The MCD has 75 lawyers on its panel. Out of these, 50 represent the civic body in the district courts and the rest take up cases in the High Court and Supreme Court. The panel was constituted in 1995 and officials admit that nepotism and not legal expertise was the basis on which the panel was constituted.

``We have listed specific qualifications that are required for a lawyer, if he has to be considered for a place on the panel. But most of our lawyers do not have the relevant experience required,'' said a senior official.

He further pointed out: ``It is not our fees, but the stamp of being a `corporation lawyer' that they want against their name. Everyone wants to be on our panel as this gets them fat fees and better cases outside. We pay Rs 350 for a case in district court, Rs 750 for a case in High Court and Rs 1,000 for representing us in the Supreme Court. This is a one-time payment and nothing more is paid whether the case is finished off in one hearing or drags on for years,'' said a senior MCD official.

Admitting that they lose most of the cases, Prakash Chandra, Additional Commissioner (Law and Education) said that more than the lawyers, it was the department that was responsible for their miserable record. ``Since we follow the system of constituting a panel and do not appoint the lawyers on a premanent basis, our lawyers are free to fight outside cases. Moreover, we pay them so poorly that none of them pay any attention to our cases, they are more interested in representing those people who pay them more,'' Chandra candidly admitted.

Agreeing to this, P.S. Hiteshi, chairman, Law Committee, said: ``Neither the lawyers nor the department concerned cares about the case. In fact, there have been several instances when the staff of the department concerned take bribes from the other party and give them all the important documents. On several occasions, we have found that no one from the department concerned bothers to even attend the hearing.''

Chandra also said that neither the legal panel nor the department concerned maintains any record of the case. ``We never really find out why we lost a case since we do not bother to keep any records. In fact, many a time, the department concerned does not even know which lawyer is representing them.''

Both Chandra and Hiteshi say, however, that by installing a computer in the legal department, they were hoping to reverse this trend. They pointed out that computerisation was the only way out and unless they computerise the legal department and maintain records, they would keep on losing like good sportsmen.