Can't show favouritism in allotment of chambers to lawyers: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently said that the administrative side of the High Court cannot show partiality and favourtism while allotting chambers within the court premises to lawyers. .The Court, therefore, directed the Court Administration Registrar to inspect all lawyers chambers within the premises of the High Court at the principal bench in Chennai as well as the Madurai bench to check for violations of the Law Chambers Allotment and Occupancy Guidelines."Lawyers are performing noble profession and they are representing the litigants for redressing their grievances. Favouritism in any form in law chamber allotment at no circumstances should be encouraged and the allotments are to be made strictly in accordance with the guidelines and by following the procedures as contemplated," the Court said.Justice SM Subramaniam, therefore permitted a lawyer, the petitioner in the present case, to use the law chamber allotted to him by the High Court Registry in 2010.The lawyer had claimed that he was being denied access to the chamber by a Senior Counsel.The Court said that no citizen, least of all, a lawyer, can be deprived of his fundamental right and the principles of natural justice. "In the event of any complaint by any allottee, either main allottee or the co-allottee, the allegations are to be enquired into, in compliance with the rules of natural justice. Rules of natural justice, being a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of the right and least to the Lawyers," the High Court said. .The petitioner advocate, VB Selvaganapathy, moved the Court contending that he was allotted the use of law chamber no. 22 in the year 2010. He was a co-allottee to the chamber and was to share it with a designated Senior Counsel, the main allottee, and five other co-allottees. However, he alleged that the Senior Counsel, R Gandhi, refused to let him use the chamber. The Senior Counsel partitioned 40 percent of the total area of the said chamber and even though, he himself rarely ever sat in the chamber, the partitioned area remained overcrowded with Gandhi's associates, his driver and attendants, Selvaganapathy told the Court. He also said that after much negotiation, Gandhi permitted Selvaganapathy to "hang his gown" in the chamber and to install his nameplate. But he refused to let him put a chair and a table there to work. Instead, Gandhi complained about him to the registrar and in 2015 and he was then allotted the use of an alternative Chamber, Selvaganapathy said. He, however, challenged such re-allotment before the Court saying that he was not given a hearing and that principles of natural justice were violated in the process..The Senior Counsel claimed the allegations against him by Selvaganapathy were false, and also offered to accommodate Selvaganapathy in chamber no. 22. While one of the co-allottees withdrew from allotment list, the remaining four lawyers also told the Court that they had no objections to the petitioner sharing the space with them. The registry meanwhile, told the single-judge that the then Registrar (Administration) had spoken to Selvaganapathy before the re-allotment process. The Court, however, said that while file noting claimed the then Registrar had spoken to the petitioner, there were no records of the details of such interactions. There were no details on whether such communication had been in person or over the phone and the records were silent on whether Selvaganapathy had been given a chance to present his side of the arguments. "In the event of any complaint by any allottee, either Main Allottee or the Co-allottee, the allegations are to be enquired into, in compliance with the Rules of Natural Justice. Rules of Natural Justice, being a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of the right and least to the Lawyers," the High Court said.The Court, therefore, quashed the 2015 re-allotment order and permitted Selvaganapathy to move his furniture to Chamber no. 22, the original chamber that he had been allotted.Advocate D Sivashanmugam and advocate R Sankarasubbu appeared for the petitioner lawyer Selvaganapathy. Advocate S Haja Mohideen Gisthi for the Registrar (Administration), a respondent in the case. Advocate M Baskar appeared for Senior Counsel R Gandhi, the second respondent in the case..[Read Judgment]