A writ of mandamus is not maintainable against a private professional association because it is not a 'State' entity under Article 12. Petitioners must exhaust alternative statutory or criminal law remedies before seeking extraordinary constitutional relief for personal grievances.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL)

1. This intra-court appeal seeks exception to an order dated 30.10.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, W.P.(C) 3331/2023 instituted by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The appellant is an Advocate, enrolled with the Bar Council in the year 2000 vide Enrolment No. D/53-E/2000. As per the assertions made by the appellant, she has been a regular practitioner as an Advocate since the year 2000 and has represented Government agencies and certain autonomous bodies and has also been on the Senior Panel of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, since the year 2011 and also on the Senior Panel of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi Jal Board, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other such bodies or authorities.

3. The appellant instituted the aforesaid writ petition with the following prayers:

“A. Pass Writ or directions in the nature of mandamus or other suitable writ or order or direction thereby directing the Respondents to remove their lock and immediately hand over the possession of the Chamber no. 279A, Patiala House Courts to the Petitioner and allow her to use the same without any hindrance and difficulty.

B. Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or other suitable writ or order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 and/or Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action against the said Advocates, who have indulged in illegal and criminal activities of committing criminal acts trespassing in respect of the Chamber in question; and

C. Pass any other order or orders in favour of the Petitioner, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit &proper in the facts &circumstances of the present Petition be also passed in favour of the Petitioner.”

4. The petition was filed inter alia with the assertion that in the year 2013, one Mr. Asgar Ali approached and told her that he is an allotee of Chamber No.279A at Patiala House Court Campus (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Chamber’) and requested her to utilize the same on rent, to which she agreed and started functioning from the said Chamber on monthly rent basis. It was also averred by the Appellant in the writ petition that on a certain date when she returned from Tis Hazari Court to the said Chamber at Patiala House Court Campus, she found that the said Mr. Asgar Ali along with ten other persons were occupying her Chamber having broke open the lock. It was also stated by the appellant that these persons started threatening, abusing and pressurizing her to remove her belongings and to vacate the Chamber without any reason.

5. The Appellant also stated in the writ petition that even the office bearers of the New Delhi Bar Association (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bar Association’) on 04.02.2023, instead of solving the issue and helping

her, threatened her to vacate the Chamber immediately and even a lock of the Bar Association was put on the said Chamber which left the appellant helpless and in a state of shock, as the belongings of the appellant including the case files of various government departments became inaccessible to her which adversely affected her profession. It was also stated in the writ petition by the appellant that the police was informed; however, the police also did not take any action against the persons who had committed acts of criminal trespass etc. and even refused to take written complaint, advising her to approach the Chairperson of the Bar Association