Allowed

Bhagat Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Apr 2025CWP/6/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment adjudicates writ petitions filed by advocates challenging an order restricting them from working as deed writers in Revenue Complex premises without prior Collector permission. The Court held that advocates are not governed by the Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1961, and need no license or permission to draft documents or work in revenue compounds, directing the setting aside of t

What did the court decide?

The impugned administrative order dated 27.12.2024 was set aside. Directions were issued to allot chambers to advocate-deed writers in the Mini Secretariat campus and constitute a transparent committe

Bhagat Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

108 (I) CWP-6-2025 Date of Decision : April 28, 2025

¶5

BHAGAT SINGH -PETITIONER

¶6

V/S

¶7

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

¶8

(II) CWP-1273-2025

¶9

AJAY KUMAR -PETITIONER

¶10

V/S

¶11

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

¶12

(III) CWP-252-2025

¶13

JAIDEEP -PETITIONER

¶14

V/S

¶15

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

¶16

(IV) CWP-472-2025

¶17

AAKASH AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS

¶18

V/S

¶19

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

¶20

(V) CWP-658-2025

¶21

NEER AHLAWAT -PETITIONER

¶22

V/S

¶23

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

¶24

(VI) CWP-438-2025

¶25

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶26

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases 2 DINESH KUMAR -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA, -RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (VII) CWP-1100-2025 DARSHAN KUMAR -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -RESPONDENT (VIII)CWP-1964-2025 SUSHIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA, -RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (IX) CWP-3001-2025 YASHPAL SINGH DAHIYA -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS (X) CWP-3530-2025 SANDEEP VERMA -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Mukul Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-1273-2025, CWP-472-2025 and CWP-3530-2025).

¶27

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶28

¶29

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶30

Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-3001-2025).

¶31

Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in remaining writ petitions).

¶32

Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶33

Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.4- Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana.

¶34

¶35

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶36

The petitioners, in all these writ petitions, are Advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, and, also are members of the District Bar Association, Sonepat. The primary occupation of the petitioners is drafting of sale deeds, adoption deeds, wills and certificate of sales etc. and for this purpose, they have installed their kiosks/tin sheds within the Revenue Complex, Sonepat and they have been working there for the last many years.

¶37

All these writ petitions encompass an identical challenge to an administrative order, which resultantly engenders the amenability thereof for being decided through a common verdict. For the sake of brevity, the relief(s) yearned to be reaped through institution of CWP-62025 is being extracted hereinafter.

¶38

The prayer embodied in CWP-6-2025 appertains to setting aside of the order dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby, the respondent No.3- Joint Sub Registrar and Tehsildar, Sonepat, has issued the following directions:-

¶39

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶40

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases 4

¶41

(a) Only government approved booths/stalls of size 6x8 can be set up in the Tehsil premises by the authorized deed writers and concerned advocates;

¶42

(b) Only those deed writers, who have obtained permission from the Collector, Sonepat, are allowed to work in the Tehsil premises;

¶43

(c) It is mandatory for the deed writers to display the Collector’s permission letter at their workplace;

¶44

(d) The deed writers must display the fee charged in the documents drafted by them, as per the Haryana Government’s notification dated 12.08.2015.

¶45

The hereinabove extracted directions, as enclosed in the impugned administrative order, caused pain to the petitioners and propelled them to institute thereagainst the instant writ petition, mainly on the ground that, they are enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, under The Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Advocates Act’), hence they are not required to obtain prior permission from any other authority to draft documents (work as deed writers) in the Tehsil/Revenue premises. The directions enclosed in the impugned order are absolutely against the provisions of the Advocates Act, therefore, the same are required to be struck down.

¶46

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS

¶47

By referring to the mandate enclosed in the Advocates Act,

¶48

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶49

¶50

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶51

the learned counsels for the petitioners submit that, the provisions of the Punjab Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1961’) are not applicable on the petitioners, on account of theirs being enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, under the Advocates Act.

¶52

It is further submitted that, the Joint Sub Registrar has, through his drawing the impugned administrative order, made an endeavour to restrict the advocates to work as deed writers until and unless they obtain prior permission from the Collector. This is, in fact, an endeavour to create a parallel statutory authority to that of the Bar Council(s), which only can license and control advocates in the respective States.

¶53

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

¶54

Per contra , the learned State counsel, who is assisted by Mr. Ziwender Singh, Tehsildar-cum-Joint Sub Registrar, Sonepat, has made vociferous attempt to defend the validity of the impugned order. He submits that, the impugned order passes the test of legality on the anvil of the Registration Act and the Rules of 1961, inasmuch as, the Rules of 1961 require any person, who wants to write documents on hire, to take licence from the authority concerned. The impugned order has been passed in order to create discipline and transparency in the working of deed writers and of advocates, who are working as deed writers, so that the elements of fabrication and opaqueness can be eradicated.

¶55

Furthermore, the learned State counsel places reliance upon

¶56

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶57

¶58

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶59

the order dated 15.02.2024, passed in CWP-25417-2017, titled as “Kanhiya Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.”, to submit that, thereby the Division Bench of this Court has issued specific directions upon the supervising authority concerned to maintain a continuous vigil and to ensure that no unqualified architects or draftsman make occupations either of the Collectorates’ complexes, the Sub Divisional complexes or of the Tehsil complexes. Moreover, directions have also been issued upon the Additional Chief Secretary Revenue, Government of Haryana, to gather inputs on a quarterly basis and submit the same, on affidavit, before this Court. The impugned administrative order has been passed in view of the directions (supra), hence it does not require any interference, rather directions are required to be passed upon the petitioners/advocates to apply to the Collector for permission to work within the Tehsil/Revenue complex, Sonepat.

¶60

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

¶61

During the course of hearing of the present matter, this Court observed that, the petitioner, who are advocates and are governed by the Advocates Act, cannot be put under the control of any government authority. Therefore, for apt adjudication of the present matter, this Court, vide order dated 24.03.2025, impleaded the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, through its Secretary, as respondent No.4. The relevant extract of the order dated 24.03.2025 is reproduced hereunder:-

¶62

“In the order (supra), it has been clearly observed by this Court that all the advocates are governed by the Advocates Act,

¶63

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶64

¶65

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶66

1961, which prescribes complete procedure to monitor their conduct, and there is no role for the government or any authority to require the advocates, even who are working as deed writers, to have any prior permission from the authority constituted under the Registration Act 1908. Despite that, instead of making compliance to the directions issued by this Court to facilitate the advocates with a proper place to work as a deed writers in the revenue compound Sonipat, today, a reply/proposal by way of an affidavit of Sh.Ziwender Singh, Tehsildar-cum-Joint Sub Registrar, Sonipat, has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 to 3, with a copy thereof supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners. The same is ordered to be taken on record.

¶67

In paragraph no.4 of the reply/proposal (supra), the authority concerned, submitted that if the advocates want to work as a deed writers in the Tehsil/Sub-Registrar Campus, Sonipat, they have to seek prior permission from the competent authority as revenue compound is a government property and use of this compound requires official permission. Meaning thereby, the authority concerned, is still insisting upon the advocates to have permission from the authority, to work as a deed writer in the said revenue compound.

¶68

The reply (supra), does not speaks that how any authority, (though the name of the authority is not mentioned therein) can authorise the advocates to work as deed writers in the revenue compound, and how come advocates who are working in the court and the revenue court require permission of any authority other than Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.

¶69

The aforesaid issue requires consideration, therefore, this Court on the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioners impleads the Secretary, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in the array of respondent no.4.

¶70

Let notice of motion be issued to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (respondent no.4), directing them to file a reply, detailing therein, as to whether, the advocates who

¶71

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶72

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶73

¶74

are performing the work of deed writers, are required to take prior permission from any District Authority/Revenue Authority to work as deed writers.”

¶75

COMMON ISSUES ARISING FOR ADJUDICATION IN THESE

¶76

WRIT PETITIONS

¶77

This Court has heard, at length, the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the contesting litigants, and, also made a meticulous survey of the record.

¶78

There is no wrangle with regard to the fact that, the petitioners are enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, hence they are legally entitled to practice as advocates. The first issue, which emerges for adjudication at this stage is, “whether the petitioners/advocates can also perform the work of deed writing on hire basis?” If the answer to this issue is in affirmative, then the second question arising for adjudication is, “whether the petitioner/advocates are required to obtain licence from the competent authority established under the Rules of 1961?”

¶79

ANSWERS TO THE HEREINABOVE FORMULATED ISSUES

¶80

In order to track down the answer to the first question, the analysis of the Advocates Act and the Rules of 1961 is of dire significance.

¶81

The Advocates Act, which was brought into effect from 1961, was enacted by the legislature with an intent to consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar

¶82

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶83

¶84

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶85

Councils and All India Bar. This Act provides the complete and exhaustive procedure to regulate the work, conduct and procedure of enrolment as adovcate. This Act also provides for the constitution of State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India.

¶86

Sections 6 and 7 of the Advocates Act embody the respective functions of the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India. However, in order to avoid unnecessary augmentation of this verdict, all the apposite provisions of the Advocates Act are not reproduced here, rather only Section 6 is reproduced hereunder inasmuch as it dictates the functions of State Bar Councils and the same hold importance in the present matter. Section 6 lays down the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and also prescribes the complete procedure for disciplinary proceedings against advocates and also provides the safeguarding features of rights, privileges and interests of advocates.

¶87

“ 6. Functions of State Bar Councils. ―(1) The functions of a State Bar Council shall be―

¶88

(a) to admit persons as advocates on its roll;

¶89

(b) to prepare and maintain such roll;

¶90

(c) to entertain and determine cases of misconduct against advocates on its roll;

¶91

(d) to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates on its roll;

¶92

[(dd) to promote the growth of Bar Associations for the purposes of effective implementation of the welfare schemes referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of this section and clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 7;]

¶93

(e) to promote and support law reform;

¶94

[(ee) to conduct seminars and organise talks on legal

¶95

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶96

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶97

¶98

topics by eminent jurists and publish journals and papers of legal interest;

¶99

(eee) to organise legal aid to the poor in the prescribed manner;]

¶100

(f) to manage and invest the funds of the Bar Council;

¶101

(g) to provide for the election of its members;

¶102

[(gg) to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with the directions given under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 7;]

¶103

(h) to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under this Act;

¶104

(i) to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions.

¶105

[(2) A State Bar Council may constitute one or more funds in the prescribed manner for the purpose of—

¶106

(a) giving financial assistance to organise welfare schemes for the indigent, disabled or other advocates;

¶107

(b) giving legal aid or advice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf;

¶108

[(c) establishing law libraries.]

¶109

(3) A State Bar Council may receive any grants, donations, gifts or benefactions for all or any of the purposes specified in subsection (2) which shall be credited to the appropriate fund or funds constituted under that sub-section.]”

¶110

Concisely and compendiously; the Advocates Act was

¶111

crafted to bring uniformity, accountability, professionalism, autonomy in the advocates and also to ensure the independent functioning of the advocates.

¶112

Now, let’s move to the Rules of 1961. These Rules deal in the field of authorizing any person, as per the eligibility criteria prescribed therein, to work as document writer on hire basis. These Rules have been

¶113

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶114

¶115

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶116

framed in view of Section 69 of the Registration Act, which empowers the Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make rules in this regard. Section 69 of the Registration Act is reproduced hereunder:-

¶117

“ 69. Power of Inspector-General to superintend registration offices and make rules. —

¶118

(1) The Inspector-General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the [State Government], and shall have power from time to time to make rules consistent with this Act—

¶119

(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers and documents;² ***

¶120

[(aa) providing the manner in which and the safeguards subject to which the books may be kept in computer floppies or diskettes or in any other electronic form under sub-section (1) of section

¶121

16A;]

¶122

(b) declaring what language shall be deemed to be commonly used in each district;

¶123

(c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be recognized under section 21;

¶124

(d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under sections 25 and 34, respectively;

¶125

(e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in the registering officer by section 63;

¶126

(f) regulating the form in which registering officers are to make memoranda of documents;

¶127

(g) regulating the authentication by Registrars and SubRegistrars of the books kept in their respective offices under section 51;

¶128

[(gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments referred to in sub-section (2) of section 88 may be presented for registration;]

¶129

(h) declaring the particulars to be contained in Indexes Nos. I, II,

¶130

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶131

¶132

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶133

III and IV, respectively;

¶134

(i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in the registration offices; and

¶135

(j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and Sub-Registrars.

¶136

(2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the [State Government] for approval, and, after they have been approved, they shall be published in the [Official Gazette], and on publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.”

¶137

“State Amendments

¶138

Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh

¶139

In section 69, in sub-section (1), after clause (b), insert the following clause, namely:-

¶140

“(bb) declaring what persons shall be permitted to act as document writers in the offices of registering officers, regulating the issue of licences to such persons, the conduct of business by them, the scale of fees to be charged by them and determining the authority by whom breaches of such rules shall be investigated and the penalties which may be imposed.”

¶141

[Vide Punjab Act 19 of 1961, sec. 6 (w.e.f. 4-5-1961); Act 31 of 1966, sec. 88 (w.e.f. 1-11-1966).”

¶142

Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1961 defines “document-writer” to be a person holding a licence for practicing as a writer of documents for hire. Rule 2(e) defines the “Inspector-General of Registration” to be the Inspector-General of Registration, Punjab. Furthermore, according to Rule 2(g), “Licensing Authority” means the Registrar of the Registration district in which the applicant desires to practice as a document-writer.

¶143

Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Rules of 1961 prescribe the eligibility and academic qualification of a person, who can become a document

¶144

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶145

¶146

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶147

writer and obtain licence in respect thereof. Rule 11 deals with issuance of licenses and Rule 12 dictates the validity of licence. The relevant clauses of Rule 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12 are reproduced hereunder:-

¶148

“2. Definitions.

¶149

- In these rules, unless the subject or context otherwise requires, - XX XX XX (c) ‘document-writer' means a person holding a licence for practising as a writer of documents for hire;

¶150

XX XX XX

¶151

(e) ‘Inspector-General of Registration’ means the InspectorGeneral of Registration, Punjab;

¶152

XX XX XX

¶153

(g) ‘Licensing Authority’ means the Registrar of the Registration district in which the applicant desires to practise as a documentwriter;

¶154

XX XX XX”

¶155

“ 3. Persons by whom documents may be written.

¶156

(1) After a month of the publication of these rules in the official Gazette, no person shall practise as a document-writer except under a license granted by the Licensing Authority.

¶157

(2) No registering officer shall accept any document for registration which is not written by a licensed document writer or the executant himself.”

¶158

"4. Eligibility for licence.

¶159

No person shall be eligible for being licensed as a documentwriter or, if licensed, to continue as a document- writer, if such

¶160

person -

¶161

(a) is less than 18 year's of age; or

¶162

(b) is in the employment of Government or Local Authority or any other person; or

¶163

(c) is of unsound mind; or

¶164

(d) is an undischarged insolvent; or

¶165

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶166

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶167

¶168

(e) has been dismissed from the service of Government or any Local Authority; or

¶169

(f) has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude.”

¶170

"5. Academic qualification for obtaining licence.

¶171

No person shall be licensed under these rules unless he has passed Matriculation or Higher Secondary Examination or any other examination of an equivalent standard and has qualified in the special examination held under rule 6;

¶172

Provided that -

¶173

(a) the provisions of this rule shall not apply to a person who [has ordinarily practised] [Substituted for 'has been practising' by Punjab Government Notification No. R/3/192/IV/2243, dated 23rd October, 1964.] as a document-writer for seven years or more on the date of enforcement of these rules;

¶174

(b) the Licensing Authority may, in deserving cases of candidates belonging to any backward class or scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, relax the minimum educational qualification prescribed above and allow any such candidate who has passed the Middle School Examination to sit in the special examination referred to in this rule.”

¶175

“ 11. Issue of Licences.

¶176

(1) The Licensing Authority, shall, on receipt of the merit list under rule 10, send an intimation to such candidates who are eligible to obtain licences in the order of merit keeping in view the number of document-writer to be licensed for that district and shall require them to deposit a licence fee of [rupees five] [Substituted for 'rupees twenty' by Punjab Government notification No. R/3/192/IV/2234, dated 23rd October, 1964] each within a month of the receipt of such intimation.

¶177

(2) The Licence fee shall be deposited in the Treasury under Head ['XV- Registration'] [Substituted for 'XI-Registration' by GSR 68, dated 10th February, 1969 published in Legislative Supplement, dated 17th July, 1970] and an intimation regarding such deposit shall be sent to the Licensing Authority immediately after the

¶178

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶179

¶180

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶181

deposit is made.

¶182

(3) If any candidate to whom an intimation is sent under sub-rule

¶183

(1) fails to deposit the licence fee within the time fixed for that purpose, the Licensing Authority may require the candidate appearing next on the merit list to deposit the licence fee.

¶184

(4) [Any person who has ordinarily practised as a documentwriter for seven years or more on the date of enforcement of these rules may apply to the Licensing Authority for issue of a licence giving true and correct particulars regarding his age, the period during which he was practised as such, and if he was previously in service, the period during which he has been so serving the Licensing Authority may, on being satisfied that the applicant is eligible for the grant of licence, issue him a licence after the applicant has deposited licence fee of rupees five] [Substituted by ibid].

¶185

(5) A licence under these rules shall be issued in Form "A".

¶186

(6) [ A duplicate copy of the licence may be issued to a licensee on payment of a fee of rupee one only if the licensing authority is satisfied that the original licence has been lost or damaged.] [Inserted by Punjab Government notification No. R/3/192/IV/2234, dated 23rd October, 1964]”

¶187

" 12. Validity of licence.

¶188

A licence issued under these rules shall be valid till the 31st December of the year in which the same is issued and shall be renewable on payment of a fee of [rupee five] [Substituted for 'rupees ten' by ibid] by making an application for the same to the Licensing Authority at least fifteen days before the date of expirty of the licence.

¶189

Provided that the Licensing Authority may, if satisfied that the licensee was prevented from applying for renewal for sufficient cause, entertain an application for renewal of licence made after the expiry of the prescribed period and renew the same.”

¶190

A conjoint reading of the hereinabove alluded to Rules

¶191

¶192

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶193

¶194

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶195

clearly reflects that, the Rules of 1961 do not have any overlapping effect upon the Advocates Act, rather they have been sculptured to operate in a totally different sphere appertaining to regulation and grant of licences to individuals, other than advocates, for working as deed writers. The Advocates Act does not require any advocate to, for the purpose of drafting sale deeds, adoption deeds, wills and certificate of sales etc. on charging a fee, obtain any licence from the authority designated under the Registration Act.

¶196

Moreover, the issue at hand has already been examined by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case titled as “Zila Dastavej Lekhak Association Banda and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.”, 1996 AIR 2107. In the case (supra), the exclusion of advocates from the purview of the provisions of the Registration Act was challenged on the bedrock of its being ultra vires the power of the Inspector-General of Registration under Section 69 of the Registration Act.

¶197

The question, which arose for adjudication in the case (supra) was that, “whether advocates would be required to obtain licence under the Document Writers Licence Rules concerned to become document writers?” While adjudicating this question and ultimately dismissing the case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that, an adovcate does not need any further certification from licensing authority under the Rules to have the power to draft documents and he/she gets his/her right only by virtue of practice of profession as advocate. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:-

¶198

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶199

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶200

¶201

“The question then is: whether the advocates would be required to obtain licence under the Rules to become document writers. An advocate by virtue of his sanad having been granted by the appropriate Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 is entitled to draft the pleadings and appear and practise before the courts and tribunals or persons legally authorized to take evidence under Section 30 unless he is otherwise excluded. As a part of practice, advocates are entitled to draft the documents on behalf of the parties and produce them before registering officer if he undertakes such exercise. As a consequence, Rule 6 [2] seeks to exclude from the purview of Rules the party who himself presents the document for registration or the advocate who drafts the document and presents the same, if needed by the party, for registration. Under these circumstance, advocate stand as a class by themselves apart from the document writers governed by the Rules. An advocate does not need any further certificate from the Licensing Authority under the Rules to have the power to draft the document and if need be to present it at his option before registering officer for registration of the instrument. He gets his right only by virtue of practice of profession as advocate . Therefore, the contention of the petitioner- Association that its members are excluded from the purview of Rule 6 [2] is devoid of substance.”

¶202

In summa, the answer to the first question is undoubtedly in affirmative. The petitioners, who are Advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, and, also are members of the District Bar Association, Sonepat, can well perform the work of deed writing on hire basis.

¶203

The answer to the second question also surges forth from the hereinabove made discussion. Since the first question is answered in

¶204

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶205

¶206

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶207

affirmative, the natural corollary thereof is that, the second question is answered in negative. The petitioner/advocates are not required to be put under jurisdiction of any authority and they are not required to obtain any licence from the competent authority established under the Rules of 1961 to work as deed writers, inasmuch as, the same would undermine the independence of advocates, whose act and conduct can only be governed by the Advocates Act. Moreover, it also becomes clear that, the petitioners/advocates do not require any permission to sit/work in the compound of the revenue authority(ies).

¶208

FINAL ORDER

¶209

The sum and substance of the hereinabove made discussion is that, the directions encapsulated in the impugned administrative order drawn by the Joint Sub Registrar and Tehsildar, Sonepat, do not pass the test of legality. Therefore, the impugned administrative order is set aside, being illegal.

¶210

Before parting with this verdict, this Court deems it imperative to pass the following directions upon the authority(ies) concerned:-

¶211

(a) Record reveals that, a proposal for construction of 200 chambers for qualified architects, draftsmen, deed writers etc. in the campus of Mini Secretariat, Sonepat, has already been sent to the Chief Architect, Haryana. Therefore, while allotting these chambers, the advocates, who are already working as deed writers and having their temporary

¶212

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶213

CWP-6-2025 and connected cases

¶214

¶215

kiosks/tin sheds in the Tehsil/Revenue Complex, Sonepat, be also considered for allotment;

¶216

(b) A list of advocates (supra) be prepared by the authority concerned for the purpose of identifying the eligible advocates for allotment (supra);

¶217

(c) The list (supra) shall be maintained by the office of Deputy Commissioner concerned and copy thereof shall also be maintained by the office of the District and Sessions Judge concerned, and, by the Chairman, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh;

¶218

(d) In order to ensure transparency in allotment process of chambers, it is expected that, apart from Sub Registrar concerned, a Committee comprising of: (i) the Deputy Commissioner concerned (as its Chairman), (ii) District and Sessions Judge (as Member) and (iii) an authorized representative of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh (as Member) be also constituted.

¶219

A photocopy of this order be placed on file of each

¶220

connected case.

¶221

April 28, 2	025	(KU	LDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
devinder
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	:	Yes/No

¶222

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.30 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Bhagat Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagat Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitender Nath Sharma and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Punjab Welfare Society Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nitin Nanda Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mohinder Alias Mahinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Om Shankar Pandey Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S Alena Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Others