Parikshit Mahipal v. The Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee & Anr

1. Present appeal has been filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act seeking quashing and setting aside of Order/Judgment dated 27th May, 2024 passed in WP (C) No. 9192/2019 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Allotment Committee”) had considered all the relevant documents before coming to the conclusion that the application seeking allotment of Chamber merits rejection.

2. The appellant states that he was enrolled as an Advocate since 27th October, 2007, having the Enrolment No. D-1770/2007 issued by Delhi Bar Council and is the member of Rohini Court Bar Association i.e., respondent No.1 since 22nd April, 2008 vide membership no. P-320 and is practicing lawyer at District Courts and High Court of Delhi. The appellant, who appears in person, submits that in respect of allotment of Chambers in the Rohini Courts Complex, the Rohini Court Bar Association had invited applications for allotment of Chambers on 12th April, 2013. Consequent upon the applications filed by various Advocates, on 28th October, 2013, the respondents had published a list of applicants seeking allotment of lawyers’ chambers as per seniority. The appellant’s name is stated to be appearing at Serial No. 1422 of the Seniority List. After completion of formalities, the appellant appeared before the Allotment Committee. He submits that on 28th November 2013, the Allotment Committee published a list of 830 eligible Advocates and the appellant’s name did not appear in such list. Being aggrieved, the appellant had filed W.P.(C) 7899/2013 before this Court.

3. He submits that the said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 13th December, 2013 with a direction that the writ petition would be treated as an objection/representation and the Allotment Committee would take a decision within four weeks. The appellant was permitted to challenge the said decision in case he is aggrieved by it. By the decision dated 3rd February, 2014, the Allotment Committee had rejected his representation. Subsequently, the appellant states to have made numerous representations to the Allotment Committee seeking allotment of Chamber, all of which were in vain. The appellant submits that in pursuance of the order dated 12th May, 2016 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 408/2014 Ashok Kumar vs. Hon’ble District Judge, Rohini District Courts, permitting the applicants to furnish details of the number of Court appearances as well as of the case proceedings where Vakalatnama has been filed by the main counsel as per Clause 18 of the application, the appellant also filed a fresh representation dated 8th March 2017 vide Diary No. 839. He submits that alongwith the said representation, documents in the nature of Goshwara Register and Original Files Destroyed Certificates were submitted. The appellant submits that even this representation was rejected vide communication dated 11th July 2017 issued by the Allotment Committee.

4. Mr. Parikshit Mahipal, appellant in person, submits that the communication dated 11th July, 2017 was challenged by him by way of a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 8265/2017. This writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24th May, 2018 with the direction that the Allotment Committee would re-visit the issue and examine the documents filed alongwith the appellant’s representation dated 8th March, 2017. The Allotment Committee was also directed to grant personal hearing to the appellant.

5. The appellant submits that vide the rejection order/letter dated 22nd July, 2019, the Allotment Committee had rejected the representation of the appellant. Challenging the same, the appellant had filed a writ bearing W.P.(C) No. 9192/2019 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide the impugned judgment dated 27th May, 2024. The present LPA has been filed challenging the impugned judgment.

6. Mr. Parikshit Mahipal, appellant in person, contends that the learned Single Judge overlooked a relevant aspect, in that, the contention of the appellant that despite the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 24th May, 2018, the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment overlooked and did not consider those pertinent observations.

7. He also submits that the Allotment Committee also committed a gross error and illegality in not considering the Goshwara Register and Original Files Destroyed Certificates. According to Mr. Mahipal, these documents which were already placed before the Allotment Committee as also the learned Single Judge clearly indicate that the appellant had been practicing in the Rohini District Courts apart from also evidencing his appearances before such Courts. He submits that the period of his practice covered by the Goshwara Register and Original Files Destroyed Certificates, were documentary proof of his continuous practice in the Rohini District Courts and even if he was unable to produce the certified copies of the Vakalatnama and the case proceedings of that period, it should be read in his favour. He supplements the same by contending that the destruction of old files, by whatever nature, is not his fault and cannot be held against him to his detriment.

8. He also contends that the rejection of his representation by the Allotment Committee and dismissal of his writ petition by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order is contrary to the overwhelming documents on record evidencing his continuous practice from the year 2007 in the Rohini District Courts. Additionally he submits that the Allotment Committee committed a grave illegality in not following the directions passed by learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 24th May,

2018.

9. We have heard the appellant in person, who has taken us through the impugned judgment as also the various documents filed on record.

10. It is pertinent to note that according to the Rohini District Courts Lawyers Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 2011, the Allotment Committee shall comprise the District Judge (North West) who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee, Senior most Additional District and Sessions Judge and any such Judicial Officer(s) posted at Rohini District Courts as District Judge (North West) may be deemed fit. The President and the Hony. Secretary of the Rohini District Court Bar Association also were to be the members of the said Committee. According to the Rules, the District Judge (North West) was empowered to induct any person or representative of any Institution or Agency in the Committee as and when considered necessary for a specific purpose. The Rules also stipulated that the decision of the Allotment Committee would be taken by way of general consensus or by common majority, but stipulates that in case of any difference of opinion, the decision of the District Judge (North West) shall be final. We have examined the Rules only to satisfy the conscious of this Court that the Allotment Committee consists of independent authorities who would be impartial and unbiased while considering applications for allotment of Chambers. That apart, from a perusal of the contents of the writ petition as also the present appeal, we find that the appellant has not alleged bias or impartiality qua the members of the Allotment Committee, and rightly so.

11. A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the learned Single Judge has meticulously examined not only the documents placed before him but also the affidavits and additional affidavits filed on record by the Administrative Civil Judge-ARC, North West District, Rohini District Courts, wherein the entire details of the Allotment Committee’s consideration was rendered in extenso.

12. We find that the Administrative Civil Judge, whose affidavit was filed before the learned Single Judge, had given details of the consideration of the documents of the appellant alongwith the reasoning on the basis whereof his application for allotment of Chamber was rejected. The said additional affidavit also indicated the re-visiting and re-consideration of the documents filed by the appellant, namely, Goshwara Register and Original Files Destroyed Certificates, by the Allotment Committee, in compliance with the order dated 24th May, 2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 8265/2017. We find from a reading of the said affidavit that the Allotment Committee after scrutinizing the said documents were unable to conclude the continuity of the practice of the appellant before the Rohini District Courts. This is rightly so because the said documents do not give any indication as to whether the appellant had filed his Vakalatnama in such cases nor do they indicate the case proceeding sheet to evidence the appellant’s presence as a counsel for any of the parties whose names or case number were reflected therein. In the absence of relevant documents, clearly evidencing the appellant’s continuous practice, it would be well nigh impossible even for this Court to conclude affirmatively the continuity of practice of appellant before the Rohini District Courts.

13. In order to bring clarity to the aforesaid observations, it is apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment which are as under:-

6. The respondent no. I has submitted the additional affidavit sworn by the Administrative Civil Judge-ARC, North-West District, Rohini Courts Delhi wherein para no.2.[2] it is mentioned as under:-