High Court

Judgment

1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha alongwith Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri Guru Prasad, Principal Secretary (Revenue) is also present through video conference.

2. Present writ petition has been filed by the District Advocates Association, Gorakhpur through its General Secretary seeking the following relief : "(a) A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents-Authorities not to demolish the advocates' chambers lying in the Collectorate campus unless a proper and suitable arrangement is made for sitting of the members of District Advocate Association, Gorakhpur who were also duly enrolled as members of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh."

3. The bone of contention is the accommodation to be made available to the lawyers/members of the District Bar Association, Gorakhpur in lieu of - either constructed accommodation/s or tin-shed accommodation/s available to them at present, inside the District Collectorate campus at Gorakhpur. That need has arisen because the State Government proposes to demolish identified existing buildings at the District Collectorate campus, to bring up a new Collectorate building of specification G+6. The State Government relies on a scale map that 2 was earlier received on record and marked as 'X'. A digital copy of that map is made part of this order marked as 'X'.

4. According to that map description, building nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 depicted with green (diagonal) lines, currently housing chamber accommodation for the members of the District Bar Association, Gorakhpur, are to be demolished, to raise the new building.

5. In addition to the above, it is an admitted case of the petitioners that there exist (at present), 770 lawyers who are members of the petitioner association. Also, there exist two other buildings - described as 3 Chamber Building Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, according to the petitioners, as on date, 288 lawyers are accommodated. On 31.01.2025 the petitioners had filed four lists. According to list no. 1, 288 lawyers are accommodated in

those two buildings. Still earlier, personal affidavit of Sri Lalman, General Secretary, District Advocates Association, Gorakhpur dated

16.09.2024 had been filed stating that 316 lawyers have been accommodated in those two buildings. However, at present, we are considering the fact undisputed to the petitioners, today. Therefore, we keep that number at 288 only. Also, in terms of the lists filed on

31.01.2025, the total number of members of the petitioner association is 770, at present.

6. Of the remaining, according to the State only 103 lawyers are to be disturbed who are presently accommodated in building nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (depicted with green (diagonal) lines on 'X'), to raise fresh constructions. Of those, 90 lawyers are proposed to be temporarily accommodated inside the Digital Library building and the remaining 13 in the 'Malkhana' campus. Later, those would be accommodated in a new building to be constructed, simultaneously to accommodate such lawyers.

7. Thus, according to the petitioners say, the issue of only 391 lawyers has been addressed by the State (288 in Chamber Building Nos. 1 and 2 + 103). Of the remaining 379 lawyers, it is admitted to the parties that 54 lawyers are not to be affected - being lawyers described in list 4 of the list taken on record vide order dated 31.01.2025. Thus, it appears, according to the petitioners 325 other lawyers would also be affected.

8. On the other hand, the State disputes the correctness of such assertions. According to the State, not more than 103 lawyers are accommodated in the five buildings (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), to be demolished. 4 All/other lawyers who may either have no accommodation or may have found accommodation elsewhere i.e. in the building/tin-shed not - to be demolished, to raise the new Collectorate building are therefore, not being affected.

9. In such nature of fact dispute noticed, on 31.01.2025, we required the petitioners to file a proper affidavit indicating the exact location of the place of sitting of the lawyers over and above 103 lawyers admitted (by the State), who are to be disturbed, on the copy of the map ‘X’. For ready reference that order reads as below: “1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. In furtherance of the last order, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel has placed on record four lists containing names of - (i) 288 lawyers described to have been accommodated in chamber building nos. 1 and 2. Admittedly, those lawyers are not affected by the fresh constructions proposed. Second list has been placed on record, containing names of 80 lawyers. Those are included in the list of 288 lawyers (first list).

3. Third list has been provided containing names of 162 lawyers who according to the petitioners would be disturbed/displaced by the fresh constructions involving demolition of building nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 marked on the map 'X'. This list is disputed inasmuch as according to the (earlier) affidavits filed by the State, only 103 lawyers are to be disturbed/displaced. Thus, 59 more lawyers are claimed to be facing the risk of displacement (according to the petitioners).

4. The fourth list of 320 lawyers has been placed. They are also described to be having place of seating under tin-sheds etc. It includes 54 lawyers - who according to the State are not to be disturbed by the proposed constructions.

5. Thus, against 780 lawyers (originally disclosed), at present, the petitioners concede that few have expired. Therefore, account has been offered of 770 lawyers only.

6. At the same time, against 103 lawyers described by the State to be facing displacement, the petitioners claim that that number is much higher at 428.

7. At present, the Court is only seeking to enforce fairness, reasonableness and equal treatment by the State functionaries. Thus, it is of prime concern to the Court that such of the lawyers who are presently accommodated inside 'Pakka' constructions or under tin- sheds and who may be forced to vacate such premises for reason of new building/s proposed by the State, must be offered 5 appropriate/dignified accommodation in the new/proposed constructions. Unless that fairness is ingrained in or ensured in the State action, the exercise of demolition and reconstruction may serve paper purposes only.

8. In view of the above consideration, a stalemate appears to have arisen inasmuch as on best efforts made by the State till now G+1 construction is proposed to be enhanced to G+6 construction having approximately 12,000 sq. ft. area only. If the number of lawyers to be displaced 428, that may not be enough.

9. At this stage, it appears, views of the State may be informed to the Court in this aspect, before further orders are passed.

10. Let Principal Secretary (Revenue) appear through video conference on 04.02.2025 at 2:00 p.m.

11. In the meanwhile, petitioners undertake to bring the list (filed today) on record by means of appropriate affidavit which may be served on learned Chief Standing Counsel by Sunday i.e. 02.02.2025. The affidavit would specify with names and number of lawyers who are accommodated inside particular buildings and under particular tin-sheds, that may be marked appropriately on a copy of the pre- existing map 'X', to be annexed to that affidavit.

12. The State may also have time to verify the correctness of the facts stated in the lists filed today and file appropriate affidavit, if required, on the next date.

13. List on 05.02.2025.

14. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of listing.”

10. Yesterday, upon the case being taken up, further time was sought on behalf of the petitioner. Today, further affidavit of Sri Lalman, General Secretary, District Advocates Association, Gorakhpur has been filed. To that, Annexure SA-1 has been annexed describing five tin-sheds (A to E) and 320 lawyers accommodated underneath such tin-sheds. However, neither any copy of the map 'X' has been annexed to that affidavit nor it has been disclosed to the Court where individual tin-sheds A to E are situated on that map 'X'.

11. Sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioners to make clear their position vis-a-vis the exact location of the existing office space/s of the remaining lawyers (including 320 specified in the affidavit filed today). Since no further disclosure has been made, we have no option but to proceed with the matter. Though Sri Ojha would 6 complain that the burden is on the State as well to clearly specify that fact, we reject that suggestion. The petitioners are complaining that they would be evicted. It is for them to first take a stand as to location of individual existing work space/of its members.

12. At this stage, Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel has made a statement that : (i) The new proposed building for lawyers (G+1 area 3397 Sq. Ft.) - depicted at the centre-bottom of the map ‘X’ and marked in purple lattice, is proposed to be enhanced in capacity and modified to a G+6 building having approximately 12000 Sq. Ft. area (in all) (That alteration has been made by the State Government to its original plan, on the intervention made by the Court). (ii) The exact floor plan and scale map of that building and other specifications is under active consideration by the State Public Works Department. However, the State commits to ensure construction of G+6 building of approximately 12,000 Sq. Ft. area to house lawyers, who may be displaced for reason of new collectorate building being constructed. (iii) The tin-sheds existing over seven irregular spaces (marked on 'X' in pink lattice), at the bottom of the map ‘X’ towards the left of the proposed new building for lawyers (G+6), located below the buildings to be demolished i.e. building nos. 1 and 2 and to their left, would not be demolished. (iv) Similarly, tin-sheds existing over three irregular spaces (above and to the right of the Digital Library building), also marked in pink lattice, would also not be demolished. (v) Further, other tin-sheds existing over irregular spaces adjoining the building marked as Audit Office and further below and around the 7 building marked Vikas Bhawan and towards the top side of the map ‘X’ (also marked in pink lattice), would not be demolished.

13. In short, it has been assured to the Court that the spaces marked in pink lattice on the map ‘X’ that may be housing temporary tin-sheds occupied by lawyers/members of the District Bar Association, Gorakhpur, are not to be demolished for the purpose of raising the new Collectorate building.

14. In view of such facts emerging, we find that - (i) State admits only 103 lawyers (specified in Annexure No. 2 to the personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur dated 09.01.2025 are to be displaced/affected at present - for the purpose of raising new constructions. They are being temporarily accommodated in the Digital Library building and the 'Malkhana' campus. That arrangement would be ensured during construction of the new Collectorate building. (ii) New proposed building (G+6 area roughly 12000 Sq Ft) shall be constructed as part of the State Government’s project to raise the new Collectorate building (also G+6). That construction may not be separated from the plan for construction of the new Collectorate building. It may be treated as an integral part of the same project and completed simultaneously. (iii) Upon the new building (G+6 of area approximately 12000 Sq Ft) being constructed, necessarily that building would be used exclusively to accommodate the lawyers of the District Bar Association, Gorakhpur. In that, first 103 lawyers (to be admittedly displaced) shall be accommodated. Thereafter, such other lawyers of the remaining 770 lawyers (as recorded in the order dated 31.01.2025) excluding those directly accommodated in Chamber building nos. 1 and 2 (not being demolished), and whose list has been presented in these proceedings, would be accommodated, keeping in mind the accepted/prevalent norms, 8 in that regard. Any other space that may remain available (in that building), may also be utilised only for the benefit and purpose of lawyers who may be members of the petitioner association. (iv) The State authorities shall strictly abide by their undertaking recorded in paragraph no. 12 of this order.

15. If any grievance arises either to the District Bar Association, Gorakhpur or to individual members of the District Bar Association, Gorakhpur, with respect to implementation of this order, they may represent in writing to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Uttar Pradesh, supported by their personal affidavit alongwith adequate documentary proof of their claim. Such representation, if made may be addressed expeditiously.

16. With the above observations, present petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Abhilash/Faraz . (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)

those two buildings. Still earlier, personal affidavit of Sri Lalman, General Secretary, District Advocates Association, Gorakhpur dated

16.09.2024 had been filed stating that 316 lawyers have been accommodated in those two buildings. However, at present, we are considering the fact undisputed to the petitioners, today. Therefore, we keep that number at 288 only. Also, in terms of the lists filed on

31.01.2025, the total number of members of the petitioner association is 770, at present.

6. Of the remaining, according to the State only 103 lawyers are to be disturbed who are presently accommodated in building nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (depicted with green (diagonal) lines on 'X'), to raise fresh constructions. Of those, 90 lawyers are proposed to be temporarily accommodated inside the Digital Library building and the remaining 13 in the 'Malkhana' campus. Later, those would be accommodated in a new building to be constructed, simultaneously to accommodate such lawyers.

7. Thus, according to the petitioners say, the issue of only 391 lawyers has been addressed by the State (288 in Chamber Building Nos. 1 and 2 + 103). Of the remaining 379 lawyers, it is admitted to the parties that 54 lawyers are not to be affected - being lawyers described in list 4 of the list taken on record vide order dated 31.01.2025. Thus, it appears, according to the petitioners 325 other lawyers would also be affected.

8. On the other hand, the State disputes the correctness of such assertions. According to the State, not more than 103 lawyers are accommodated in the five buildings (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), to be demolished. 4 All/other lawyers who may either have no accommodation or may have found accommodation elsewhere i.e. in the building/tin-shed not - to be demolished, to raise the new Collectorate building are therefore, not being affected.

9. In such nature of fact dispute noticed, on 31.01.2025, we required the petitioners to file a proper affidavit indicating the exact location of the place of sitting of the lawyers over and above 103 lawyers admitted (by the State), who are to be disturbed, on the copy of the map ‘X’. For ready reference that order reads as below: “1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. In furtherance of the last order, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel has placed on record four lists containing names of - (i) 288 lawyers described to have been accommodated in chamber building nos. 1 and 2. Admittedly, those lawyers are not affected by the fresh constructions proposed. Second list has been placed on record, containing names of 80 lawyers. Those are included in the list of 288 lawyers (first list).

3. Third list has been provided containing names of 162 lawyers who according to the petitioners would be disturbed/displaced by the fresh constructions involving demolition of building nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 marked on the map 'X'. This list is disputed inasmuch as according to the (earlier) affidavits filed by the State, only 103 lawyers are to be disturbed/displaced. Thus, 59 more lawyers are claimed to be facing the risk of displacement (according to the petitioners).

4. The fourth list of 320 lawyers has been placed. They are also described to be having place of seating under tin-sheds etc. It includes 54 lawyers - who according to the State are not to be disturbed by the proposed constructions.

5. Thus, against 780 lawyers (originally disclosed), at present, the petitioners concede that few have expired. Therefore, account has been offered of 770 lawyers only.

6. At the same time, against 103 lawyers described by the State to be facing displacement, the petitioners claim that that number is much higher at 428.

7. At present, the Court is only seeking to enforce fairness, reasonableness and equal treatment by the State functionaries. Thus, it is of prime concern to the Court that such of the lawyers who are presently accommodated inside 'Pakka' constructions or under tin- sheds and who may be forced to vacate such premises for reason of new building/s proposed by the State, must be offered 5 appropriate/dignified accommodation in the new/proposed constructions. Unless that fairness is ingrained in or ensured in the State action, the exercise of demolition and reconstruction may serve paper purposes only.

8. In view of the above consideration, a stalemate appears to have arisen inasmuch as on best efforts made by the State till now G+1 construction is proposed to be enhanced to G+6 construction having approximately 12,000 sq. ft. area only. If the number of lawyers to be displaced 428, that may not be enough.

9. At this stage, it appears, views of the State may be informed to the Court in this aspect, before further orders are passed.

10. Let Principal Secretary (Revenue) appear through video conference on 04.02.2025 at 2:00 p.m.

11. In the meanwhile, petitioners undertake to bring the list (filed today) on record by means of appropriate affidavit which may be served on learned Chief Standing Counsel by Sunday i.e. 02.02.2025. The affidavit would specify with names and number of lawyers who are accommodated inside particular buildings and under particular tin-sheds, that may be marked appropriately on a copy of the pre- existing map 'X', to be annexed to that affidavit.

12. The State may also have time to verify the correctness of the facts stated in the lists filed today and file appropriate affidavit, if required, on the next date.

13. List on 05.02.2025.

14. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of listing.”

10. Yesterday, upon the case being taken up, further time was sought on behalf of the petitioner. Today, further affidavit of Sri Lalman, General Secretary, District Advocates Association, Gorakhpur has been filed. To that, Annexure SA-1 has been annexed describing five tin-sheds (A to E) and 320 lawyers accommodated underneath such tin-sheds. However, neither any copy of the map 'X' has been annexed to that affidavit nor it has been disclosed to the Court where individual tin-sheds A to E are situated on that map 'X'.

11. Sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioners to make clear their position vis-a-vis the exact location of the existing office space/s of the remaining lawyers (including 320 specified in the affidavit filed today). Since no further disclosure has been made, we have no option but to proceed with the matter. Though Sri Ojha would 6 complain that the burden is on the State as well to clearly specify that fact, we reject that suggestion. The petitioners are complaining that they would be evicted. It is for them to first take a stand as to location of individual existing work space/of its members.

12. At this stage, Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel has made a statement that : (i) The new proposed building for lawyers (G+1 area 3397 Sq. Ft.) - depicted at the centre-bottom of the map ‘X’ and marked in purple lattice, is proposed to be enhanced in capacity and modified to a G+6 building having approximately 12000 Sq. Ft. area (in all) (That alteration has been made by the State Government to its original plan, on the intervention made by the Court). (ii) The exact floor plan and scale map of that building and other specifications is under active consideration by the State Public Works Department. However, the State commits to ensure construction of G+6 building of approximately 12,000 Sq. Ft. area to house lawyers, who may be displaced for reason of new collectorate building being constructed. (iii) The tin-sheds existing over seven irregular spaces (marked on 'X' in pink lattice), at the bottom of the map ‘X’ towards the left of the proposed new building for lawyers (G+6), located below the buildings to be demolished i.e. building nos. 1 and 2 and to their left, would not be demolished. (iv) Similarly, tin-sheds existing over three irregular spaces (above and to the right of the Digital Library building), also marked in pink lattice, would also not be demolished. (v) Further, other tin-sheds existing over irregular spaces adjoining the building marked as Audit Office and further below and around the 7 building marked Vikas Bhawan and towards the top side of the map ‘X’ (also marked in pink lattice), would not be demolished.

13. In short, it has been assured to the Court that the spaces marked in pink lattice on the map ‘X’ that may be housing temporary tin-sheds occupied by lawyers/members of the District Bar Association, Gorakhpur, are not to be demolished for the purpose of raising the new Collectorate building.

14. In view of such facts emerging, we find that - (i) State admits only 103 lawyers (specified in Annexure No. 2 to the personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur dated 09.01.2025 are to be displaced/affected at present - for the purpose of raising new constructions. They are being temporarily accommodated in the Digital Library building and the 'Malkhana' campus. That arrangement would be ensured during construction of the new Collectorate building. (ii) New proposed building (G+6 area roughly 12000 Sq Ft) shall be constructed as part of the State Government’s project to raise the new Collectorate building (also G+6). That construction may not be separated from the plan for construction of the new Collectorate building. It may be treated as an integral part of the same project and completed simultaneously. (iii) Upon the new building (G+6 of area approximately 12000 Sq Ft) being constructed, necessarily that building would be used exclusively to accommodate the lawyers of the District Bar Association, Gorakhpur. In that, first 103 lawyers (to be admittedly displaced) shall be accommodated. Thereafter, such other lawyers of the remaining 770 lawyers (as recorded in the order dated 31.01.2025) excluding those directly accommodated in Chamber building nos. 1 and 2 (not being demolished), and whose list has been presented in these proceedings, would be accommodated, keeping in mind the accepted/prevalent norms, 8 in that regard. Any other space that may remain available (in that building), may also be utilised only for the benefit and purpose of lawyers who may be members of the petitioner association. (iv) The State authorities shall strictly abide by their undertaking recorded in paragraph no. 12 of this order.

15. If any grievance arises either to the District Bar Association, Gorakhpur or to individual members of the District Bar Association, Gorakhpur, with respect to implementation of this order, they may represent in writing to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Uttar Pradesh, supported by their personal affidavit alongwith adequate documentary proof of their claim. Such representation, if made may be addressed expeditiously.

16. With the above observations, present petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Abhilash/Faraz . (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)