CWP-21081 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ashok Sharma Nabhewla Punjab and Haryana CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. Court, fetching grievance from an 25.03.2015 (Annexure P application for of withdrawal or surrender of rights by Advocate Principal Allotee instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. A further Punjab and Haryana Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) 21081-2015 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ashok Sharma Nabhewla Versus Punjab and Haryana High Court and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Petitioner in person. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate, Mr. Raman Dhir, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anuj Malik, Advocate, Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 5. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in this High fetching grievance from an 25.03.2015 (Annexure P-3), issued by respondent No.1, application for his induction as Advocate of withdrawal or surrender of rights by Advocate-Associate Member, in his place Principal Allotee-respondent No.2 objected to his induction, has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. A further prayer is also made to declare Rule 6 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21081-2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.08.2025 ….Petitioner High Court and others ….Respondents ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate, Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in this High fetching grievance from an order/communication dated 3), issued by respondent No.1, vide which, his induction as Advocate-Associate Member, on account of withdrawal or surrender of rights by Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, in his place, has been declined, as the objected to his induction, has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. re Rule 6 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) .2025 s The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in this High dated vide which, Associate Member, on account Kul Bhushan Sharma, declined, as the objected to his induction, has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. re Rule 6 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21081 Rules, 1988, the Constitution of India 2. clarity, it would be expedient to record a brief narration thereof. Initially, a Principal Allottee, along with 3. deleted from meeting dated 18.03.2014 of the Building Committee of this Court. Thereafter, chamber in question withdrawal of his name as petitioner request was declined by the Building Committee of this Court, on the ground that the Principal Allottee did not how, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. arguments at length. and object of the to all Associate Members 21081-2015 (O&M) -2- Rules, 1988, (for short, the ‘Rules of 1988’) the Constitution of India. Though the facts are hardly in dispute, yet for the sake of clarity, it would be expedient to record a brief narration thereof. Initially, a Lawyer chamber No.89 was allotted to respondent No.2 as a Principal Allottee, along with the following 1. Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma 2. Mr. Vishva Nath Sharma 3. Ms. Shamsher Kaur, 4. Mr. Parveen Gupta, 5. Mr. Jatinder Singh Kamboj 6. Ms. Veena Kumari 7. Mr. Shiv Shankar Bhardwaj Subsequently, name of Mr. Shiv Shankar Bhardwaj leted from the array of Associate Members meeting dated 18.03.2014 of the Building Committee of this Court. Thereafter, respondent No.3, who is one of the chamber in question, vide an application dated 11.07.2014, withdrawal of his name as Associate petitioner’s name as Associate Member, in his place. However, the said request was declined by the Building Committee of this Court, on the ground that the Principal Allottee did not how, the petitioner is before this Court. The petitioner causes appearance arguments at length. Opening his arguments, he contends and object of the Rules of 1988 is, to extend to all Associate Members, and not to provide monopoly rights to the (for short, the ‘Rules of 1988’) as ultra vires to Article 14 of Though the facts are hardly in dispute, yet for the sake of clarity, it would be expedient to record a brief narration thereof. was allotted to respondent No.2 as a following associate members:- Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma Mr. Vishva Nath Sharma Mr. Jatinder Singh Kamboj Mr. Shiv Shankar Bhardwaj Subsequently, name of Mr. Shiv Shankar Bhardwaj was Members, in view of the minutes of meeting dated 18.03.2014 of the Building Committee of this Court. one of the Associate Members of the vide an application dated 11.07.2014, requested for ssociate Member and for inclusion of as Associate Member, in his place. However, the said request was declined by the Building Committee of this Court, on the ground that the Principal Allottee did not accede to the proposal. That is causes appearance in person and addresses Opening his arguments, he contends that the intent extend equal right and opportunity not to provide monopoly rights to the to Article 14 of Though the facts are hardly in dispute, yet for the sake of clarity, it would be expedient to record a brief narration thereof. was allotted to respondent No.2 as a was , in view of the minutes of meeting dated 18.03.2014 of the Building Committee of this Court. embers of the requested for for inclusion of as Associate Member, in his place. However, the said request was declined by the Building Committee of this Court, on the That is addresses intent equal right and opportunity not to provide monopoly rights to the AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21081 Principal Allottee. Principal Allotte therefore, India. 5. exercise choice by the Principal Allottee come of allotment is over, and thereafter, all the Associate Members equally placed with equal rights. The Principal Allottee should not be allowed to re of any Associate Principal Allottee to re right surrender interprete Allottee with absolute which only gives a right of user. 6. Principal Allottee, by contending relationship with Associate Member confrontation amongst Memb defeating one of the objects of giving create a conducive and workable atmosphere in the chamber. submits that all the duties, as prescribed under Rule 11, has undertaken by the Principal Allottee only. 21081-2015 (O&M) -3- Principal Allottee. However, since Rule 6 gives absolute autonomy to the Principal Allottee to approve induction of any Associate Member therefore, it does not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of The next submission advanced by him is that exercise choice by the Principal Allottee come of allotment is over, and thereafter, all the Associate Members equally placed with equal rights. The Principal Allottee should not be allowed to re-exercise his choice/option on every induction or surrender any Associate Member. He asserts that Principal Allottee to re-exercise his right to option every time, in case of surrendered by any Associate Member. If th d in this manner, it would lead to empowering th Allottee with absolute title and interest in an apparent violation of which only gives a right of user. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, who is a Principal Allottee, vigorously opposes the submissions of the petitioner by contending that respondent No.2 does not enjoy harmonious relationship with him. In the event, the petitioner is allowed to join as Associate Member, it would certainly confrontation amongst Members of the chamber in question defeating the basic object of the Rules of 1988. He further submits that one of the objects of giving a right to choice to the Principal Allottee is to create a conducive and workable atmosphere in the chamber. that all the duties, as prescribed under Rule 11, has undertaken by the Principal Allottee only. ince Rule 6 gives absolute autonomy to the ction of any Associate Member, it does not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of The next submission advanced by him is that the power to exercise choice by the Principal Allottee comes to end, once the process of allotment is over, and thereafter, all the Associate Members are equally placed with equal rights. The Principal Allottee should not be exercise his choice/option on every induction or surrender He asserts that Rule 6 does not permit the exercise his right to option every time, in case of by any Associate Member. If the Rule in question is d in this manner, it would lead to empowering the Principal in an apparent violation of Rule 9, earned counsel for respondent No.2, who is a the submissions of the petitioner that respondent No.2 does not enjoy harmonious the petitioner is allowed to join as , it would certainly culminate into further ers of the chamber in question, besides the basic object of the Rules of 1988. He further submits that choice to the Principal Allottee is to create a conducive and workable atmosphere in the chamber. Finally, he that all the duties, as prescribed under Rule 11, has to be undertaken by the Principal Allottee only. ince Rule 6 gives absolute autonomy to the , it does not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of power to to end, once the process are equally placed with equal rights. The Principal Allottee should not be exercise his choice/option on every induction or surrender does not permit the exercise his right to option every time, in case of is e Principal , earned counsel for respondent No.2, who is a the submissions of the petitioner that respondent No.2 does not enjoy harmonious the petitioner is allowed to join as culminate into further , besides the basic object of the Rules of 1988. He further submits that choice to the Principal Allottee is to lly, he be AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21081 7. vehemently opposes the submissions made by the petitioner. He that legality of the Rules of 1988, has decades ago in Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others wherein it was held that exclusive right of choice is given to the Principal Allottee assertion made to the Principal Allottee, is, in fact, submits that the undoubtedly interference is required in the instant matter. 8. respondents 9. Court, and gauging legal provisions have a quick glance 10. Rules of 1988 is premises of allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers shall be solel Chief Justice for a chamber. clause (i) Justice on receipt 21081-2015 (O&M) -4- Learned Senior counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submissions made by the petitioner. He t legality of the Rules of 1988, has already been tested by this Court decades ago in CWP-525-1999 (Vijay Gopal Dogra Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others wherein it was held that, choice of the Chief Justice exclusive right of choice is given to the Principal Allottee assertion made by the petitioner that a monopolistic right has been given to the Principal Allottee, is, in fact, has no legs to stand submits that the impugned decision taken by the undoubtedly, in consonance with the Rules of 198 interference is required in the instant matter. We have heard the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents at length, and perused the record. Before embarking upon the submissions made before this Court, and gauging legality of the impugned order provisions of the Rules of 1988, it is imperative, at the first instance, to have a quick glance of the said Rules. The unambiguous purpose and object of framing of the Rules of 1988 is, to regulate the allotment of chambers constructed in the premises of this High Court. To begin with, allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers shall be solel Chief Justice. Rule 4 prescribes the eligibility for a chamber. Likewise, Rule 5 prescribes mode of allotment clause (i) thereof, stipulates that allotment shall be made by the Chief Justice on receipt of an application in the prescribed form, and sub Senior counsel for the respondent-High Court also vehemently opposes the submissions made by the petitioner. He contends already been tested by this Court Vijay Gopal Dogra Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others) (decided on 25.09.2000), choice of the Chief Justice is supreme, and no exclusive right of choice is given to the Principal Allottee. Therefore, monopolistic right has been given has no legs to stand. He further decision taken by the Building Committee is, Rules of 1988, and therefore, no interference is required in the instant matter. We have heard the petitioner, and learned counsel for the , and perused the record. Before embarking upon the submissions made before this of the impugned order on the anvil of , it is imperative, at the first instance, to ose and object of framing of the to regulate the allotment of chambers constructed in the To begin with, Rule 3 provides that allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers shall be solely at the discretion of the eligibility for an Advocate to apply Rule 5 prescribes mode of allotment. Sub- allotment shall be made by the Chief an application in the prescribed form, and sub-clause also contends already been tested by this Court Vijay Gopal Dogra Vs. Punjab and , , and no . Therefore, monopolistic right has been given He further , no We have heard the petitioner, and learned counsel for the Before embarking upon the submissions made before this of , it is imperative, at the first instance, to ose and object of framing of the to regulate the allotment of chambers constructed in the provides that discretion of the for an Advocate to apply - allotment shall be made by the Chief clause AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21081 (ii), which begins with non Justice may allot chamber to an Advocate, who is physically handicapped or otherwise deserving in this regard shall be final. that the Chief Justice may otherwise eligible Advocates 11. allotment, who may associate with him up to a maximum seven Advocates of own choice proviso attached cancelled or terminated, then a fresh allotment of the chamber would be made by the Chief Justice, keeping in view the associate Advocates of the allottee. that if the Chief Justice does not exercise his powers under the preceding proviso, nothing shall confer any right, title Advocates of the clear that tenancy, lease or sub than that of a 12. hatchet, it is read as under 21081-2015 (O&M) -5- (ii), which begins with non-obstante clause Justice may allot chamber to an Advocate, who is physically handicapped or otherwise deserving, and the discretion exercised by the Chief Justice in this regard shall be final. The proviso Chief Justice may, in appropriate case otherwise eligible Advocates. Significantly, Rule 6, which is under challenge, deals allotment, according to which, chamber shall be allotted to one Advocate, who may associate with him up to a maximum seven Advocates of own choice with the previous approval of the Chief Justice attached to Rule 6 stipulates cancelled or terminated, then a fresh allotment of the chamber would be made by the Chief Justice, keeping in view the associate Advocates of the allottee. Similarly, that if the Chief Justice does not exercise his powers under the preceding proviso, nothing shall confer any right, title Advocates of the Principal Allottee. A bare reading of clear that allotment of chamber would not confer any tenancy, sub tenancy, lease or sub-lease, title, interest etc. in favour of than that of a bare user. Rule 11 prescribes the duties of the At this juncture, even at the cost of repetition it is necessary to extract Rules 3, 5, 6, 9 and 11 read as under. “3. Allotment.-The allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers shall solely at the discretion of the Chief Justice. obstante clause, stipulates that the Chief Justice may allot chamber to an Advocate, who is physically handicapped and the discretion exercised by the Chief Justice attached to this Rule, postulates in appropriate cases, relax the bars in case of , which is under challenge, deals with which, chamber shall be allotted to one Advocate, who may associate with him up to a maximum seven Advocates of his with the previous approval of the Chief Justice. First that in case, an allotment is cancelled or terminated, then a fresh allotment of the chamber would be made by the Chief Justice, keeping in view the preferential right of the Similarly, second proviso indicates that if the Chief Justice does not exercise his powers under the preceding proviso, nothing shall confer any right, title or interest upon the associate A bare reading of Rule 9 makes it allotment of chamber would not confer any tenancy, sub- lease, title, interest etc. in favour of an allottee other prescribes the duties of the allottees. ven at the cost of repetition and to bury the Rules 3, 5, 6, 9 and 11, and the same The allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers shall be solely at the discretion of the Chief Justice. Chief Justice may allot chamber to an Advocate, who is physically handicapped and the discretion exercised by the Chief Justice postulates relax the bars in case of with which, chamber shall be allotted to one Advocate, his . First an allotment is cancelled or terminated, then a fresh allotment of the chamber would be right of the indicates that if the Chief Justice does not exercise his powers under the preceding or interest upon the associate makes it - allottee other and to bury the , and the same be AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21081 21081-2015 (O&M) -6- 5. Mode of allotment.-(i) The allotment of chamber shall be made by the Chie Justice on receipt of an application in the prescribed form. (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub Chief Justice may allot chamber to an Advocate, who is physically handicapped or otherwise deserving and the discretion exercised by the Chief Justice in this regard shall be final (iii) Out of eligible Advocates father, mother, sons/sons, daughter/daughters or husband and wife would be eligible for allotment of only one chamber (iv) Where more than one eligible Advocate has formed a partnership firm of Advocate, they may be allotted only one chamber as joint allottees. Provided that always the Chief Justice may in case relax the bars in case of otherwise eligible Advocates. 6. Allotment.- The chamber shall be allotted to one Advocate, who may associate with him up to a maximum seven Advocates of his own choice with the previous approval of the Chief Just The responsibility of payment of licence fee will, however, be that of allottee: Provided, however, that if the allotment in respect of an allottee is cancelled or terminated under these rules, then a fresh allotment of the chamber would be made by th keeping in view the preferential right of the associate Advocates of the allottee. Provided further that if the Chief Justice does not exercise his powers under the preceding proviso, nothing shall confer any right, title or interest upon the associates, who were so associated by the allottee at the first instance. 9. Allotment not to confer any tenancy, sub or sub-lease, title, interest etc. in favour of allottee. allotment shall be in no event operate, nor shall be c to create, confer or grant any lease or sub tenancy or any right, title or interest into or upon the chamber in favour of the allottee. The allottee shall, in no circumstances claim or plead any right to tenancy or sub (i) The allotment of chamber shall be made by the Chie Justice on receipt of an application in the Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(i) the tice may allot chamber to an Advocate, who is physically handicapped or otherwise deserving and the discretion exercised by the Chief Justice in this regard shall be Out of eligible Advocates father, mother, sons/sons, band and wife would be eligible for Where more than one eligible Advocate has formed a partnership firm of Advocate, they may be allotted only one Provided that always the Chief Justice may in appropriate case relax the bars in case of otherwise eligible Advocates. The chamber shall be allotted to one Advocate, who may associate with him up to a maximum seven Advocates of his own choice with the previous approval of the Chief Justice. The responsibility of payment of licence fee will, however, be that Provided, however, that if the allotment in respect of an allottee is cancelled or terminated under these rules, then a fresh allotment of the chamber would be made by the Chief Justice, keeping in view the preferential right of the associate Advocates that if the Chief Justice does not exercise his powers under the preceding proviso, nothing shall confer any n the associates, who were so associated by the allottee at the first instance. Allotment not to confer any tenancy, sub-tenancy, lease lease, title, interest etc. in favour of allottee.- The allotment shall be in no event operate, nor shall be construed. So to create, confer or grant any lease or sub-lease, tenancy or sub- tenancy or any right, title or interest into or upon the chamber in favour of the allottee. The allottee shall, in no circumstances claim or plead any right to tenancy or sub-tenancy, lease or sub (i) The allotment of chamber shall be made by the Chie Justice on receipt of an application in the rule(i) the tice may allot chamber to an Advocate, who is physically handicapped or otherwise deserving and the discretion exercised by the Chief Justice in this regard shall be Out of eligible Advocates father, mother, sons/sons, band and wife would be eligible for Where more than one eligible Advocate has formed a partnership firm of Advocate, they may be allotted only one appropriate The chamber shall be allotted to one Advocate, who may associate with him up to a maximum seven Advocates of ice. The responsibility of payment of licence fee will, however, be that Provided, however, that if the allotment in respect of an allottee is cancelled or terminated under these rules, then a fresh e Chief Justice, keeping in view the preferential right of the associate Advocates that if the Chief Justice does not exercise his powers under the preceding proviso, nothing shall confer any n the associates, who were so tenancy, lease The onstrued. So - tenancy or any right, title or interest into or upon the chamber in favour of the allottee. The allottee shall, in no circumstances nancy, lease or sub AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21081 21081-2015 (O&M) -7- lease into or upon the chamber or any right in that nature or any right other than that of a bare use. 11. Duties of Allotte.-(i) The allottee shall use the chamber only as a Lawyers Office and for no other purpose whatsoever. (ii) The allottee shall not part with, in any manner, the use and consequent occupation or possession of the premises to any other person or grant any special user or licence to any person or to transfer or assign the while or any part of the chamber in favour of any other persons. It is expressly intended and meant that the perimission given hereunder can and shall in no event be assignable, or transferrable in any form, deice method or arrangement. (iii) The allottee shall not make any structural additions or alterations in the chamber without the consent in writing by the Chief Justice or his nominee (iv) The allottee shall, during the currency of the allotment be responsible for the up-keep and maintenance of the chamber. (v) The allottee shall during the pendenc be responsible for any damage caused to the chamber or to the services provided therein, beyond fair wear and tear of act of God. (vi) No allotee shall use the chamber before 7 A.M. and/or after 8 P.M. on any day. Provided that the Chief Justice may change the timings for the use of the chambers. (vii) The allottee shall not cause or permit to be caused any damage to the chamber or to the main building or any part thereof. (viii) The allottee shall indemnify the Chief Justice/High Cou against any loss or claim preferred against him/it by third parties as a result of acts/omissions by the allottee or his agents. (ix) The alottee shall not conduct himself in a manner which is a nuisance and which causes annoyance to any adjoining or neighbouring allottee. (x) The allottee shall not impede in any way the officers, servants or agents of the High Court in the exercise by them of the High Court rights in possession and control of the chambers lease into or upon the chamber or any right in that nature or any right other than that of a bare use. The allottee shall use the chamber only a Lawyers Office and for no other purpose whatsoever. allottee shall not part with, in any manner, the use and consequent occupation or possession of the premises to any other person or grant any special user or licence to any person or to transfer or assign the while or any part of the chamber in ny other persons. It is expressly intended and meant that the perimission given hereunder can and shall in no event be assignable, or transferrable in any form, deice method or (iii) The allottee shall not make any structural additions or rations in the chamber without the consent in writing by the The allottee shall, during the currency of the allotment be keep and maintenance of the chamber. The allottee shall during the pendency of the allottement, be responsible for any damage caused to the chamber or to the services provided therein, beyond fair wear and tear of act of No allotee shall use the chamber before 7 A.M. and/or hief Justice may change the timings for The allottee shall not cause or permit to be caused any damage to the chamber or to the main building or any part The allottee shall indemnify the Chief Justice/High Court against any loss or claim preferred against him/it by third parties as a result of acts/omissions by the allottee or his agents. The alottee shall not conduct himself in a manner which is a nuisance and which causes annoyance to any adjoining or The allottee shall not impede in any way the officers, servants or agents of the High Court in the exercise by them of the High Court rights in possession and control of the chambers lease into or upon the chamber or any right in that nature or any The allottee shall use the chamber only allottee shall not part with, in any manner, the use and consequent occupation or possession of the premises to any other person or grant any special user or licence to any person or to transfer or assign the while or any part of the chamber in ny other persons. It is expressly intended and meant that the perimission given hereunder can and shall in no event be assignable, or transferrable in any form, deice method or (iii) The allottee shall not make any structural additions or rations in the chamber without the consent in writing by the The allottee shall, during the currency of the allotment be keep and maintenance of the chamber. y of the allottement, be responsible for any damage caused to the chamber or to the services provided therein, beyond fair wear and tear of act of No allotee shall use the chamber before 7 A.M. and/or hief Justice may change the timings for The allottee shall not cause or permit to be caused any damage to the chamber or to the main building or any part rt against any loss or claim preferred against him/it by third parties The alottee shall not conduct himself in a manner which is a nuisance and which causes annoyance to any adjoining or The allottee shall not impede in any way the officers, servants or agents of the High Court in the exercise by them of the High Court rights in possession and control of the chambers AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21081 13. explicitly clear that the discretion lies in initial allotment demonstrated above, t the Associate Advocates allotment, a fr Justice, keeping in view the preferential rights of the Advocates Advocate, who can choose up to seven Associates, but with approval of the Chief Justice. 21081-2015 (O&M) -8- and in particular shall give reasonable assistan such officers, servants or agents for the general up maintenance of the lay-out, decorations, fittings and fixtures of the chambers. (xi) The allottee shall not instal electric appliances without the prior permission in writing of the Chief Justice or his nominee. Provided that the Chief Justice or his nominee may grant permission to an allottee to install and use in the chamber any additional electric appliances in addition to one air or one electric heater, on such conditions as may be determined by him from time to time. (xii) The allottee or the associate advocates shall not use or permit the use of alcoholic drinks in any form in chamber or even in the Chambers Complex, nor will in any form. (xiii) The allottee or the associate Advocates shall allow at all reasonable time the access to the Chief Justice or his nominee or to such officers, servants or agents in order to inspect the premises so as to find out if any misuse or breach of undertakings is being committed by the allottee or the associate advocates. A conjoint study of the above extracted Rules makes it explicitly clear that the discretion lies solely in initial allotment and in approving demonstrated above, the proviso attached with Rule he Associate Advocates, for, in case of cancellation/termination of the , a fresh allotment of the chamber would be made by the Chief Justice, keeping in view the preferential rights of the Advocates. It is further clarified that the chamber is allotted to only one Advocate, who can choose up to seven Associates, but with approval of the Chief Justice. and in particular shall give reasonable assistance and facility to such officers, servants or agents for the general up-keep and out, decorations, fittings and fixtures of The allottee shall not install in the chamber any additional he prior permission in writing of the Provided that the Chief Justice or his nominee may grant permission to an allottee to install and use in the chamber any additional electric appliances in addition to one air-conditioner r one electric heater, on such conditions as may be determined The allottee or the associate advocates shall not use or permit the use of alcoholic drinks in any form in chamber or even in the Chambers Complex, nor will they allow playing of cards The allottee or the associate Advocates shall allow at all reasonable time the access to the Chief Justice or his nominee or to such officers, servants or agents in order to inspect the out if any misuse or breach of undertakings is being committed by the allottee or the associate of the above extracted Rules makes it solely with the Chief Justice, both the Associate Members. As he proviso attached with Rule 6 protects interest of of cancellation/termination of the esh allotment of the chamber would be made by the Chief Justice, keeping in view the preferential rights of the Associate It is further clarified that the chamber is allotted to only one Advocate, who can choose up to seven Associates, but with the prior ce and facility to keep and out, decorations, fittings and fixtures of in the chamber any additional he prior permission in writing of the Provided that the Chief Justice or his nominee may grant permission to an allottee to install and use in the chamber any conditioner r one electric heater, on such conditions as may be determined The allottee or the associate advocates shall not use or permit the use of alcoholic drinks in any form in chamber or even they allow playing of cards The allottee or the associate Advocates shall allow at all reasonable time the access to the Chief Justice or his nominee or to such officers, servants or agents in order to inspect the out if any misuse or breach of undertakings is being committed by the allottee or the associate of the above extracted Rules makes it with the Chief Justice, both As interest of of cancellation/termination of the esh allotment of the chamber would be made by the Chief Associate It is further clarified that the chamber is allotted to only one the prior AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21081 14. allotting authority to have in record every responsibility fastened. liabilities so arise Rules 7 and 11, as extracted above. of the Rules of 1988 The Chief Justice’s discretion is paramount, b or choice of A 15. further examined the objects of 1988. the Associates with any enforceable right. Rather, considering the scarcity of chambers and space in the premises of the High Court, the Principal Allottee is allowed to have seven other Advocates as Associates of his own choice, but with prior approval of the Chief Justice prevents the element of monopoly. control of the Chief Justice, so as to supervise and chamber. Associate Members, We are re healthy, cordial and sought to be provided ensuring discipline and equitable usage of the chamber. 16. Associate Members, but it is equally true that, he is also fastened with 21081-2015 (O&M) -9- The intent behind insertion of Rule 6 allotting authority to have in record an identifiabl every responsibility, which casts on account of It also ensures adherence of all duties, responsibilities and liabilities so arise, on account of allotment, and are prescribed under Rules 7 and 11, as extracted above. Thus, of the Rules of 1988, maintains overall contr The Chief Justice’s discretion is paramount, b choice of Associate Advocates by the Principal Allottee. After sketching out the abovesaid position, this Court has further examined the objects sought to be achieved by of 1988. To our mind, the Rules never bestow the Principal Allottee or the Associates with any enforceable right. Rather, considering the ty of chambers and space in the premises of the High Court, the Principal Allottee is allowed to have seven other Advocates as Associates of his own choice, but with prior approval of the Chief Justice prevents the element of monopoly. Further, t control of the Chief Justice, so as to supervise and chamber. In nut shell, it is only a concession to the Associate Members, and thus, it never creates any enforceable legal right. We are reminded to point out that by virtue of this healthy, cordial and dignified work space to the allotee Advocates sought to be provided, while keeping chamber tied to one discipline and equitable usage of the chamber. The Principal Allotte, though enjoys his right of choice of Associate Members, but it is equally true that, he is also fastened with insertion of Rule 6, is to enable the identifiable person, upon whom on account of chamber’s use, can be It also ensures adherence of all duties, responsibilities and on account of allotment, and are prescribed under Thus, it is crystal clear that scheme maintains overall control of the institution only. The Chief Justice’s discretion is paramount, be it allotment, re-allotment by the Principal Allottee. the abovesaid position, this Court has sought to be achieved by framing the Rules he Rules never bestow the Principal Allottee or the Associates with any enforceable right. Rather, considering the ty of chambers and space in the premises of the High Court, the Principal Allottee is allowed to have seven other Advocates as Associates of his own choice, but with prior approval of the Chief Justice, which Further, these Rules ensure regulatory control of the Chief Justice, so as to supervise and avert misuse of is only a concession to the Principal Allottee or it never creates any enforceable legal right. by virtue of this contentious Rule, a dignified work space to the allotee Advocates is , while keeping chamber tied to one, besides discipline and equitable usage of the chamber. The Principal Allotte, though enjoys his right of choice of Associate Members, but it is equally true that, he is also fastened with enable the whom , can be It also ensures adherence of all duties, responsibilities and on account of allotment, and are prescribed under scheme of the institution only. allotment the abovesaid position, this Court has framing the Rules he Rules never bestow the Principal Allottee or the Associates with any enforceable right. Rather, considering the ty of chambers and space in the premises of the High Court, the Principal Allottee is allowed to have seven other Advocates as Associates , which e Rules ensure regulatory misuse of Allottee or it never creates any enforceable legal right. , a is , besides The Principal Allotte, though enjoys his right of choice of Associate Members, but it is equally true that, he is also fastened with AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21081 certain duties, such payment of fee, electricity charges etc., prescribed under Rule 11. In view of the unhesitatingly concludes that the submissions that absolute choice showered upon the Principal Allottee is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, do not carry any merit. 17. impugned order/communication is in consonance with the Rules of 1988, and therefore, merits, and is accordingly, dismissed. 18. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA 05.08.202 Ak Sharma 21081-2015 (O&M) -10- certain duties, such payment of fee, electricity charges etc., prescribed under Rule 11. In view of the unhesitatingly concludes that the submissions that absolute choice showered upon the Principal Allottee is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, do not carry any merit. In summa, this Court is convinced to observe that impugned order/communication is in consonance with the Rules of 1988, therefore, requires no interference. The writ petition is devoid of any merits, and is accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable certain duties, such payment of fee, electricity charges etc., and as prescribed under Rule 11. In view of the abovesaid narration, this Court unhesitatingly concludes that the submissions advanced by the petitioner that absolute choice showered upon the Principal Allottee is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, do not carry any merit. is convinced to observe that the impugned order/communication is in consonance with the Rules of 1988, requires no interference. The writ petition is devoid of any pplication, if any, stands disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No as , this Court the petitioner that absolute choice showered upon the Principal Allottee is hit by the impugned order/communication is in consonance with the Rules of 1988, requires no interference. The writ petition is devoid of any AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document