Punjab and Haryana High Court stays order declaring Chandigarh Golf Club ‘public authority’ under RTI

The petitioner’s counsels submitted that the club has stated paying rent at the assessed market value. They further argued that “merely on the aforesaid ground, an authority cannot be termed a ‘public authority’ in view of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and others versus State of Kerala and others, (2013), wherein it was categorically held that merely on the ground of receiving subsidies, an authority cannot be termed a ‘public authority’”.

The counsels also claimed that the role of three government nominees, although having voting rights, does not constitute a majority on the Board.

The petition asserts that these three members constitute only a minority and “can neither carry nor defeat any resolution of the body”. The appeal also claims that the Administration’s only special power is to refer certain disputes to the Administrator and that no substantial control, within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, is exercised over the club.

The appeal also assails the reasoning adopted by the single judge. As per the petition, the judgment is unsustainable as it “departs from the binding division bench judgment in Paramjit Singh versus State Information Commissioner on materially similar facts, without distinguishing or following it”. It further contends that the judgment “finds substantial financing without any evidence of financial dependence”.

The club has also argued that the judge “incorrectly treated a notional internal rent assessment” as the basis for concluding that the lease was concessional, despite the Chandigarh Administration’s own committee subsequently adopting a market-rate methodology. According to the petition, the judgment also wrongly recorded that the club building had been constructed from public funds, whereas the Administration’s own lease calculation dated January 30, 2017 expressly stated that “the construction was undertaken by the appellant out of its own funds”.

The petition additionally relies upon documents sought to be brought on record to contend that the club receives no grant, aid, subsidy or financial assistance from any government authority and that the governing body comprises 15 members, of whom only three are nominated by the Chandigarh Administrator.

On behalf of the respondent, Brigadier (retired) Sukhdev Singh (complainant at CIC), Advocate Arjun Shukla accepted the notice and opposed the appeal.

The respondent counsel further argued that “once there is intervention by the UT Administration, the entity has to be declared a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act”.

After hearing the parties, the division bench issued notice to Central Information Commission (CIC) and the complainant and listed the matter for final hearing on October 14 while staying the operation of the single judge’s order.