The Delhi High Court, while hearing the dispute concerning the Delhi Gymkhana Club, indicated that the concerned Public Premises authority should first consider whether it ought to proceed with the notice issued against the Club while the issue of jurisdiction remains pending before the Court. The Court adjourned the matter to enable counsel for the Gymkhana members to obtain instructions on whether they could consent to the Estate Officer first considering the objection as to his jurisdiction before proceeding further against the Club.
Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association, submitted that any response or appearance before the authority would be without prejudice to the Club’s fundamental objection regarding jurisdiction. He emphasised that the pending suit, as presently framed, does not directly touch the Public Premises proceedings.
Also Read No Forcible Eviction From Delhi Gymkhana Club Without Notice: Delhi HC Records Centre’s Assurance
The Court noted that the proceedings had initially involved a notice of re-entry, followed by an interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, in which a statement had been made that the parties would proceed in accordance with law. The Court observed that the subsequent proceedings before the authority were now being relied upon as a change in circumstances for seeking reconsideration of the earlier interim arrangement.
Rather than deciding the issue immediately, the Court proposed giving the authority an opportunity to apply its mind to whether it should proceed with the notice when the question of jurisdiction was itself pending before the Court.
The Bench also emphasised that the Club should not be prejudiced merely because it responds to the notice or appears before the authority, with the issue of jurisdiction expressly kept open.
The matter was accordingly adjourned to enable counsel to obtain instructions. The Court also indicated that no coercive action would be taken in the interregnum, with the existing protection to continue until the next date.
Appearances
For Petitioners: Dr. A.M. Singhvi; AVI Singh, Naman joshi, Nizam Pasha for Members.
Advocates Avishkar Singhvi, Yash Johri For Workers
For Respondents (Union of India): Chetan Sharma, ASG; Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC; Lavanya Kaushik, GP; Amit Gupta; Umar Hashmi; R.V. Prabhat; Mr. Shubham; Yash Wardhan Sharma; Naman; Mr. Ayush; Umida; Deepika Kalra; Khyaati Bansal.

