Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Roshanara Club Limited vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 October, 2023
Bench: Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal
1
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23731/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-10-2023
in LPA No. 497/2023 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
ROSHANARA CLUB LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.217600/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.217599/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
Date : 19-10-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi, AOR
Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Adv.
Mr. Keshav, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Suri, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Aishwary Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv.
Ms. Radha Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Signature Not VerifiedAt this stage, there is no question of restoring the Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2023.10.19 possession of the club in favour of the petitioner as the lease 17:07:26 IST Reason:
granted in favour of the petitioner has expired and as of today, the authorities have not renewed the lease. Moreover, an order of 2 eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, has already been passed. Our attention is invited to Clauses 10.1 to 10.4, which read thus: -
“10.1. The DDA is directed to formulate a scheme elucidating the proposed course of action for functioning and management of the Club as they have already taken over the possession.
10.2. Such a scheme shall take into consideration larger public interest and ensure that the facilities are put to best possible use for the members and sports-loving public in general.
10.3. This exercise be conducted within two weeks from the date of release of the order, whereafter the report/scheme shall be filed with the Court.
10.4. The scheme so formulated shall be circulated amongst the respective counsel for the parties, before the next date of hearing.
What is important is paragraph ‘11’, which reads thus: -
“11. It is clarified that the above directions are being issued without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The Court has not expressed any opinions on the merits of the case.” 3 On conjoint reading of the paragraphs ‘10’ and ‘11’, it is very clear that the Delhi High Court has not taken any final decision on the question of allowing Delhi Development Authority to run the club. That is the reason why the High Court has said that the scheme formulated shall be circulated to the respective counsel for the parties so that everybody can be heard.
Therefore, at this stage, it not necessary for us to interfere with the directions issued in paragraph ‘10’ as the same are not final. The High Court will hear the parties on the scheme before issuing the directions in terms of paragraph ‘10’.
With the above clarification, the present special leave petition is dismissed.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that according to the case of the petitioner, in breach of ad-interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the petitioner has been dispossessed and therefore, there is a contempt petition pending. All that we have stated in this order is that in this special leave petition, we cannot pass order of restoration of possession in favour of the petitioner. It is open for the petitioner to prosecute other remedies.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(POOJA SHARMA) (AVGV RAMU) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)