Delhi High Court
Yash Pal Sapra vs Lawyers Chambers Allotment ... on 24 March, 2014
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1131/2014
YASH PAL SAPRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mahipal Singh Rajput, Advocate
with petitioner in person.
versus
LAWYERS CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE
ROHINI COURT COMPLEX AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Reserved on : 17th February, 2014
% Date of Decision : 24th March, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
CM Appl. 2355/2014 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 1131/2014
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1131/2014 & CM Appls. 2354 & 2356/2014
1. Present writ petition has been filed primarily challenging the order
dated 22nd January, 2014 passed by respondent No.1- Lawyers Chambers
Allotment Committee as well as praying for allotment of a chamber at
Rohini Courts complex. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated
22nd January, 2014 reads as under:-
"A further perusal of the legal diaries, copies whereof have
been filed by the applicant has not filed the entire legal diaries
but has only filed copies of certain pages of the diary of a
year.......... In the year 2008 also the diary filed is piecemeal.
The diary of the year 2009 is also a part diary and only some
pages have been xeroxed. The applicant has, however,
underlined or encircled the cases of Rohini Court Complex.
Straightway coming to the diary for the year 2013, this is also
piecemeal and certain pages only have been filed. The pages of
the diary are till the month of February, 2013 only. The non-
filing of the complete diary and the admission made in the
objections as extracted (supra) particular the number of cases
at Rohini Court and after perusing the documentary evidence
filed by the applicant till date, the Committee is of the opinion
that the applicant is not regularly and primarily practicing at
Rohini Courts. As such, his representation is not acceded to.
The applicant be informed accordingly."
2. Mr. Mahipal Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner stated
that even though the petitioner fulfilled the criteria of ten cases and fifty
appearances at Rohini Courts, he had not been allotted a chamber. He
submitted that since the petitioner fulfilled the requirements as mentioned in
the application form, he should have been allotted a chamber.
3. According to Mr. Rajput, respondents are estopped from applying a
different test or adopting a different criterion. He also stated that respondent
No.1 could not prescribe its own unspecific and extraneous consideration to
define the word 'primarily practicing'.
4. Mr. Rajput also relied upon a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)
5231/2012 Krishan Dutt Sharma vs. Saket District Court Lawyers
Chambers Allotment Committee and Ors. wherein it has been held as
under:-
"9. Undoubtedly, an advocate who does chamber practice is
also practicing the profession of law, but the expression
„practicing advocate‟ in Rule 4(a) of Rules, 2010 has to be
interpreted in the context of the allotment of chambers. In my
view, the conditions stipulated in para 19 of the Form gives a
purposive and contextual meaning to the expression "primarily
practicing at Patiala House Courts Complex". The intent of
Rule 4(a) of the Rules, 2010, is to allot chambers to those
advocates who appear before the Saket Courts and not to those
who do chamber practice like the petitioner. This Court also
takes judicial notice of the fact that enough chambers are not
available at Saket Courts to accommodate all the lawyers who
desire to have a chamber."
5. Mr. Rajput submitted that the petitioner had regularly been practicing
in Rohini Courts and was also permanently residing at Mukherjee Nagar,
New Delhi, which falls within the jurisdiction of Rohini Courts.
6. He lastly submitted that the petitioner had no chamber in any Court
Complex in Delhi and had not been allotted any chamber since the day he
was enrolled with the Delhi Bar Council.
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
No. and court for Date 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.
13. Further, reliance by the petitioner on Krishan Dutt Sharma (supra) is
completely misplaced. The judgment in the aforesaid case was given in the
context of an advocate who did chamber practice and did not appear in
courts. The Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Delhi-II, (2004) 8 SCC 335 and State of Orissa vs. Mohd. Illiyas,
(2006) 1 SCC 275 has held that judgments must not be read like a statute but
must be considered in a holistic manner and in relation to the facts and
circumstances of that particular case. A decision is only an authority for
what it actually decides. The relevant portions of the aforesaid judgments
are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A. Escorts Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II
"8. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without
discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the
fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.
Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's
theorems nor as provisions of a statute and that too taken
out of their context. These observations must be read in the
context in which they appear to have been stated.
Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To
interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may
become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy
discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not
to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret
judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words
are not to be interpreted as statutes."
B. State of Orissa vs. Mohd. Illiyas,
"12. ........................... A case is a precedent and binding
for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used
by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they
are words in an Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem
[1901 AC 495 : 85 LT 289 : (1900-03) All ER Rep 1 (HL)]
the Earl of Halsbury, L.C. observed that every judgment
must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or
assumed to be proved, since the generality of the
expressions which are found there are not intended to be
the exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified
by the particular facts of the case in which such
expressions are found and a case is only an authority for
what it actually decides."
14. One must also not forget that in the present case it is a Committee
comprising bar and the bench members that has determined whether an
advocate is primarily practicing in a particular court or not. On a perusal of
the impugned order, it is apparent that the said Committee was of the
unanimous opinion that petitioner was not 'primarily practicing at Rohini
Courts.'
15. From the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2014, it is apparent that
one of the reasons for rejecting the representation of the petitioner was non-
filing of his complete diary. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had
also refused to produce his diary before this Court.
16. Consequently, the finding of the respondent No.1-Committee
warrants no interference in writ proceedings. It can only be rebutted by the
petitioner by leading evidence in a civil Court. Thus, the legal submission
of the petitioner is untenable in law.
17. However, whether the petitioner is primarily practicing in Rohini
Courts or not is a question of fact. The petitioner is given liberty to
challenge the factual finding of the respondent No.1-Committee by filing a
civil suit.
18. With the aforesaid liberty, present petition and application stand
disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
MARCH 24, 2014
js
