Kapil Gupta v. Lawyer'S Chambers Allotment Committee And ORS.

$~20 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11403/2017 & CM Nos. 46547-48/2017 KAPIL GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through:

Petitioner in person.

versus LAWYER'S CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr D. Rajeshwar Rao, Mr Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate with Mr Brijpal Singh, Judicial Assistant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 22.12.2017 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the decision of the Lawyers' Chamber Allotment Committee inasmuch as the petitioner's application for a chamber in the Lawyers' Chamber Block, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi has been rejected.

2.

The petitioner had filed an application (application no.534) in the requisite form for allotment of a chamber on 27.08.2014. Admittedly, the petitioner had also filed certified copies of documents indicating that he had appeared as a main counsel in 15 cases as required. This was to establish that he was a regular practitioner in the Saket Court Complex. 3.

The petitioner's application was rejected as the Allotment Committee was of the view that the petitioner had submitted documents pertaining to only 14 cases and not 15 cases as required. This conclusion was drawn on

the basis that two of the cases were connected as they related to matrimonial disputes among the same parties. One of the cases pertained to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the other pertained to divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

4.

It is not disputed that these cases were instituted in different Courts at the material time; the petition for divorce was instituted before the Court of learned ADJ and the application for maintenance under 125 CrPC was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

In this view, the decision of the Allotment Committee to consider both these matters as a single case cannot be sustained.

5.

Plainly, two cases instituted in two different Courts cannot be considered as one even though one may have bearing on the other or the subject matter of the two cases may be related. 6.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the Allotment Committee is directed to re-examine the case of the petitioner. In the event the petitioner is otherwise entitled for allotment of the chamber; the Allotment Committee shall pass the necessary order for the allotment of chamber to the petitioner on his own seniority. VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 22, 2017 MK