The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the State Government cannot be compelled to pay the electricity dues of Bar Associations functioning within court premises. The Court clarified that although advocates are officers of the court, the Bar Associations they form are independent bodies of legal practitioners and therefore must bear the financial responsibility for the facilities they use.
The decision was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Indrajeet Shukla in a case arising from a writ petition filed by the Civil Bar Association, Basti. The Association sought a direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay both outstanding and future electricity bills for the building it occupies within the District Court premises. The Bar Association argued that, since its office is located within the court complex and its members assist in the administration of justice, the State should bear the cost of utilities such as electricity. The petitioners relied on previous judicial observations acknowledging advocates as officers of the court, along with a ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had directed the State to bear similar costs.
The State, however, opposed the petition, maintaining that there is no statutory provision or government policy obligating it to pay the electricity expenses of Bar Associations. It stated that while the government provides basic infrastructure such as office space, halls, and sanitation facilities to Bar Associations as a gesture of cooperation, the responsibility for paying electricity and other utilities rests with the associations themselves as occupants of those premises.
In its judgment, the Court held that a writ of mandamus can only be issued where a statutory duty exists and has been neglected. Since no law or policy imposed such a duty on the State, the Court found that the petitioners were not entitled to relief. The Bench further clarified that the recognition of advocates as officers of the court does not automatically extend to financial obligations on the part of the State to fund their professional associations. The Court also distinguished and declined to follow the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s earlier ruling, observing that it was not binding and had been made under different circumstances.
The Bench acknowledged the vital role of the legal fraternity in the justice system and the long-standing cooperation between the Bar and the Bench but stated that such considerations cannot translate into a financial liability on the State exchequer. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the payment of electricity dues for Bar Association premises is the responsibility of the respective associations. However, it allowed the Bar Association the liberty to make a representation before the State Government for any possible concession or assistance, which could be considered by the authorities as a matter of policy and not as a legal obligation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.