The Delhi High Court in the case Sh. Manish Aggarwal v. The Estate Officer and Ors observed and has rejected the application moved wherein seeking the opening of city’s 100-year-old Roshanara Club, which was being sealed and locked by the Delhi Development Authority, DDA in September.
The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who is now elevated to the Supreme Court and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in the case observed and has dismissed the interim application filed in the petition moved by a member of the club Manish Aggarwal.
In the present case, the DDA’s action of sealing was unconstitutional and in violation of fundamental and statutory rights of the club, its members, and employees. Thus, he also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3 of The Public Premises, the Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 as being ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
The court stated that learned counsel appearing for the DDA stated before the said court that they are finalizing the scheme for the smooth running of the club and the same shall be finalized at an early date and therefore, thus, the prayer for grant of interim relief is rejected.
The court in the case observed that since it is already dealing with the issue of running the club and a writ petition concerning the same is also pending, no interim order can be granted in the plea moved by the club’s members.
Adding to it, the court stated that this court is of the considered opinion that this Court is already dealing with the issue of running the club and the writ petition is also pending on the subject, no interim order can be granted in the present writ petition.
The court denied relief to the Roshanara Club and directed the DDA to devise a scheme to run the club and that the possession was not handed over to the ex- management of the club.
The Apex Court stated that it is not necessary for us to interfere with the directions issued in paragraph ‘10’ as the same are not final.
Therefore, the High Court will hear the parties on the scheme before issuing the directions in terms of paragraph ‘10’.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the special leave petitioner and listed the matter for further consideration on December 07, 2023.