The Delhi Gymkhana Club eviction case will be heard by another Delhi High Court bench after Justice Prateek Jalan recused himself from the matter on Wednesday, shifting the immediate focus of the dispute over the club’s 27.3-acre premises on Safdarjung Road.
Justice Jalan directed that a lawsuit filed by the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association be listed before another bench on Friday. Explaining his decision, the judge said, “I am going to recuse from this matter. There are matters where one does not trust one’s own judgement.” He added that there was “too much personal” involved and that he would feel more comfortable if someone else heard the case.
The proceedings concern action initiated by the Centre through the Land and Development Office (L&DO). The L&DO’s May 22 order terminated the colonial-era club’s perpetual lease deed and asked it to return the land by June 5, citing the need for “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.
Two separate lawsuits have been filed against the action. One was brought by the staff welfare association, while another was filed by club member Vijay Khurana. The latter lawsuit is stated to have the support of more than 500 club members. Both sets of petitioners have also sought a stay on a June 29 show-cause notice for eviction issued to the club’s management by an estate officer of the L&DO.
The Centre had earlier told the court that it would not take coercive action in relation to the eviction for the time being. In its response to the main matter, the Centre has argued that the lawsuits should be dismissed, asserting that third parties cannot restrain the enforcement of rights arising from the lease deed, which the authorities have determined to have ended.
The staff association has framed the dispute as a livelihood and workplace issue rather than only a property or club-management matter. Its members include cooks, waiters, kitchen and housekeeping workers, gardeners, groundsmen, electricians, plumbers, lifeguards and security personnel. The association has sought protection for their source of livelihood and invoked fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
In its plea, the association said the club was not a place of leisure for its members but their place of work. Khurana’s petition, meanwhile, describes the Centre’s reasons relating to defence infrastructure and security as “vague” and “generalised”, and alleges that the eviction attempt does not follow due process. The Centre has rejected the basis of the challenges in its court response.
Khurana’s interim application also argues that the June 29 notice was premature because it allegedly assumed that the perpetual lease had already been validly terminated. The matter will now come before another bench on Friday, when the court is expected to take up the pending applications and related proceedings.
