IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the principle of seniority in allotting chambers, ruling that emotional considerations cannot override established rules.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. The present petition impugns the decision of the Lawyers’ Chamber Allotment Committee, Saket District Courts [“the Allotment Committee”] re-allotting the second slot of Chamber No. 370 within Lawyers Chamber Block, Saket Court to Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate, Respondent No. 2 on double occupancy basis.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. A brief background leading to the filing of the present petition, is as follows:

2.1. The Petitioners are practicing advocates, enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi and are members of Saket Bar Association. Petitioner No. 1 was allotted the second slot of Chamber No. 243, Lawyers Chamber Block, Saket Court in double occupancy basis at the time of initial allotment of the chambers.

2.2. Petitioner No. 2 was allotted the first slot of Chamber No. 370 which he shared with Mr. Juber Ahmed Khan, Advocate. After the unfortunate demise of Mr. Khan on 17th December 2021, the second slot of Chamber No. 370 became vacant and available for re-allotment.

2.3. In light of this vacancy, Petitioner No. 1 submitted an application on 18th July, 2023 for swapping of his slot in Chamber No. 243 with the vacant slot in Chamber No. 370, desiring to share the chamber with Petitioner No. 2. To support this request, Petitioner No. 2 provided a No Objection Certificate [“NOC”] expressly consenting to Petitioner No. 1’s co-allotment of Chamber No. 370. This application was supplemented by a subsequent representation dated 20th March, 2024, accompanied by Petitioner No. 2’s consent.

2.4. In March, 2024 second slot of Chamber No. 370 was sealed by the Public Works Department. Meanwhile, the matter of re-allotting the second slot of Chamber No. 370 was considered during the meeting of the Allotment Committee held on 4th April, 2024. However, due to time constraints, Petitioner No. 1’s application could not be taken up for consideration. The minutes of meeting dated 4th April, 2024 recorded as follows:

2.5. Subsequently, when the Petitioners filed a writ petition bearing No. W.P. (C) 7929/2024, this Court through order dated 28th May, 2024, directed the Allotment Committee to consider Petitioner No. 1’s application before allotting the second slot of Chamber No. 370. In compliance with the said directions, on 4th June, 2024, Petitioner No. 1 submitted another representation along with a copy of the order dated 28th May, 2024.

2.6. Petitioner No. 1’s request was considered in the meeting held on 1st June, 2024. The minutes reveal that, besides Petitioner No. 1’s application, Respondent No. 2 had also submitted an application to swap his current allotment Chamber No. 635 with the vacant slot in Chamber No. 370. The Allotment Committee referred the matter to the Sub-Committee for a detailed examination.

2.7. In light of the observations of the Sub-Committee, the Allotment Committee considered the representations of Petitioner No. 1 as well as Respondent No. 2 and on 30th July, 2024, it was decided to allot the second slot of Chamber No. 370 to Respondent No. 2. The minutes of the meeting reflected this decision as follows:

2.8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid allotment, the Petitioners have now invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 impugning the validity of List-E66 (Subsequent Allotment-Double Occupancy) whereby the second slot of Chamber No. 370 was allotted to Respondent No. 2.

PETITIONERS’ CONTENTIONS:

3. Mr. Amit Singh, counsel for Petitioners, advances the following argume