Delhi High Court flags parallel proceedings in Gymkhana Club resumption dispute

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 suitsJustice Amit Mahajan was hearing a petition filed by Vipin Aggarwal and others challenging the Centrersquos May 22 2026 resumption notification and a subsequent notice issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act 1971Appearing 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 CourtDixit also referred to the petitionersrsquo 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 andor 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 CourtSenior Advocate Vikas Singh along with advocate Venkatesh Singh appeared for the petitioners and opposed the Centrersquos objection He submitted that individual members had an independent right to challenge the alleged coercive action taken by the authoritiesSingh 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 maintainableThe 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 deedThey 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 ldquopublic premisesrdquo under the Act and that the club is not in unauthorised occupationDuring 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 andor seek impleadment in the pending matters The Supreme Court had also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the disputeThe 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 CourtJustice 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 proceedingsldquoContinuance of the writ petition would amount to parallel adjudication of the dispute by two different courtsrdquo the court observedThe 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 CourtThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever