Mr. Ashish Rajput v. The Chamber Allotment Committee & ANR.

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2324/2026 and CM APPL. 5124/2020 MR. ASHISH RAJPUT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saksham Gupta, Advocate versus THE CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel for GNCTD

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 29.05.2026 The matter is taken up today as 28.05.2026 was declared a holiday on account of „Id-ul-Zuha (Bakrid)‟.

1.

By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks following prayers:- "A. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to reconsider the candidature of the Petitioner for allotment of a Lawyers‟ Chamber at the Karkardooma Court Complex strictly in accordance with the notification dated 19.09.2025, the governing Rules, and the binding judicial directions of this Hon‟ble Court, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period, and consequently to allot a Lawyers‟ Chamber to the Petitioner at the Karkardooma Court Complex strictly in accordance with the applicable notification, the binding judicial directions governing the list of 113 left-out candidates, and the settled principles of fair and reasonable administrative action, as per the Petitioner‟s seniority, within such time-bound period as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper.

B. Issue a writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned rejection letter dated 24.01.2026 issued by the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2026 at 12:18:33

respondents whereby the Petitioner‟s candidature for allotment of a Lawyers‟ Chamber has been rejected on the vague and non-speaking ground of alleged non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria, and consequently direct the Respondents to reconsider the Petitioner‟s candidature for allotment of a Lawyers‟ Chamber in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period."

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case for chamber allotment has been rejected by a cryptic and unreasoned impugned order. He further submits that, as per the subsequent oral communications, the respondent has informed that the petitioner has not furnished 10 number of Vakalatnamas for the relevant period. He further submits that the petitioner has furnished 7 Vakalatnamas alongwith 3 receipts seeking certified copies of the remaining Vakalatnamas. 3.

Mr. Vashisht, learned counsel for the respondent, fairly concedes that that the impugned order is not specifying any reason for rejection of the petitioner's application.

4.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that no reasons have been assigned in dismissing the petitioner's application. 5.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to consider the petitioner's application afresh and an appropriate order be passed after hearing the parties. The petitioner shall be at liberty to place on record the remaining 3 Vakalatnamas, which shall be considered in accordance with the rules/guidelines. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MAY 29, 2026/na The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2026 at 12:18:33