Babu Malayil v. Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee Saket And ANR

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3863/2018 and CM No. 15253/2018 BABU MALAYIL ..... Petitioner Through:

Counsel (appearance not given).

versus LAWYERS CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE SAKET AND ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr Sanjay Dewan and Ms Nishima Arora, Advocates for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 15.11.2018 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the minutes of the meeting of the Lawyers Chamber Allotment Committee held on 09.03.2018 to the extent that it rejects the petitioner's representation. The operative part of the said minutes reads as under:- "The report has been submitted by Member Secretary in a sealed envelope. Same has been opened and no changes in the status of Mr. Babu Malayil has been found. He does not meet the criteria prescribed or expanded by the Committee as he has 12 cases or 3 Vakalatnamas."

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the Committee have found that the documents submitted by the petitioner did not satisfy the criteria for allotment of chambers, inasmuch as the documents did not reflect his representation in 15 cases. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that minutes

clearly indicate that as far as 12 cases are concerned, there is no controversy and the controversy related to the three cases, where the petitioner had supplied his Vakalatnamas. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. He submits that the documents relating to the twelve cases provided by the petitioner also did not reflect him to be the counsel engaged in those matters.

4.

This Court is unable to appreciate the aforesaid controversy as the impugned minutes of the meeting are ambiguous as to the deficiencies found in the documents submitted by the petitioner. 5.

In view of the above, the impugned minutes to the extent they are relevant to the petitioner's representation are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Committee.

6.

It is directed that the Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee shall specify the deficiencies, if any, found in the documents submitted by the petitioner. It is clarified that if the Committee comes to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in the documents submitted by the petitioner, the Committee shall re-consider its decision for allotting the Chamber to the petitioner in accordance with the policy.

7.

The pending application is also disposed of.

8.

Order dasti.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 15, 2018 RK