ORDER Mr. Anand Vijay, being the respondent no. 9 has died to the notice of the petitioner. He has not taken any step to substitute the deceased-respondent by his heirs and legal representatives and accordingly the writ petition stands abated against the said respondent. 2. Respondent no. 12, Narendra Prasad, is a cancer patient who carries a pouch fixed to his body for the purpose of clearing has bowel. He has been allotted a chamber on the third floor and such allotment, having been made on humanitarian ground, close to a toilet, the writ petition as against him is also dismissed. 3. It appears that the respondent council proposed to make a construction for the purpose of accommodating chambers to be allotted to the members of the council. After the chambers were constructed applications were invited from the members. The members made applications for allotment of chambers. Thereupon pursuant to lottery chambers were allotted. Inasmuch as applicants were more and the chambers were less, twelve applicants, despite having had applied could not be allotted any chamber they had applied and paid for. In that background on 16th November, 1997 the Bar Council resolved not to construct the auditorium but to construct few more chambers in order to accommodate the pending applicants and also to accommodate the members of the Bar Council who are willing to take chambers on suitable terms. On 15th November, 1998 the Bar Council reiterated its earlier stand and resolved to allot to those applicants, who had applied at the time when applications were invited but in the lottery could not be allotted any chamber, and whose applications were kept pending as well as to the members of the Bar Council out of the chambers left vacant as per earlier decision. The writ petitioner became a member of the respondent council on 10th May 1999 upon having had enrolled himself as an Advocate. In terms of the said resolutions the remaining twelve pending applications were dealt with and twelve applicants were allotted chambers. After such allotment ten more chambers were allotted in favour of Serva/Sri Sadhu Saran Yadav, Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, Dharam Nath Prasad Yadav, Yaduvansh Giri, Baleshwar Prasad Sharma, Anand Vijay Singh, Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha, R. Kameshwar Pandey, Vindhya Keshri Kumar and Narendra Prasad. After such allotment ten more chambers were allotted in favour of Serva/Sri Sadhu Saran Yadav, Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, Dharam Nath Prasad Yadav, Yaduvansh Giri, Baleshwar Prasad Sharma, Anand Vijay Singh, Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha, R. Kameshwar Pandey, Vindhya Keshri Kumar and Narendra Prasad. Apart from the allotment in favour of Narendra Prasad all other allotments were made on the ground that the allottees are elected members of the Bar Council. These allotments were made subsequent to the petitioner became a member of the respondent council. The said allottees filed applications and paid the application money in the year 2000. There is no dispute that before these allotments were made none of the members of the council had been informed that they are entitled to be allotted chambers, nor any application was invited for that purpose from the members. 4. The private respondents have been served by the council. Except Narendra Prasad none of the private respondents has appeared. The resolution did not say that any out of turn allotment shall be made to the elected members of the Bar Council Both the resolutions of 1997 and 1998 provides that the members of the Bar council will be entitled to allotment. Members of the Bar council are not elected members. Members of the Bar council are those who are enrolled with the Bar council. In such view of the matter, those allotments are bad for the same were made behind the back of the members to facilitate elected members of the Bar Council who have been elected by the members to look after their well being and these elected members instead of looking after the well being of the people who had elected them looked after their own well being shutting their eyes to the reality. In such view of the matter, allotments made in favour of respondents no. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are struck down. The said respondents are directed to forthwith vacate the chambers and return peaceful vacant possession thereof to the Bar Council with a further direction upon the Bar Council to allot those chambers by inviting applications from the members of the Bar Council and not from elected members of the Bar Council. 5. This disposes of the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.