The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has stayed a single judge order that declared the Chandigarh Golf Club a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
Hearing an appeal from the club against the May 29 judgment, the division bench sought a response from the UT administration.
The single judge bench had held that the club comes under the ambit of the RTI Act and is liable to provide information under the law. Observing that the UT administration extends “substantial financing” to the club and thus exercises “substantial control” over it, the single bench judge had said, “Enough is enough. The time has now come to tell the Golf Club that if its members want to enjoy playing golf at the cost of taxpayers’ money, it must make itself accountable by adopting an RTI mechanism.”
The club, through its counsel, senior advocate Chetan Mittal and advocate Amit Sharma, had argued that the judgment is contrary to the statutory framework of the RTI Act and the Supreme Court (SC) laws regarding what constitutes “substantial financing” and “substantial control” under Section 2(h) of the Act.
The appeal had further raised an important legal issue of wider significance – whether a registered members’ club, which maintains its premises entirely from its own resources and occupies government land under a contractual arrangement with the UT administration, can be regarded as a “public authority” merely on that basis.
{{/usCountry}}The appeal had further raised an important legal issue of wider significance – whether a registered members’ club, which maintains its premises entirely from its own resources and occupies government land under a contractual arrangement with the UT administration, can be regarded as a “public authority” merely on that basis.
{{/usCountry}}The court was told that the club was originally operating under a lease deed up to 2008. Thereafter, the arrangement was converted into a new agreement from 2008. The governing relationship between the parties is in substance and intent a licence arrangement, under which the club pays a fee of over ₹1.2 crore per annum to the UT administration, the court was told.
The club has further submitted that the impugned judgment proceeds on factual findings that are contrary to the administration’s own records and treats ordinary property-related conditions contained in the registered instrument as constituting governmental control over the management of the club.
“The relationship between the Chandigarh administration and the club is governed by contractual terms, and not one of governmental ownership, substantial financing or pervasive control as contemplated under the RTI Act,” the court was told.
It was further submitted that the club has never opposed transparency. The appeal is confined to the legal issue of whether the club falls within the statutory definition of a “public authority” under the RTI Act, it said.
The single judge order had come on an appeal from the club against the 2012 decision of the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, which declared the club a public authority under the RTI law and directed it to implement an appropriate mechanism for compliance with RTI law.