Karan Singh Kardam vs The Chambers Allotment Committee ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4727 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: October 10, 2013

+                               W.P.(C) 2819/2012
        KARAN SINGH KARDAM                                 ..... Petitioner
                 Represented by:       Petitioner in person

                                       versus

        THE CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT
        COMMITTEE & ORS.                        ..... Respondents
                Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The writ petitioner claims to be a practising lawyer at the District Court Karkardooma; having enrolled himself with the Bar Council of Delhi in the year 2006. He is aggrieved by the fact that seniority position assigned to him is at serial No.1091. He claims that the number should be 967. It affects him because 480 chambers constructed at District Court Complex at Karkardooma were to be allotted on the basis of seniority reckoned from the date membership of the District Court Bar Association was applied for. Since chambers were allotted on twin sharing basis 960 Advocates would be allotted a chamber and chamber allotment has reached seniority position No.980.

2. The problem which petitioner faced was the requirement of filing an affidavit with proof of having practised after being enrolled as a lawyer at the Court complex. The petitioner filed an affidavit to said effect and claims having enclosed a list of cases in which he had appeared as a counsel.

Receipt of affidavit is admitted but enclosure therewith containing the list of cases being received is denied.

3. The allotment was made in the year 2010. The petitioner initially filed a civil suit which he withdrew. He filed W.P.(C) No.4867/2011 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on September 27, 2011. The order reads as under:-

"The petitioner herein is a practicing Advocate and as per the averment made in the Writ Petition he is regularly appearing in the Karkardooma Courts. Admittedly, he has become a member of Shahdara Bar Association on 2nd December, 2006 and his Membership No. is 1161/2006. Some chambers have been constructed in Karkardooma Court Complex and for allotment of these chambers on twin sharing basis, applications were invited in September, 2009 by the Office of the District Judge, Karkardooma. The Petitioner also applied for the chamber and also submitted affidavit as required. However, when the list of those found eligible for allotment of chambers was displayed, the Petitioner did not find his name included therein. He made representation to the District Judge. Since, no action was taken on his representation, he filed Suit seeking mandatory injunction. Ultimately, he withdrew that Suit and has filed the instant Writ Petition.

In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the District Judge it is stated that reason for non-allotment of chamber to the Petitioner was that the Petitioner did not give the particulars of appearances in different cases in Karkardooma Courts, which was the requirement.

We find from the affidavit furnished by the Petitioner to the District Judge that in Paragraph „v‟ thereof he has mentioned that the court working pertaining to the year 2006, 2007 and 2008, attended by him, are annexed as Annexure „A‟, „B‟ and „C‟ respectively. A dispute has been raised about the annexation of those documents. As per the Petitioner he had attached those annexures giving the details of work done by him, whereas it is denied by the Respondents.

It is otherwise not in dispute that as per his seniority the Petitioner would have been allotted the chamber in normal course. In these circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition with liberty to the Petitioner to provide Annexures „A‟, „B‟ and „C‟ to the District Judge/Chamber Allotment Committee along with his representation within two weeks and the District Judge/Chamber Allotment Committee shall consider the case of the Petitioner on merits going by the particulars to be furnished by the Petitioner, and decide the same within two weeks thereafter."

4. The petitioner has supplied the list of cases in which he appeared as a counsel as proof of he having practised as an Advocate since the year 2006.

5. As per the respondents, having satisfied itself that the petitioner had practised as a lawyer as claimed by him, his name has been entered in the seniority list and is at serial No.1091. The reason for assigning serial No.1091 is that having already made allotment of a chamber up to seniority No.980, said seniority list cannot be tinkered. Like the petitioner, there were other lawyers who did not submit proof of having practised as Advocates. Even they gave the proof. With reference to the year of they joining the Bar Association as member thereof, the seniority list was increased.

6. What has happened is that the list of 980 lawyers has been updated, not by correcting the same by assigning a seniority position with reference to the year of acquiring membership of the Bar Association but by treating the list of 980 lawyers as frozen and thereafter adding on further names of left over lawyers who gave proof of having regularly practised.

7. Keeping in view the ethos of the order dated September 27, 2011 the seniority had to be re-drawn as per the policy framed i.e. date from which membership of the Bar Association was taken. The order in question requires a procedural lapse by the petitioner to be rectified. In other words the seniority list has to be drawn strictly with reference to the date

wherefrom membership of the Bar Association was taken. Regular practise was a condition for a chamber to be allotted and had no concern with seniority.

8. But, the problem would be that chambers have already been allotted and rights have accrued to third parties. Unfortunately for the petitioner he first went to a Civil Court and could not obtain a stay against the allotment resulting in possession of the chambers being handed over. By the time he came to this Court and order dated September 27, 2011 was passed the damage had been done.

9. Under the circumstances the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner is to direct the respondents to ensure that the further updated list beyond seniority No.980 is drawn up with reference to left out cases on the principle of date of joining the Bar Association as the criteria for assigning seniority. To put it pithily, the seniority list up till 980 shall be treated as exhausted. A further but separate seniority list of the left over cases including fresh members inducted would be drawn up with reference to the date of joining the Bar Association as member thereof.

10. Future allotment as and when a chamber falls vacant shall be made from said list.

11. No costs.

12. DASTI.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE OCTOBER 10, 2013 mamta