Gaurav Jain vs Bar Council Of Delhi & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 114 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P. (C) No.5554 of 2010

%                                         Pronounced on: 10th January, 2011

       GAURAV JAIN                                          . . . PETITIONER

                            through :             Mr.     Sandeep      Phogat,
                                                  Advocate.


                                  VERSUS

       BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ORS                        . . .RESPONDENTS

                            through:              Mr. S.P. Kaushal, President,
                                                  Dwarka Courts Bar Association
                                                  with Mr. Naresh C. Sharma,
                                                  Advocate.
                                                  Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms.
                                                  Latika Chaudhary, Advocates.
                                                  Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate
                                                  with Ms. Amandeep, Advocate
                                                  for R-4.

CORAM :-
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

       1.     Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
              to see the Judgment?
       2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?
       3.     Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?


A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking mandamus against the

respondents for, inter alia, deleting the name of the petitioner

form the seniority list, who had applied for the allotment of

Chamber in Dwarka District Courts, also alleging that the

respondents have not included the name of the petitioner in

the seniority list with respect to the other members of the bar

to whom chambers have been allotted by the Dwarka Bar

Association.

2. To recite the genesis of the instant writ petition, the facts are

concisely produced herein as under;

The petitioner is an active member of the Bar Council of

Uttar Pradesh since 2003 and consequently transferred his

enrolment to Bar Council of Delhi vide enrolment No. D-940/-

B/2003. Thereafter, during the course of time, the petitioner

also became a member of New Delhi Bar Association, Patiala

House Courts, New Delhi having membership ID No.4819.

3. It was also whispered by the petitioner in his petition that he

was one of the founder member of Dwarka Bar Association

when it had inaugurated on 06.09.2008 and his practice was

utmost at the Dwarka District Courts vide membership ID No.

G-70/08, also due to his nearby residence to the abovesaid

Courts. It is pertinent to mention here that there were more

than 4000 founding members of the Dwarka Courts Bar

Association.

4. In the erstwhile, the Dwarka Bar Associations/respondent No.2

invited the application for allotment of chamber in the said

Court complex. It was a preliminary requisite laid down by the

Association unanimously that the Bar members, who were

having chambers at Patiala House Courts, and those who were

the founder members of DCBA would be given priority above

other persons. Moreover, the chambers would be allotted on

the basis of the seniority list primed by the respondent No.2.

5. However, the first list of Bar members, who had applied for the

allotment of chambers, came out on 14.12.2009 in which

petitioner's name was shown with condition/objection for want

of address proof of petitioner that whether he is residing in

National Capital Territory or not. Subsequently, the petitioner

had cleared the same objection by submitting his erroneous

proof of residence in Delhi, but according to the proposed

application form for allotment of chambers, the address

mentioned therein was B-839, Ansal Palam Vihar, Gurgaon,

Haryana. Furthermore, on this ground alone, according to

clause of the District Courts Dwarka Lawyers Chambers

(Allotment & Occupation) Rules, 2009 the respondent No.2 had

ignored the application of the petitioner for allotting the

chamber in the Court premises. However, the respondent No.2

has submitted the final seniority list on 18.05.2010 to

respondent No.3 on the basis of District Courts Dwarka Lawyers

Chambers (Allotment & Occupation) Rules, 2009 in which also

the petitioner's name was not included.

6. It is significant to mention here that name of the petitioner was

not engraved in the final list which was evidently made by the

Dwarka Court Bar Association as per the Dwarka Lawyers

Chambers (Allotment & Occupation) Rules, 2009.

Nevertheless, the petitioner had taken the membership of

Dwarka Bar Association in 2009, but as per the Rules, the

preference is to be given to the founder members of the

Dwarka Court Bar Association, i.e., those members who had

enrolled/taken membership of the Dwarka Court Bar

Association in the year, 2008 when the said Bar came into

existence.

7. Mindful of the above pattern, we had asked for the personal

records of the petitioner to be made available for our perusal

and consideration.

8. We are of the considered view that as per the allotment District

Courts Dwarka Lawyers Chamber (Allotment & Occupation)

Rules, 2009 preference is to be given to the founder members

of DCBA and moreover, the seniority is to be reckoned not from

the date on which particular individual got registered as an

advocate before the Bar Council or became the member of any

other Bar Association at Delhi.

9. That apart, perusal of the Rules very minutely, we opined that

the chamber will be allotted to an Advocate, who is not having

any chamber in any other District Courts Complex, as only

membership of those persons who are members of any District

Courts Bar Association and also members of any District Courts

Bar Association and also members of Dwarka Courts Bar

Association as a founder member, could be considered,

otherwise not.

10. However, it was contended by the petitioner that many times

he had made representations to the Secretary (DCBA) for the

ongoing predicament faced by the petitioner on many

occasions but it was ignored by the respondents all the time

even after the issuance of last seniority list by the DCBA which

was later approved by the District Judge, Dwarka Courts, i.e.,

the said chambers were allotted to the final seniority list by the

DCBA, whereby the petitioner's name was excluded.

11. Then also, the petitioner being aggrieved, came to know that

approximately 85% chambers were allotted on the basis of the

29.04.2010, seniority list and in furtherance of that the DCBA

will soon allot the remaining chambers by taking into the

consideration, the aforesaid seniority list in which petitioner's

name was excluded. By knowing this, the dream of the

petitioner for having chamber in the Court premises was in

dark.

12. After carefully consideration of the facts and circumstances of

the petition and the submission made by the counsels of both,

i.e., the petitioner as well as respondent, we are of the view

that the allotment of chambers are made to the members of

bar strictly in adherence of the seniority list by the Allotment

Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the learned

District Judge which is well conscious of the Dwarka Lawyers

Chambers (Allotment & Occupation) Rules, 2009.

13. That aforesaid Committee had also cleared that objections

which have been raised by the members who had applied for

the allotment of chambers.

14. We may take note of the fact as per Dwarka Lawyers Chambers

(Allotment & Occupation) Rules, 2009 as per Clause 3 of the

said Rules, the petitioner is not be entitled to be considered for

the allotment of chamber in the said Court premises, i.e., the

petitioner had failed to persuade the Committee as well as this

Court that he is the permanent resident of N.C.T. of Delhi.

15. Thus, we the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(M.L. MEHTA) JUDGE JANUARY 10, 2011 pmc