The central government informed the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that no evictions would take place at the Delhi Gymkhana Club without following the due process of law.
The court took the statement on the record, but declined to issue any direction to the government restraining further action in the matter until the next date of hearing in July.
“The issue is premature and presumptive,” Justice Avneesh Jhingan of the High Court said.
Members and employees of the Delhi Gymkhana Club have challenged the May 22 notice issued by the Land and Development Office under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) initiating the “re-entry and resumption” of the land occupied by the club on Safdarjung Road in the heart of Lutyens’ Delhi.
“As on date there is nothing on record to substantiate that the action under Public Premises Act has been taken and in case need so arises, plaintiffs can avail the remedies in accordance with law…,” Justice Jhingan said in his order.
“Taking into account that summons have been issued in the main suit and accepted, statement made by SG (Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared for MoHUA) takes care of the apprehensions (raised by the members and employees of the Club)… In view of the statement made by SG, no further interim directions are called for,” the order said.
Three suits have been filed in the HC – one each by a member of the club, by employees under the aegis of Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association, and by a member of the last elected governing body of the club before nominees appointed by the government took over the management in 2021.
Story continues below this ad
The Centre has said that the 27-acre land is “critically required…for the strengthening and securing of Defence infrastructure and other vital public security purposes”.
SG Mehta told the court that the May 22 communication was only “vis-a-vis re-entry and termination of the perpetual lease deed by invoking clause 4 of the lease deed”, and that the apprehensions of members and employees were “baseless”. Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed allows the government to take back the land if it is required for a public purpose.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the member of the club, and Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the member of the last elected body, expressed apprehension that the current governing council, comprising nominees appointed by the government, “may act hand-in-glove with the Union of India to hand over the possession of the club”.
SG Mehta argued that such apprehensions were baseless since the club’s governing committee had already approached the authorities against the May 22 communication through a letter written on May 23. He emphasised that there has been no violation of the perpetual lease deed on the part of the government.
Story continues below this ad
The court recorded Mehta’s submission that the May 22 communication was for termination of the perpetual lease deed and re-entry, “not for forcible eviction proceedings, for which the proceedings in accordance with law, after issuing of notice shall be entertained”.
Singhvi, who appeared for club member Vijay Khurana who claims that he represents the interests of more than 550 members, primarily argued that the May 22 notice by MoHUA was “vague” and did not demonstrate public purpose which, Singhvi said, “has to be real, genuine, and specific”. Singhvi also argued that the notice violated the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution, and since no notice was issued before May 22, the government’s action suffered from legal mala fide.
“…The body which ought to be taking action – Delhi Gymkhana Club – have been since replaced by nominees of [SG] Mr [Tushar] Mehta…,” Singhvi said. “Voluntary handover (of the premises by the club to the government) does not suffice in this case (as an assurance for the members)…”
“(The club) is in the saddle, I (Khurana) am not… The nature of the suit (by Khurana) is one of derivative action since the oppressed entity (Delhi Gymkhana Club) is unable to file its own suit,” Singhvi said.
Story continues below this ad
Sibal, who appeared for Atul Dev, the head of the last elected body of the club, argued that clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed, which the government has invoked, was framed prior to the commencement of the Constitution. “All clauses of any document have to be tested on the touchstone of our Constitution now, not in reference to the clause,” Sibal argued. “Any clause that empowers government or imperial power of the time to take possession is an anathema to the Constitution. It is in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Sibal also argued that the members, who are the authorised occupants of the club, were entitled to be given notice before any eviction proceedings were undertaken. Sibal requested the court “to not interpret the clause in a manner that allows [the government]…to re-enter”.
Sibal submitted that the show-cause notice required for eviction and re-entry could not be post facto, that is after the Centre had entered the demised premises.
The court asked Singhvi and Sibal whether “different members [could] take different stances”. The counsel clarified that for the interim, they were seeking the same relief: that no further action be taken pursuant to the May 22 notice until the next date of hearing.
