Suman Kumar Tyagi v. New Delhi Bar Association & ANR
II Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
$-24 to 26.
*
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4585/2016 MANJU KASANA Petitioner Through Mr Subhash Chand Tomar, Advocate.
versus STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS Respondents Through Mr Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate for NDBA/Respondent No. 1, Mr Chandan Sayal, Advocate proxy counsel for Mr Vikas Shokeen, advocate for NCT of Delhi.
25.
+ W.P.(C) 4817/2016 YATENDRA SINGH NAGAR Petitioner Through versus STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS Respondents Through Mr Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate for NDBA/Respondent No. 1.
Mr Chandan Sayal, Advocate proxy counsel for Mr Vikas Shokeen, advocate for NCT of Delhi.
26.
+ W.P.(C) 6765/2016 SUMAN KUMAR TYAGI Petitioner Through versus NEW DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR Respondent Through Mr s.K. Tyagi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 27.10.2017 1.
The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation for allotment of Lawyer's Chamber(s) by New Delhi Bar Association (hereinafter 'NDBA') has not been acceded to. 2.
It is seen that by the order dated 04.05.2017 this Court had, inter alia, directed as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from perusal of the copy of the counter affidavit fiimished to him, it is noticed that there are four chambers i.e. Chamber Nos.
141, 141A, 400, that are stated to be in the possession of NDBA. He submits that since the petitioners are senior most members, the said chambers be allotted to them.
The NDBA is directed to allot the above-said four chambers to the senior most eligible persons in accordance with the rules, provided there is no interim direction from any Court of law restraining the allotment of the above-said chambers."
3.
This Court considers it apposite to extend the above mentioned direction to apply not only to the four chambers mentioned in the above order but to all further allotments. NDBA is accordingly directed to allot chambers only in the order of seniority and as per the rules made for such allotment.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for NDBA submits that there is a stay order granted in a suit titled Ajeya Bhardwaj & Am.
v. Chairman, Chamber Committee & Ors. : CS (OS) 1412/2014^ whereby NDBA has been interdicted to make any further allotments. He further states that subject to the said order being vacated, allotment shall be made on the basis as directed
by this Court.
5.
In view of the above statement, no further orders are required to be passed in these petitions. The petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 27, 2017 pkv