D. P. Wadhwa, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by 55 members of the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking to quash a communication dated 4 August 1993 of the Assistant Registrar (Administration) of the Supreme Court whereby all the allottees of the lawyers chambers in the Supreme Court compound were asked to pay licence fee at the rate of Rs. l,000. 00 per month per chamber from 1 July 1993. The petitioners also challenge the resolution passed by the General Body of the Supreme Court Bar Association in its meeting held on 12 May 1993 whereby it was resolved that the members of the Association had no objection to the enhancement of licence fee to Rs. l,000. 00 per month per chamber w. e. f. 1 July 1993 "to enable the authorities to construct new chambers for the members of the Bar. " The recommendation of the Allotment Committee for Lawyers Chambers for enhancement of licence fee has also been challenged. ( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up before us for admission, the petitioners were represented by Mr. P. N. Lekhi, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Aman Lekhi. It was submitted that Rule 8 of the Allotment of Lawyers Chambers Rules provided that licence fee for each chamber shall be such amount as might be fixed by the Government of India from time to time. It was submitted that there were no orders of the Central Government fixing licence fee at the rate of Rs. l,000. 00 per month w. e. f. I July 1993, and the respondents, therefore, had no jurisdiction to enhance the licence fee of their own. On this submission, we had issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued and also issued notice on the application of the petitioners seeking stay of payment of enhanced licence fee. ( 3 ) THERE are four respondents, namely, (1) Mr. P. N. Jain, Assistant Registrar (Admn); (2) The Registrar (Admn); (3) The Allotment Committee for Laywers Chambers; and (4) The Supreme Court Bar-Assocaition. In answer to show cause notice, affidavits have been filed by respondents I and 2 and also by respondent No. 4. ( 4 ) THE Supreme Court Bar Assocaition (SCBA), respodnent No. 4, has questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to file the present petition. In answer to show cause notice, affidavits have been filed by respondents I and 2 and also by respondent No. 4. ( 4 ) THE Supreme Court Bar Assocaition (SCBA), respodnent No. 4, has questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to file the present petition. It is submitted that only a member of the SCBA is entitled to allotment of a chamber which allotment is co-terminus with the membership in the Bar Association. It is contended that in the matters concerning chamber facilities in the Supreme Court it is only the SCBA which represents each and every member, and will have a right to move the court for appropriate reliefs, and that the individual member does not have any right and has to abide by the majority decision. We find there is no dispute that General Body of the SCBA in its meeting held on 12 May 1993 resolved that members of the SCBA had no objection to enhance the licence fee but not more than Rs. l,000. 00 per month per chamber "to enable the authorities to construct new chambers for the members of the Bar. " Petitioners say that SCBA had no jurisdiction to pass such a resolution. We are unable to agree to such a submission. SCBA is very much concerned with the allotment process inasmuch as as per Rules allotment could be made only to such advocates of the Supreme Court as are members of the SCBA and who regularly practice in the Supreme Court. It was the collective wisdom of the SCBA that it agreed to enhance the licence fee to Rs. l,000. 00 per month per chamber. It is also not disputed before us that the Rules for allotment of lawyers chambers have been framed by Hon ble the Chief Justice of India. Allotment of chambers is to be made by the Committee appointed by Hon ble the Chief Justice of India and all such allotments are subject to the approval of Hon ble the Chief Justice of India. SCBA in its affidavit has stated that its President, Vice President and Secretary are ex-officio members of the Chambers Allotment Committee of which Attorney General of India is the Chairman and the President of Advocate-on-Record Assocaition is also a member. SCBA in its affidavit has stated that its President, Vice President and Secretary are ex-officio members of the Chambers Allotment Committee of which Attorney General of India is the Chairman and the President of Advocate-on-Record Assocaition is also a member. ( 5 ) SCBA in its affidavit has further said that it has a membership strength of 3,500, and there has been a long standing demand from the memberes that chamber facility should be made available to them, and in this connection several representations were made to the Government as it was difficult for the SCBA to make available the facility of chamber with its own resources. It is stated that the waiting list kept swelling by the day and ultimately due to the intervention of Hon ble the Chief Justice of India that permission was obtained from the Government to construct new chambers and steps were taken to build chambers opposite the Supreme Court Building. It is further stated that each new chamber that is to be constructed would only be half the size of the old chamber, and further that if the rent which is being presently paid for old chambers (Rs. l22. 00 each for Blocks 1 and 2, and Rs. 275. 00 each for Blocks 2 and 4) were to continue, the new chambers would not have been sanctioned and hundreds of other members of the SCBA would be put to great inconvenience. It is stated that sanction for new chambers has come and steps are on for construction of the building also only because the majority of the members agreed by a duly passed resolution for paying Rs. l,000. 00 as licence fee. ( 6 ) MR. P. N. Jain, Assistant Registrar (Admn) in his affidavit has stated that at present there are four blocks consisting of 135 lawyers chambers in the Supreme Court Compound. He has given a brief history as to how these chambers were constructed in stages and how rental was fixed. He says pursuant to certain observations made by the Public Accounts Committee in its 34th Report, the Government and the Auditors had for quite some time back been seeking to charge licence fee of the Chambers at the market rate prevalent from time to time. He says pursuant to certain observations made by the Public Accounts Committee in its 34th Report, the Government and the Auditors had for quite some time back been seeking to charge licence fee of the Chambers at the market rate prevalent from time to time. Reference has been drawn in this connection to a Memorandum dated 29 January 1982 under which licence fee of the chambers was sought to be charged at the then prevalent market rate of Rs. 55. 00 per sq. metre of carpet area per month w. e. f. 1 February 1982 to 31 January 1983, and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 65. 00 per sq. metre of carpet area per month which works out: approximately to Rs. l,565. 00 per chamber. Mr. Jain states that members of the Bar resented and resisted payment of this hike in the licence fee and made representations to Hon ble the Chief Justice of India and around the same time had also been pressing for construction of more chambers to meet the requirements of the growing Bar and needs of its members. He further says that the Government, however, took the stand that it would not release funds for construction of new chambers until the lawyers agree to pay the licence fee at the prevalent market rates, and after a great deal of deliberations between the registry of the Supreme Court and the officebearers of the SCBA, eventually the SCBA conveyed to Hon ble the Chief Justice of India a resolution passed by its members in one of its General Body meetings held on 12 May 1993 resolving that the licence fee at the rate of Rs. l,000. 00 per chamber per month would voluntarily be paid by the members of the Bar effective from I July 1993. Mr. Jain states that it was pursuant to this resolution that out of 206 advocates-allottees of the chambers, 188 have, as on 19 July 1994, been paying licence fee voluntarily at the rate of Rs. 1,000. 00 per chamber per month. Then Mr. Mr. Jain states that it was pursuant to this resolution that out of 206 advocates-allottees of the chambers, 188 have, as on 19 July 1994, been paying licence fee voluntarily at the rate of Rs. 1,000. 00 per chamber per month. Then Mr. Jain adds that thereafter apparently with a view to resolve the controversy the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India, issued an order dated 26 November 1993 constituting a Committee consisting of (1) Attorney General of India; (2) Secretary, Department of Expenditure; (3) Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development; (4) Additional Secretary (Justice); (5) President, Supreme Court Bar Assocaition; and (6) Registrar, Supreme Court of India, under the Chairmanship of the Hon ble the Chief Justice of India or his nominee to fix licence fee for the existing and the proposed new Chambers for the lawyers of the Supreme Court Compound. . Mr. Jain, thus, says that the said Committee is expected to give its decision after due deliberations, and, lastly, in para 8 he says as under :- "that the licence fee at the rate of Rs. l,000. 00 per chamber, per month is being accepted from the advocates-allottees of the Chambers subject to the decision of the aforesaid Committee constituted by the Government to fix licence fee. " ( 7 ) WE thought that with such a submission from the SCBA and the registry of the Supreme Court, the petitioners would, perhaps, have been persuaded to withdraw the petition. But this was not to be so. We did not find either Mr. P. N. Lekhi or Mr. Aman Lekhi appearing in the matter, and Mr. N. N. Keswani, petitioner No. l, who argued the matter on behalf of himself and other petitioners, said that he did not know why Mr. Lekhi was not appearing. Be that as it may, we have heard the parties. ( 8 ) MR. P. N. Lekhi or Mr. Aman Lekhi appearing in the matter, and Mr. N. N. Keswani, petitioner No. l, who argued the matter on behalf of himself and other petitioners, said that he did not know why Mr. Lekhi was not appearing. Be that as it may, we have heard the parties. ( 8 ) MR. Keswani in support of his pleas said that the SCBA had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned resolution; allotment committee had no power to give recommendation regarding fixation of licence fee; licence fee had yet to be fixed, and so also the date from which the licence fee would be payable; acceptance of licence fee pending fixation of licence fee by the Government of India was illegal and without authority of law; Memorandum dated 29 January 1982 on the basis of which licence fee was sought to be enhanced did not apply to the allottees of lawyers chambers and assuming it did apply, it was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it applied only to the Supreme Court chambers and not to the lawyers chambers in the High Court; the purpose for which the resolution by the SCBA was passed had been achieved since the Government had already sanctioned Rs. 5 crores for construction of Chambers, and lastly, that representations of the petitioners against the enhancement in licence fee had been rejected without reasons. ( 9 ) THERE is no substance in any of these submissions. SCBA is a representative body of all the members and, as noted above, only the member of the SCBA is entitled to allotment of a chamber. Allotment of Lawyers Chambers Rules have been framed by Hon ble the Chief Justice of India and it is he who makes the allotment on the recommendation of the Allotment Committee constitution of which we have also seen above. In these circumstances, it is not possible nor required that each allottee should be separately consulted to voluntarily agree to enhance the licence fee. The course adopted by the SCBA is correct. All the members of the SCBA are well aware of the circumstances leading to enhancement of the licence fee. During the course of arguments of Mr. Keswani we found that whole of his burnt was more against SCBA than any one else. The course adopted by the SCBA is correct. All the members of the SCBA are well aware of the circumstances leading to enhancement of the licence fee. During the course of arguments of Mr. Keswani we found that whole of his burnt was more against SCBA than any one else. It was in 1982- 83 that the licence fee payable on the basis of market value was Rs. 65. 00 per sq. metre. Mr. Keswani said that this memorandum dated 29 Janury 1982 could not be applicable as since earlier the licence fee was not fixed on merket rate, and so there could not be any revision of the market rate. This is rather a strange plea. If we go by Rule 8 of the Rules on which strong reliance was placed when we had issued notice in the petition, the petitioners would be paying much more than Rs. l,000. 00 per month and from a much earlier date than I July 1993. We think the interests of the petitioners have been well taken care of and we do not think they could have any grievance. Mr. Keswani said it is not that the petitioners are averse to paying the licence fee of Rs. l,000. 00 per month but that the SCBA had no jurisdiction to pass the resolution and that it was a matter of principle, and that the enhancement of licence fee could not have been done against the provision of law. We are unable to see as to how the increase is not in accordance with law. There is no violation of Article 14 as well. ( 10 ) AFTER the conclusion of the arguments we suggested Mr. Keswani that in view of para 8 of the affidavit filed by Mr. P. N. Jain, Assistant Registrar (Admn), would he not like to withdraw the petition. His reply was in the negative. The petitioners are all eminent members of the SCBA. It does appear to us that it is basically a dispute between these members and the SCBA which to an extent is also reflected in the minutes of the meeting of the General body of the SCBA held on 12 May 1993. This dispute has unnecessarily been brought to fore in this petition and, perhaps, it could have been resolved among the members themselves. ( 11 ) WE do not find any merit in this petition. This dispute has unnecessarily been brought to fore in this petition and, perhaps, it could have been resolved among the members themselves. ( 11 ) WE do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed.