The Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim stay on a takeover notice issued to the Delhi Gymkhana Club [1].
The court's decision leaves the club vulnerable to government acquisition, though the central government has promised that the process will remain lawful. This legal battle centers on the government's authority to reclaim the premises and the club's attempt to block that action through judicial intervention.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Government of India. Mehta said the government does not intend to engage in a forcible takeover of the property [1]. He said the state would adhere to established legal protocols before taking any further steps regarding the club's possession [3].
"Any action will be taken strictly as per law and with prior notice," Mehta said [1].
The court found no sufficient basis to provide the interim relief requested by the club. This means the government may proceed with its takeover plans, provided it follows the legal requirements for notice and process [3].
The specific date of June 5, 2024, was cited in relation to the court's decision and the assurances regarding the absence of forcible eviction [1], [2]. The government's position is that the takeover must be executed through due process to avoid legal irregularities, ensuring that the transition of the property is documented and authorized.
The Delhi Gymkhana Club sought the interim order to prevent the government from taking possession of the site while the broader legal merits of the takeover notice are debated. However, the court's refusal to halt the process suggests that the club must now defend its position on the merits of the case rather than through a temporary injunction [2].
“"Any action will be taken strictly as per law and with prior notice."”
The refusal of the interim stay signifies that the judiciary is not currently convinced that the government's takeover notice is prima facie illegal. By granting the government's assurance of due process, the court has balanced the state's right to reclaim land with the club's right to a lawful procedure, effectively shifting the burden of proof to the club to challenge the legality of the notice itself in future hearings.
