Lawyers say Advocate General charged different fee in commercial court

Shillong, Oct 30: The Bar Associations have pointed out that Advocate General Amit Kumar charged Rs 1,50,000 per appearance in Commercial Court ( District Court).

The bill will be more than Rs 1 crore.

The Association said the evidence came in a confidential envelope from an anonymous source.

“We received an envelope with some documents inside, perhaps by somebody which I don’t want to name, what was written on the envelope was the word confidential. When we opened it, we saw something which actually shocked us all,” said Gautam.

“This is in relation to our agitation which you are aware of for the last few months, we have been demanding removal of Amit Kumar as Advocate General,” he said.

Gautam recalled Kumar’s September 3 press conference: “He countered all our allegations saying whatever allegations were made about him charging a lot of money, the state spending a large sum on the office of Advocate General is false. He said he has a particular schedule – Rs 20,000 per appearance in High Court, Rs 40,000 per appearance in Supreme Court and retainer Rs 50,000.”

“Now interestingly, the documents we have today contain invoices of bills raised for a particular case not in High Court, not in Supreme Court, but in Commercial Court, which is district court of the state, which runs into more than Rs 1 crore. Here Amit Kumar is charging Rs 1,50,000 per appearance. He himself in his press conference made a categorical statement that he has never charged a single penny more than the schedule,” Gautam said.

“This bill is for 2021, 2022, 2023, I am not sure about the date but I am sure this bill has already been paid. Whether bills have been paid or not, fact remains that Amit Kumar has lied before the press, writing is on the wall, it is very clear he has charged more than he is supposed to,” he said.

The Association said this explains why its RTI queries were denied.

“That is why the RTI application filed by us has been denied taking exception to Section 8, which I as a lawyer do not agree to. We have filed an appeal and very recently at appellate stage, I have received a letter where the department has asked for an extension of 15 days so that consent can be taken from Amit Kumar. Today after we received this we realised, the reason why information is denied is not because of exceptions under RTI Act but because the government does not want the public to know the amount of money being spent and this money is of one particular case,” he said.

“The person who gave us this envelope is perhaps the son or daughter of the state who understands, who perhaps cannot come forward for whatever reasons but perhaps wants the public to know how the state is bleeding. Public so far feels the Bar Association has personal vendetta, that we are jealous that somebody from Delhi is here and is making more money than what we are making, that is out of the question. Initially we were aggrieved with the kind of statement made in the course of a particular case in the High Court. Subsequently we came to know so many other things,” Gautam added.

“A lawyer can charge whatever fee you want. But for a government lawyer, for an Advocate General, there is a particular schedule. Now let’s say he for whatever reasons billed Rs 1,50,000 per appearance, who allowed this payment to be made? Government will pay whatever Amit Kumar will ask as appearance fee, totally forgetting about schedule, there is no question of auditing, there is no accountability at all,” he said.

Regarding next steps, Gautam said, “We are awaiting reply of those RTIs which appellate authority has sought 15 days time, that will expire in November. So we will wait for the coming of those replies and together we will proceed ahead because with this information that we received today, it is only with regard to one particular matter. Through those RTIs we are expecting some more revelations, so when those materials come together we will take action and the door is very much open for us to approach concerned authorities but after thorough discussion we will take steps in due course.”