Nanavati, J. - (1.) All these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and applications made therein were finally heard on 16-5-1998 and disposed of by passing the following order:"I.A. . . . . . . . . ./98 in WP(C) No. 883/90 Upon being mentioned taken on Board. The applicant in this I.A. is an advocate and is a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association since 1971 but he is not actively practicing in this Court. He is the Chief Editor of the Supreme Court Cases. He has submitted that in view of the fact that in that capacity he has been closely associated with the work and the needs of the Supreme Court and the Bar in the matter of reporting of the decisions of this Court, facility of a chamber may be extended to him in order to enable him to discharge his functions more effectively. In our opinion, it will be more appropriate for the applicant to submit a representation before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India setting out the special facts and circumstances of his case and seek exemption from the provisions contained in the rules providing for allotment since the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India alone is competent to make such exemption. The application is disposed of accordingly. WP(C) No. 628/90 The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition was regarding consideration of the representation of the petitioner under the Allotment Rules for the purpose of allotment of chamber to him. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition the said grievance of the petitioner has been removed and he has been allotted half portion of the chamber. In the circumstances, this writ petition has become infructuous and it is dismissed as such. IN REMAINING MATTERS. Arguments concluded. Detailed reasons will follow. We have heard the learned Attorney General for India/learned ASG, learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties in these matters. For reasons to be given later, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the roster system adopted under the letter dated August 29, 1995 for allotment of chambers to advocates-on-record, junior non-advocates on record and the senior advocates in the ratio of 7:2:1. The said system for allotment is, therefore, upheld. If any of the association of advocates or any advocate has any suggestion for modification of the said principle the same may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India who may consider the same. But till any modification is made the existing principle will govern the allotment of chambers. If any of the petitioners in these matters has any individual grievance in the matter of allotment of a chamber, he can submit a representation to the Allotment Committee which may consider the same on merits. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Interim order shall stand vacated. No costs."
(2.) We could not state the reasons then for want of time. So we are now stating the reasons why the petitions were dismissed.
(3.) What should be the correct criteria for allotment of chambers to the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association was the issue raised in the petitions. Most of them were filed by the Advocates-on-Record. One was by their Association. Their main grievance was that so long as the necessity of Advocates-on-record for chambers is not satisfied neither the existing chambers nor the new chambers should be alloted to senior advocates and other advocates who are not Advocates-on-Record. The relief which they wanted was that the ratio recommended by the Allotment Committee and approved by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India be declared as arbitrary and illegal. The remaining petitions were by those advocates who had to ventilate their individual grievances.;