HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15018/2025 Dholpur Bar Association, Through Its President Mr. Prashant Hundawal S/o Shri Govind Prasad Hundawal, Aged About 49 Years, Address Bar Association Dholpur, District Court Complex, Dholpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan High Court, Through Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. 2. The District And Sessions Judge, District And Sessions Court Complex, Dholpur. 3. Nodal Officer (Building), Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Court Complex, Dholpur. 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Principal Secretary, Law And Legal Affairs Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 6. The Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 7. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Dholpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramit Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanay Goyal for Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General Mr. Tanveer Ahamad HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 15/10/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without basic infrastructure, including lawyers' chambers, the functioning of the new building at Dholpur District would not be feasible. He has (2 of 4) [CW-15018/2025] relied upon the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in the case of The District Bar Association, Banswara v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3651/2020), relevant portion whereof reads as under :- "25. Today, while dealing with a specific issue of lawyers’ chambers and keeping into due consideration, the above backdrop, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents as follows: (a) Dr. Sachin Acharya, Learned Counsel for respondents Within 7 days the number of chambers requirement shall be given for each of the court complexes in Rajasthan. Thereupon the State- respondents shall formulate a comprehensive scheme/policy to demarcate the number of chambers required in each of the approximately 35 judgeships with 1250 Subordinate Courts. Such numbers shall be proportionate to registered Bar members and practicing lawyers, while considering the number of functioning Courts. This exercise shall be completed within 15 days from today. (b) Chambers shall be planned and designed by the State respondents to accommodate maximum lawyers based on a minimum of four operational lawyers per room. Such design shall be submitted within the next 15 days. (c) The State-respondents shall take adequate steps to begin construction within a period of 30 days thereafter and respondents shall commence construction and complete the same within six months thereafter. Thus the task of construction and completion of the lawyers chambers in all shall completed by 30th May 2026. (d) In case, the prioritization has to be made, then the lawyers’ chambers required at the newly constructed buildings shall be given priority so as to ensure that the lawyers shifting from the old buildings will be accommodated in the new building in their own dignified space, which shall be their chambers. (e) It is also directed that henceforth any design or policy for the future of expansion or new buildings of the Court shall (3 of 4) [CW-15018/2025] include specific place and design for appropriate number of lawyers’ chambers, which shall be required to be abided by the respondents. 26.1.The State-respodents shall be free to seek and secure whatever financial assistance it can obtain from the Union Government in accordance with the policy in vogue. 26.2.These directions shall be abided by the State-respondents and shall be binding upon all the respondents. In case of non compliance, this Court shall contemplate stern action against the State-respondents for failure to complete the construction within the stipulated timeframe. 26.3.In the considered view of this Court, the proposal of converting existing Lawyers’ Halls into Advocates’ Chambers does not appear to be a viable or desirable solution. This is for the reason that the two serve altogether different functions: while Lawyers’ Halls exist as collective spaces for deliberations, meetings, and academic or professional engagements of the Bar, Advocates’ Chambers are intended to provide individual professional sanctuaries where counsel may prepare cases, consult clients, and discharge their duties as officers of the Court. To merge one into the other would not only erode the utility of both but also cause an irreparable setback to the justice delivery system, which thrives equally on collective deliberation and individual preparation. Thus, while making all the construction of judicial infrastructure, this fundamental distinction shall be kept in mind. 27. For the rest of the issues, which were mentioned in the order dated 28.08.2025, the Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat, learned assistant to Advocate General submits that learned Advocate General shall address. " 2. In view of above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply with the directions issued in the case of The District Bar Association, Banswara (supra) within the time frame prescribed therein. It is clarified that the (4 of 4) [CW-15018/2025] map placed on record shall be considered while deciding the issue in question. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J Sudheer /10