Judgment Vijender Jain, J. 1. This is a petition where small number of lawyers, though members of the District Bar Association, Hisar have formed a separate association for seeking allotment of land for construction of chambers for their association only and thus acting against the interest of the majority of the members of the entire Bar, which in our opinion, is not in the collective interest of the legal fraternity as well as litigants thronging the Courts and thus administration of justice. 2. Facts in brief are that around 200 lawyers practising at District Hisar, who are members of the District Bar Association, Hisar, formed a Lawyers Chambers Welfare Association, Hisar (for short Association). The Association seeking construction of chambers got itself registered and applied for the aforesaid relief, to the government. The case was processed by the District Administration and recommended for allotment of required land for construction of lawyers chambers for the members of the Association. It appears that the matter had gone to the extent of signing an agreement on 15.12.2003 between the District Administration and Association, through its President, when a complaint dated 17.12.2003 was made by the District Bar Association, Hisar that the said Association, who had got no connection with the District Bar Association, Hisar and Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh and was not recognized under the Advocates Act, had been seeking allotment of land within the judicial complex, Hisar to construct the chambers without any information and considering the claim of the District Bar Association, Hisar (Respondent No. 6). The complaint was entertained and an order dated 30.12.2003 (Annexure P-3) was passed and the lease agreement dated 15.12.2003 was cancelled. 3. Thereafter, the District Bar Association, Hisar got itself registered under the The Societies Registration Act, 1860 and moved its case for allotment of land for construction of chambers for its members. The same was processed and favourably recommended and finally land measuring 9 kanals 13 marlas situated within the Court Complex, Hisar adjoining the Bar Room was allotted on 18.12.2006. It appears that the petitioner Association, all this while was pursuing its case by filing writ petitions and representations and finally their writ petition bearing CWP No. 203 of 2007 filed in this Court was withdrawn on 11.1.2007 with the permission to file a representation before the Building Committee of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court. It appears that the petitioner Association, all this while was pursuing its case by filing writ petitions and representations and finally their writ petition bearing CWP No. 203 of 2007 filed in this Court was withdrawn on 11.1.2007 with the permission to file a representation before the Building Committee of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The representation filed by the petitioner Association was dismissed by the Building Committee and decision conveyed vide letter dated 12.2.2007 (Annexure P-5) in view of the fact that the land for construction of chambers for the members of District Bar Association had already been allotted. Hence this petition. 4. The respondent State and District Bar Association, Hisar, upon notice, have filed their separate replies. It has been stated by the official respondents that the construction work has since started over the newly allotted site and half of the members of the petitioner Association have been found eligible for allotment of new chambers to be constructed by the District Bar Association, Hisar- respondent No. 6. Thirteen members of the petitioner Association are already in occupation of chambers in the Judicial Complex Hisar. Respondent No. 6- District Bar Association, Hisar has stated that the petitioner Association had earlier been alotted some piece of land on misrepresentation of facts and the said allotment was rightly cancelled. 5. In any case, the Building Committee of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court has now finally settled the matter in view of allotment of land measuring 9 kanals 13 marlas within the Judicial Complex, Hisar for construction of chambers for members of District Bar Association, Hisar -respondent No. 6. It is further stated that the members of the petitioner Association are in fact members of the District Bar Association- respondent No. 6 and are eligible and entitled to allotment of chambers. Since most of the members of the petitioner Association had already applied for allotment of chambers and have been found eligible for same, thus the petitioner Association has lost its bona fide/relevance. It is further stated that the petitioner Association is a private Association having vested interests and working against the larger interest of the entire legal fraternity practising in the District Courts Hisar and as such has no locus standi to maintain their aforesaid claim. 6. We have heard Mr. It is further stated that the petitioner Association is a private Association having vested interests and working against the larger interest of the entire legal fraternity practising in the District Courts Hisar and as such has no locus standi to maintain their aforesaid claim. 6. We have heard Mr. J.B. Sharma, Advocate who has argued the matter in his personal capacity, since no cause of action has remained with the petitioner-Association for maintaining the present writ petition. The sole contention raised by Mr. J.B. Sharma is that great injustice has been caused to him by the respondents in as much as no chamber in the Judicial Complex, Hisar has been allotted to him. 7. The argument of the learned Counsel is outrightly rejected in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as are discernible from the pleadings. An alternate site has been identified and allotted by the District Administration and the construction at the site has commenced after due consultations with the Building Committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The members of the District Bar Association, Hisar (respondent No. 6) are eligible for allotment of chambers by the method which has been adopted or is to be adopted by the Allotment Committee. Thus, no justiciable claim of the learned Counsel survives. He has a fundamental right to pursue his legal profession but it is not necessary that he should have a chamber within the Court premises. Allotment of a chamber cannot be regarded as an integral part of his fundamental right to pursue his legal profession. In fact, allotment of a chamber is not even a matter of right, but it is only a facility which has been extended subject to the method to be adopted by the Allotment Committee. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are constrained to observe about the recent unhealthy trend of splinter groups pressing their claim without keeping in view the larger common interest of all members of the legal fraternity. The legal profession is a noble profession. The credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the manner in which the members of the profession conduct themselves. The legal profession is a noble profession. The credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the manner in which the members of the profession conduct themselves. The members of this solemn and serious occupation, by their conduct and actions, both in and outside the Court, have to act as a model for the poor, uneducated and exploited masses, both in their private and public life. The members of the legal profession by resorting to infighting over petty things erode the confidence and faith of the people/ clients for whom they strive to secure justice and who have a vital public interest in the administration of justice, which as a consequence suffers. We strongly deprecate this mushrooming tendency of splinter groups acting against the larger and collective interest of the legal fraternity, and thus also affecting the due dispensation of justice. Clash of personal egos, which is the basis for creation of rival association/splinter groups, not only tarnish the image of lawyers as a class but erode the faith of consumer of justice in particular and society at large. The High Court or the State Government can not deal with private association of lawyers in administration of justice in a hierarchical manner. 9. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.