UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus - on 2 July 2018

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 7 S.C.R.

AUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

v.

(Civil Appeal No. 5953 of 2018)

JULY 02, 2018

B[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Public Interest Litigation – Suo moto invocation – Paymentof fees to empanelled advocates – FAO pertaining to motor accidentmatter – Non-appearance of the empanelled lawyers of the InsuranceCCompanies – Counsel representing the insurance companiesbringing their plight to the notice of the Single Judge highlightingthat these insurance companies were manipulating guidelines/feestructures approved by GIPSA – Single Judge treating the issue asof public importance, passed an order for suo moto registration ofDPublic Interest Litigation – Reference placed before the DivisionBench – Issuance of directions by the court to the InsuranceCompanies to adhere to the schedules framed by GIPSA and makepayments to all advocates to whom fee was due and payable –Challenge to, by the Insurance Companies – On appeal, held: HighCourt noticed schedules of fee issued by GIPSA, Circular of 2004,E2009 and 2014; and that the issue was only with regard to Circularof 2004 – When PIL was registered, the fees schedule as enforcedfrom circulars of 2009 and 2014 was very much in vogue and beingadhered to – Entertainment of the issue regarding payment of feeas per circular of 2004 by GIPSA or subsequently modified byFproceeding dated 16.03.2005 ought not to have been gone in thewrit petition – Furthermore, said issue had no bearing on the caseof the poor litigants, which was the main reason for the Single Judgeto direct for suo moto registration of PIL – Moreso, Circular of2004 was replaced by subsequent circulars of 2009 and 2014 – Inview thereof, direction of High Court directing insurance companiesGto adhere to fees schedule issued by GIPSA of 2004 set aside –However, any payment of fee made as per said Circular to be treatedas final – Insurance companies to adhere to the schedule framedby GIPSA of 2009 and 2014.

H

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The High Court exercises its extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226 when an element of public law exists.When the Single Judge found that empanelled advocates are notappearing in the court, the Single Judge found that the said issueinvolved a public element, which ultimately affects theadministration of justice and hence the Single Judge directed forregistration of the Public Interest Litigation for the reasons asnoticed by the Single Judge in his order. This Court is not inclinedto enter into the correctness or otherwise of the order directingfor registration of Public Interest Litigation. The judgmentchallenged before this Court is the Division Bench judgmentwhich was passed in the Public Interest Litigation disposing ofthe writ petition. Thus, discussions are confined only to the saidorder, leaving the question of registration of Public InterestLitigation open, in facts of the present case. [Para 10][825-B-D]

1.2 The High Court in its judgment noticed three schedulesof fee issued by GIPSA: Circular dated 21.02.2005 noticing thatGIPSA had approved the revised fees schedule of advocates/investigators w.e.f. 01.11.2004; Circular dated 09.01.2009 issuedin pursuance of approved and revised fees schedule by GIPSAw.e.f. 01.01.2009; and Circular dated 18.03.2014 issued by GIPSAapproving the advocates/investigators fee w.e.f. 01.04.2014. TheHigh Court itself noticed that there were no issues with regardto Circulars issued with regard to fee structure enforced from2009 and 2014. The High Court noticed that the only issue iswith regard to Circular of 2004. It has come on the record thatw.e.f. 01.11.2004, the fee was fixed as Rs.7,500/-, which was notadopted in toto by the companies and based on Inter CompanyCoordination Committee meeting dated 16.03.2005 of theChandigarh Regional Officers, fee was revised reducing fromRs.7,500/- to Rs.5,000/- for appeals filed by claimants against theMACT awards and Rs. 6,000/- for appeals filed on behalf ofcompanies against MACT, which was to be enforced w.e.f.01.04.2005. [Para 12][826-F-H; 827-A-C]

1.3 It is clear that in so far as the payment of fee as perCircular issued of 2009 and 2014 is concerned, there was no issue A

BC

DEF

G

H

Araised. The companies themselves in the reply had stated thatthey are adhering to the said circulars and there was no complainton behalf of the empanelled advocates regarding non-adherenceof Circulars of 2009 and 2014. The PIL was registered suo motoby the High Court in 2015. At the time of registration of the PILor when the order passed by the Single Judge, the fees scheduleBas enforced from circulars of 2009 and 2014 was very much invogue and being adhered to. At that point of time, there was nooccasion for the High Court to entertain the dispute as to whetherthe fee structure as enforced by GIPSA w.e.f. 01.11.2004 shouldhave been followed and advocates should have been paidCaccordingly or advocates were rightly paid the fee as per themodified decision dated 16.03.2005, which decision was taken inthe meeting of all the four insurance companies at regional level.The issue relating to non-payment of fee of empanelled advocatesas per Circular dated 01.11.2004 could not have been undertaken in the PIL, more so, when the same was replaced by subsequentDcirculars of 2009 and 2014, which circulars were adhered to bythe insurance companies. Adjudicating the said issue by the HighCourt was wholly uncalled for in the suo moto PIL, which cannotbe in any manner held to be affecting the case of the “poorlitigants”, which was the main reason for the Single Judge toEdirect for suo moto registration of PIL. [Para 13][827-E-H; 828-A-B]

1.4 The entertainment of the issue regarding payment offee as per circular dated 21.02.2005 by GIPSA or subsequentlymodified by proceeding dated 16.03.2005 wef 01.04.2005 oughtFnot to have been gone in the writ petition and directions by theSingle Judge is set aside. [Para 14][828-C-D]

1.5 The various issues relating to entertainability of thesuo moto Public Interest Litigation by the High Court, enforceableby circulars issued by GIPSA, the issue of payment of fee to theGempanelled advocates, are left open to be considered inappropriate case. The writ petition, which was entertained as aPublic Interest Litigation, the stand taken by the insurancecompanies that they are adhering with the fee structure enforcedfrom 2009 and 2014, which was not even objected by the counsel,appearing on behalf of the advocates, was sufficient enough toH

close the writ petition without entering into the issue pertainingto the earlier circular issued regarding fee structure w.e.f.01.11.2004. [Para 15][828-D-F]

1.6 The judgment of the High Court is modified in thefollowing manner:-

(i) The direction of High Court directing insurancecompanies to adhere to fees schedule issued by GIPSA dated21.02.2005 wef 01.11.2004 is set aside. However, it is made clearthat any payment of fee made as per said Circular dated 21.02.2005to be treated as final and not to be re-opened.

(ii) The insurance companies to adhere to the scheduleframed by GIPSA ie 01.01.2009 and 01.04.2014, and fee whereverpayable to be paid and balance wherever payable to be paid asadmitted by insurance companies themselves before the HighCourt.

(iii) The direction issued by the High Court regardingpayment of interest is set aside. [Para 16][828-G-H; 829-A-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5953of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2016 of the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 6626 of 2015.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 5955, 5954 and 5956 of 2018.

Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Mishra, Rajat Khatry,Ms.Rajyalakshmi K. and Vivek Kishore, Advs. for the Appellants.

Mr.Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Aniket Jain, Siddharth Jain andPardeep Goyel, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants, four insurance companies are aggrieved by thejudgment dated 09.12.2016 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court passedin a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition CWP No. 6626 of 2015,issuing certain directions regarding payment of fee to its empanelledadvocates.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A3. Brief facts of the case resulting into the judgment of the DivisionBench are:- A FAO No. 2604 of 2013 – Rajesh Vs. Parmod & Anr. was filedby an injured of a motor accident, claiming compensation. While hearingthe FAO, the learned Single Judge noticed that in spite of issue of noticeof motion, none had appeared on behalf of the insurance company, i.e.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Learned Single Judge in the aforesaidFAO passed an order for treating the issue as of vital public importanceand registering a separate writ petition in that regard. It is useful toextract the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge:- B

B

C“……………………………….26 Standing Counsel representingfour Insurance Companies (1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.;2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; 3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.and 4. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) appeared before the Courtand brought their plight to the notice of the Court of how theofficers and officials of these Companies were circumventing theDadministration of justice for their personal ends and gains. It hasbeen highlighted during the course of hearing that these GeneralInsurance Companies are for obvious reasons manipulating theguidelines/fee structures approved by GIPSA and under that undueexercise the Counsel were being not properly assisted and thus,Eintentionally causing delay in the disposal of these matters beforethe Court and invariably were causing loss to the exchequer ofthese Companies which mostly are public undertakings. It hasbeen highlighted with much emphasis how the fees and bills ofthe advocates, who had been representing the Companies in thematters, were not being paid since decades. This unholy nexusFand trend assumes greater importance as people in general, whorepose faith in promises of financial security made by theseCompanies in times of their sufferings and injury, were left highand dry. Thus, what was invented as a social welfare has becomea tool of exploitation in the hands of these officers of the CompaniesGwho are out and out also trying to harm the advocates who arethe officers of the Court. It has often been seen that the Counselwho do not tow the line are changed in between the hearings.Thus, the sufferings are increased manifold by the inordinateintentional delay of these Companies and lack of assistance totheir Counsel. Since these issues of vital public importance are C

D

E

G

H

being faced by almost all the Advocates present before the Courtfor these Insurance Companies, is an impediment and delayingprocess in the dispensation of justice.

Thus, this Court is pleased to treat this issue as a writ petition andrefer it to the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice for constituting anappropriate Bench to look into the matter so that much relief couldcome about to the poor litigants.”

The above reference made by learned Single Judge in the matterwas placed before a Division Bench treating it to be a Public InterestLitigation being CWP No. 6626 of 2015. The Division Bench issuednotice on 28.04.2015 to all four insurance companies, i.e., United IndiaInsurance Company Ltd., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New IndiaAssurance Co. Ltd. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Before the DivisionBench, all the four insurance companies (who are appellants before us)have filed a joint reply dated 01.09.2015 and further a joint reply forplacing on record the fees schedule dated 05.05.2016. Before the DivisionBench, Shri Akshay Bhan, learned senior counsel appearing for theadvocates, whose fee are due and payable by the four insurancecompanies submitted that the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. hascommitted to pay all the fee in terms of its affidavit and they are in theprocess of doing so. It was further submitted by the learned seniorcounsel appearing on behalf of the advocates before the High Court thatthe advocates representing the Insurance Companies were never apprisedof the Schedule relating to payment of fee to the advocates. DivisionBench of the High Court after hearing the learned senior counselappearing for the advocates as well as learned counsel appearing forthe insurance companies disposed of the writ petition in the followingmanner:-

“The petition is accordingly disposed of and the InsuranceCompanies shall adhere to the three schedules framed by GIPSAi.e. 01.11.2004, 01.01.2009 and 01.04.2014 and full fee whereverpayable shall be paid and balance wherever payable shall be paid.The necessary due payments should be made to all the advocatesto whom fee is due and payable as expeditiously as possible afternecessary verification and preferably by 30.06.2017 and in casethe same is not paid, the amount payable shall entail payment ofsimple interest at 7 per cent per annum from 01.07.2017 onwards A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Afrom 08.04.2015, when this Court issued notices to the InsuranceCompanies.

For the purpose of verification, the counsel shall give the ordersdisposing of the matters and list of cases.”

All the four insurance companies - the appellants have filedBseparate appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment of Division Benchdated 09.12.2016.

4. We have heard Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counselappearing for the appellants and Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned seniorcounsel appearing on behalf of some of the advocates, who wereCrepresented before the High Court by Shri Akshay Bhan, learned seniorcounsel.

5. Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellants submits that the High Court erred in suo moto invoking PublicInterest Litigation jurisdiction to entertain, adjudicate and determine theDdispute pertaining to payment of fee by a client to his/her advocate. ThePIL is initiated to ameliorate the condition of a class of persons whoseconstitutional or lawful rights are affected or not adequately looked into.The payment of professional fee by the insurance companies to theiradvocates is purely contractual matter between a client and his/herEadvocate, which ought not to have been gone in the proceeding beforethe High Court. The Public Interest Litigation does not mean settling ofdisputes between individual parties, i.e., advocates empanelled by thenational insurance companies and the insurance companies. The HighCourt held that the decision taken by GIPSA is binding on the memberinsurance companies, and the fees schedule decided by GIPSA couldFnot have been readjusted. GIPSA being an informal non-statutory bodyconsisting of representatives of national insurance companies has beenformed with the object to form and bring unanimity in their actions anddecisions. GIPSA is only a recommendatory body, whoserecommendations cannot be enforced in a Court of Law. The HighGCourt has issued direction with regard to mode and manner of paymentof fee to the empanelled advocates, which was uncalled for. It is submittedthat in the joint reply, all the four companies having stated that the feesschedule as issued by GIPSA in the year 2009 and 2014 is being followedby insurance companies, there was no occasion to proceed with thePublic Interest Litigation and issue any directions. The Schedule issued H

by GIPSA, which was to be enforced w.e.f. 01.11.2004 was consideredby Inter Company Coordination Committee’s Meeting dated 16.03.2005of the Chandigarh Regional Officers of all the four insurance companiesand the Schedule was revised, which was to be enforced w.e.f.01.04.2005. The advocates always accepted the fee as offered by theinsurance companies without raising any objection or protest at any pointof time. The Issue of non-payment of fee as per Schedule issued byGIPSA w.e.f. 01.11.2004 was not required to be gone into especiallywhen clear statement has been made by all the four companies thatSchedule as enforced by GIPSA vide circular dated 09.01.2009 w.e.f.01.01.2009 and Circular dated 18.03.2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 was beingadhered to.

6. Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing forsome of the advocates opposing the appeals submits that there was noerror in the High Court taking suo moto cognizance of the matter. It issubmitted that by taking suo moto cognizance, no constitutional orlegislative mandate has been violated. It is further submitted that thesubmission that writ jurisdiction is not exercisable in the present case asit was purely contractual dispute, is wholly untenable. Administrativedecision taken by the appellants affect the relationship between theappellants and empanelled advocates and any arbitrary exercise by theappellants was subject to jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226.The submission that decision taken by GIPSA are not binding on memberinsurance companies, is wholly misconceived. All insurance companies,i.e., the appellants voluntary bind themselves to follow the variousdecisions taken by GIPSA from time to time. The appellants, which is toadopt and implement the 2004, 2009 and 2014 GIPSA Fee Schedules,there was no occasion to modify the Schedule of 2004 by the appellantsby taking another decision dated 16.03.2005, by modifying the feesschedule as enforced by GIPSA, w.e.f. 01.11.2004. The High Court hasrightly quashed the decision of the appellants to reduce the fee fromRs.7,500/- to Rs.5,000/-. Direction to pay fee lumpsum and also to payfee in the matters before the High Court, which are settled in Mediations/Lok Adalats have also been rightly issued. Learned counsel for theparties have also relied on judgments of this Court, in support of theirrespective submissions.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the parties and have perused the records.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A8. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge ofthe High Court dated 12.09.2014 as extracted above indicates that learnedSingle Judge directed for suo moto registration of a Public InterestLitigation to look into the matter so that much relief could come about tothe poor litigants, the reason, which mainly impelled the learned SingleJudge to direct for registration of a Public Interest Litigation was a factumBof non-appearance of empanelled lawyers of the insurance companieswhen hearing of FAO No. 2604 of 2013 was fixed. The counselrepresenting the four insurance companies before the learned SingleJudge brought their plight to the notice of learned Single Judge. Fromthe order of learned Single Judge, following four reasons are decipherable,Cwhich impelled the learned Single Judge to direct for suo moto registrationof Public Interest Litigation:- “(i) ………….how the officers and officials of these Companieswere circumventing the administration of justice for their personalends and gains…………….

D(ii) ………….. these General Insurance Companies are forobvious reasons manipulating the guidelines/fee structuresapproved by GIPSA…………

(iii) …….. under that undue exercise the Counsel were being notproperly assisted and thus, intentionally causing delay in the disposalEof these matters before the Court…………….

(iv) ………….invariably were causing loss to the exchequer ofthese Companies which mostly are publicundertakings……………………….”

9. A perusal of the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab &FHaryana High Court indicates that although learned Single Judge hasnoticed above mentioned four reasons for directing for registration ofPublic Interest Litigation but when the matter was heard before theDivision Bench, the only issue which was taken note and gone into wasthe issue that “these general insurance companies are for obvious reasonsGmanipulating the guidelines/fee structure approved by the GIPSA”. Thus,the only issue, on which the parties were heard, was regarding theguidelines/fee structure approved by the GIPSA.

10. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has strenuously urgedbefore us that the issue pertaining to fee structure of the empanelledH

advocates, its alleged non-payment, and mode of payment are all theissues, which ought not to have been undertaken in the Public InterestLitigation. He submits that there was no occasion for registration of aPublic Interest Litigation and the order of the learned Single Judgedirecting for registration of Public Interest Litigation itself was notappropriate. The High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction underArticle 226 when an element of public law exists. When learned SingleJudge found that empanelled advocates are not appearing in the court,the learned Single Judge found that the said issue involved a public element,which ultimately affects the administration of justice and hence the learnedSingle Judge directed for registration of the Public Interest Litigation forthe reasons as noticed by the learned Single Judge in his order dated12.09.2014. We, at this stage, are not inclined to enter into the correctnessor otherwise of the order directing for registration of Public InterestLitigation. The judgment challenged before us is the Division Benchjudgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 09.12.2016, whichwas passed in the Public Interest Litigation disposing of the writ petition.We, thus, confine our discussions only to the said order, leaving the questionof registration of Public Interest Litigation open, in facts of the presentcase.

11. Insurance companies have filed a joint reply placing on recordthe fees schedule, copy of which joint reply dated 05.05.2016 is filed asAnnexure P-8. In the reply, it is useful to refer to Paragraph 1 to 6 ofthe reply, which is to the following effect:- “1. That the applicants have placed on record 3 fee schedules.That insofar as the fee schedules at Ann A-2 (2009) and A-3(2014) are concerned, the same as proposed by GIPSA have beenadopted in its entirety by the 4 Public General Insurance companiesand the fees are being raised by the respected lawyers and thepayments are being made in accordance with them. However incertain cases where the matters are referred to the Lok Adalatand the lawyer so assigned is not present to conduct theproceedings thereof and to assist the company, no further feesmay have been released to the assigned lawyers.

2. That in respect of the fees schedule annexed at Annexure it issubmitted that the same (like at A-2 and A-3), were proposedfees as suggested by GIPSA, however unlike the completeadoption of the proposed fee structures as suggested by GIPSA

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Ain the year 2009/2014, the fee schedule as suggested by GIPSAin 2005 was not adopted in toto by the companies and based on aICC (Inter Company Coordination Committee) meeting dated16.3.2015 of the Chandigarh Regional Officers of all the 4 publicsector insurance companies, held at the regional level Chandigarh,the revised fees schedule as discussed were made applicable.BThat there was increase in the existing fees schedule as wasprevalent, however the complete fees as suggested in the GIPSAschedule were not adopted.

3. That GIPSA is a non statutory body. That, in the year 2000 theinsurance sector was completely deregulated. That, after openingCof the insurance sector and &linking from the GIC GeneralInsurance Corporation of India, in the year 2000, the 4 state-run,general insurance companies namely National Insurance CompanyLtd, New India Assurance company limited, Oriental InsuranceCompany Ltd, and United India Insurance Company Ltd, startedDfunctioning independently.

4 That the said insurance companies formed an informalassociation known as the General Insurers’ (Public Sector)Association of India, with headquarters at Delhi.

5. GIPSA was set up simply as a forum for facilitating consultationsEand deliberations amongst its member companies on matters ofcommon interest mandated to it by them without having anyadministrative, supervisory, controlling or statutory authority overthe public sector insurance companies.

6. That the GIPSA is not a public authority and neither is theFsame statutory authority/body.”

12. The High Court in its judgment has noticed three schedules offee issued by GIPSA, they are: (i) Circular dated 21.02.2005 noticingthat GIPSA had approved the revised fees schedule of advocates/investigators w.e.f. 01.11.2004; (ii) Circular dated 09.01.2009 issued inGpursuance of approved and revised fees schedule by GIPSA w.e.f.01.01.2009; and (iii) Circular dated 18.03.2014 issued by GIPSAapproving the advocates/investigators fee w.e.f. 01.04.2014.

The High Court itself has noticed that there are no issues withregard to Circulars issued with regard to fee structure enforced from H

2009 and 2014. The High Court noticed that the only issue is with regardto Circular dated 21.02.2005 of GIPSA regarding the revised feesschedule of advocates/investigators w.e.f. 01.11.2004. It has come onthe record that w.e.f. 01.11.2004, the fee was fixed as Rs.7,500/-, whichwas not adopted in toto by the companies and based on Inter CompanyCoordination Committee meeting dated 16.03.2005 of the ChandigarhRegional Officers, fee was revised reducing from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.5,000/- for appeals filed by claimants against the MACT awards and Rs. 6,000/- for appeals filed on behalf of companies against MACT, which was tobe enforced w.e.f. 01.04.2005. The High Court has noticed the saidfact in Page 15 of the judgment. The High Court itself at Page 16noticed following:- “The dispute, therefore, that now survives is with respect to thefirst Circular that was issued and according to the advocates,they are liable to be paid Rs.7500/- for each case irrespective ofthe fact whether the appeal had been filed by the claimants or bythe companies; besides, there is no concept of half fee being paidat the time of filing the appeal and the balance fee at the time ofdisposal of the appeal even as per the Schedule of the InsuranceCompanies. Moreover, fee is also liable to be paid to the advocateswho put in appearances before the Lok Adalats/Mediation Centersas also in cases where notices are accepted on the asking of theCourt.”

13. From the above, it is clear that in so far as the payment of feeas per Circular issued of 2009 and 2014 is concerned, there was noissue raised. The companies themselves in the reply had stated thatthey are adhering to the said circulars and there was no complaint onbehalf of the empanelled advocates regarding non-adherence of Circularsof 2009 and 2014. The Public Interest Litigation was registered suomoto by the High Court in 2015. At the time of registration of the PublicInterest Litigation or when the order passed by the learned Single Judgeon 12.09.2014, the fees schedule as enforced from circulars of 2009 and2014 was very much in vogue and being adhered to. At that point oftime, there was no occasion for the High Court to entertain the disputeas to whether the fee structure as enforced by GIPSA w.e.f. 01.11.2004should have been followed and advocates should have been paidaccordingly or advocates were rightly paid the fee as per the modifieddecision dated 16.03.2005, which decision was taken in the meeting of AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Aall the four insurance companies at regional level. The issue relating tonon-payment of fee of empanelled advocates as per Circular dated01.11.2004 could not have been undertaken in the Public InterestLitigation, more so, when the same was replaced by subsequent circularsof 2009 and 2014, which circulars were adhered to by the insurancecompanies. Adjudicating the said issue by the High Court was whollyBuncalled for in the suo moto Public Interest Litigation, which cannot bein any manner held to be affecting the case of the “poor litigants”, whichwas the main reason for the learned Single Judge to direct for suo motoregistration of Public Interest Litigation.

14. We, thus, are of the view that entertainment of the issueCregarding payment of fee as per circular dated 21.02.2005 by GIPSA orsubsequently modified by proceeding dated 16.03.2005 w.e.f. 01.04.2005ought not to have been gone in the writ petition and directions by thelearned Single Judge in the above regard deserves to be set aside.

15. We may notice that although various issues relating toDentertainability of the suo moto Public Interest Litigation by the HighCourt, enforceable by circulars issued by GIPSA, the issue of paymentof fee to the empanelled advocates, has been raised before us. Learnedcounsel for the parties have also in support of their submissions relied onvarious judgments of this Court, but for the purpose of this case, weEneed not go into the above issues and we leave the said questions opento be considered in appropriate case. As we have observed above thatthe writ petition, which was entertained as a Public Interest Litigation,the stand taken by the insurance companies that they are adhering withthe fee structure enforced from 2009 and 2014, which was not evenobjected by the learned counsel, who was appearing on behalf of theFadvocates, was sufficient enough to close the writ petition withoutentering into the issue pertaining to the earlier circular issued regardingfee structure w.e.f. 01.11.2004. We have decided these appeals on itsown facts, which may not be referred to and relied as a precedent since,we have expressly left questions open.

G16. In result, the appeals are partly allowed and the judgment ofthe High Court dated 09.12.2016 is modified in the following manner:-

(i) The direction of High Court directing insurance companies toadhere to fees schedule issued by GIPSA dated 21.02.2005w.e.f. 01.11.2004 is set aside.H

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v.[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

We, however, make it clear that any payment of fee made asper said Circular dated 21.02.2005 shall be treated as final andnot to be re-opened.

A

(ii) The insurance companies shall adhere to the schedule framedby GIPSA, i.e. 01.01.2009 and 01.04.2014 and fee whereverpayable shall be paid and balance wherever payable shall beBpaid as admitted by insurance companies themselves beforethe High Court.

(iii) The direction issued by the High Court regarding payment ofinterest is set aside.

C

Nidhi Jain

Appeals partly allowed.

D

E

F

G

H