The Delhi High Court has decided to hear a petition by some permanent members of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, challenging the club’s rule that denies green card to the children of permanent members who did not enjoy the facilities of the club as minors.
Justice Mukta Gupta rejected the argument made by Delhi Gymkhana Club that the plea was not maintainable as a remedy in the present case lies only with the National Company Law Tribunal.
The High Court noted that the cause of action pleaded by the petitioners in this case is the manner in which a provision in the Articles of Association of the Club is being interpreted, creating “irrational and illegal classification”.
The present suit has been filed by seven permanent members of the club in a representative capacity. They said the club has 5,553 permanent members, about 4,925 people enjoy the facility of the club as green card-holders and about 2,305 people and their spouses and children have been registered as user of club premises.
The plea claimed that as per the Articles of Association, membership of the club is classified into five categories – permanent, garrison, temporary, casual and special category. The waiting list of permanent members has been sub-classified into two categories – government and non-government, which are in the ratio of 50:50. The total approved permanent membership is 5,600. Besides the membership, the facilities of the club can be enjoyed by the spouse and dependent members in which children of the member below the age of 21 are considered as dependent members.
Children of members up to the age of 13 can utilise the facilities of the club when accompanied by parents and between 13 to 21 years can utilise facilities independently.
The plea said children of the member attaining the age of 21 may continue to use the facilities of the club after applying for permanent membership in which case they are issued a green card despite the fact that no concept of green card is provided in the Articles of Association.
It claimed that the club extends the facility of issuing green card only to those children who enjoy the facilities of club while being minors, however, it denies the green card to those children who did not enjoy the facilities of the club as minors.
According to the petitioners, denying green card to a class of members is acting inequitably. They have sought a declaration to extend g reen card to the children of all the permanent members irrespective of their age, or whether they had used the facilities of the club or not as minors.
