N N DESWANI Vs. P N JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by 55 members of the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking to quash a communication dated 4 August 1993 of the Assistant Registrar (Administration) of the Supreme Court whereby all the allottees of the lawyers' chambers in the Supreme Court compound were asked to pay licence fee at the rate of Rs.l,000.00 per month per chamber from 1 July 1993. The petitioners also challenge the resolution passed by the General Body of the Supreme Court Bar Association in its meeting held on 12 May 1993 whereby it was resolved that the members of the Association had no objection to the enhancement of licence fee to Rs.l,000.00 per month per chamber w.e.f. 1 July 1993 "to enable the authorities to construct new chambers for the members of the Bar." The recommendation of the Allotment Committee for Lawyers' Chambers for enhancement of licence fee has also been challenged.

(2.) When the matter came up before us for admission, the petitioners were represented by Mr. P.N. Lekhi, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Aman Lekhi. It was submitted that Rule 8 of the Allotment of Lawyers' Chambers Rules provided that licence fee for each chamber shall be such amount as might be fixed by the Government of India from time to time. It was submitted that there were no orders of the Central Government fixing licence fee at the rate of Rs. l,000.00 per month w.e.f. I July 1993, and the respondents, therefore, had no jurisdiction to enhance the licence fee of their own. On this submission, we had issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued and also issued notice on the application of the petitioners seeking stay of payment of enhanced licence fee.

(3.) There are four respondents, namely, (1) Mr. P.N. Jain, Assistant Registrar (Admn); (2) The Registrar (Admn); (3) The Allotment Committee for Laywers Chambers; and (4) The Supreme Court Bar-Assocaition. In answer to show cause notice, affidavits have been filed by respondents I and 2 and also by respondent No.4.