Ashok Sharma Nabhewala Vs Punjab and Haryana High Court Th. Its Registrar and Ors.

The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in this Hig h Court, f etching grievance from a n order/communication date d 25.03.20 1 5 (Annexure P-3), issued by respondent No.1, vide which , applicati o n for his induction as Advocat e -Associate Member, on accoun t of withd r awal or surrender of rights b y Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma , Advocate-Associate Member, in his pl a ce, has been declined, as th e Principal Allotee-respondent No.2 object e d to his induction, has filed th e instant w r it petition under Articles 226/ 2 27 of the Constitution of India . A furthe r prayer is also made to declare Rule 6 of the High Court o f Punjab a n d Haryana Lawyers’ Chamb e rs (Allotment and Occupancy )

¶14

AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶15

CWP-21081-2015 (O&M) -2-

¶16

Rules, 19 8 8, (for short, the ‘Rules of 198 8 ’) as ultra vires to Article 14 o f the Constitution of India.

¶17

Though the facts are hardl y in dispute, yet for the sake o f clarity, i t would be expedient to rec o rd a brief narration thereof . Initially, a Lawyer chamber No.89 was a llotted to respondent No.2 as a Principal Allottee, along with the followi n g associate members:-

¶18

Mr. Kul Bhushan Sha r ma

¶19

Mr. Vishva Nath Shar m a

¶20

Ms. Shamsher Kaur, 4. Mr. Parveen Gupta,

¶21

Mr. Jatinder Singh Ka m boj

¶22

Ms. Veena Kumari

¶23

Mr. Shiv Shankar Bh a rdwaj

¶24

Subsequently, name of Mr. Shiv Shankar Bhardwaj wa s deleted f r om the array of Associate Me m bers, in view of the minutes o f meeting d ated 18.03.2014 of the Buil d ing Committee of this Court . Thereafter, respondent No.3, who is one o f the Associate Members of th e chamber i n question, vide an application dated 11.07.2014, requested fo r withdraw a l of his name as Associate Member and for inclusion o f petitione r ’s name as Associate Member, in his place. However, the sai d request w as declined by the Building C ommittee of this Court, on th e ground t h at the Principal Allottee did no t accede to the proposal. That i s how, the p etitioner is before this Court. 4. The petitioner causes appe a rance in person and addresse s argument s at length. Opening his argum e nts, he contends that the inten t and obje c t of the Rules of 1988 is, to ex t end equal right and opportunit y AMIT KUMAR to all Associate Members, and not to p rovide monopoly rights to th e 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶25

CWP-21081-2015 (O&M) -3-

¶26

Principal Allottee. However, since Rule 6 gives absolute autonomy to th e Principal Allottee to approve inducti o n of any Associate Member , therefore, it does not stand the test of A rticle 14 of the Constitution o f India.

¶27

The next submission advan c ed by him is that the power t o exercise c hoice by the Principal Allottee comes to end, once the proces s of allot m ent is over, and thereafter, a ll the Associate Members ar e equally placed with equal rights. The P rincipal Allottee should not b e allowed t o re-exercise his choice/option o n every induction or surrende r of any A ssociate Member. He asserts t h at Rule 6 does not permit th e Principal Allottee to re-exercise his right to option every time, in case o f right sur r endered by any Associate Me m ber. If the Rule in question i s interpreted in this manner, it would le a d to empowering the Principa l Allottee w ith absolute title and interest in an apparent violation of Rule 9 , which on l y gives a right of user.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, who is a Principal Allottee, vigorously opposes t h e submissions of the petitione r by cont e nding that respondent No.2 does not enjoy harmoniou s relations h ip with him. In the event, the petitioner is allowed to join a s Associat e Member, it would cert a inly culminate into furthe r confront a tion amongst Members of th e chamber in question, beside s defeating the basic object of the Rules o f 1988. He further submits tha t one of th e objects of giving a right to cho i ce to the Principal Allottee is t o create a c onducive and workable atmosp h ere in the chamber. Finally, h e submits t hat all the duties, as prescri b ed under Rule 11, has to b e AMIT KUMAR undertak e n by the Principal Allottee only . 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶29

CWP-21081-2015 (O&M) -4-

¶30

Learned Senior counsel for the respondent-High Court als o vehemen t ly opposes the submissions ma d e by the petitioner. He contend s that legal i ty of the Rules of 1988, has a l ready been tested by this Cour t decades a go in CWP-525-1999 (Vijay Gopal Dogra Vs. Punjab and

¶31

Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others) (decided on 25.09.2000) ,

¶32

wherein it was held that, choice of the C hief Justice is supreme, and n o exclusive right of choice is given to th e Principal Allottee. Therefore , assertion made by the petitioner that a m o nopolistic right has been give n to the Pr i ncipal Allottee, is, in fact, ha s no legs to stand. He furthe r submits t h at the impugned decision take n by the Building Committee is , undoubte d ly, in consonance with the R u les of 1988, and therefore, n o interfere n ce is required in the instant mat t er. 8. We have heard the petition e r, and learned counsel for th e responde n ts at length, and perused the re c ord. 9. Before embarking upon th e submissions made before thi s Court, a n d gauging legality of the i m pugned order on the anvil o f provision s of the Rules of 1988, it is im p erative, at the first instance, t o have a q u ick glance of the said Rules. 10. The unambiguous purpose and object of framing of th e Rules of 1 988 is, to regulate the allotment of chambers constructed in th e premises of this High Court. To beg i n with, Rule 3 provides tha t allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers shall be solely at the discretion of th e Chief Ju s tice. Rule 4 prescribes the elig i bility for an Advocate to appl y for a ch a mber. Likewise, Rule 5 pres c ribes mode of allotment. Sub - clause (i) thereof, stipulates that allotm e nt shall be made by the Chie f AMIT KUMAR Justice o n receipt of an application in the prescribed form, and sub-claus e 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶33

CWP-21081-2015 (O&M) -5-

¶34

(ii), whi c h begins with non-obstante c l ause, stipulates that the Chie f Justice m a y allot chamber to an Advocat e , who is physically handicappe d or other w ise deserving, and the discretio n exercised by the Chief Justic e in this re g ard shall be final. The proviso attached to this Rule, postulate s that the C hief Justice may, in appropriat e cases, relax the bars in case o f otherwis e eligible Advocates.

¶35

Significantly, Rule 6, whic h is under challenge, deals wit h allotment, according to which, chamber s h all be allotted to one Advocate , who may associate with him up to a m a ximum seven Advocates of hi s own cho i ce with the previous approval of the Chief Justice . Firs t proviso a ttached to Rule 6 stipulates that in case, an allotment i s cancelled or terminated, then a fresh all o tment of the chamber would b e made by t he Chief Justice, keeping in vi e w the preferential right of the associate Advocates of the allottee. Si m ilarly, second proviso indicate s that if th e Chief Justice does not exercise his powers under the precedin g proviso, n othing shall confer any right, ti t le or interest upon the associat e Advocates of the Principal Allottee. A b are reading of Rule 9 makes i t clear tha t allotment of chamber would not confer any tenancy, sub - tenancy, l ease or sub-lease, title, interest e tc. in favour of an allottee othe r than that o f a bare user . Rule 11 prescri b es the duties of the allottees. 12. At this juncture, even at the c ost of repetition and to bury th e hatchet, i t is necessary to extract Rules 3 , 5, 6, 9 and 11, and the sam e read as u n der.

¶36

“3. Allotment .-The allotme n t of Lawyers’ Chambers shall b e solely at the discretion of the C hief Justice.

¶37

AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶38

CWP-21081-2015 (O&M) -6-

¶39

5. Mode of allotment .-(i) T he allotment of chamber shall b e made by the Chie Justice on receipt of an application in th e prescribed form.

¶40

(ii) Notwithstanding anyth i ng contained in sub-rule(i) th e Chief Justice may allot ch a mber to an Advocate, who i s physically handicapped or otherwise deserving and th e discretion exercised by the C h ief Justice in this regard shall b e final

¶41

(iii) Out of eligible Advo c ates father, mother, sons/sons, daughter/daughters or husba n d and wife would be eligible fo r allotment of only one chamber

¶42

(iv) Where more than one eligible Advocate has formed a partnership firm of Advocate , they may be allotted only on e chamber as joint allottees.

¶43

Provided that always th e Chief Justice may in appropriat e case relax the bars in case of otherwise eligible Advocates. 6. Allotment.- The chamber s hall be allotted to one Advocate, who may associate with him u p to a maximum seven Advocates o f his own choice with the previ o us approval of the Chief Justice. The responsibility of payment o f licence fee will, however, be tha t of allottee:

¶44

Provided, however, tha t if the allotment in respect of a n allottee is cancelled or termin a ted under these rules, then a fres h allotment of the chamber wo u ld be made by the Chief Justice, keeping in view the preferenti a l right of the associate Advocate s of the allottee .

¶45

Provided further that if the Chief Justice does not exercis e his powers under the precedin g proviso, nothing shall confer an y right, title or interest upo n the associates, who were s o associated by the allottee at th e first instance. 9. Allotment not to confer any tenancy, sub-tenancy, lease or sub-lease, title, interest etc. in favour of allottee.- Th e allotment shall be in no event o perate, nor shall be construed. S o to create, confer or grant any l ease or sub-lease, tenancy or sub - tenancy or any right, title or i n terest into or upon the chamber i n favour of the allottee. The a l lottee shall, in no circumstance s claim or plead any right to te n ancy or sub-tenancy, lease or su b

¶46

AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶47

CWP-21081-2015 (O&M) -7-

¶48

lease into or upon the chambe r or any right in that nature or an y right other than that of a bare u se. 11. Duties of Allotte.-(i) The a llottee shall use the chamber onl y as a Lawyers Office and for no other purpose whatsoever. (ii) The allottee shall not p art with, in any manner, the us e and consequent occupation or possession of the premises to an y other person or grant any spe c ial user or licence to any perso n or to transfer or assign the w h ile or any part of the chamber i n favour of any other persons. I t is expressly intended and mean t that the perimission given her e under can and shall in no event b e assignable, or transferrable in any form, deice method o r arrangement.

¶49

(iii) The allottee shall not m ake any structural additions o r alterations in the chamber wi t hout the consent in writing by th e Chief Justice or his nominee

¶50

(iv) The allottee shall, duri n g the currency of the allotment b e responsible for the up-keep a nd maintenance of the chamber. (v) The allottee shall durin g the pendency of the allottement, be responsible for any damag e caused to the chamber or to th e services provided therein, be y ond fair wear and tear of act o f God.

¶51

(vi) No allotee shall use t h e chamber before 7 A.M. and/o r after 8 P.M. on any day.

¶52

Provided that the Chief J ustice may change the timings fo r the use of the chambers.

¶53

(vii) The allottee shall not c ause or permit to be caused an y damage to the chamber or t o the main building or any par t thereof.

¶54

(viii) The allottee shall inde m nify the Chief Justice/High Cour t against any loss or claim prefe r red against him/it by third partie s as a result of acts/omissions b y the allottee or his agents. (ix) The alottee shall not co n duct himself in a manner which i s a nuisance and which cause s annoyance to any adjoining o r neighbouring allottee.

¶55

(x) The allottee shall not impede in any way the officers, servants or agents of the Hig h Court in the exercise by them o f the High Court rights in poss e ssion and control of the chamber s

¶56

AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶57

CWP-21081-2015 (O&M) -8-

¶58

and in particular shall give re a sonable assistance and facility t o such officers, servants or ag e nts for the general up-keep an d maintenance of the lay-out, d e corations, fittings and fixtures o f the chambers.

¶59

(xi) The allottee shall not in s tall in the chamber any additiona l electric appliances without th e prior permission in writing of th e Chief Justice or his nominee.

¶60

Provided that the Chie f Justice or his nominee may gran t permission to an allottee to i n stall and use in the chamber an y additional electric appliances in addition to one air-conditione r or one electric heater, on suc h conditions as may be determine d by him from time to time.

¶61

(xii) The allottee or the ass o ciate advocates shall not use o r permit the use of alcoholic dri n ks in any form in chamber or eve n in the Chambers Complex, no r will they allow playing of card s in any form.

¶62

(xiii) The allottee or the ass o ciate Advocates shall allow at al l reasonable time the access to t he Chief Justice or his nominee o r to such officers, servants o r agents in order to inspect th e premises so as to find out if any misuse or breach o f undertakings is being committ e d by the allottee or the associat e advocates.

¶63

A conjoint study of the a b ove extracted Rules makes i t explicitly clear that the discretion lies so l ely with the Chief Justice, bot h in initial allotment and in approving the Associate Members. A s demonstr a ted above, the proviso attache d with Rule 6 protects interest o f the Asso c iate Advocates, for, in case o f cancellation/termination of th e allotment, a fresh allotment of the cham b er would be made by the Chie f Justice, k eeping in view the prefere n tial rights of the Associat e Advocates. It is further clarified that the chamber is allotted to only on e Advocate, who can choose up to seven Associates, but with the prio r approval o f the Chief Justice.

¶64

AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶65

CWP-21081-2015 (O&M) -9-

¶66

The intent behind insertio n of Rule 6, is to enable th e allotting a uthority to have in record an i dentifiable person, upon who m every res p onsibility, which casts on ac c ount of chamber’s use, can b e fastened. It also ensures adherence of all duties, responsibilities an d liabilities so arise, on account of allot m ent, and are prescribed unde r Rules 7 a nd 11, as extracted above. Th u s, it is crystal clear that schem e of the R u les of 1988, maintains overall control of the institution only . The Chie f Justice’s discretion is paramo u nt, be it allotment, re-allotmen t or choice of Associate Advocates by the P rincipal Allottee.

¶67

After sketching out the ab o vesaid position, this Court ha s further e x amined the objects sought to b e achieved by framing the Rule s of 1988. To our mind, the Rules never b estow the Principal Allottee o r the Ass o ciates with any enforceable right. Rather, considering th e scarcity o f chambers and space in the p remises of the High Court, th e Principal Allottee is allowed to have seven other Advocates as Associate s of his o w n choice, but with prior approval of the Chief Justice, whic h prevents t he element of monopoly. Furth e r, these Rules ensure regulator y control of the Chief Justice, so as to supervise and avert misuse o f chamber. In nut shell, it is only a conce s sion to the Principal Allottee o r Associat e Members, and thus, it never cr e ates any enforceable legal right . We are r e minded to point out that by v i rtue of this contentious Rule, a healthy, c ordial and dignified work sp a ce to the allotee Advocates i s sought t o be provided, while keeping chamber tied to one, beside s ensuring d iscipline and equitable usage o f the chamber. 16. The Principal Allotte, thou g h enjoys his right of choice o f Associat e Members, but it is equally tr u e that, he is also fastened wit h

¶68

AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶69

CWP-21081-2015 (O&M) -10-

¶70

certain d u ties, such payment of fee, e lectricity charges etc., and a s prescribe d under Rule 11. In view of th e abovesaid narration, this Cour t unhesitat i ngly concludes that the submis s ions advanced by the petitione r that abs o lute choice showered upon t h e Principal Allottee is hit b y Article 1 4 of the Constitution of India, do not carry any merit.

¶71

In summa, this Court is c onvinced to observe that th e impugne d order/communication is in con s onance with the Rules of 1988 , and there f ore, requires no interference. T h e writ petition is devoid of an y merits, a n d is accordingly, dismissed.

¶72

Pending application, if any, s tands disposed of.

¶73

(AS H	WANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE	(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
8.202 harma 5	Whetherspeaking/reasoned	Yes
	Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶74

05.08.2025 Ak Sharma

¶75

AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Ashok Sharma Nabhewala v. Punjab and Haryana High Court Th. Its Registrar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Sharma Nabhewala v. Punjab and Haryana High Court Th. Its Registrar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeep Prince Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Harbans Kaur and Anr. Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Harish Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Indian Oil Corp Ltd. Vs M/S Preet Filling Station & Anr.

Narinder Nath Vs Harish Kumar