P&H High Court Holds Chandigarh Golf Club Falls Within RTI Act, Cites Indirect Substantial Govt Financing

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Golf Club to put in place a mechanism to comply with the Right to Information (RTI) Act within a month. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 203]

The Court dismissed its plea against a 2012 Central Information Commission (CIC) order that declared it a “public authority”.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari 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 Court found that, the U.T. Chandigarh Administration exercises substantial control over, and extends substantial financing indirectly to the Golf Club, thereby bringing it within the definition of a “public authority” under Section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order declaring the Golf Club to be a “public authority” and directing it to put in place an appropriate mechanism for compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, it added.

Built On Expensive Public Land

The Court added that, Golf Club has been created on 132 acres of the most expensive public land. Its building was also constructed by the U.T. Chandigarh Administration using funds collected from taxpayers' money. The lease amount is also highly subsidised, obligating the Golf Club to pay only 0.255% of the assessed market lease amount.

"Without this substantial financial assistance from public funds, the Golf Club cannot imagine its existence and survival. Still, the Golf Club does not want to adopt a mechanism of transparency, which raises serious questions about its intent to serve the public cause," it added.

The writ petition was filed by the Chandigarh Golf Club challenging the CIC's order dated October 8, 2012, which had directed the Club to comply with provisions of the RTI Act within four weeks.

The CIC had concluded that the Club qualified as a public authority primarily on two grounds—first, that it was paying a nominal lease amount compared to the assessed rent of the land, amounting to indirect substantial financing; and second, that the presence of three serving IAS officers in its Managing Committee indicated governmental control.

Senior Counsel Anand Chhibbar appearing for the Golf Club inter alia contended that the Club is a private, self-governed society managed by its own elected committee and governed by its internal rules.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, to argue that subsidies, concessions, or privileges do not amount to “substantial financing” unless the entity is dependent on such support for its survival.

Opposing the plea, the respondents argued that the Club was paying merely ₹8,530 per month against an assessed rent exceeding ₹33 lakh, which clearly indicated substantial indirect financing by the Chandigarh Administration.

It was further submitted that the Administration exercises control through nominated members in the Managing Committee and through conditions imposed in the lease deed, including provisions requiring free coaching for economically weaker sections.

The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and examined the scope of the expressions “control” and “substantial financing” in light of Supreme Court cases.

Perusing the record, the judge found that, "against the assessed rent of ₹33,45,268/- computed at 2003 rates, the Golf Club has been paying merely ₹8,530/- per month (comprising ₹8,200/- towards rent and ₹330/- towards lease charges), which constitutes no more than 0.255% of the assessed rent."

It further considered the following points:

(i) The Golf Club building and swimming pool etc. were originally constructed by the U.T. Chandigarh Administration from public funds, and thereafter, the said building along with the swimming pool and other attached structures, as well as 132 acres of the most prime land in the city, were handed over to the Golf Club on lease.

(ii) The public property was made available to the Golf Club on concessional and symbolic lease.

(iii) In the absence of such substantial financial assistance in the form of land, buildings, and heavily subsidized lease amount extended by the U.T. Chandigarh Administration, the existence of the Golf Club would not have been feasible.

The Court highlighted that, the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, also unambiguously records that the Golf Club, being deriving all the benefits of concessional allotment of land and utilizing public property (land and building), is under an obligation to comply with the requirements of the RTI Act as a “public authority”.

All this reflects that the control of U.T. Chandigarh Administration is not merely supervisory in nature or regulating through a statute, rather it has effective control in the prominent affairs of the Golf Club, specifically upon the land and its building, it added.

Holding that the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, the plea was dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed.

Given that the writ petition has remained pending adjudication since 2012 and the Golf Club has been enjoying interim stay since 05.11.2012, the Court directed the Golf Club  to implement an appropriate mechanism for compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, as directed by the impugned order, within a period of one month from the date of the order.

Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arjun Shukla, Advocate, with Ms. Vanshika Grover, Advocate, and Mr. Abhimanyu Kaushal, Advocate, for the respondent No.2, and for the proposed respondents No.3 to 10.

Title: CHANDIGARH GOLF CLUB v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

Click here to read order