Golf Club on Public Land Cannot Avoid RTI: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Chandigarh Golf Club a Public Authority
Case Name: Chandigarh Golf Club v. Central Information Commission and Another
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026
Citation: CWP-21967-2012
Bench: Justice Kuldeep Tiwari
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that Chandigarh Golf Club is a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h)(ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as it is substantially financed indirectly by public funds and is subject to substantial control of the Chandigarh Administration. The Court upheld the Central Information Commission’s order directing the Club to comply with the RTI Act.
Summary: In this significant RTI matter, Chandigarh Golf Club challenged an order of the Central Information Commission dated 08.10.2012 declaring it a public authority under the RTI Act and directing it to establish a mechanism for compliance with the Act. The Golf Club argued that it was a private society registered under its own rules and regulations, functioning independently without any financial dependence upon or control by the Chandigarh Administration. It contended that the mere lease of land and nomination of three IAS officers to its Managing Committee did not amount to substantial financing or governmental control. The Club relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and other precedents to argue that concessions, subsidies, or lease arrangements alone do not satisfy the test of substantial financing.
The respondents, however, pointed out that the Club occupied approximately 132 acres of prime public land in Chandigarh and paid only ₹8,530 per month as rent and lease charges against an assessed rent of ₹33,45,268, amounting to merely 0.255% of the assessed value. It was further argued that the Chandigarh Administration had provided the land, club building, swimming pool and related infrastructure, and retained significant control through lease conditions and nominated members possessing voting rights in the Club’s governing body.
While analysing Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the Court undertook an extensive examination of the Supreme Court judgments in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions. The Court reiterated that a body may qualify as a public authority if it is substantially financed directly or indirectly by government funds or if the government exercises substantial control over its affairs. It observed that substantial financing is not confined to direct grants and can include valuable public assets such as land provided at highly concessional rates.
The Court found that the Golf Club’s existence was fundamentally dependent upon public assets made available by the Chandigarh Administration. The Club occupied extremely valuable public land and enjoyed a heavily subsidised lease arrangement. Additionally, the lease deeds conferred extensive powers upon the Administration, including rights relating to maintenance standards, inspection, use of facilities, termination of lease, approval of alterations, and nomination of members with voting rights capable of referring disputes to the Administrator for final decision. These features demonstrated not merely regulatory oversight but substantial control.
Holding that both the tests of substantial financing and substantial control stood satisfied, the Court concluded that the Chandigarh Golf Club fell squarely within the definition of a public authority under Section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the challenge to the CIC order was rejected.
Decision: Dismissing the writ petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed the Central Information Commission’s order declaring Chandigarh Golf Club a public authority under the RTI Act. The Court directed the Golf Club to implement an appropriate mechanism for compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act within one month. It observed that the Club had enjoyed interim protection since 2012 despite occupying valuable public assets on highly concessional terms and could not avoid transparency obligations while benefitting from substantial public support.