Lawyers' Chambers - Photostat Shops?

New Delhi, Jan 7: A lawyer sought to be evicted from a SupremeCourt Chamber he has used for 24 years has turned to a lower court forjustice.

In the process, S K Bandyopadhyay, a senior government counsel,may be stepping on the toes of 34 occupants he says are in violation ofrules.

The land's highest court is said by lawyers who practise there tohave limited facilities for advocates-- let alone amenities forlitigants.

''We are awfully short of space for both advocates and thelitigant public,'' says Ravi Mohan, an advocate who also shares spacewith an allottee.

He says there is a crying need for more chambers for lawyers andat least a common room where visitors can wait their turn, buy a cup oftea or escape adverse weather.

A recent Delhi High Court order took note of Bandyopadhyay'spetition that allottees ''are violating Rules'' by ''subletting'' or''commercially installing photostat machines'' in chambers.

Justice Anil Kumar also noted how an allottee ''is in Canada forthe last five years'' and ''not practi(s)ing'' or another one ''nevercomes to the Supreme Court for a single filing (or) appearance.'' Threeweeks ago, Bandyopadhyay complained to police against the SupremeCourt's Registrar, the caretaker and the Deputy Registrar ''for illegalsealing of my Chamber No 28.'' The petitioner says he has shared thechamber with allottee Advocate P K Mukerjee since 1982, paying rent andother charges.

The premises were sealed within hours of the Supreme Court rising for winter vacation on December 16.

Bandyopadhyay says his computer unit, furniture, telephone, books,journals and more than 150 files and records of pending cases are allin the chamber, which has rendered him unable to work.

He has invoked his right to information for rules under which hisapplication five years ago for chamber space was considered-- anddenied late last year.

Six years ago, Mukerjee, then about 80, informed the Registrarthat on account of age he had ''reduced my work (of) filing andappearance'' while ''my other occupant (Bandyopadhyay)... fulfils thecriteria.'' In December 2002, Assistant Registrar V K Nigam wrote toBandyopadhyay that he was directed by India's Chief Justice to obtain aletter of consent from Mukerjee ''before your request for jointallotment with him may be considered.'' In October 2005, Mukerjee wroteto the Deputy Registrar that he had ''no objection'' to the Chamberbeing allotted to Bandyopadhyay if he cleared arrears due against theallottee.

Here are some prevalent violations listed by the petitioner: -- 20occupants have been subletting or commercially installing Photostatmachines in chambers; -- Occupant residing at Canada for the last fiveyears, without practice in India; -- Occupant never comes to SupremeCourt for filing or appearance; -- Occupant residing out-station notpractising for last 20 years; -- Occupant is a housewife not engaged inlegal profession; -- Occupant not opened chamber once in last 20 years;-- Occupant given co-allottee status with his father after a year inpractice.

UNI>