RAMNIK GUPTA Vs. U T ADMINISTRATION CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, we propose to dispose of these 6 connected writ petitions, bearing Nos. 6082, 6154, 6607, 7001, 7024 and 7610 of 2001, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these matters. Learned counsel representing the parties also suggest likewise. The bare minimum facts that, however, need necessary mention, have been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 6082 of 2001, Ramnik Gupta and another v. U.T. Administration, Chandigarh.

(2.) Petitioners herein, Ramnik Gupta and Vaneesh Khanna, who are Advocates practising in District Courts at Chandigarh, through present petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the order passed by the respondent-UT Administration, dated 9-4-2001 and yet another order dated 20-4-2001. In consequence of setting aside the orders aforesaid, they further pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from forcing them to induct a new Advocate in their chamber.

(3.) The reliefs as asked for in the present petition emanate from the facts as projected in the petition that Ist petitioner Ramnik Gupta after passing his Law started his practice in the year 1983, whereas IInd petitioner Vaneesh Khanna started practising in the year 1985. In the year 1985, chambers in District Courts, Chandigarh, were offered for allotment to the Advocates practising in District Courts, Chandigarh. The allotment was restricted to those who were members of the District Bar Association, Chandigarh. In response to this, both the petitioners applied for allotment of chamber. Since the availability of chambers was less commensurate to the members of the Bar, it was decided that minimum two Advocates would be accommodated in one chamber. Both the petitioners were allotted Chamber No. 115 at First floor. Father of IInd petitioner, namely, Surat Chand Khanna, Joined practice after retiring from this Court as Assistant Registrar on 31-12-1989. Initially, Shri Surat Chand Khanna started practice in the High Court but somewhere in the year 1993/94, he joined his son and started active practice at District Courts, Chandigarh and since then he is member of District Bar Association, Chandigarh and is practising with his son Vaneesh Khanna. In the manner aforesaid, there are already three lawyers occupying Chamber No. 115, District Courts, Chandigarh. In the year 1997, District Bar Association, Chandigarh, moved a proposal, consequent upon which applications were invited from the lawyers, who were aspiring to have chambers and they were asked to deposit Rs. 1,000.00 along with their applications. Some of the members of the Bar applied for allotment of chamber and after preparation of the list, their names and the money so collected from them were sent to the UT Administration. Ist petitioner received a letter from the respondent calling upon him to adjust one more lawyer in the chamber already allotted to him. The petitioners replied to the letter aforesaid wherein they mentioned that there was no slot available in the chamber and the Administration could not force upon them any new Advocate. In the alternative, it was mentioned that Shri Surat Chand Khanna is already practising from the chamber allotted to them, being father of IInd petitioner, the original allottee and even if an additional Advocate was to be accommodated, name of Shri Surat chand Khanna was proposed to be added. It was also mentioned in the reply that Shri surat Chand Khanna did not apply for the chamber in the year 1997 because at that time he was not interested in having any additional chamber. Chandigarh Administration replied the aforesaid letter vide its letter dated 9-4-2001 wherein it was mentioned that an Advocate had to be adjusted from the eligible applicants and the names of the Advocates, who did not figure in the list of 299 eligible candidates cannot be considered. Petitioners then made representation to the Deputy Commissioner but without any result. The petitioners then received yet another letter from the respondent-Administration dated 20-4-2001 wherein the petitioners were called upon to give their choice by 26-4-2001 positively, failing which the vacant slot in the chamber would be filled in by draw of lots. Date for draw of lots was fixed as 30-4-2001.