Full Judgment Text
2023/DHC/000029
$~3 to 5, 28 & 29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 20 December, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & CM APPL. 32550/2022
PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Javed Ahmad, Mr. Pradeep
Kumar with Mr. Amjad Khan,
Advocates. (M-8077677734)
versus
THE CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam for ASC, Mr. Garvit
for R-1, Advocates.
4 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 11454/2022
ANIL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.
versus
THE REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT AND CHAIRMAN
ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Mr. Garvit,
Advocate for R-2.
5 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 11347/2022 & CM APPL. 33412/2022
ARUN KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Jhamb, Advocate with
Petitioner in person.
versus
THE REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURTS AND CHAIRMAIN
ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE DELHI HIGH COURTS, NEW
DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Mr. Garvit,
Advocate for R-1 & 2
28 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 10698/2019
SH. SHYAM KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:04.01.2023
19:12:12
W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & connected matters Page 1 of 10
2023/DHC/000029
versus
THE CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT
COMMITTEE AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Mr. Garvit,
Advocate for R-1.
29 AND
+ W.P.(C) 1433/2020 & CM APPL. 4968/2020
NARESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.
versus
THE CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT
COMMITTEE AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Advocate for
Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Mr. Arvind
Sharma, Tehsildar for R-1-3
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These are writ petitions filed by various lawyers challenging the
procedure for allotment of chambers in the Karkardooma Court Complex,
Delhi.
3. It is a matter of which judicial notice can be taken that lawyers’
chambers is an issue that concerns the Bar across District Courts and High
Court as, owing to the large influx of lawyers over years, sufficient numbers
of chambers are not available.
4. The present litigation dates back to 2009 when lawyers’ chambers of
the Karkardooma District Court Complex were to be allotted. There were a
total of 480 chambers to be allotted on twin sharing basis. In September,
2009, applications were called from the lawyers for chamber allotment by
Shahdara Bar Association and a list of 1093 persons was drawn up. Out of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:04.01.2023
19:12:12
W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & connected matters Page 2 of 10
2023/DHC/000029
the said list of 1093 persons, 980 persons were allotted chambers and there
was a balance of 113 lawyers who could not be allotted chambers due to
lack of availability of chambers.
5. Challenges were raised by lawyers concerned with respect to the
th
allotment list leading to decision dated 27 September, 2011 of the ld.
Division Bench in W.P.(C) 4867/2011 titled ‘ Karan Singh Kardam v.
Chamber Allotment Committee, Karkardooma Courts’ . In the said order
passed by the ld. Division Bench, the Petitioner in the said case was
permitted to make a representation to the District Judge/Chamber Allotment
Committee which was directed to consider his case on merits after
examining all the documents. The Chamber Allotment Committee examined
the matter and had placed the Petitioner - Mr. Kardam at the bottom of the
list which led to another litigation being W.P.(C) 2819/2012 titled ‘ Sh.
Karan Singh Kardam v. The Chamber Allotment Committee & Ors’ . In the
th
said writ petition, another order dated 10 October, 2013 was passed to the
effect that the 980 persons who were already allotted chambers, would not
be disturbed. However, a fresh seniority list would also be now prepared by
the Chambers Allotment Committee of Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
6. The matter was again considered by the Chamber Allotment
th
Committee and a fresh seniority list dated 5 February, 2018 was prepared
which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) 2195/2018 titled
Praveen Thukral & Ors. v. The Chambers Allotment Committee & Ors.
and W.P.(C) 9371/2018 titled Karan Singh Kardam v. The Chambers
Allotment Committee, Through the DJ & ASJ. East District, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi . After considering the entire matter, the ld. Single Judge
passed the following order:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:04.01.2023
19:12:12
W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & connected matters Page 3 of 10
2023/DHC/000029
“4. The petitioners in the present petition impugn
the list containing the names of 150 advocates
(hereafter the ‘impugned list’) selected for allotment of
lawyers chambers in the Karkardooma court complex.
The impugned list was published and uploaded on the
website of Shahdara Bar Association on 05.02.2018.
5. The petitioners claim that the impugned list
also includes names of advocates that had not applied
for allotment of a chambers pursuant to the invitations
for application that were issued in September, 2009.
6. The controversy in the present case arises in
the backdrop of the following facts:
6.1 The applications for lawyers chambers were
invited by the Shahdara Bar Association in September,
2009. Pursuant to the said invitation, several
advocates applied for allotment of chambers. At the
material time, only 960 advocates could be
accommodated on a twin sharing basis.
6.2 The Minutes of the Chamber Allotment
Committee held on 09.03.2010, indicate that a total
number of 1265 advocates had submitted their
affidavits within the time extended for the said purpose.
This also included a list of 245 advocates who had
applied after the due date of submission of the
application. Out of 1092 applicants who had applied
initially, 175 applicants were found to be ineligible on
the anvil of the criteria as set out in the said minutes.
Out of the 245 applicants that had applied
subsequently, 72 applicants were found to be ineligible
on the basis of the said criteria. A final list of 1090
eligible advocates was prepared. This included 917
advocates out of the 1092 advocates that had applied
initially and 173 advocates out of 245 applicants who
had submitted their affidavits subsequently. The said
list was also published on the website of the Shahdara
Bar Association.
6.3 One of the applicants, Mr Karan Singh
Kardam, was aggrieved by the said list to the extent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:04.01.2023
19:12:12
W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & connected matters Page 4 of 10
2023/DHC/000029
that his name was not included. He filed a writ petition
(W.P.(C) 4867/2011 captioned Karan Singh Kardam v.
The Chambers Allotment Committee, Karkardooma
Courts and Ors.) impugning the said list. He claimed
that he was eligible for being allotted a chamber as per
the criteria set out and had unjustifiably being
excluded from the list of eligible candidates.
Essentially, the controversy in the said case was
whether Mr Karan Singh Kardam had annexed the
relevant documents; whereas Mr Kardam insisted that
he had, the respondents disputed the same.
6.4 The said writ petition was disposed of by an
order dated 27.09.2011 by giving liberty to Mr
Kardam to provide the missing annexures to the
District Judge/Chambers Allotment Committee
alongwith representation within a period of two weeks
of the said date and the District Judge/Chambers
Allotment Committee was directed to consider his case
on merits by examining the particulars furnished by
him.
6.5 The Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee
(LCAC) examined Mr Karan’s case and placed him at
the bottom of the list, that is, at Serial No. 1091.
Aggrieved by the same, he once again approached the
Court by filing a writ petition (W.P.(C) 2819/2012).
The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division
Bench of this Court on 10.10.2013. The Court held that
since the list of 980 lawyers had been updated and the
chambers then available were exhausted, the said list
could not be altered. However, the Court also directed
that an updated list beyond the seniority of 980 persons
be drawn up with reference to the left out cases on the
principle of the date of joining the Bar Association as
the criteria for assigning the seniority. The operative
part of the the said decision is set out below:-
“9. Under the circumstances the only relief
which can be granted to the petitioner is to
direct the respondents to ensure that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:04.01.2023
19:12:12
W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & connected matters Page 5 of 10
2023/DHC/000029
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.”
7. Mr Kardam (the petitioner therein) filed yet
another application seeking clarifications (CM No.
22824/2016 in W.P. (C) 2819/2012). The same was
disposed on by an order dated 03.06.2016. The Court
reiterated the earlier directions that a separate
seniority list of the left over cases was required to be
drawn up and future allotments were to be made that
basis.
8. In view of the above. there can be no
controversy that the separate list referred to, related to
only the left out cases of advocates who had applied for
allotment of a chamber but were not allotted chambers
on the basis of the list drawn out at the material time
(List of 980 Lawyers), It is clear that the respondents
were not required to entertain further applications
beyond that date. It is the petitioners' case that such
advocates - who had not submitted any application -
have also been considered and included in the
impugned list.
9. This is stoutly disputed by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. They claim that the list
now drawn up is amongst only those advocates, who
had applied at the initial stage, that is, pursuant to the
notice issued in September, 2009. It is relevant to note
that the respondents do not dispute that no fresh
applications were invited and that the advocates who
had not submitted any application are not eligible for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:04.01.2023
19:12:12
W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & connected matters Page 6 of 10
2023/DHC/000029
allotment of a chamber.
10. In view of the above, this Court considers is
apposite to direct the concerned District Judge to re-
examine the impugned list and ensure that the
impugned list does include only the names of advocates
who had initially applied pursuant to the notice issued
in September. 2009. It is so directed. If necessary, a
fresh list be drawn up having regard to the orders
passed by this court.
11. The petitions are disposed of with the
directions as aforesaid. All pending applications are
also disposed of. ”
7. Thereafter, a Contempt Petition no. 803/2019 titled as Naveen
Kumar Goyal & Ors. v. The Chamber Allotment Committee and Contempt
Petition No. 96/2020 titled as Praveen Thukral and Ors. v. The Chamber
Allotment Committee came to be filed for non-implementation of the order
th
dated 10th December, 2018. Vide order dated 27 April, 2022 some parties
were referred to mediation. The said order reads as:
“1. Learned counsel for the parties state that efforts
can be made to settle the matter amicably and the same
can be referred to mediation.
2. Let the parties appear before the Delhi High Court
Mediation & Conciliation Centre on 29.04.2022 at
3:00 PM.
3. List on 02.02.2023”
8. In the meantime, the Building Maintenance and Construction
Committee, (Karkardooma Court Complex) of this Court is also stated to be
looking at the issue of chamber allotments to lawyers. Certain
representations were also made to the said Committee which led to a
settlement before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre
dated 24th May, 2022. In the said settlement, it is the grievance of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:04.01.2023
19:12:12
W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & connected matters Page 7 of 10
2023/DHC/000029
Petitioners that their standing as the original 113 persons was not
considered, and their seniority was also disturbed. Hence, these writ
petitions challenging the said settlement were filed. For instance, the Prayer
in W.P. 11092/2022 , titled ‘ Pradeep Kumar & Anr. v. The Chamber
Allotment Committee and Ors.’ is to the following effect:
“ In view of the facts and circumstances may kindly
allow the writ petition (civil) under article 226 of The
Constitution of India r/w section 151 of code of civil
procedure for allotment of chamber to the petitioners
as per their respective seniority in the waiting list of
left over cases wherein the name of the petitioners
mentioned on serial no. 1064 and 1070 and in
pursuance of order dated 10/12/2018, passed by
Hon'ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru and the letter dated
28/08/2019 issued by the office of the District &
Session Judge, East District, Karkardooma Court,
Delhi in the name of the petitioners thereby may
kindly direct the chamber allotment committee to allot
the chamber to the petitioner as per seniority and also
may kindly direct to the chamber allotment committee
to consider the seniority of the petitioners at the time
of allotment of chamber in karkardooma court
premises and further may kindly direct to the
chamber allotment committee not to supersede the
waiting list of left over cases. ”
9. All the Petitioners who are appearing in person today have made their
submissions. Mr. Satyakam, ld. Counsel appearing for the Chamber
Allotment Committee has also submitted that the matter is currently under
consideration of the Building Maintenance and Construction Committee,
(Karkardooma Court Complex) as also the Chamber Allotment Committee
of the Karkardooma Court.
10. The chronology of events which has taken place in these matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:04.01.2023
19:12:12
W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & connected matters Page 8 of 10
2023/DHC/000029
leaves no manner of doubt that post the passing of the order dated 10th
December, 2018, the lawyers whose names were figuring in the list of 113
members would have priority in future allotment of chambers. This would
be subject to the request of senior members who had filed their applications
in 2009, being considered and the list being drawn up accordingly.
11. The order dated 10th October, 2013 passed in Karan Singh Kardam
(supra) case which requires the seniority list to be drawn up, would have to
be read in the context of the subsequent order dated 10th December, 2018.
Insofar as the settlement is concerned, it is the submission of the Petitioners
that the same was entered into without notice to them and such a settlement
cannot deprive the Petitioners of their rights, owing to the fact that their
names were part of the original list of 113 members. The said issue is stated
to be before the Building Maintenance and Construction Committee
(Karkardooma Court Complex) which has requested the Chamber Allotment
Committee of Karkardooma Court Complex to prepare a concrete plan as
per Mr. Satyakam, ld. Counsel.
12. In these facts and circumstances, the present writ petitions are
disposed of with the direction to the Chamber Allotment Committee of
Karkardooma Court Complex to not disturb the inter-se seniority of the
members who were originally part of the list of 113 persons drawn in
September, 2009. If any persons are to be added to the said seniority list,
based upon the eligibility, the said seniority list shall be drawn up without
disturbing the original list of 113 members, in terms of the direction given in
paragraph 10 above.
13. It is made clear that upon the drawing of the list by the Chamber
Allotment Committee, if the Petitioners or any other members have any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:04.01.2023
19:12:12
W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & connected matters Page 9 of 10
2023/DHC/000029
grievance, they are permitted to make a representation before the Building
Maintenance and Construction Committee (Karkardooma Court Complex),
of the Delhi High Court, which would consider the said representation. The
decision taken by the Building Maintenance and Construction Committee
(Karkardooma Court Complex), Delhi High Court, shall be adhered to by all
the parties concerned.
14. With these observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of. All
pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DECEMBER 20, 2022
Rahul/AM
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:04.01.2023
19:12:12
W.P.(C) 11092/2022 & connected matters Page 10 of 10