Delhi High Court judge Justice Prateek Jalan on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a case over the Centre’s proceedings against the Delhi Gymkhana Club for its eviction from the 27.3-acre premises on Safdarjung Road here.
Justice Jalan directed that the lawsuit by the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association be listed before another bench on Friday.
“I am going to recuse from this matter. There are matters where one does not trust one’s own judgement,” Justice Jalan said.
“There is too much personal involved. I will feel more comfortable if someone else heard it,” he said without elaborating.
Gymkhana member Vijay Khurana and Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association have filed separate lawsuits against the Land and Development Office (L&DO)’s May 22 order terminating the colonial-era club’s perpetual lease deed and asking it to return its land by June 5 on grounds of “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.
Khurana’s lawsuit is stated to be supported by more than 500 club members.
They have also filed applications seeking a stay on the June 29 show-cause notice for eviction issued to the club’s management by an estate officer of the L&DO.
The Centre had earlier said it would not take any coercive action in relation to the eviction for the time being.
The Centre, in its response to the main matter, has asserted that lawsuits were liable to be dismissed.
It had said that third parties cannot restrain the enforcement of rights arising from the now-determined lease deed between the authorities and the club for the land parcel.
The lawsuit filed by the Gymkhana staff has said they are cooks, waiters, kitchen and housekeeping staff, gardeners and groundsmen, electricians and plumbers, lifeguards, security personnel etc. working in the club and sought the protection of their source of livelihood as well as fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
Seeking to quash the Centre’s May 22 notice, their plea said Delhi Gymkhana Club was not a place of leisure for them but their place of work.
Also Read: JNU hostel residents flag poor maintenance, water and lighting issues
Khurana has submitted in his lawsuit that the “vague” and “generalised” reasons of defence infrastructure and security given by the Centre were just a “sham”.
The move, he claimed, was an “attempt to effect forced eviction” instead of following the due process of law.
In his interim application, Khurana has said the June 29 notice proceeds on “entirely erroneous and premature assumptions”, which strike at the substratum of their pending lawsuit.
The application said the show-cause notice was “premature” as it wrongly presumed that the Gymkhana Club’s perpetual lease was validly terminated.
Besides a stay order, the application sought a direction for maintaining status quo on possession, occupation and functioning of the club.
Alternatively, it sought a direction that the estate officer may not pass any final order under the Public Premises Act or take any coercive or dispossessory step.
