The Delhi Gymkhana Club eviction challenge has reached the Delhi High Court, which has sought responses from the Centre, the Estate Officer and Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited on a petition against proceedings to take over and vacate the club premises.
A bench led by Justice Amit Mahajan issued notices on Monday on a petition filed by 11 club members. The court has listed the matter for its next hearing on November 17.
The petition challenges the action taken to assume control of the Delhi Gymkhana Club premises and subsequently initiate eviction proceedings. The members have argued that the authorities’ action violates their fundamental rights and would deprive them of their property.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioners Vipin Agrawal and 10 other club members, requested that the court suspend the proceedings being conducted under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The petitioners’ challenge is therefore focused both on the action against the club premises and on the legal process being used to pursue eviction.
The Centre opposed the request for interim protection. Its standing counsel, Ashish Dixit, argued that proceedings under the Public Premises Act could not be stayed. He also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, submitting that the petitioners had a remedy available before the Estate Officer under the Act.
The court’s notice requires the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the Estate Officer and Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited to respond to the petition. The available report does not record a final finding by the High Court on whether the takeover or eviction action is lawful.
The proceedings bring into focus the administrative route used when authorities seek to recover premises treated as public property or occupied without authorisation. Under the process cited before the court, the Estate Officer is a key authority, while the petitioners have approached the High Court alleging infringement of their rights.
The case also illustrates how disputes involving established urban institutions can move simultaneously through administrative and constitutional legal channels. The government’s objection is that the statutory remedy before the Estate Officer should be used, while the petitioners have asked the High Court to intervene on fundamental-rights grounds.
For the club members, the immediate issue is whether the eviction proceedings will continue while their petition is considered. For the authorities, the next step is to file their response to the notices issued by the court. The Delhi High Court is scheduled to take up the matter again on November 17.
