The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the New Delhi Bar Association to submit affidavit stating the submission made in the Court that no transfer by virtue of sale or any right is carried except in case of transfer among legal heirs, practicing members of the bar (current).
The single-judge bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh noted that the allotment of chambers is a facility that belongs to the government and as informed by the counsel for respondent, there are no such rules but only precedents to prove this.
The petition has been filed by Kuldeep Kumar, through his advocate Tarun Chandiok, alleging that the New Delhi Bar Association (NDBA) has transferred the allotment of chamber to another member instead of transferring it to the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner’s request to transfer his rights in the chamber by declaring an NOC in conformity with the extant customary practice sanctified by the Respondent was denied.
In another application for interim order filed by Kumar, it has also been alleged that the NDBA has concealed material facts to affect the merit of this case. It has also been alleged that the Vice-President, Hony. Secretary etc. of the respondent department were also indulged in the similar transfers upon accepting a prescribed transfer charge.
It has been submitted by the NDBA counsel that no transfer by the virtue of sale or any right is carried except in case of transfer among legal heirs, practicing members of the bar. The judge although ordered the counsel to state the same on affidavit and present the respected rules for further adjudication.
Chandiok also contended that ever since the NDBA secretary has filed the reply, the words about the petition have gone out and those members of the NDBA, who acquired chambers by sale/purchase instead of legal allotment, are rushing to sell their interest by entering another sale transaction.
The Judge observed that if such is the case, then all those who have acquired the chambers via such legally impermissible transaction would be taken aback.
Whereas NDBA’s contention is that since there was no one to claim the rights, the same was re-acquired by the department and allotted by virtue of an NOC, as well as the petitioner in this case is not even a practicing lawyer let alone a non-member of the NDBA.
Read Also: Plea filed in Supreme Court for intervention in petition seeking uniform grounds of divorce