ORDER :

1. “Love All Hate None” must be the spirit in the legal fraternity, as the entire fraternity is thriving towards the noble cause of social justice. Thus differences, if any, arise amongst the members of the legal fraternity, is to be resolved amicably without causing any infringement of right to any member of the fraternity. Tolerance, adjustability and acceptability must be the endeavour, to ensure peace and harmony amongst the legal fraternity in the interest of public and to serve for the welfare of our Great Nation.

2. The writ on hand is one where a member of the Bar challenges the High Court Law Chamber Allotment Order dated 22.06.2015 issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court of Madras. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially allotted No. 22, Old Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104 as Co-Allottee vide Official Memorandum ROC No. 2872/2010/D5 dated 13.10.2010 of the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Madras, Chennai-600 104.

3. The petitioner states that he went to No. 22, Law Chambers and met Mr.P.Selvaraj, Advocate, another Co-allottee and informed about his allotment and enquired about the Main Allottee Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate. Mr.P.Selvaraj, Advocate informed the petitioner that the main allottee used to visit the Law Chambers occasionally and he advised the petitioner to meet him in the Madras Bar Association. The petitioner went to the Madras Bar Association and met Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate and told him about his allotment. Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate refused to accommodate the petitioner and asked the petitioner to find out some other Law Chambers. The petitioner further states that Mr.R.Gandhi stoutly told the petitioner that he will accommodate only the Advocates, who all are in his close circle. Further Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate told the petitioner that he will arrange some other Law Chambers, since the Law Chamber is fully occupied by his juniors and there is no room to accommodate the petitioner. The petitioner states that he was helpless and reported the matter to the Registrar (Administration) of the Madras High Court.

4. The petitioner states that he got letter dated 03.03.2011 from the Registrar Official Memorandum ROC No. 375/2011/D5, which reads that the request of the Main Allottee Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate to provide alternate allotment to the petitioner in any other Law Chamber was rejected and ordered for his continued accommodation only as a Co-allottee in Law Chamber No. 22. The order further states that any request for reconsideration of allotment will not be entertained against the petitioner. After that the petitioner again approached the Main Allottee Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate for accommodation. The Main Allottee Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate allowed the petitioner to hang his robes in the Law Chambers. However, the petitioner was not allowed to place his furnitures, since the entire place is fully occupied by the juniors of the Main Allottee Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate.

5. The petitioner states that the Main Allottee Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate partitioned the Law Chambers occupying 40% of the space by placing a big table. The said Chamber is over crowded. The 40% of the portion is occupied by the Main Allottee. However, it is not used fully by the Main Allottee as he is always in Madras Bar Association and not coming to the Law Chambers frequently. His Clerks, Attenders and Drivers were occupying the same to relax and for dining purposes. This was curtailed only after the regular use of one more Joint Allottee Mr.Chandrasekar. The petitioner requested the Main Allottee Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate to remove the partition and provide him the space to put his chair and table in the Law Chamber. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.R.Gandhi permitted the petitioner to fix his Name Board at the entrance of the Law Chamber. The petitioner found the names of the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court below his name and thus he fixed his Name Boar