Bengaluru lawyer moves HC against DVAC for non-payment of fee in DA case against Jayalalithaa

February 15, 2016 06:35 pm | Updated 06:35 pm IST - Bengaluru:

An advocate, who “assisted” the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Chennai in the Disproportionate Assets (DA) case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, has moved the Karnataka High Court complaining that DVAC is avoiding payment of Rs. 6.83 lakh due to him towards professional fee in the DA case.

Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri, before whom the petition came up for hearing on Monday, ordered issuance of emergency notice to the Director, DVAC.

In his petition, Satish R. Girji, a Bengaluru-based advocate, said that he was “orally” asked by the DVAC to assist G. Bhavani Singh, who represented the DVAC as its Special Public Prosecutor before the Karnataka High Court [till the Apex Court struck down his appointment] in the appeals filed by Ms. Jayalalithaa challenging her conviction in the DA case by a special court.

The petitioner-advocate claimed that the DVAC had paid him Rs.3.88 lakh after deducting Rs.44,651 as income-tax deducted at source (TDS) for his appearance and legal assistance from January to February 22, 2015 in the DA case.

Later, the petitioner sent the final bill – seeking payment of another Rs.4.33 towards professional charge and Rs. 2.5 lakh as fee for appearance in the case from February 23 to March 13, 2015 – to the DVAC after the High Court delivered its verdict in May 2015.

However, the DVAC on September 19, 2015 wrote to him stating that “…as per the available records in this Directorate, no authorisation was given in your name by the Government of Tamil Nadu to appear before the Karnataka High Court in connection with the criminal appeals…”

The petitioner-advocate contended that Rs.3.88 lakh, which the DVAC had paid him directly after TDS, clearly “proves” that he was “authorised to assist in the DA case.” He has also produced the TDS certificate.

Claiming that the DVAC’s response that “he was not authorised” to appear in the criminal appeals was an attempt “save themselves”, the petitioner questioned why the DVAC had paid him Rs.4.33 lakh if he was not authorised to assist it in the case.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.