Delhi HC Refuses Interim Relief To Delhi Gymkhana Club, Centre Assures No Forcible Takeover Before Due Process

Justice Avneesh Jhingan was hearing pleas filed by longtime club member Vijay Khurana and the Delhi Gymkhana Staff Welfare Association challenging the Centre’s communication regarding termination of the Club’s perpetual lease and proposed re-entry into the premises.

Appearing for the Club, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the impugned communication was effectively a final order passed without any prior show cause notice or adherence to principles of natural justice.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre through video conferencing, defended the government’s action and submitted that the lease could be terminated under Clause 4 of the lease deed. He clarified that the Centre was not planning any forcible takeover and that all steps would be taken strictly under the procedure established by law.

“We will not take possession, except as per procedure established under law,” Mehta assured the Court.

The Court repeatedly questioned the nature of the Centre’s communication, observing that the key issue was whether it amounted to a final order or was merely a notice concerning re-entry and vacation of the premises.

Singhvi argued that the grounds cited by the Centre such as “public security”, “defence”, “governance infrastructure” and “public infrastructure projects” were excessively broad and vague. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Express Newspapers case, he contended that “public purpose” must be real, specific and definite.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing via video conferencing for the Club’s last elected governing body, challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 4 of the lease deed, arguing that a provision permitting unilateral takeover by the government could not withstand constitutional scrutiny post-Constitution. Sibal further submitted that even an authorised occupant could not be dispossessed without notice and due process.

The Court, however, observed that questions concerning the constitutional validity of the lease clause, legality of termination and scope of public purpose touched upon the merits of the main suit and could not be conclusively examined at the interim stage.

Recording the Solicitor General’s assurance, the Court held that the apprehension regarding forcible eviction without notice did not survive for the present. It also noted that no proceedings under the Public Premises Act had yet been initiated. Accordingly, the High Court declined interim protection and directed parties to complete pleadings.

Written submissions are to be filed within eight weeks, while the matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar on July 28 for completion of pleadings.

The government has asserted that the property, situated in a strategically sensitive zone of the national capital, is required for strengthening and securing defence infrastructure as well as other public security-related uses. The order states that the entire 27.3-acre parcel, including all buildings, lawns, structures and fittings, shall vest in the President of India through the L&DO upon re-entry and resumption of possession. The Centre has further maintained that the decision is driven by urgent public interest considerations linked to national security and integrated governance infrastructure in adjoining government land areas within Lutyens’ Delhi.

Challenging the move, the Gymkhana Club has argued that the order would result in abrupt disruption of its functioning and cause large-scale dislocation of members and staff. The Club has stated that it currently has around 14,000 members and engages more than 500 employees, many of whom depend on the institution for their livelihood. The Club has also pointed out that it is presently being managed by a General Committee appointed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs pursuant to proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). According to the Club, this committee is functioning as a transitional arrangement pending the constitution of an elected governing body.

In its communication to the authorities, the Club has requested that there should be no immediate dislocation of its operations until pending issues are resolved. It has also highlighted improvements in its financial condition and administrative functioning in recent years, asserting that the institution has stabilised after earlier regulatory intervention. The Club has further submitted that if relocation is eventually considered necessary, the government should explore allotment of alternative land for continuity of its activities and preservation of its institutional structure.

The Centre’s order, issued through the L&DO, underscores that the premises are located in a “highly sensitive and strategic area” and are required for defence and public interest purposes. It maintains that the re-entry and resumption action is legally permissible under the terms of the lease agreement.