Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association & Ors.

LPA 368/2024

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ and TEJAS KARIA,J

Overview

The Delhi High Court, in the instant intra-court appeal, was dealing with the maintainability of a writ petition filed by an advocate seeking restoration of possession of a lawyer’s chamber in Patiala House Courts and directions against the New Delhi Bar Association and certain advocates in a case of criminal trespass. The Division Bench justified the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge and held that it is not within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, and further that such matters cannot be adjudicated by way of writ jurisdiction.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant, being an advocate, enrolled in the year 2000, claimed to be a regular practitioner of the court, representing various Government and Public Sector Companies. However, in the year 2013, she is alleged to have signed a rental contract with one Mr. Asgar Ali, the allottee of Chamber No. 279A, at the Patiala House Courts, and began practicing from the aforementioned chamber.

As per the appellant, one day she noticed that Mr. Asgar Ali along with some other persons has forcibly entered the chamber by breaking the lock on it and intimidated her to leave the place. She also claimed that the office bearers of the “New Delhi Bar Association,” without resolving the dispute, put another lock on her chamber.

She alleged that despite her attempt to contact the police, no steps were taken, and she was asked to contact the Bar Association. She then filed a writ petition for: (i) return of possession to her chamber; and (ii) a mandate to the Bar Association and Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action against those advocates who were allegedly indulging in illegal activities and crimes.

Legal Issues

The principal legal issues before the Court were:

1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the New Delhi Bar Association under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Whether a person in permissive possession of a lawyers’ chamber, without being an allottee, could claim enforceable rights through writ jurisdiction.
3. Whether the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus directing the Bar Association or Bar Council of Delhi to initiate criminal or disciplinary action against advocates.

Decision and Reasoning

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Single Judge. The Court held that the appellant was not an allottee of the chamber and had merely been in permissive possession through the actual allottee. As a result, she had no legal right that could be protected through a writ petition.

The Court further held that the New Delhi Bar Association, being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is a private body, which does not discharge public functions and, as such, would not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12. No writ of mandamus could be issued against it.

As regards the Bar Council of Delhi, the Court observed that though a statutory body, the appellant had neither approached it for redressal nor impleaded it properly in the writ proceedings. The Court has also reiterated that the writ of mandamus could be sought only after the concerned authority fails to discharge his statutory duty upon representation.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, while reserving liberty to the appellant to pursue appropriate civil, criminal, or disciplinary remedies in accordance with law.