In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court regarding the minutes of the meeting of the Chamber Allotment Committee (CAC) concerning the usage of Chamber No. 570 by the associate of the original allottees, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav refused to interfere with the decision of the CAC and held that the petitioner had no vested right to use the chamber as she was only a permissive user.
It was found that the petitioner was allowed to use the said chamber as an associate of respondent 2, and hence, the Court found that the CAC had rightly concluded that the petitioner was merely a permissive user of the said chamber. Further, the Court concurred with CAC’s view that in the absence of any policy/rule/regulation, the petitioner did not have a vested right to use the chamber. Hence, the Court refused to interfere with CAC’s decision.
The petitioner submitted that she had paid certain amounts to the original allottees. In response, the Court stated that she may opt for appropriate remedies to recover the said amount, if she desires. However, it was stated that the Court could not look into this aspect while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court stated that the original allottees were not empowered to sublet the said chamber.
While disposing of the petition, the Court stated that if CAC finds that the original allottees had violated any of the terms or conditions, then necessary consequences would follow.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Nitesh Mehra
For Respondents – None
