Delhi HC raises concern over parallel cases in Gymkhana Club matter

Delhi High Court voiced concerns over parallel adjudication in the Gymkhana Club resumption case after the Centre opposed a new petition, citing pending civil suits. The court deferred the hearing, suggesting a new suit would be more appropriate.

The Delhi High Court has raised concerns over the possibility of parallel adjudication in a dispute concerning the proposed resumption of the Gymkhana Club premises, after the Centre opposed the maintainability of a fresh writ petition on the ground that similar challenges are already pending before the court in civil suits.

Justice Amit Mahajan was hearing a petition filed by Vipin Aggarwal and others challenging the Centre’s May 22, 2026 resumption notification and a subsequent notice issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

Centre Opposes Maintainability of Fresh Plea

Appearing for the Union of India, Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish K. Dixit raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. He submitted that several civil suits concerning the same resumption notification and subsequent proceedings are already pending before the High Court.

Dixit also referred to the petitioners’ earlier proceedings before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. He submitted that while the Supreme Court had granted the petitioners liberty to approach the High Court through independent proceedings and/or seek impleadment in the pending matters, such liberty could not be construed as permitting parallel proceedings when the same dispute was already pending before a coordinate bench of the High Court.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, along with advocate Venkatesh Singh, appeared for the petitioners and opposed the Centre’s objection. He submitted that individual members had an independent right to challenge the alleged coercive action taken by the authorities.

Singh further contended that the respondents themselves had questioned the maintainability of the pending civil suits and, therefore, could not now contend that the present writ petition challenging the resumption proceedings was not maintainable.

The petitioners have sought quashing of the May 22 resumption notification, alleging that it violates constitutional guarantees, including Articles 14, 19 and 300A, as well as provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895 and the terms of the perpetual lease deed. They have also challenged the June 29 notice issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act. The petitioners contend that the club premises do not fall within the definition of “public premises” under the Act and that the club is not in unauthorised occupation.

Court Flags Risk of Parallel Proceedings

During the hearing, Justice Mahajan examined the earlier order passed by the Supreme Court, which had taken note of the pending civil suits and related proceedings and granted the petitioners liberty to pursue independent remedies and/or seek impleadment in the pending matters. The Supreme Court had also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute.

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court, after taking into account the pendency of the civil suits involving overlapping issues, had permitted the petitioners to seek appropriate remedies before the High Court.

Justice Mahajan, however, observed that an independent remedy in the present circumstances would require institution of a suit, which would necessarily be dealt with by the same bench or the appropriate roster bench handling the existing civil proceedings, thereby avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

“Continuance of the writ petition would amount to parallel adjudication of the dispute by two different courts,” the court observed.

The High Court did not issue notice on the writ petition at this stage and listed the matter for further consideration on October 29, 2026. The parties have, in the meantime, been given liberty to seek appropriate clarification from the Supreme Court. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)