CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/001184

Dated : 21.1.2011

This is in continuation of this Commission’s proceedings dated

1.9.2010, which are reproduced below :-
"Appellant Shri Pradeep Bhanot

Respondent Chandigarh Club, Chandigarh.

Date of hearing 01.09.2010

Date of decision 01.09.2010

Facts :-

The matter is called for hearing today dated 01.09.2010.

Appellant present. The Club is represented by Shri Pradeep
Bedi. Shri Vijay Aggarwal, Superintendent(Finance),
Chandigarh Administration, is also present before the
Commission.

2. It is noticed that vide letter dated 26.11.2009, the appellant

had sought information on the following four paras from the
Chandigarh Club :-

“(a) Date from which this provision has been made

applicable.
(b) Authority and procedure followed with a copy of the
resolution.
(c) Was this optionfor conversion from permanent
member to Honorary member also offered/given to a
non-member of the club. If so, names of such
members and the criteria/procedure followed.
(d) Are there any Honorary members whose names exist
in the defaulter list. If so, their names, amount of
money of default from the date and the date when the
default money was paid to the club or not yet paid.
(e) Number of club members in various categories i.e.
Permanent Voting (PV), Non-voting (NV).
Temporary, Honorary or any other category.”
 3. The Club had not given any response to it. Hence, the
appellant had filed the present complaint before us.

4. During the hearing, Shri Bedi submits that the Club has
received no financial aid/grant whatsoever from the Government.
The Chandigarh Administration has allotted a piece of land on
lease basis in respect of which the Club is paying a rental of Rs.
1,30,000/- per month. According to him, the Club is not
‘substantially financed’ by the Chandigarh Administration or, for
that matter, by any other Governmental agency and, therefore, is
not a ‘Public Authority’ under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

5. Shri Vijay Aggarwal supports the submissions of Shri Bedi.

According to him, the rental being charged from the club is
almost at par with the market rates.

7. On the other hand, the appellant submits that Chandigarh

Administration has leased out about 5 acres of land to the Club.
It is a valuable piece of land and is capable of fetching a much
higher rental value than what is being paid by the club.
According to him, the Club is a Public Authority and, therefore,
liable to furnish the requested information.

8. The parties are directed to file their written submissions for

the consideration of the Commission. A copy of the written
submission filed by the Club may be furnished to the appellant
for enabling him to file the rejoinder. The Finance Department
of Chandigarh Administration is also directed to file its
representation in this regard.

9. The matter is adjourned to 29.10.2010 at 1200 hrs.

Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner”

2. The further proceedings held on 29th October, 2010 are

reproduced below :-
“This is in continuation of this Commission’s proceeding
dated 1.9.2010. As scheduled, the matter is called for
hearing today dated 29.10.2010. The Chandigarh Club is
represented by Advocate Pradeep Bedi. Shri Vijay Kumar
Aggarwal, Office Superintendent, represents, Chandigarh
Administration. The appellant is represented by Col Anil
Kabotra.
2. Advocate Bedi submits a written representation
which is taken on record. Shri Aggarwal also submits a
written submission on behalf of Chandigarh
Administration which also is taken on record. Advocte
Bedi submits that the main objective of the Chandigarh
Club is to promote and encourage social, culture and
intellectual activities amongst the members and also to
provide facilities such as indoor and outdoor games and
sports etc. He also submits that the Club functions in a
democratic manner and its President and other office
bearer are duly elected on yearly basis. Importantly, he
also submits that the premises on which the Club is located
belong to Chandigarh Administration for which the Club is
paying lease amount of Rs 1.30 lacs per month to the
Administration. Para 4 of his presentation is extracted
below :-
“That Chandigarh Club Ltd. Has its own
memorandum of Articles and Association,
Chandigarh Club Ltd. Has taken a building and land
on lease from the Chandigarh Administration at a
monthly lease of Rs 1.30 lacs and the rent is liable to
been chanced every year. Chandigarh Club Ltd.
Does not receive any grant, help, donation, assistance
of any kind from the Chandigarh, Adminstration. It
has its own constitution and democratic set up. The
executive Committee of the Club is elected by the
members of the Club which conducts the affairs of
the Club during its tenure.”
3. It is thus, his broad submission that the Club is
paying market rent to the Chandigarh Administration and,
therefore, it cannot be said that the Club is being indirectly
financed by the Administration. Hence, the Club is not a
public authority in terms of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
4. According to the representation filed by the
Chandigarh Administration, site measuring 3.85 lacs sq. ft.
has been leased out to the Club and the rental fixed by the
Administration is not the market rent. Importantly, the
representation also says that the Chandigarh
Administration has no objection if the Club is brought
under the purview of the RTI Act. Paras 1, 2 and 3 of the
representation are extracted below :-
“1. As per the report sent by the Estate Office and as per
the approved Zoning plan, site measuring 385444.20
sq. ft was leased out to the Chandigarh Club.
2. After deliberations, the rent of the Chandigarh Club
was fixed in the year 2005 in a meeting held under the
 Chairmanship of Adviser to the Administrator and it
was decided to fix the rent @ Rs. 1,08,208/- per
month w.e.f 20.7.2005 to 19.7.2010 with annual
increase of 5%. The rent so fixed is not the market
rent.
3. The Chandigarh Administration has no objection if
the Chandigarh Club is brought under the purview of
the RTI Act, 2005.”
5. According to Col Anil Kabotra, the Club is being run
as a Pvt Ltd Company inasmuchas elections for various
Committees are required to be held on yearly basis but
most of the Committees are continuing for over six years.
This is for extraneous reasons. Further, the Club has a
turnover of crores of rupees but there is no mechanism for
effective supervision of its activities, thereby giving huge
financial powers to the office bearer. His more important
submission is that the lease amount of Rs 1.30 lacs per
month being paid by the Club is a pittance as against the
rental value at market rates when the Club is occupying 8
½ acres of prime land in the heart of Chandigarh.
6. Col Kabotra also relies on decision dated 16.10.2009
of the Punjab State Information Commission in MR No.
127 of 2008 (Lt Col S.S. Sodhi Vs Gymkhana, Jalandhar)
wherein the Commission has held that Jalandhar
Gymkhana is a public authority in terms of section 2 (h) of
the RTI Act. He also relies on decision dated 8.7.2010 of
the Punjab State Information Commission in CC No 475 of
2010 (S.S. Chana Vs Sutlej club, Ludhiana) wherein the
Commission has held that this club is, again, a public
authority.
7. Responding to the submissions of Col. Kabotra,
Advocate Bedi would submits that the ratio of the decisions
of PSIC in the above cited cases is not applicable in the
present case inasmuchas these two clubs are being run on
Government property for which no lease money whatsoever
is being paid. Further, senior government officials are ex-
officio Presidents of these Clubs, suggesting some kind of
Govt control over these clubs but this is not the position in
case of Chandigarh Club. He also submits that the
averment of Chandigarh Administration that Chandigarh
Club should be brought in the purview of the RTI Act has
no legal significance. He pleads that the matter may be
decided as per law.
8. A decision in a matter like this is a mixed question of
fact and law. The facts need to be firmed up first before
application of law. Admittedly, the Chandigarh
 Administration has no control over the Club. All that is
being argued is that the lease amount of Rs 1.30 lacs per
month does not reflect the true value of the land being
occupied by the Club and, therefore, it may possibly be a
case of indirect financing by the Chandigarh
Administration. It is significant to point out that the
Chandigarh Administration has taken the stand that the
Club may be declared a public authority but it is a cryptic
remark without any supporting evidence. In the premises,
for an equitable determination of the matter, we would
direct the Advisor to the Administrator, Chandigarh, to
advice the Commission asto the grounds on which the
Administration has taken the stand that the lease amount
being presently paid by the Club is not at par with the
market rate and his estimation regarding the true market
rental. This response should reach the Commission in 05
weeks time.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commission”

3. We have now received a response from the Finance

Department of the Chandigarh Administration under the signatures of
the Joint Secretary, Finance. Paras 02 & 03 thereof are extracted
below :-
“2. In this regard it is informed that the bodies like
Chandigarh Club etc are providing the public service and while
fixing the rate of rent in such bodies, this aspect is taken into
consideration. In view of the public services being provided by
these bodies, the said bodies can not be termed as commercial
sites. Due to this reason, the rent of Chandigarh Club was
fixed as Rs 1,08,208/- per month with effect from 20.7.2000
with annual increase of 5%. It is not out of place to mention
here that other similarly situated bodies like Chandigarh Golf
Club and Chandigarh Golf Association which are also
providing the public services have been kept at par with
Chandigarh Club while determining the rate of rent. In case we
consider the Chandigarh Club as commercial site, then the rent
comes out to be rupees to 3157400 per month. Keeping in
view the urban character of the city, rent being charged from
the Chandigarh Club is not at par with the market rent.
Further, by charging the rent at a lower rate, it will make amply
clear that the Chandigarh Administration is indirectly financing
the promotion of services being rendered by the Chandigarh
Club.
 3. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and in view of the
fact that said club is being indirectly financed for promotion of
public services by the Chandigarh Administration the same is
squarely covered under the definition of ‘public authority’ as
defined under section 2 (h) (ii) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

4. In view of the categorical position taken by the Chandigarh

Administration extracted above and the fact that there is vast
differential between the monthly rental being paid by the Chandigarh
Club and the commercial rent that the premises could fetch in the
open market (as estimated by the Finance Deptt), we are of the
opinion that the Chandigarh Club is being indirectly financed by the
Chandigarh Administration. In this view of the matter, we hold that
the Chandigarh Club is ‘public authority’ u/s 2 (h) (ii) of the RTI Act.
Hence, the club management is hereby directed to put in place a
mechanism for servicing the RTI Act.

5. This order may be complied with in 06 weeks time.

Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be
supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed
under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.

(K.L. Das)
Deputy Registrar

Address of parties :-
1. Shri Pradeep Bedi
Chandigarh Club,
Sector-1, Chandigarh

2. Shri Vijay Aggarwal

Superintendent (Finance),
Chandigarh Administration,
Chandigarh

3. Shri Pradeep Bhanot

Advocate, H. No 2,
Sector-18, Chandigarh