LexAELTEMESH REIN versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A AEL TEMESH REIN v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 3, 2001 B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.) (Supreme Court) Lawyers Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules: Rule 2. C Lawyers Chambers-Allotment of-Eligibility Criterion-50 appearances (excluding appearances in miscellaneous applications) in each year- Advocate 's application rejected for non-fulfilment of eligibility criterion-- Correctness of-Held: Appearance as 'Petitioner in Person' cannot be treated r::s appearance as an Advocate-Therefore, such appearances are to be excluded from the total number of appearances-Hence, application rightly rejected as D the Advocate failed to furnish proof of 50 appearances. The petitioner was a Junior Advocate (Non-Adovcate-on-Record) of The Supreme Court and was also a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The petitioner's application for allotment of Lawyers Chambers E was rejected as he could not furnish proof of 50 appearances (excluding appearances in miscellaneous applications) for each year of the preceding two years. Hence this petition. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: I. It is no doubt true that the names of Junior Advocates (Non- F Advocates-on-Record) do not appear in the cause lists issued by this Court but the petitioner had sought to produce photocopies of certain cause lists and filing memos in an attempt to furnish proof of the claimed number of appearances. Those cases in which the petitioner had appeared as a "Petitioner in Person" cannot be treated to be cases in which he had appeared as an G Advocate but as a "Party in Person". Therefore, the Registry rightly excluded those cases from consideration. [517-G, H; 518-A, B] 2. In matters of this n~ture, all that needs to be considered is whether there has been a fair and due consideration of the matter by the authorities concerned. In this case, from the proceedings made available to this Court it H is clear that the petitioner had more than a fair deal. He was given several 514 - AELTEMESH REIN v. S.C.I. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 515 opportunities to place the necessary materials to furnish satisfactorily the A number of SO appearances during each of the preceding two years and having failed to furnish such proof, the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of chambers. [518-D-El CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No. 99 of 2000. B (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) In-person for the Petitioner. Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, Ms. C Anjali, Anil Kumar Mittal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. : The petitioner is a Junior Advocate [Non- Advocate-on-Record] of this Court and he has been a member of the Supreme D Court Bar Association with effect from 12.11.1984. On August 8, 1995, applications were invited in the prescribed format for allotment of chambers by the Registry of this Court and the petitioner applied for the same. He was informed on 28.2.1999 by the Registry of this Court asking him to furnish the proof of appearances to enable them to finalise his application for allotment E of chambers. The petitioner had filed an affidavit of Shri K.K.Gupta, Advocate- on-Record to the following effect: "I. That as per my records Mr. Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate has been getting his cases filed in the Supreme Court through me for the last several years and many a times his appearance in those cases could F not be given by me as I am too old and often remain ill. The accompanying list of his cases filed by him are the cases most of which have been filed by & through me in the Supreme Court for him and at his instructions, which cases have been conducted by himself in the Supreme Court." Not being satisfied with the material placed by the petitioner either in the shape of cause list or in the nature of this affidavit and having rejected his claim for allotment of chambers, this petition is filed. The claim of the petitioner for allotment of chambers is resisted by the respondent. G The matter of allotment of chambers to advocates is governed by H 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A Lawyers Chambers [Allotment and Occupancy] Rules. Under Rule 2 of the said Rules, Allotment Committee for Lawyers Chambers has been constituted which consists of the following. B c "I. Attorney General for India - Chainnan 2. President, Supreme Court Bar Association - Membe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.