to them.

"What fee should be charged by senior advocates and advocates on record, cannot be decided by the court," Justice Shinde observed.

On the petitioner's prayer seeking revocation of Chinoy's senior advocate designation, Justice Shinde said, "We dont understand why such petitions are filed and the intentions behind it."

Ranaut had moved the Bombay High Court on September 9, 2020, when BMC began demolishing parts of her office, located inside a bungalow, on Pali Hill. Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy was appointed to represent the BMC.

Yadav challenged the BMC's decision to appoint Chinoy and pay him such a hefty fee of Rs 82.5 lakh, especially since BMC was not granted relief in the case. He further sought registration of an FIR and an investigation by CBI.

Senior Advocate, Anil Sakhare, appearing on behalf of BMC, said that appointment of a counsel was the department's decision. He submitted that BMC has been ordered to pay reconstruction costs for an alleged illegal demolition in the past[therefore the decision to appoint a senior counsel].

During the hearing, Justice Shinde said they were not sitting in advisory jurisdiction but the petitioner could always approach the BMC seeking a cap on the payment made to its counsels.

Regarding Yadav's contention that BMC lost the case and therefore Chinoy should return the fee, the court sought to know how the counsel appearing can be faulted for the case's outcome.

"Suppose you are engaged by the BMC, you tell them your fee, appear in the case and do your best but the court passes an order against against the civic body, can you be held responsible? " Justice Shinde said.

The court then rejected the petition