Sandeep Malik And ORS. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

CWP No.23312 of 2017 (O&M) [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.23312 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision:15.05.2018 Sandeep Malik and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Dishant D. Tuteja, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for respondents no.3, 4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32 and 39.

**** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

This petition is filed by the Members of the District Bar Association, Panipat, who are aggrieved against the allotment of chambers. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, delivery of possession of the chambers was stayed.

Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the petitioners have already been given chambers but their grievance is only to the extent that they have not been given chambers on the ground floor. It is, however, submitted that the chambers have been constructed in the shape of four storey building having the facility of lift(s) and, thus, there is no problem in allotment of chamber(s) either on ground floor or any other floor(s). I have checked up the age of the petitioners who all are young Vinod Kumar 2018.05.18 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.23312 of 2017 (O&M) [ 2 ] ***** advocates ranging between 28 to 35 years of age. Mr. Manuja has also shown to me all the photographs of the ceremony in which the chambers were allotted to each member of the District Bar Association and the tickets were drawn from the container by the District and Sessions Judge, Panipat himself. Thus, in my considered opinion, the petitioners do not have any issue for contesting this litigation.

Dismissed.

May 15, 2018 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No