$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2473/2026, CM APPL. 12042/2026 SH PIYUSH GUPTA ADVOCATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Malhotra with Mr.

Sudhanshu Sharma, Ms. Kamayani, Mr. Saksham Gupta, Ms. Himanshi Soni, Ms. Deepanshu Gupta, Advs.

versus THE CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Manashwy Jha with Ms.

Khushboo Mittal, Mr. Aryaman Vachher, Advs for Mr. Sameer Vashisht, S.C. for GNCTD CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 20.02.2026

1. This petition has been listed through a supplementary list circulated in the post lunch session, in view of the order passed today by the Bench of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Justice Tejas Karia, for listing of the petition before a bench of which one of them namely, Justice Tejas Karia is not a Member.

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“Under the facts and circumstances stated above and in the interest of justice, it is respectfully prayed as under: -

a. The writ petition may kindly be accepted with costs throughout, and writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, thereby quashing and setting aside the residence-based eligibility condition restricting consideration for allotment of lawyers’ chambers only to advocates residing within the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and directing the Respondents to recognise eligibility on the basis of residence within the National Capital Region in accordance with the constitutional framework governing allotment of lawyers’

chambers.

b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to suitably amend, harmonise and implement the District Courts Shahdara/Karkardooma Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 1995, the District Courts Dwarka Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 2009 and the Rohini District Courts Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 2011, so as to ensure that the territorial eligibility and other governing conditions contained therein are brought in conformity with, and made consistent with, the amended Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment & Occupancy) Rules, 1980, thereby establishing a uniform, transparent and constitutionally compliant framework for allotment of lawyers’ chambers across all District Court complexes functioning under the administrative control of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

c. Issue appropriate directions to the Respondent No 1 to reconsider the candidature of advocates who were denied allotment solely on the ground of residence outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi, including those forming part of the recognised seniority and eligibility pool in context of Karkardooma/Shahdara Court Complex, strictly in accordance with constitutional principles of fairness, non-discrimination and legitimate expectation.

d. Issue an appropriate direction directing the Respondents that during the pendency of the present writ petition and until the issue of territorial eligibility is finally decided, any lawyers’ chamber becoming available for allotment in accordance with the applicable seniority and eligibility criteria shall not be allotted to any junior or otherwise ineligible advocate, and that such chamber(s) be kept reserved for the signatories to the present Public Interest Litigation, subject to their being otherwise eligible and entitled to allotment on the basis of seniority under the applicable rules, in order to protect their rights and to prevent irreparable prejudice.

e. Costs of the writ petition may also be awarded to petitioner.

f. Such other and further relief which this Hon’ble court may deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of petitioner and against respondents.”

3. In effect, the petitioners are challenging the provisions of the Allotment Rules of the District Courts, Karkardooma Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 1995 [‘Karkardooma Rules’], more specifically, Rule 3, whi