The request was opposed by the counsel appearing for the Indian Polo Association.
The counsel asked the Court to stay the execution of the eviction order till the time the government files its response.
Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit appeared for the government and argued that an incorrect submission was made before the Delhi High Court that the stay application was not decided by the district judge.
After hearing the arguments, Judge Rana noted that on June 3, the District Judge did not stay the eviction notice, and the writ petition by the Indian Polo Association was disposed of on June 8 without any stay being granted.
Therefore, he also refused to stay the eviction order and asked the government to file its response to the plea as well as the stay application.
When the matter came up for hearing before Judge Rana on Friday (June 12), the counsel appearing for the Central government asked for time to reply to the application for stay and the plea challenging the eviction notice.
The request was opposed by the counsel appearing for the Indian Polo Association. The counsel asked the Court to stay the execution of the eviction order till the time the government files its response.
Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit appeared for the government and argued that an incorrect submission was made before the Delhi High Court that the stay application was not decided by the district judge.
He said that no such application has been filed, and only an interim prayer has been made without making any pleading for the grant of interim relief.
After hearing the arguments, Judge Rana noted that on June 3, the District Judge did not stay the eviction notice, and the writ petition by the Indian Polo Association was disposed of on June 8 without any stay being granted.
Therefore, he also refused to stay the eviction order and asked the government to file its response to the plea as well as the stay application.
