The Delhi High Court recently heard the Delhi Gymkhana Club's challenge against a government order directing it to vacate its premises. During the proceedings, the Centre provided an assurance that it would not forcibly take possession of the prestigious club on June 5, emphasizing that all legal procedures for eviction would be strictly followed.
Centre Clarifies June 5 Deadline
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, clarified to the court that June 5 was merely a voluntary deadline for the club to vacate the premises. He stated unequivocally that if the club did not comply, law enforcement would not immediately intervene for a forceful takeover. Instead, the established legal process for eviction from public premises would be initiated.
When pressed by the court to record this statement, Mehta affirmed, "We will not take possession, except in accordance with the law." He further indicated that possession could not occur on June 5 itself, as a formal notice would first need to be issued.
Public Interest Grounds and Compensation
The core of the Centre's argument hinges on Clause 4 of the lease agreement, which it states provides the framework for lease determination on grounds of public interest. The government's order explicitly mentioned that the premises were "critically required for strengthening of defence infrastructure and other public security purposes."
Regarding compensation, the Solicitor General informed the court that the club would be offered either monetary compensation or an alternate piece of land where it could relocate and continue its activities.
Gymkhana Club's Challenge
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Delhi Gymkhana Club, highlighted several points of contention. He questioned the validity of the Centre's order, particularly its directive for "re-entry and resumption" of the premises. Singhvi also raised concerns about the government's previous stated intention to replace the club's governing body, noting that the existing committee already included government representatives.
The court also addressed Singhvi's allegations against 15 nominated parties, whom he claimed were collaborating with the government. The court questioned whether such issues could be raised in the current proceedings without formally involving these parties, especially since the matter was already before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
The Centre countered the apprehension that the Gymkhana Club, currently managed by a government-constituted committee, would hand over possession. Mehta clarified that the committee itself had objected to such an action, reinforcing the commitment to due legal process.