Delhi High Court
Ravinder Dabas And Ors vs The Registrar, High Court Of Delhi ... on 16 April, 2014
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1626/2014 & CM 3389/2014
RAVINDER DABAS AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate
with Ms. P.R. Mala, Mr. Pranav Diesh
and Mr. Karan Kalia, Advocates with
petitioners in person.
versus
THE REGISTRAR,
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yogesh Saini and Mr. Kartik Jindal,
Advocates for Mr. V.K. Tandon,
Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 4
Reserved on : 13th March, 2014
% Date of Decision : 16th April, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(a) Quash the Speaking Orders dated 19.02.2014 and Final
List dated 28/11/2013.
(b) direct an enquiry to be held by the Registrar or any other
authority deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court to
ascertain the basis on which the allotments have been
made.
(c) order the entire record of allotments to be seized
forthwith and kept in safe custody so that no further
fabrication of record can take place.
(d) stay operation of the final list of eligible applicants dated
29.11.2013 in Annexure-P-6.
(e) pass any other further order as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners being twenty-one
in number are aggrieved by the Speaking Orders dated 19th February, 2014
and Final List dated 28th November, 2013 by virtue of which their
applications for allotment of chambers in Rohini Court Complex had been
rejected.
3. The reason given in the impugned order for rejecting the applications
of petitioners was that the petitioners were not 'primarily practicing' in
Rohini Court Complex.
4. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for petitioners submitted
that since the petitioners had fulfilled the criteria of ten cases and fifty
appearances as mentioned in the application form, they should all have been
allotted a chamber.
5. Mr. Ram Jethmalani further submitted that the word 'primarily' means
'principally', it does not mean exclusively. He further stated that the
selection committee had 'no business' to adopt the 'primarily practicing'
criterion.
6. This Court in a similar case on the same cause of action has upheld
the criterion of 'primarily practicing in Rohini Courts' adopted by the
respondents. The relevant portion of the judgment in W.P.(C) 1131/2014
Yash Pal Sapra vs. Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee Rohini Court
Complex and Anr. is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"7. In order to truly appreciate the issue at hand, Rule 11(b) of
Rohini District Courts Lawyers Chamber (Allotment and Occupancy)
Rules, 2011 has to be analysed. It reads as under:-
11) The advocates fulfilling all of the following conditions shall
be eligible for consideration for allotment of chambers:-
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
b) The advocate must be primarily practicing at the Rohini
Court Complex and should be permanent resident of National
Capital Territory of Delhi.
(emphasis supplied)
8. The relevant portion of the Form for allotment of chamber
reads as under:-
"18.(i) Please submit details of 50 courts appearances during the
period w.e.f. 02.01.2006 till 28.02.2013 (Except Retd. Judicial
Officers)
(ii) Please submit details of at least ten cases/proceedings in
which you have filed the vakalatnama as main counsel in any
courts at Rohini Courts till 28.02.2013.
(Except Retd. Judicial Officers)
Sl. Particulars of cases Appeared Last Next date
No. and court for Date
(emphasis supplied)
9. The word 'primarily' means 'principally'. In the opinion
of this Court, in the present context, it means 'predominantly' as
opposed to occasionally.
10. Filing of vakalatnama in ten cases and fifty appearances
at Rohini Court prescribes the minimum benchmark for
determining whether an advocate is primarily practicing in
Rohini Courts. The said criterion cannot be the sole eligibility
criterion. After all, an advocate could have filed vakalatanama
in ten cases and appeared in fifty cases in all the district courts
of Delhi. But this would not mean that he is primarily
practicing in all the district courts. In the opinion of this Court,
under the aforesaid rule, one has to determine the court where
an advocate's practice is concentrated.
11. This Court is also of the view that the term 'primarily
practicing' in Rohini Courts cannot and should not be
interpreted in a narrow sense as has been suggested by the
petitioner. Consequently, the condition in the application form
is not the sole and exclusive criterion to determine whether one
is primary practicing in Rohini Courts. The form lays down the
minimalistic and not exhaustive test.
12. This Court is further of the view that the criterion of
'primarily practicing in Rohini Courts' adopted by respondent
No.1 is founded on an intelligible differentia which has a
rationale relation to the object sought to be achieved. The
respondent No.1 is well within its powers to decide the
yardsticks to be adopted in processing an application for
allotment of chambers at Rohini Courts Complex."
7. Consequently, the aforesaid legal submission is devoid of merit.
8. However, a careful perusal of the paper book reveals that an
additional ground has been raised in this petition. The petitioners in this case
allege that the Committee did not define the term 'Primary Practicing at
Rohini Court' earlier but for the first time the Committee has relied upon the
term to benefit and protect a few undeserving candidates. It is contended
that allotments were initially made on the basis of fifty appearances and ten
vakalatanamas only. The committee was therefore estopped from adopting a
different test at a later stage.
9. In the petition, it is further stated that the Committee cannot adopt two
different yardsticks, one for those who have already been allotted Chambers
and another for those who have arbitrarily been declared ineligible on the
basis of this impugned criteria.
10. In view of aforesaid, issue limited notice on the additional ground.
Mr. V.K. Tandon, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents
No.2 and 4. He prays for and is granted four weeks to file a counter
affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
List on 19th August, 2014.
MANMOHAN, J
APRIL 16, 2014
js
