The Madras High Court has observed that favouritism while allotting law chambers should not be encouraged and the allotments should be made as per the established procedure. The court added that even if certain adjustments were to be made, they should not be unilateral decisions and the consent of the Lawyers concerned was necessary.

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. Certain adjustments may be required to be made with the consent of the Lawyers concerned in the event of any dispute, and not by taking unilateral decisions. In such circumstances, an enquiry is warranted.

Justice SM Subramaniam was hearing the plea filed by Advocate Selvaganapathy challenging the re-allotment order made by the Registrar (Administration) of the Madras High Court and to allow him to occupy the law chamber which was originally allotted to him.

Selvaganapathy contended that he was originally allotted the chambers in 2010 as a “Co-allottee”. However, when he tried to occupy the chambers, the main allottee, a Senior Counsel of the court refused to cooperate with him. Subsequently in 2015, the Registrar (Administration) provided an alternate accommodation to the petitioner upon receiving complaints from the Senior Counsel.

To this, on behalf of the High Court, it was submitted that the decision was taken based on an Office Note submitted by the Registrar (Administration) stating that he had spoken to the petitioner who refused to adjust.

However, Selvaganapathy objected to this office note and in turn submitted that the Registrar (Administration) never spoke to him. He claimed that the Office note was a unilateral one without any oral information or written memo or notice to the writ petitioner and behind his back.

The court noted that whenever any complaint was received with respect to the allotment, the allegations were to be enquired into in compliance with the rules of natural justice. The registry wsa expected to conduct an inquiry after affording an opportunity to all the parties. In the present case, though the office note states that the petitioner was contacted, there are no details or evidence with respect to the same. Further, though the Senior Counsel had made complaints against the petitioner, neither was he given a copy nor he was given an opportunity to explain to defend his case.Unilateral decision, if any, taken by the Registry would be in violation of the Rules of Natural Justice and the High Court Administration is not expected to violate the Rules of Natural Justice, which is the facet of Rule of law, the court noted

Thus, finding the re-allotment to be invalid, the court quashed the re allotment order and restored the original order of allotment.

The court also appreciated the good gesture showed by the Senior Counsel and other co allottees who appeared before the court and submitted that they had no objection to accommodate the petitioner in an attempt to give quietus to the issue.

Further, the court also directed the Registrar (Administration) to visit all the Law Chambers in the High Court campus at Madras and Madurai and inspect whether any partitions are made by the allottees in violation of the guidelines. If so, all appropriate actions were to be taken to remove the partitions or violations and ensure no inconvenience was caused to any of the Allottees.