JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate in this High Court. He has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the Registrar General, High Court to treat the relocation of chambers 152 to 171 as a temporary arrangement for the present and for a consequential direction to give first priority to the allottees, joint allottees and co-allottees of chambers 152 to 171 in future allotment of new chambers. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a practicing lawyer for the last 38 years and got enrolled under Bar Council of Tamil Nadu with enrollment No.205/72. He was made as a co-allottee in chamber Nos.159, Additional Law Chambers in the additional block consisting of chambers 151 to 172. One S.Soundararajan was its main allottee. He was in occupation of chamber No.159 for the last 21 years. When the new chambers were constructed, he gave a letter for allotment for a new chamber. He had also tried to get Chamber No.113 as a main allottee along with co-allottee one V.Santhanam. But that request was pending for one year and thereafter the Committee had declined to allot chamber No.113 to the petitioner. 3. In the meanwhile, the allottees in chamber Nos.152 to 171 were directed to vacate the chambers as it was to be demolished for constructing a new law office. There were as many as 200 Advocates occupying 20 chambers in the Additional block of law chambers and the chambers were directed to be vacated by April, 2010. As a temporary measure, the allottees in the additional block were allotted new chambers in the third floor and the first floor over the Advocates Canteen. The new chamber that was allotted was with smaller space. Therefore, the petitioner and others were requesting for allotment of new chambers on priority basis. Several representations were given to the High Court section, but the Section Office of the Registry dealing with this matter was not placing correct information to the committee constituted for this purpose. The petitioner was given to understand that some lawyers were retaining 2 to 3 chambers both in the old as well as new law chambers. Even for the lawyers who had discontinued practice, chambers have been allotted. It is under these circumstances, the writ petition came to be filed. 4. The petitioner was given to understand that some lawyers were retaining 2 to 3 chambers both in the old as well as new law chambers. Even for the lawyers who had discontinued practice, chambers have been allotted. It is under these circumstances, the writ petition came to be filed. 4. When the matter came up for admission on 19.4.2010, this court directed the petitioner to serve notice on the standing counsel for the High Court. Accordingly, notice was served. Para-war remarks were given regarding allotment of chambers stating that the petitioner's request for relocation of chamber No.113 was rejected by the Building Committee and that the rooms in the new chambers were allotted only to the main allottees as was done in the case of others. As regarding future expansion of law chambers, it was stated that there was no such proposal on hand. Subsequently on 13.6.2011, it was stated that the petitioner had requested for allotment of separate chamber along with his 15 juniors, but it was informed that no separate chamber was available and that if he makes any request for relocation, the same will be placed before the Committee. 5. On 15.6.2011, it was further informed by the Registry as follows: “Thiru K.V.Ananthakrushnan, Advocate and Joint allottee, Law Chambers No.159, may be informed that his case of reallotment will be placed before the Hon'ble Building Committee for consideration. Till then, he may be informed to continue to occupy the Law Chambers No.159.” 6. Therefore, when the matter came up on the same day, i.e. on 15.6.2011 this court had passed the following order: “When the matter came up today, it is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter relating to the petitioner's application will be placed before the Building Committee for consideration. Therefore, the respondents are directed to place the petitioner's application before the Building Committee and inform to this court about the decision of the Building Committee.” 7. Further when the matter came up on 24.6.2011, the Sub Assistant Registrar (A.D.I) produced the following vacancy position, which is as follows: “It is resolved to direct the Registrar (Administration) to inform the Court as to the vacancy position, and no decision is taken in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition No.7874/2010.Vacancy position: Sl.No. Chamber No. Availability 1 466 Co-allottee - 1 2 129 Co-allottee -1 8. In the light of these developments and in view of the disposal of this writ petition, it is hereby directed that if the petitioner desires to be co-allottee in the two chambers Nos.466 and 129, he may be given allotment considering his four decades of standing in the Bar. Otherwise, being a person evicted from chamber No.159, he should be given allotment in the next available vacancy. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.