‘No proposal to allot Central Secretariat Club premises’: Centre to HC

New DelhiThe Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that there is no proposal to allot the premises of the 107-year-old Central Secretariat Club (CSC), which was asked to vacate the property in July, to any party at this stage

New Delhi

The submission was made by the Centre’s standing counsel before a bench of justice Amit Mahajan on November 5 (Photo for representation)

The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that there is no proposal to allot the premises of the 107-year-old Central Secretariat Club (CSC), which was asked to vacate the property in July, to any party at this stage.

The submission was made by the Centre’s standing counsel before a bench of justice Amit Mahajan on November 5, while the court was hearing an application by the club seeking a stay on the government’s decision to withdraw its recognition and evict it.

“Ms Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, learned CGSC [central government standing counsel] for the respondents, on instructions, submits that there is no proposal to allot the subject premises to any party at this stage. Considering the above, no order is required to be passed. The petitioners are permitted to take away their belongings in next one week,” the court said in its order.

The application was filed as part of the club’s petition challenging the government’s July 14 decision upholding the withdrawal of its recognition. The department of personnel and training (DoPT) had upheld its February 24 decision to withdraw the club’s recognition. Three days later, on July 17, the estate officer directed the club to vacate the premises immediately.

In its application, filed through advocate Nakul Gandhi, the club argued that the government was proceeding with the transfer of possession of the land to RML Hospital, thereby creating a fait accompli before the high court could hear its petition.

Taking note of the Centre’s submission, the court said no further order was required at this stage. It allowed the club’s management a week to remove its belongings and listed the matter for further hearing on December 21.

In an affidavit filed on August 22, the Centre had defended its decision to withdraw the club’s recognition, saying it was not prompted by any isolated allegation or incident but by cumulative material pointing to persistent constitutional violations, complaints, administrative and financial irregularities, and non-compliance with official directions.

The Centre also said that its July 14 decision was based on material relating to the club’s functioning and governance, compliance with constitutional requirements and the conduct of its elections, which was considered by a three-member Representation Evaluation Committee (REC), constituted to examine the club’s representation against the withdrawal.