Sujata Rai Vij vs Chief Justice And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 374 Del

JUDGMENT

S.D. Pandit, J.

(1) Sujata Rai Vij, a practicing Advocate of this Court has filed the present petition to restrain the Chamber Allotment Committee and Chief Justice of Delhi High Court from jointly allotting Chamber No-130 to Shri D.N. Sawhney Along with her and to strike down the Rule No. 36 of the Chamber Allotment Committee Rules, 1980.

(2) Shri R.M. Tufail, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has been heard at length by us. He contended before us that Rule No. 36 of the Chamber Allottee Committee Rules, 1980 is arbitrary and that the said rule is not implemented honestly and correctly since its insertion and is being used only to harass the petition.

(3) In order to consider the said submission of the learned Counsel for the petition it is necessary to mention here that after the construction of the Lawyers' Chambers within the compass of the Delhi High Court, Rules regarding the allotment of the said lawyers chambers were framed in the year 1980 under the title of Delhi High Court Lawyers Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 1980. When the said Lawyers Chambers were constructed the strength of the members of the Bar was not so high and there was also not much demand for getting the lawyers chambers and in view of the same the rules were framed and the relevant rules are Rule Nos. 6, 7 & 8, which read as under:-

6(A)Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 4 & 5 out of the eligible Advocates father/mother and son/sons/daughters or husband and wife would be eligible for allotment of only one chamber.

(B)No eligible Advocate shall be allotted more than one Chamber and no Advocate though, otherwise eligible may be allotted a Chamber would himself or whose father/mother/son/sons/daughter/ daughters or whose husband /wife is an allottee of a chamber in the Supreme Court.

(C)Where more than one eligible Advocates have formed a partnership firm of Advocates, they may be allotted only one Chamber as joint allottees provided always that Hon'ble the Chief Justice in consultation with the Allottment Committee may in appropriate cases, release the bar contained in Clauses, A, B & C above, in case of otherwise eligible Advocates.

7.Two or more eligible Advocates may jointly apply for the allotment of a single chamber and on such allotment being made, the said allottees shall be jointly and severally liable for the due performance of all the terms and conditions of these Rules. Provided, however, that if the allotment in respect of any one of the joint allottees is to be cancelled or terminated under those rules, the continuing joint allottee/allottees shall have a preferential right, having regard to this/ their standing of the Bar and his/their need for a chamber, for continuing as an allot tee/joint allottees. Provided further that the said continuing allottee/allottees shall remain in occupation and shall not be liable for eviction till fresh allotment of the Chamber under his/their occupancy is made.

8.Where a Chamber has been exclusively allotted to an individual Advocate, apply for the re-allotment of the said chamber to him jointly with another eligible Advocate or other eligible Advocates and Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi may, in consultation with the Allotment Committee order the same if such other Advocate or Advocates are otherwise found eligible for allotment and the request is bonafide. Provided, however, that if the allotment in respect of any one of the joint allottees is cancelled or terminated under these Rules, the continuing bona fide joint allottee/allottees shall have a preferential right having regard to his standing at the Bar and his need for a Chamber for continuing as joint allottee. Provided further that the said continuing joint allottee/allottees shall remain in occupation and shall not be liable for eviction till fresh allotment of the Chamber under his occupancy is made.

(4) As per the above rules in case of the death of one of the joint allottees the remaining joint allottees/allottee was entitled to occupy the chamber allotted initially jointly to the deceased lawyer or a lawyer who ceased to be a member of the Bar but as the time passed day-by-day and year-by-year the strength of the members of the Bar went on increasing. Consequently, the demand for the lawyers chambers also went on increasing and numerous applicants were waiting in the waiting list to get lawyers chambers. Therefore, in view of the said demand on increasing scale it was decided to amend the rules and accordingly Rule No. 36 was added by way of amendment of the original rules on 27.11.1990. The said Rule 36 reads as under: "36.Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules and except where discretion vests with Hon'ble the Chief Justice whenever there has been joint allotment under Rules 6, 7 & 8, and the allotment of any joint allottee terminates under Rule 29, the Allotment Committee shall again recommend joint allotment as per Rules. Provided, however, this rule will not apply in case where initially there has been joint allotment in terms of Rules 6, 7 or 8 of the Rules. Provided further the Allotment Committee may permit application for allotment of Chamber by persons mentioned in Rule 6-A who are otherwise not eligible for allotment under that Rule."

(5) If the above provisions of Rule36are considered then it would be quite clear that if the allotment of one of the allottees happened to terminate for the reasons stated in Rule 29 then the Allotment Committee shall again recommend joint allotment as per the Rules. Rule 29 of the said Rules reads as under:- 29.The allotment shall terminate:- (a) On its cancellation by Hon'ble the Chief Justice; or (b) On its surrender by the allottee concerned; or (c) On the allottee's ceasing to be a member of the High Court Bar Association; or (d) On the allottee's name being removed from the roll of Bar Council; or (e) On death.

(6) Thus, as per the provisions of Rules 29 and 36 in case of joint allottees if one of the joint allottees happened to get the termination of his allotment after 27.11.1990 then the Allotment Committee is entitled to allot the said chamber by way of joint allotment to the remaining allottee and a new allottee.

(7) Admittedly, the petitioner and her father had applied for the allotment of a chamber in the month of February 1993. Therefore, it is quite obvious that she had applied for the joint allotment Along with her father after Rule 36 came into force. It is an admitted fact that though Chamber No. 130 was allotted jointly to the petitioner and her father Shri Gulshan Rai by letter dated 26.7.93 her father had died before getting the said joint allotment. Thereafter the petitioner took the allotment of the said Chamber No-130 and while taking the said Chamber she had given the declaration-cum-undertaking as under: "I,Sujata Rai, accept the allotment of Chamber No.130 subject to the terms and conditions as contained in the Delhi High Court Lawyers Chamber (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 1980 (as amended) and declare that I shall abide and be bound by the terms and conditions as contained in the said Lawyers' Chamber (Allotment & Occupancy) Rules, 1980 (as amended) or any amendments thereto as made from time to time."

(8) If the above declaration given by the petitioner is considered then it would be quite clear that she had taken the allotment on the terms and conditions as contained in the Lawyers Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, as amended. As petitioner's father had died subsequently, the Chamber Allotment Committee decided to allot the said chamber Along with the petitioner to one Mr. D.N. Sawhney, Advocate. Petitioner was also informed about the said decision and the said allotment in favor of Shri D.N. Sawhney. It is her claim that allotment to Mr. Sawhney is illegal and improper. But if the above provisions of Rule 36 are considered, it would be quite clear that there is no substance in her contention.

(9) It is her contention that she has been discriminated and in her petition she has quoted some instances of alleged discrimination. She has referred to the instances in para No. 14 but all those instances quoted by her are of the allotments which have taken place prior to the amended Rule 36 came into force on 27.11.1990. We had called for the record and we have perused the same. We have not come across a single instance in which there is allotment of any chamber to a Single Advocate after 27.11.1990. Due to the paucity of Lawyers chambers the Chamber Allotment Committee had to take a decision not to grant allotment of Chamber to an individual and to allot the Chamber jointly, at least to two members of the Bar and, accordingly, that policy is being followed in cases of all the lawyers chambers which are available for allotment after 27.11.1990. The allotments which have taken place for joint allotment under Rules 6,7 & 8 prior to 27.11.90 will continue to be governed by the said Rules as has been clearly mentioned in Rule 36. Mere fact that new Rule 36 is not made applicable to allotments of Chambers made earlier under Rules 6,7 & 8 prior to 27.11.1990 does not make the new Rule discriminatory. The two classes of allotments stand on different footings. The classification is reasonable. If allotments made earlier to 27.11.1990 were to be covered by amended Rule 36 the same would not have been fair to such allottees who took such allotments with reasonable expectations of continuing signally on termination of allotment of joint allottee. Such expectation is not available to joint allottees after 27.11.1990 as they got allotments under the new Rule 36 so they are not in the same position as previous allottees. The object of the new Rule is to accommodate needs of more and more lawyers in the existing chambers in the High Court premises.

(10) Thus, we find that there is no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed in liming. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition in liming.