Delhi High Court: A petition was filed challenging the decision of the Chamber Allotment Committee, Saket District Courts, regarding the re-allotment of Chamber on a double-occupancy basis within the Saket Court Lawyers Chamber Block previously allotted to other advocates, now re-allotted to respondents 4 and 5, without due consideration of the petitioner’s application. Sanjeev Narula, J., held that it does not find sufficient reason to set aside the allotment made to respondents 4 and 5, however directed the Committee to take due note of the concerns raised in this petition and ensure that future vacancies are transparently notified to all members, to maintain fairness and avoid similar grievances.
The present writ petition revolves around a dispute concerning the allotment of Chamber No. 103 in the Saket District Court Lawyers’ Chamber Block. The petitioner, a practicing advocate at the Saket District Court, challenges the decision of the Chamber Allotment Committee to re-allot the said chamber to Respondents 4 and 5 without due consideration of her own application on the grounds of the allotment being arbitrary, lacking transparency, and bypassing established procedures, depriving her of a fair opportunity to apply for the chamber despite her pressing personal circumstances.
The petition arises from the vacancy of Chamber No. 103, previously shared by two advocates. Following one advocate’s upgrade to a single-occupancy chamber and the demise of another, the chamber became available for re-allotment. The petitioner, who has been practicing at the Saket District Court since 2010 and is one of the founding members of the Bar Association, claims that the Committee acted unfairly in allotting Chamber No. 103 to Respondents 4 and 5 without considering her application. Currently, she occupies Chamber No. 608 on a double-occupancy basis, which she shares with her husband, also an advocate. Due to serious health issues, both her own and her husband’s sought a transfer to Chamber No. 103, citing medical grounds as her husband suffered a brain stroke in 2022 and continues to require medical care for chronic conditions.
The petitioner argues that despite her longstanding association with the Court and her participation in its affairs, the Committee disregarded her application in favor of the Respondents. She contends that the re-allotment of Chamber No. 103 was done in an opaque and arbitrary manner, without issuing a public notice for the vacancy, thereby preventing other eligible advocates, including herself, from applying.
The Court carefully examined the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the record, particularly the minutes of the Chamber Allotment Committee’s meeting held on 30-07-2024. The Court noted that the decision to reallocate the chamber was made during the Committee’s meeting, where the applications from Respondents 4 and 5 for chamber exchange were considered, based on their seniority.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s application was submitted only after the Committee had already made its decision to allot the chamber to the respondents. Thus, her claim could not have been considered at the time of the impugned decision. Additionally, the Court found that the Committee’s decision was consistent with the established practice of giving preference to senior advocates in chamber allotments and that the process adhered to the rules governing chamber re-allotment. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence to support the petitioner’s allegation that the re-allotment was arbitrary or in violation of established procedures.
Thus, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s challenge to the re-allotment of Chamber No. 103 was without merit. The Court held that the Chamber Allotment Committee acted in accordance with its established practices and the relevant rules when it allotted the chamber to Respondents 4 and 5, based on their seniority and previous applications for chamber exchange. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the allotment of Chamber No. 103 to the respondents was upheld as valid.
[Anita Gupta Sharma v. Chamber Allotment Committee, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7184, decided on 14-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Mr. Dharam Vir, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. R. P. Singh and Mr. Sameer Vatts, Advocates with Petitioner in person Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. Devender Kumar, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Ms. Vidhi Gupta and Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocates for R-4 with R-4 in person. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Passey, R-5 in person. Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondents
