Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 10.02.2017
+ W.P.(C) 8106/2010
P.K. DASH, ADVOCATE AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Sh. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Sh. Harsh Prabhakar, Sh. Aditya Vikram, Sh.
Harjeet Singh Sachdeva with Sh. Anirudh Tanwar,
Advocates.
Sh. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Sunil Dalal,
Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Sh. Amit Saxena and Ms.
Manisha Mehta, Advocates, for DHCBA.
Sh. Rajiv Khosla, Advocate, for Rohini Court Bar
Association.
Sh. Vishal Gera, Advocate.
Sh. Pawan Kalra, Dy. Registrar and Sh. Sanjeev
Kumar, Assistant Registrar, for Delhi High Court.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
%
C.M. APPL.30904/2016
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.M. APPL.30903/2016
1. This application by certain members of the Delhi High Court Bar
Association seek clarification and modification of the final judgment of this
Court delivered on 31.05.2016. The modification sought is in respect of para
52(b) which deals with the conditions for allotment of chambers to
Advocates in the Delhi High Court complex.
2. This Court has heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as the
Bar Associations. The difficulty articulated during the hearing was that
W.P.(C) 8016/2010 Page 1 of 4
unless an appropriate modification is made of the judgment, members of the
Bar who are allottees of chambers in one or the other Bar Association would
be prohibited even from applying for allotment in chambers in other Court
complexes. It is urged that this would act in an extremely restrictive manner
and that instead the judgment ought to be suitably corrected or modified so
as to reflect the intention of the Court to ensure that no one in fact enjoys
allotment of two chambers, which can equally be given effect to by deleting
the prohibition to application but ensuring at the same time that allotment
and possession is not given to anyone who is already an allottee unless she or
he gives up the allotment and possession in the other Court complex.
3. The Court has considered the submissions and is of the opinion that
there is some merit in it. As at present, para 52(b) even bars application for
allotment by members of the Bar who are beneficiaries of allotment in one
Court complex. The judgment of this Court was to ensure the introduction of
the one chamber-one person rule in Delhi which can be equally effectuated
by ensuring that in the event of allotment, the beneficiary of allotment in one
Court complex is in fact not allotted the chamber in another Court complex
unless he gives up that allotment or hands over possession. In these
circumstances, the following para 52(b) shall be substituted instead of the
existing para 52(b) of the final judgment dated 31.05.2016. The following
rule shall stand incorporated:
“(b) The following rule shall stand incorporated in the rules
applicable for allotment of Chambers to Advocates in all Delhi
Court complexes (whose Courts are subject to the
administrative control of the Delhi High Court):
“No Advocate who has been allotted a chamber in any
Court complex, or has constructed or owns any chamber
W.P.(C) 8016/2010 Page 2 of 4
in the Tis Hazari or any other Court complex shall be
allotted another chamber in any Court complex unless
the advocate duly surrenders the said chamber being
held by her/him when a chamber is offered for allotment
in accordance with the seniority in the List of Members
awaiting Chamber Allotment.
Each applicant shall also furnish a declaration that she
or he has not been allotted any chamber in any Court
complex or that she/he would duly surrender the
chamber already allotted/owned/constructed by her/him
when a chamber is offered for allotment in accordance
with the seniority in the List of Members Awaiting
Chamber Allotment. Any false declaration shall entail
cancellation of chamber allotment, or removal of the
name from list of eligible applicants.
All Advocates, whose names have been included in
existing lists of otherwise eligible candidates/applicants
and who await allotment, too, shall furnish a declaration
within 60 days failing which their names shall not be
considered for any allotment. In case the declaration
furnished is false, their names shall be struck off the list
of eligible applicants.
Explanation: the expression “any Court complex” shall
mean that if the applicant/Advocate is allotted a chamber
in one complex – e.g. the Saket Court complex, she or he
shall not be allotted chamber in the Delhi High Court
Lawyers Chambers or any District Court complexes or
any other Court complex to be constructed with lawyers
chambers hereafter unless the advocate duly surrenders
the chamber already being held by her/him when a
chamber is offered for allotment.
Form of Declaration:
W.P.(C) 8016/2010 Page 3 of 4
I…….(State name, and full description, i.e. parentage,
age, particulars of Bar Council enrolment, and
membership of the Bar Association of the Court complex
where chamber allotment is sought) do hereby solemnly
declare and affirm that I am not allottee of any chamber
in any Court complex other than the one in which I
hereby seek.
Or
I ………… (State name, and full description, i.e.
parentage, age, particulars of Bar Council enrolment,
and membership of the Bar Association of the Court
complex where chamber allotment is sought) do hereby
solemnly declare and affirm that I am an
allottee/owner/have constructed a chamber at
……………….and undertake to duly surrender the said
chamber when a chamber is offered for allotment as per
my seniority in the List of Members Awaiting Chamber
Allotment.”
The above conditions shall be deemed to have been
incorporated with immediate effect. The concerned District
Judge of each Court complex and the Registrar concerned of
the Delhi High Court are hereby directed to ensure that the
above conditions are suitably incorporated in the Chamber
Allotment Rules, within two weeks. Till then, the above
conditions are applicable and would govern all allotments of
chambers…….”
The application is disposed of in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 10, 2017
W.P.(C) 8016/2010 Page 4 of 4