Gymkhana Club moves HC against show-cause notice
Delhi Gymkhana Club members and staff have moved the Delhi High Court against the Centre’s show-cause notice for eviction from its 27.3-acre premises on Safdarjung Road.
The applications, which seek a stay on the operation of the show-cause notice, have been listed for hearing before Justice Avneesh Jhingan on July 6.
The pleas by Vijay Khurana and Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association form part of their pending lawsuit following the Land and Development Office’s (L&DO) May 22 order terminating the perpetual lease deed and asking the colonial-era club to return its land by June 5 on grounds of “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.
On June 29, the L&DO under the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry 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 (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
The notice, issued by Estate Officer Bipin Kumar Singh on, 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 by June 5, which is required for “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then said that the Centre would take over the club’s land in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Vijay Khurana, a Gymkhana Club member, 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 members of the club.
On May 26, the court observed that at that stage, there was nothing on record to suggest that 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 latest 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, user, 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.
