The Delhi High Court, on Monday, directed the authorities to cancel the allotment of Chambers that have been left unutilized in District Courts at Dwarka.
The Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C. Hari Shankar directed, "So far as unutilized chambers are concerned, steps shall be taken for cancellation of the unutilized chambers after issuance of notice to show cause to the allottees and giving them an opportunity to make representations in such regard."
It also directed strict adherence to the District Courts, Dwarka, Lawyers Chambers (Allotment & Occupancy) Rules, 2009 while allotting vacant chambers.
The Court was hearing a bunch of Petitions filed by lawyers who had been denied allotment of chambers at the Dwarka Court complex. The Petitioners had challenged the Constitutional validity of Rule 4 of 2009 Rules.
Rule 4 directs the Allotment Committee to consider the list of eligible Advocates, as prepared by the Dwarka Courts Bar Association, while making recommendations for initial allotments.
Besides, Rules 3 and 5 had also come under scrutiny. Rule 3 makes membership of the Dwarka Courts Bar Association an eligibility criteria for allotment of Chambers. Rules 5 empowers the District Judge to make an out of turn allotment.
The Petitioners had contended that the impugned Rules violate the Court's orders in the case of District Court Bar Association, Dwarka v. Bar Council of Delhi & Anr., wherein the Court had directed the allotment of chambers to be made without any reference to the membership of a particular Bar Association.
Agreeing with the Petitioners, the Court had, in May this year, observed that Rules 3 to 5 violated its directives in the District Court Bar Association judgment. It had then directed District Judge, Dwarka to bring the Rules in conformity with the judgment. The Rules were accordingly modified.
Noting that its orders have been given effect to, the Court now directed, "Needless to say, the allotments of the chambers have to be effected in accordance with the amended rules and the names of all persons mentioned in the above lists, who have not been allotted chambers so far, would require to be included for consideration of allotments while doing so."
It, however, did not disturb the allotments already made, observing that this would "serve no useful purpose and would prejudice the practicing lawyers".