The Senior Counsel claimed the allegations against him by Selvaganapathy were false, and also offered to accommodate Selvaganapathy in chamber no. 22. While one of the co-allottees withdrew from allotment list, the remaining four lawyers also told the Court that they had no objections to the petitioner sharing the space with them.
The registry meanwhile, told the single-judge that the then Registrar (Administration) had spoken to Selvaganapathy before the re-allotment process.
The Court, however, said that while file noting claimed the then Registrar had spoken to the petitioner, there were no records of the details of such interactions. There were no details on whether such communication had been in person or over the phone and the records were silent on whether Selvaganapathy had been given a chance to present his side of the arguments.
“In the event of any complaint by any allottee, either Main Allottee or the Co-allottee, the allegations are to be enquired into, in compliance with the Rules of Natural Justice. Rules of Natural Justice, being a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of the right and least to the Lawyers,” the High Court said.
The Court, therefore, quashed the 2015 re-allotment order and permitted Selvaganapathy to move his furniture to Chamber no. 22, the original chamber that he had been allotted.
Advocate D Sivashanmugam and advocate R Sankarasubbu appeared for the petitioner lawyer Selvaganapathy.
Advocate S Haja Mohideen Gisthi for the Registrar (Administration), a respondent in the case.
Advocate M Baskar appeared for Senior Counsel R Gandhi, the second respondent in the case.
Source: Barandbench
