W.P.(C)/7041/2025 of JAGDISH SINGH CHAUHAN Vs PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH-WEST) & ANR. on 23 September 2026

O R D E R

%

23.09.2026

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayers: “a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus/certiorari to the respondents to allot and possess chamber to petitioner as advocates who are enrolled subsequent to petitioner are already allotted and possessed chambers;

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus/certiorari to respondents to compensate the petitioner from the date the juniors in seniority to petitioner are allotted and possessed the chambers;

c) Consider, decide and issue orders or directions in the nature of mandamous/certiorari “whether the respondents are empowered and entitled not to consider eligibility of advocate candidates for allotment of chambers but adopt pick and choose system for allotment and possession of the chambers which are provided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for welfare and betterment of the advocates and litigants; if not, to what effect, result, consequences and action as per law;

d) Issue order or direction in the nature of mandamous/ certiorari to respondents to preserve CCTV footage and DVR for 29th and

30th of April and 1st of May, 2025 and identity of persons shown in CCTV footage on records, inquired into the matter and report whether all allottees and possesses of chambers junior to petitioner attended courts and/or take action as per law, if needed, against the other violators also and also consider as to how many are found smoking, touting, indulging in illegal activities, etc., etc., in Dwarka Court complex premises with what action;

e) Pass any such other or further order (s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper on facts and circumstances of present case.”

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner’s application for allotment of Chamber at the Dwarka Court Complex was not considered noting that the petitioner has not provided requisite documents.

3. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was required to give proof of active practice in Dwarka Courts for the relevant period, however, he had not provided the same. The minutes of meeting, annexed with the Counter Affidavit, also record that despite opportunity, the relevant documents were not provided by the petitioner.

4. Be that as it may, the petitioner relies upon the documents, annexed as Annexure P/12 to the present petition, which, according to him, are sufficient proof of his active practice during the relevant period. It is apparent that the said documents had not been considered by the allotment committee.

5. Let the said aspect be verified.

6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent to consider the present petition as a representation and pass a fresh order in regard to entitlement of the petitioner for Chamber in Dwarka courts, after granting opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

7. The fresh order shall be passed within a period of eight weeks.

8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

9. Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in case any grievance remains in future. AMIT MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 “SS”