The court affirmed that the seniority list of advocates must not be disturbed for future chamber allotments, ensuring priority for those who originally applied in 2009.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These are writ petitions filed by various lawyers challenging the procedure for allotment of chambers in the Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi.

3. It is a matter of which judicial notice can be taken that lawyers' chambers is an issue that concerns the Bar across District Courts and High Court as, owing to the large influx of lawyers over years, sufficient numbers of chambers are not available.

4. The present litigation dates back to 2009 when lawyers' chambers of the Karkardooma District Court Complex were to be allotted. There were a total of 480 chambers to be allotted on twin sharing basis. In September, 2009, applications were called from the lawyers for chamber allotment by Shahdara Bar Association and a list of 1093 persons was drawn up. Out of the said list of 1093 persons, 980 persons were allotted chambers and there was a balance of 113 lawyers who could not be allotted chambers due to lack of availability of chambers.

5. Challenges were raised by lawyers concerned with respect to the allotment list leading to decision dated 27th September, 2011 of the ld. Division Bench in W.P.(C) 4867/2011 titled `Karan Singh Kardam v. Chamber Allotment Committee, Karkardooma Courts'. In the said order passed by the ld. Division Bench, the Petitioner in the said case was permitted to make a representation to the District Judge/Chamber Allotment Committee which was directed to consider his case on merits after examining all the documents. The Chamber Allotment Committee examined the matter and had placed the Petitioner - Mr. Kardam at the bottom of the list which led to another litigation being W.P.(C) 2819/2012 titled `Sh. Karan Singh Kardam v. The Chamber Allotment Committee & Ors.'. In the said writ petition, another order dated 10th October, 2013 was passed to the effect that the 980 persons who were already allotted chambers, would not be disturbed. However, a fresh seniority list would also be now prepared by the Chambers Allotment Committee of Karkardooma Court, Delhi.

6. The matter was again considered by the Chamber Allotment Committee and a fresh seniority list dated 5th February, 2018 was prepared which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) 2195/2018 titled Praveen Thukral & Ors. v. The Chambers Allotment Committee & Ors., and W.P.(C) 9371/2018 titled Karan Singh Kardam v. The Chambers Allotment Committee, Through the DJ & ASJ. East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. After considering the entire matter, the ld. Single Judge passed the following order:

"4. The petitioners in the present petition impugn the list containing the names of 150 advocates (hereafter the `impugned list') selected for allotment of lawyers chambers in the Karkardooma court complex. The impugned list was published and uploaded on the website of Shahdara Bar Association on 05.02.2018.

5. The petitioners claim that the impugned list also includes names of advocates that had not applied for allotment of a chambers pursuant to the invitations for application that were issued in September, 2009.

6. The controversy in the present case arises in the backdrop of the following facts:

6.1. The applications for lawyers chambers were invited by the Shahdara Bar Association in September, 2009. Pursuant to the said invitation, several advocates applied for allotment of chambers. At the material time, only 960 advocates could be accommodated on a twin sharing basis.

6.2. The Minutes of the Chamber Allotment Committee held on 09.03.2010, indicate that a total number of 1265 advocates had submitted their affidavits within the time