Court Declines Interference under Article 226; Petitioner Advised to Seek Other Remedies for Financial Claims
In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee (CAC), affirming that permissive users of chambers in court premises do not possess vested rights in the absence of specific policies or regulations. The judgment was delivered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav on March 30, 2026, in the case of Anju Tanwar v. Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee.
Petitioner Anju Tanwar had approached the court challenging the decision of the CAC, which concluded that she was merely a permissive user of Chamber No. 570, initially allotted to Mr. Rabinder Mohanty and Mr. Rajesh Nayan. Tanwar, an associate of Mr. Rajesh Nayan, contended that she should be entitled to continued use of the chamber. However, the court emphasized that without a specific policy, rule, or regulation in place, the petitioner could not claim any vested right to the chamber. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with the CAC's decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner also claimed to have paid certain amounts to the original allottees for the use of the chamber. The court advised Tanwar that she could pursue appropriate remedies for the recovery of these amounts or damages, as such issues could not be adjudicated under Article 226. The judgment further clarified that the original allottees were not authorized to sub-let the chamber, highlighting the importance of adhering to the terms and conditions of chamber allotment.
Furthermore, the court directed the CAC to address any grievances related to the violation of terms and conditions by the original allottees. If the CAC finds any breaches, necessary actions must be taken to rectify the situation.
This ruling reinforces the principle that permissive use does not confer legal rights in the absence of clear policies, and it underscores the necessity for legal users of court premises to ensure compliance with established regulations.
Bottom Line:
Chamber allotment in court premises - Petitioner was a permissive user of the Chamber allotted to original allottees - No vested right to use the Chamber in absence of specific policy/rule/regulation - Court cannot interfere with the decision of Chamber Allotment Committee under Article 226 - Petitioner may seek remedies for recovery of money paid to original allottees.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Anju Tanwar v. Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2876775
