Rahul Sharma v. Lawyers' Chambers Allotment Committee And ANR.

$~33 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 8220/2018 RAHUL SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Rahul Sharma, petitioner in person alongwith Mr Ashish Gautam, Advocate.

versus LAWYERS' CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 07.08.2018 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the minutes of the meeting dated 05.09.2017 and 27.11.2017 rejecting the petitioner's representation for allotment of a chamber in the Lawyers' Chamber Block, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi. 2.

In terms of the relevant criteria for allotment of chambers, the petitioner was required to furnish certified copies of order sheets of 15 cases. This was to establish that the petitioner was regularly practising in the Saket Court Complex.

Admittedly, the petitioner was unable to do so. Subsequently, the applicants were also permitted to file vakalatnamas relating to cases in courts at Saket to establish that they were practising in the Saket Court Complex. However, the Allotment Committee decided not to accept vakalatnamas which were accepted by more than one advocate.

This was for the obvious reason that such vakalatnama would not be sufficient to establish that the applicant was the main counsel in the matter or had himself pursued the matter. The petitioner states that he had submitted order sheets, which reflected his appearance and vakalatnamas relating to different cases. Admittedly, the said vakalatnamas were jointly accepted by other advocates as well; therefore, were not accepted by the concerned Allotment Committee. 3.

This Court finds no infirmity with the criteria adopted by the Allotment Committee. It is also obvious that the petitioner's application was not compliant with the said criteria.

4.

The representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected at the meeting of the Allotment Committee held on 27.11.2017. The relevant extract of the said decision indicating the reasons for rejection of the petitioner's representation reads as under:- "The original criteria was to file certified copies of proceeding sheets of 15 cases of South/South-East District Courts as main counsel in support of claim of practicing at Saket Court Complex, at the time of inviting applications for allotment of chambers which was w.e.f.

23.06.2014 to 07.07.2014, extended till 30.08.2014.

Thus, the applicant lawyers were supposed to file certified copies of orders/judgments/statements reflecting their appearances by name in the court cases. The Sub-committee while scrutinizing the applications found that none of the applicants had filed certified copies of 15 cases.

Therefore, it was considered appropriate to count certified copies of vakalatnamas reflecting single signature of applicant lawyer as "cases" to draw up the seniority list.

The criteria set by the Sub-Committee for drawing up the seniority list was accepted vide minutes of

meeting dated 05.09.2017. The seniority list has been drawn up as per the seniority, both in SBA membership and the BCD enrolment."

5.

This Court is informed that the process for allotment of chambers is already over. Thus, entertaining any representation for further relaxation in criteria or for reconsideration of the allotment made is neither apposite nor feasible.

6.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 07, 2018 MK