‘Bar association secretary hid links with contractors’
Shillong, Nov 1: The battle between a section of lawyers and Advocate General Amit Kumar has continued with the latter claiming to have saved the state of over Rs 1,500-crore claims from contractors while denying allegations against him.
A day after facing allegations of overcharging for his appearances, Kumar on Saturday accused High Court Bar Association secretary general Kishore Ch Gautam of suppressing his own appearance as counsel for the same contractors.
On the other hand, Kumar said, he had helped the government defeat the contractors’ claims of Rs 1,588 crore.
The Advocate General termed “incorrect and false” allegations that he charged Rs 1.5 lakh per appearance in Commercial Court against Rs 20,000 schedule and misled the public.
He cited a 2018 document “relied upon by Gautam” itself excludes such arbitrations and says fee for uncovered work shall be mutually decided.
He said the three arbitrations involving NH-44 Shillong-Nongstoin and Nongstoin-Rongjeng-Tura road, ADB-funded Garobadha-Dalu road, and MUDA Complex in Police Bazaar, were not ordinary cases.
The cost of NH-44 Shillong-Nongstoin and Nongstoin-Rongjeng-Tura road escalated to Rs 2,406 crore. There were 16 volumes, 11,000 pages, 80 hearings before Tribunal, Commercial Court, High Court and Supreme Court, he stated.
“Claims of about Rs 1,588 crore would have become Rs 1,788 crore with interest as on October 31, 2026. Any shortcoming would have caused huge loss to the public exchequer,” Kumar said.
He said he also justified the fee schedule to authorities concerned citing voluminous records and that he was engaged in 2020 at Rs 2.5 lakh per appearance in similar arbitrations.
He said he was defending State’s challenge to the interim award dated July 27, 2021 directing payment of Rs 75 crore, stayed on October 29, 2021, and Commercial Court is extension of arbitration.
The AG said tribunals rejected Rs 1,470 crore claims and awarded Rs 13 crore to State.
He said contractors engaged top senior advocates from outside, one of them U Hazarika claiming Rs 2.37 crore unpaid fee before Commercial Court.
“Can a contractor claiming public money engage best counsel but the State defending hundreds of crores cannot? That cannot be standard,” he remarked.
He also pointed out that Gautam was the counsel for the same contractors in those cases.
“He should have fairly informed the press of his personal involvement,” Kumar said.
He said CMJ University case Special public prosecutors are paid Rs 1 lakh and Rs 75,000 per appearance – over Rs 2 lakh per day in magistrate court with no monetary stake – not questioned by Gautam.
