The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued summons on the suits filed by members and employees of the Delhi Gymkhana Club challenging the Central government’s order directing the Club to vacate the 27.3-acre premises in Lutyens Delhi by June 5.

However, Justice Avneesh Jhingan refused to pass any interim orders against the government's order of May 22. This, after the government said that any eviction action would be taken only after due notice.

"The issue is premature and presumptive. As on date, there is nothing on record to substantiate that action under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act has been taken and in case the need so arises, the plaintiffs can avail remedies in accordance with law.

In view of the statements made by the SG, no further interim directions are called for. The statement is to the effect that the eviction, if so, will be done following a prior notice. At the cost of repetition, the apprehension that the club governing body may hand over the possession of the club is contrary to the stand taken by the club."

The High Court was hearing two suits, one filed by Vijay Khurana, a longstanding member of the club, and the other by the Staff Welfare Association of the Delhi Gymkhana.

The suits challenged the Central government’s order directing the club to vacate the 27.3-acre premises in Lutyens Delhi by June 5.

At the outset of today's hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the last elected body of the Delhi Gymkhana Club and said that they have also filed a petition.

"Please list it along with the two matters listed today. I don’t want to wait. Please, I will argue along with them. I am not saying they should wait... I will bring my petition and argue," he said.

When the Court asked for the Central government's stand on the issue, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued,

"Clause 4 provides for a system under which we can determine the lease. It provides for various steps to be taken. There are consequences. One of it is compensation to be paid, the compensation can be money, or government can give alternate piece of land. We will act in accordance with procedure established by law. We can't just go and vacate it."

Appearing for Khurana, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said,

"There is no easy way out. They went to NCLT and NCLAT which replaced the 15 member previous committee. The net result today is that the oppressed is part of the oppressor. We are members, it is a non-profit company...the plaintiff today should be D2 [Gymkhana], but since it is now replaced by 15 nominated members of Mr Mehta, let's put it bluntly."

The Court then asked the SG,

"Can we record that you will not take possession on June 5, Mr Mehta?"

SG Mehta replied,

"We will not take possession except as per the procedure established by law."

Singhvi then said,

"15 persons have been appointed, the government is running it."

The Bench responded,

"You can't say government, they are nominees."

Singhvi told the Court that the order for takeover of Delhi Race Club and Polo Cub have been stayed by the High Court.

However, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma pointed out that the stay granted by the single judge on the Delhi Race Club action has been set aside by a division bench today.

Justice Jhingan then asked Singhvi,

"Your only apprehension is that they will proceed under Public Premises Act?"

Singhvi replied,

"I want my lords to order that government will not take any steps pursuant to this notice. Saying "except in accordance with law" will nullify it [protection that the court may grant]...You have to simultaneously give compensation, in this case there is no compensation."

Sibal, who was appearing for the last elected body of the Club, said,

"They can't pass this order. This order is in teeth of Article 14 because the Constitution applies now. This is an anathema. The problem is once they enter premises...They have no right to enter."

The Court then asked,

"How can the last elected body come to court, sir?"

Sibal replied,

"As a derivative suit, I can file it. I will show you the judgment."

The Court, however, pointed out,

"You are ousted by NCLT and the order is upheld by NCLAT."

Sibal insisted,

"Let's assume I am all wrong. Then who will challenge this order? I am also a member. There is no doubt on that."

He added that he was appearing for the elected body who were also individual members. The Court then queried,

"The question is, can different members have different stands?"

As Singhvi pushed for a stay on the government's action, Sibal contended,

"I am not differing on facts. I am making a legal point. I am saying even an unauthorised person has to be proceeded against pursuant to a notice. I am not unauthorised, I am authorised and you are saying I will not give you notice. Clause 4 was under an imperial government. This can't happen now after the Constitution is in force."

The Court then asked,

"Can you challenge the constitutionality of this clause in a suit?"

Sibal replied,

"You can't enter. You can do other things, you can take over, acquire... You can't say I will enter and then give you a show cause notice. That can't happen. This clause (clause 4) is unconstitutional. It can't be that unauthorised occupants can't be thrown and an authorised occupant is thrown without notice."

The Court asked,

"Where is the challenge to clause 4 in your suit? You are saying you can challenge it in suit."

Sibal then said,

"It's a legal argument. I am saying don't interpret the clause in a manner that allows them to enter."

The senior counsel went on to argue,

"Public purpose has to be demonstrated. Here, they have not demonstrated."

Referring to the government's letter, he said,

"What do we understand by this? This is as vague as it can be. They have not specified a thing. They are relying on a clause in the imperial lease...That is all I have to say."

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the Staff Welfare Association of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, contended that the government could not have exercised the right to re-entry without filing a suit.

The Court said,

"Today we are only on re-entry on basis of clause 4. Let's not go here and there."

Mehta then expressed the apprehension that the nominees of the Central government running the Club might take measures and may act hand in glove with the Centre to hand over the possession of the Club.

"They should not take action which frustrates my suit. The Club is today in the hands of people who may not take action for the protection of its interests."

The Court asked SG Tushar Mehta,

"Mr Mehta just answer this, are you ready to say that the communication today is only for eviction?"

The SG replied,

"Gymkhana Managing Committee appointed by Central government have already written to us opposing this order. My statement is that there cannot be any eviction by force, police force. It can only be as per procedure established by law. There is divergence of views between Mr Singhvi and Sibal's clients. We will also challenge the locus of the members."

The land was given on perpetual lease to the Club in the year 1928. Clause 4 of the lease deed provides that the premises can be re-entered upon by the lessor (Central government) if required for public purpose. In 2022, the Centre initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against the Club for violation of terms of the lease deed and mismanagement. The NCLT allowed the prayer and ordered appointment of 15 members to be nominated by the Centre for running the day-to-day business of the Club. The NCLAT later upheld this order.

In his plea, Khurana seeks a declaration and a permanent injunction restraining the government from "illegally determining the perpetual leasehold rights” of the Gymkhana Club. The petition also seeks to restrain the government from “forcibly dispossessing” the Club and its members from the “historic 27.3-acre premises situated at 2, Safdarjung Road”. 

Notably, on May 22, the Land and Development Office (L&DO) directed the club to vacate and hand over its 27.3-acre premises at 2, Safdarjung Road. The order invoked Clause 4 of the original lease deed, which allows the government to resume possession if the land is required for “public purpose.” 

The government stated that the land, located near the Prime Minister’s residence and other high-security installations in Lutyens’ Delhi, was needed for “strengthening and securing of defence infrastructure,” governance facilities and other “vital public security purposes".

Khurana has argued that the government notice is based on vague claims about defence, public security and governance infrastructure without providing specific evidence. He alleges that the move is arbitrary, unlawful and a sham attempt to seize control of the institution. He has also objected to the lack of compensation for the property, lease premium and existing structures.

Khurana claims that the notice violates Article 300A of the Constitution because the government had earlier acknowledged that the perpetual lease granted proprietary rights that could not be taken away without due acquisition procedures and compensation.