Delhi High Court judge Justice Prateek Jalan on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a lawsuit challenging proceedings initiated by the Centre in connection with the proposed eviction of the Delhi Gymkhana Club from its 27.3-acre premises on Safdarjung Road.
Justice Jalan directed that the suit filed by the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association be placed before another bench on Friday.
While stepping aside from the case, the judge indicated that the matter involved personal considerations and that he would be more comfortable if it were heard by another judge.
Challenge To Lease Termination And Eviction Proceedings
The dispute arises from a May 22 order issued by the Land and Development Office terminating the colonial-era club’s perpetual lease deed and directing it to hand back the land by June 5. The stated ground for the action was the strengthening and securing of defence infrastructure.
Separate lawsuits have been filed by Gymkhana member Vijay Khurana and the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association. Khurana’s suit is stated to have the support of more than 500 club members.
The plaintiffs have also sought a stay on a June 29 show-cause notice issued by an estate officer of the L&DO in relation to the club’s eviction.
The Centre had earlier told the court that no coercive action would be taken in connection with the eviction for the time being.
Centre Seeks Dismissal Of Lawsuits
In its response to the main proceedings, the Centre has contended that the lawsuits are liable to be dismissed.
It has argued that third parties cannot prevent the enforcement of rights arising from the lease deed between the authorities and the club after the lease has been determined.
Staff Association Cites Livelihood Concerns
The Staff Welfare Association has said its members include cooks, waiters, kitchen and housekeeping staff, gardeners, groundsmen, electricians, plumbers, lifeguards and security personnel working at the club.
The association has sought protection of their livelihood and their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
In seeking to quash the May 22 notice, the staff members have maintained that the Delhi Gymkhana Club is their workplace and not merely a place of leisure.
Khurana Questions Grounds Cited By Centre
Khurana has challenged the Centre’s reliance on defence infrastructure and security, describing the reasons given for the action as vague and generalised.
He has alleged that the proceedings amount to an attempt at forced eviction without following due process.
In his interim application, Khurana has also challenged the June 29 show-cause notice, arguing that it proceeds on erroneous and premature assumptions while the main lawsuit remains pending.
The application has contended that the eviction notice prematurely assumes that the Gymkhana Club’s perpetual lease was validly terminated.
