No coercive action for now against Delhi Gymkhana Club: Centre to Delhi HC

The Centre on Thursday said it would not take any coercive action till September 16 against Delhi Gymkhana Club in relation to its eviction from the 27.3-acre premises on Safdarjung Road.

The Centre made the statement before Justice Avneesh Jhingan of the Delhi High Court, who was hearing pleas by Delhi Gymkhana Club member Vijay Khurana and others seeking a stay on the June 29 show-cause notice for eviction issued to the club’s management by an estate officer of the Land and Development Office (L&DO).

The pleas by Khurana and Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association form part of their pending lawsuit following the 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”.

“We will not take any action in a coercive manner. The (earlier) statement continues. We will not take any coercive action (till the next date),” Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma said.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Khurana, submitted that the pleadings were complete and the issue of interim stay on the eviction notice was “ripe for hearing”.

Justice Jhingan, however, said he would keep the matter for arguments on another date and suggested that in the meantime, the members file their response before the estate officer for his consideration.

“What I am intending to do is that before I proceed with it (the interim relief), let him (estate officer) visit this issue… Whether he should proceed, whether he can proceed… Whatsoever comes out of it, we are still here,” Justice Jhingan said.

“Let the authority apply its mind to the fact that once this issue of jurisdiction itself is pending, should he proceed with the notice or not,” he added.

Singhvi said the chances of the estate officer ruling in favour of the club members are low and that any reply before him must be without prejudice to their case in the high court.

The court granted time to the counsel for the plaintiffs to take instructions and listed the matter for hearing on September 16.

The Centre had earlier filed a reply in the high court, asserting that it has no legal power to restrain the government from taking over the Delhi Gymkhana Club land after the termination of the perpetual lease for the club and issuance of a show-cause notice for eviction by the estate officer.

It submitted that under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, a civil court’s jurisdiction over any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction is barred and the grant of any injunction in respect of the estate officer’s action is also prohibited.

Given that the perpetual lease deed was a bilateral instrument between the Centre and the Delhi Gymkhana Club, a member – who was neither a party nor privy to the agreement – cannot independently restrain the authorities from exercising their contractual rights, the Centre had said.

On June 29, the L&DO under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs issued a show-cause notice to the club, asking it to explain why an eviction order should not be passed against it under the Public Premises Act.

The notice, issued by estate officer Bipin Kumar Singh, directed the club and all persons concerned occupying the premises to submit their response by July 7 and appear for a personal hearing on the same day at 2.30 pm.

The move came more than a month after the Centre told the Delhi High Court on May 26 that it would not take forceful possession of the 27.3-acre premises of the club, which is required for “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”, by June 5.

Khurana has said 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.

Khurana’s lawsuit is stated to be supported by more than 500 club members.

On May 26, the court observed that at that stage, there was nothing on record to suggest that the authorities had initiated legal action for eviction, and therefore, no interim order was required on the lawsuits by the Gymkhana members and staff.

In his interim application, Khurana 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 “pre-mature” as it wrongly presumed that the Gymkhana Club’s perpetual lease was validly terminated.

It said the notice’s continued operation would render the lawsuit infructuous, especially when the high court had earlier observed that the question of valid termination would be determined at an appropriate stage.

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.

It also sought permission to file replies and participate in the proceedings before the estate officer.