Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 401 (PNJ)

Ramnik Gupta v. U. T. Administration, Chandigarh

2002-04-11

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, V.K.BALI

body2002
Judgment V.K.BALI, J. 1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of these 6 connected writ petitions, bearing Nos. 6082, 6154, 6607, 7001, 7024 and 7610 of 2001, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these matters. Learned counsel representing the parties also suggest likewise. The bare minimum facts that, however, need necessary mention, have been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 6082 of 2001, Ramnik Gupta and another V/s. U.T. Administration, Chandigarh. 2. Petitioners herein, Ramnik Gupta and Vaneesh Khanna, who are Advocates practising in District Courts at Chandigarh, through present petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the order passed by the respondent-UT Administration, dated 9-4-2001 and yet another order dated 20-4-2001. In consequence of setting aside the orders aforesaid, they further pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from forcing them to induct a new Advocate in their chamber. 3. The reliefs as asked for in the present petition emanate from the facts as projected in the petition that Ist petitioner Ramnik Gupta after passing his Law started his practice in the year 1983, whereas IInd petitioner Vaneesh Khanna started practising in the year 1985. In the year 1985, chambers in District Courts, Chandigarh, were offered for allotment to the Advocates practising in District Courts, Chandigarh. The allotment was restricted to those who were members of the District Bar Association, Chandigarh. In response to this, both the petitioners applied for allotment of chamber. Since the availability of chambers was less commensurate to the members of the Bar, it was decided that minimum two Advocates would be accommodated in one chamber. Both the petitioners were allotted Chamber No. 115 at First floor. Father of IInd petitioner, namely, Surat Chand Khanna, Joined practice after retiring from this Court as Assistant Registrar on 31-12-1989. Initially, Shri Surat Chand Khanna started practice in the High Court but somewhere in the year 1993/94, he joined his son and started active practice at District Courts, Chandigarh and since then he is member of District Bar Association, Chandigarh and is practising with his son Vaneesh Khanna. In the manner aforesaid, there are already three lawyers occupying Chamber No. 115, District Courts, Chandigarh. In the manner aforesaid, there are already three lawyers occupying Chamber No. 115, District Courts, Chandigarh. In the year 1997, District Bar Association, Chandigarh, moved a proposal, consequent upon which applications were invited from the lawyers, who were aspiring to have chambers and they were asked to deposit Rs. 1,000.00 along with their applications. Some of the members of the Bar applied for allotment of chamber and after preparation of the list, their names and the money so collected from them were sent to the UT Administration. Ist petitioner received a letter from the respondent calling upon him to adjust one more lawyer in the chamber already allotted to him. The petitioners replied to the letter aforesaid wherein they mentioned that there was no slot available in the chamber and the Administration could not force upon them any new Advocate. In the alternative, it was mentioned that Shri Surat Chand Khanna is already practising from the chamber allotted to them, being father of IInd petitioner, the original allottee and even if an additional Advocate was to be accommodated, name of Shri Surat chand Khanna was proposed to be added. It was also mentioned in the reply that Shri surat Chand Khanna did not apply for the chamber in the year 1997 because at that time he was not interested in having any additional chamber. Chandigarh Administration replied the aforesaid letter vide its letter dated 9-4-2001 wherein it was mentioned that an Advocate had to be adjusted from the eligible applicants and the names of the Advocates, who did not figure in the list of 299 eligible candidates cannot be considered. Petitioners then made representation to the Deputy Commissioner but without any result. The petitioners then received yet another letter from the respondent-Administration dated 20-4-2001 wherein the petitioners were called upon to give their choice by 26-4-2001 positively, failing which the vacant slot in the chamber would be filled in by draw of lots. Date for draw of lots was fixed as 30-4-2001. 4. On the facts, as stated above, primary and in fact the only contention raised by Mr. Date for draw of lots was fixed as 30-4-2001. 4. On the facts, as stated above, primary and in fact the only contention raised by Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that the respondent Chandigarh Administration could not force upon the petitioners an additional advocate against their will and choice, particularly when in the original allotment letter issued way back in the year 1986 there was no condition that any additional member can be forced upon the existing allottees, particularly when the average size of the chamber is 8 x 14 feet approximately and two lawyers with their juniors and staff can hardly be accommodated therein. It is also the contention of learned counsel that if at all additional member is to be foisted upon the petitioners, there cannot be a better choice than the father of IInd petitioner, who is already practising in the District courts, Chandigarh, from the last about 7 years or so. 5. In response to the notice that was issued by this court, respondent-Administration has entered defence and seriously opposed the cause of the petitioners. In the written statement that has been filed on behalf of the respondent through Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, it has, inter-alia, been pleaded that in the year 1986, chambers allotted to the advocates practising in the District Courts, Chandigarh, were 108. There was a provision of three slots in one chamber. It was specifically stated in the notice dated 21-11-1985 (Annexure R-1) inviting applications that insofar as possible, applications should be submitted in a group of three practising members. It was so decided by the committee consisting of representatives of District Judge, Executive Magistrate, Tehsildar (R). Assistant, Estate Officer, President and Secretary, District Bar Association. 6. Some lawyers approached this court for filling up vacancies existing in the Lawyers Chambers Complex for removing the tables causing obstructions in the passage by way Civil Writ Petition bearing Nos. 4214 and 2001 of 1997. This Court directed the District Administration to allot the vacant chambers in the District Courts Complex, Chandigarh, within a period of six months. Pursuant to the directions so given by this Court, as mentioned above, the status pertaining to the vacancies available in the lawyers chambers situated in the District Courts Complex has been ascertained. 4214 and 2001 of 1997. This Court directed the District Administration to allot the vacant chambers in the District Courts Complex, Chandigarh, within a period of six months. Pursuant to the directions so given by this Court, as mentioned above, the status pertaining to the vacancies available in the lawyers chambers situated in the District Courts Complex has been ascertained. In this exercise, representatives of district Judge, District Bar Association besides the officers of the Deputy Commissioner and Estate Officers offices have been associated for carrying out a survey. On the basis of the situation that emerged out of the above mentioned survey, the President, District Bar Association was requested to give a resolution acceptable to all the members of the Bar for allotment/re-allotment of vacant slots /chambers in the District Lawyers Chambers Complex. Same was, however, not supplied despite lapse of considerable period of time. A contempt Petition No. 158 of 1999 was filed in the meantime against non-implementation of the order of this court, referred to above. Thereafter, a detailed procedure for allotment of vacant chambers was evolved in consultation of District Judge. This method of allotment was informed to this Court. This Court required the answering respondent to proceed with the allotment of vacant chambers. Copies of the affidavit and orders of this Court in COCP No. 158 of 1999 have been annexed as Annexure R-2 and R-3 to the written statement. A committee consisting of Additional District Judge-I, Sub Divisional Magistrate (C), Assistant Estate Officer and President and Secretary of the District Bar Association had been constituted to take stock of and resolve all the pertinent issues that have been agitated from time to time. Allotment of chambers was being done strictly in accordance with the procedure /methodology mentioned in the affidavit filed before this Court. A notice for inviting applications to fill up the vacant chambers/slots in the District Lawyers Chambers Complex was issued to all concerned. Applications were invited before 15-12-1998 through the District Bar Association. A list of Advocates, who applied by the cutoff date, i.e., 15-12-1998 was prepared. 145 slots have been allotted to the eligible Advocates by way of draw of lots and 117 by obtaining consent from the principal /Ist/IInd co-allottees. Applications were invited before 15-12-1998 through the District Bar Association. A list of Advocates, who applied by the cutoff date, i.e., 15-12-1998 was prepared. 145 slots have been allotted to the eligible Advocates by way of draw of lots and 117 by obtaining consent from the principal /Ist/IInd co-allottees. It has further been pleaded that 312 Advocates had applied for the allotment/re-allotment of vacant slots in District Lawyers, chambers Complex by cutoff date, i.e, 15-12-1998 and Shri Surat Chand Khanna, father of IInd petitioner, did not apply in response to the notice aforesaid. Insofar as chamber allotted to the petitioners is concerned, it is the case of the Administration that when 108 chambers were initially allotted in the year 1986, there was a provision made for three slots in each chamber. However, in 58 chambers, one slot in each chamber was not filled. Chamber No. 115, the one allotted to the petitioners, was such a chamber. The principal allottee, i.e., the petitioners were asked to give their consent to fill up the vacant slot from the eligible list. As per Clauses 9, 10, 11, 13 and 24 of the original allotment letter, the allottees are not authorised to fill up the vacant slots at their own level. It is also the case of the respondent-Administration that only Advocates, who applied along with the requisite amount of Rs.1,000.00 by the cut- off date, i.e., 15-12-1998, were considered for allotment /re-allotment in accordance with methodology adopted. 7. In the wake of the detailed facts given in the written statement, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-Administration cannot be said to have considered the matter of allotment of chambers to the lawyers in a manner which may be faulted on any count whatsoever. The methodology of allotment of chambers and in particular the vacant slots came about pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Civil Writ Petitions, referred to above, and in consultation of the District Judge, President and Secretary of District Bar Association and other important functionaries. Once the chambers are far less commensurate to the number of lawyers, a decision to allot one chamber to three Advocates became the need of the hour. This was so even at the time when chamber No.115 was initially allotted to the petitioners. Plea of the petitioners that three lawyers cannot be accommodated in one chamber has necessarily to fail. Once the chambers are far less commensurate to the number of lawyers, a decision to allot one chamber to three Advocates became the need of the hour. This was so even at the time when chamber No.115 was initially allotted to the petitioners. Plea of the petitioners that three lawyers cannot be accommodated in one chamber has necessarily to fail. In the policy that came to be framed for allotting the vacant slots, a cut-off date was provided and the consent of those, who were already occupying the chambers, was asked for. If father of IInd petitioner did not even apply for allotment of vacant slot in the chamber of his son by the cut-off date, he has to blame himself only for the same, as, surely, if he was to apply before the cut- off date, to which the petitioners would have certainly consented, there was no manner of doubt that he would have been allotted the vacant slot. The petitioners and father of IInd petitioner became wiser only after the event and that too it appears on account of father of IInd petitioner shifting his practice from High Court to the District Courts. Be that as it may, if a cut-off date is to be changed at the sweet will of the petitioners or any of the allottees of the chambers, it will create complete chaos and no finality with regard to allotment of chambers would ever be reached. The squabbles between the lawyers would become a common feature. Further, once a policy has been drawn, which contains no defects whatsoever and which has come into being with the consultation of all concerned, like District Judge, President and Secretary of District Bar Association and other functionaries, the petitioners cannot crave indulgence of this Court to do away with such a policy only because father of IInd petitioner desires to be accommodated in the said chamber instead of somebody else. If the petitioners did not consent to any lawyer to be accommodated in their chamber and a vacant slot in the chamber has necessarily to be allotted, the petitioners shall have to accept a lawyer, who might now come in the chamber by draw of lots. If the petitioners did not consent to any lawyer to be accommodated in their chamber and a vacant slot in the chamber has necessarily to be allotted, the petitioners shall have to accept a lawyer, who might now come in the chamber by draw of lots. It is significant to mention here that 145 vacant slots have since been allotted to the eligible Advocates by way of draw of lots and 117 have been allotted by obtaining consent from the principal /Ist/IInd co-allottees. There is no dispute pertaining to the vacant slots, which came to be occupied by way of consent of the original allottees. Even from amongst those, who did not give consent, there is no dispute but for in the present 6 cases. 8. In the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we can only observe that instead of fighting over small issue as the one-in hand, the petitioners should rather try to accommodate the one, who might come to their chamber as a comrade, who too, in all probability must be in dire need of the chamber. 9. Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.