rnl RIG HT TO

~ I NFOR MATION

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, HARYANA S.CO No. 70-71 & 114-115, SECTOR-8 -C, CHANDIGARH

Appeal Case No. 3850/2012 . ppeal Case No. 3851/2012 Appeal Case No. 4196/2012 Appea l Case No. 3125/2012

-Appea l Case No. 3135/2012

Dr.Sandeep Kumar Gupta, # 1778, Sector-14, Hisar. 125001 { Appeal Case Nos. 3850 & 3851 of 2012)

Sh.Aseem Takyar S/o late Sh.R.C.Takyar, Plot No. 144, Phase-01, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. (Appea l Case No. 4196 o f 2012)

Shri Sudesh Mohan Sharma, # 1 123, Sector- 21, Gurgaon. (Appea l Case Nos. 3125 & 3135 of 2012)

1.

2. 3. 4.

5 . 6.

7. 8.

..... Appellants

Versus

State Public Information Officer (SPIO) ·cmd the First Appellate. Authority {FAA) o/o Chief Administrator, Haryan c.~ Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Sector-6, Panc.hkula. Manager, Gymkhana Club, H_isar: -SPIO and FAA ofo Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector-13 .. Hisar. SPIO-cum-Coordinator Deputy Economic: Statistical Advisor (ESA) & FAA o/o Chief Adm inistrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula.

~ Manager, Gymkhana Club, Sector- 4 , Gurgaon. SPIO-cum- Estate Officer- Il-eum-General ~iecretary,HUDA,Gymkhana Club, Sector-29, Gurgaon. FAA-cum-Administrator, HUDA, Sector-14, Gurgaon. r-ta nager, Gymkhana Club, Sector-29, Gurgaon

J\

.. .. Respondents

l ~ ./

Facts :

Appeal Cas~ No. 3850 of 2012 .

1. Or.Sandeep Kumar Gupta, the appellant, ·tide his RTI application dated

24.2.2012 addressed to the SPIO ojo Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, had

sought nine point information related to different Urban Estates in the State of

Haryana and functioning of the Gymkhi311i3 Club, Hisar. The respondent SPIO either I

denied or furnished incomplete information vide letters dated 27.03.2012,

25.04.2012, 11.05.2012 and 15.05.2012. The appellant preferred appeals dated

J-6.04.2012, 28.04.2012 and 24.05.201~ which were disposed off on 06.06.2012 by

, the FAA-cum-Administrator (HQ), HUDA, Panchkula. The FAA while disposing · off the

:~ppeals denied the information sought Ofl~point No 1, directed the respondent SPI.O to

,>transfer point Nos. 2,3 & 4 to all the S~IOs in the Escate Offices functioning under the

public authority and furnished the information to the appellant sought by him on point

No 5. Regarding point Nos. 6 to 9, which are relat«;!d to the information concerning

Gymkhana Club, Hisar, the FAA decided not to disclose the information on the ground

that the club did not fall under purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Aggrieved with the

response, the appellant filed second appeal with the Commission with the prayer to

direct the respondent SPIO to furnish the complete information, compensate him

under the provisions of the Act and also to take action against the erring respondents

under section 20 of the Act.

2. The SPIO-cum-Manager, Gymkhana Club, Hisar while filing his comments dated

04.10.2012, he submitted that he has furnished the information vide letter dated

18.5.2012 intimating the appellant that RTI Act, 2005 is not applicable on the

Gymkhana Club, Hisar. He also submitted that one of the Benches of this Commission

has decided on 05.04.2011that the club is not a public authority under the Act.

3. The FAA, vide his comments dated 03.10.2012, $Ubmitted that he heard the

appeals on 02.05.2012 and 06.06.2012 and disposed off the same vide orders dated .s

06.06.2012. Regarding point Nos. 6 to 9 of the RTI appli.cation which related to ..... ..:=

Gymkhana Club, Hisar, he denied the information and intimated the appellant that

Gymkhana Clubs are not covered under the RTI Act as per decision dated 05.04.2011

by the Hon'ble State Information Commission, Haryana in ~I Case No. 3499 of

~ .

10, Vinod Kumar vs the SPIO-cum-Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar and General

secreta ry, Gymkhana Club, Hisar.

4. The appellant, through e-mail dated 02.11.2012 , forwarded rejoinder and

reiterated his submission and the prayer which he ha(j made while submitting second

appea l dated 10.08.2012. For his submission, he relies upon the judgement already

passed by the Hon'ble State I nformation Commission , Panjab on 16.10.2009 vide

which it has held that Jalandhar Gymkhana Club is J public authority under the RTI

Act, 2005.

5. The matter was heard by the Commission on 07 .11.2012. The Commission,

based on its .observations, disposed off the appellant's RTI application perta ining to

point Nos. 1 to 5 by passing appropriate orders. Regard ing information pertaining to

point Nos. 6 to 9, the Commission observed that it relates to function ing of the

Gymkhana Club, Hisar. The bench also observed that there are different views on this

issue within the Commission. Some benches are of the opinion that Gymkhana Clubs

of the HUDA are not the public authorities as defined under section 2 (h) of the Act

whereas other benches of Commission are of the view that these clubs are functioning

under the control of such an authority which is a public authority and thus these clubs

fall within the ambit of the Act under section 2 (h) (d) (i). To adjudicate the matter

the Commission recommended for referring the matter to a larger bench by

constituting a three members bench in exercise of the powers vested in Section 15 ( 4)

of the Act to decide the matter of HUDA Gymkhana Clubs. Accordingly, a larger bench

was constituted consisting of the following State Information Commissioners (SICs)

vide letter dated 10.12.2012:-,

(a) Maj. Gen. (Retd .) Jagbir Singh Kundu, SJC

(b) Sh.Sajjan Singh, SIC

(c) Sh.Prahlad Rai Meena, SIC

6. Vide orders dated 10.12.2012 and 04.01.201-3, Appeal Case Nos. 3851, 4196,

3125 and 3135 of 2012 were also attached with this case. The facts of these cases

are given in succeeding paragraphs.

'I Appeal Case NQ. 3851 of 2012

7. Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta filed another RTI application dated 17.4.2012

addressed to the SPIO ojo Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector-13, Hisar seeking three point

information regarding RTI applications filed by him in April-May, 201.0 with HUDA,

Hisar, functioning of the Gymkhana Club, Hisar and related matters mentioned in the

application. Getting no information from the respondent SPIO, he filed an appeal with

the FAA dated 18.06.2012. The appeal was not decided. Aggrieved with no response,

the appellant filed second appeal with the Commission dated 18.8.2012 with the

prayer to direct the respondents to furnish the complete information, free of cost,

compens~te him under the provisions of the Act and to take action against the erring

respondents under section 20 of the RTI Act. The case was listed for hearing on

07.11.2013.

8. The respondent SPIO and the FAA o/o Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector-13, Hisar

filed their comments through the Manager, Gymkhana Club, Hisar vide letter dated

4.10.2012. They reiterated their stand taken by the respondents in Appeal Case No.

3850 of 2012 and once again submitted that in the Appeal Case No. 3499 of 2010,

titled as Vinod Kumar vs General Secretary, Gymkhana Club, Hisar, the Commission,

vide its order dated 5.4.2011, has already held that RTI Act does not apply to the

Gymkhana Clubs in the HUDA sectors. The appellant through e-mail dated

04.11.2012, filed his rejoinder and reiterated his prayer which he had made while

submitting second appeal dated 18.08.2012.

9. The appeal was heard by the Commission on 7.11.2012. The Commission '

ordered to attach the case with the appellant's Appeal Case No. 3850 of 2012 wherein

the matter regarding applicability of Right to Information Act, 2005 on the Gymkhana

Clubs has been assigned to a larger bench for adjudication. The said larger bench

would also decide the present appeal of the appellant in the issue whether he is

entitled to obtain information related to Gymkhana Club or not.

Appeal Case No. 4196 of 2012

10. Sh.Aseem Takyar, the appel lant, vide his RTI application dated 12.6.2012,

addressed to the SPIO - cum- Coordinator (RTI Act), Deputy ESA, HUDA, Sector-6,

;tv-1.1.

...

•• ·-

-s-

Panc.hkula, sought three point information regarding l1st of sundry debtors, details of

purchases of books for the library and notings on the movement of RTI applications of

the Gymkha na Clubs within Gurgaon and Panchkula regions for the period 2009-2010,

2010-2011 and 2011-12. The Manager, HUDA Gymkhana Club, Sector,-4, Gurgaon,

responded to appellant's application vide letter dated 6. 9.2012 and informed him that I

the Gymkhana Clubs are independent bodies registered under the Societies Act, 1860

and the Government of Haryana does not control these b?dies in their day to day

functioning . He also submitted that the State Government or HUDA is not contributing

any funds towards budget of the clubs. Hence, the Gymkhana Clubs are private

registered societies and are not covered under the clefin{tion of the public authority

and the RTI Act is not applicable on them. For his submis~ions, he relied on the order

already passed in Appeal Case No 138 of 2007 filed by Sh.Hemant Kinger vs.

Gymkhana Club, Panchkula on 25.10.2007 by State Inforrl]a tion Commission, Haryana I

adjudging Gymkhana Clubs are separate societies ancl RTI Act, · 2005 is not applicable

on them. Dissatisfied with response of the responden t SPIO, the appellant filed appeal

with the FAA on 18.7.2012, which was not decided. Getting no response from the

FAA, the appellant filed the second appeal with the Commission, vide letter dated

15.9.2012. He submitted that vide order dated 31.01.2011, in Appeal Case No. 376 of

2011 filed by Dr Anil Pundhir vs SPIO-cum-Deputy Commissioner/President,

Gymkhana Club, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, the then Hon'ble Chief Information

Commissioner, Haryana has held that HUDA is 'public authority' within meaning of

section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2905. He prayed that HUDA be directed to implement

order of the Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana dated 31.01.2011 and to

provide complete information to him forthwith. He also prayed for initiation of penal '

action against the respondents for not implementing the ortfer and delaying the

information.

11. The case was fixed for hearing on 11.1.2013. Before proceeding in the matter,

the Commission decided to attach the instant case with Appea l Case No. 3850 Of 2012

wherein the matter regarding applicability of Right to Information Act, 2005 on the

Gymkhana Clubs has been assigned to a larger bench for adjudication, vide orders

dated 4 .1. 2013. The case was adjourned to 15.1.2013. Respondents have not filed

their comments. No rejoinder has been received from the appellant.

I (

· ~·

- 6 -

Appeal Case No. 3!25 of 2012

12. Sh.Sudesh Mohan Sharma, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated

9.4.2012, addressed to the SPIO o/o the Administrator, HUDA Sector.:14, Gurgaon,

sought information on nine points related to HUDA Gymkhana Club, Sector-29,

Gurgaon regarding appointment of Colonel R. Chadha (Retd . ) and related matters as

mentioned in the application which was transferred to the SPIO-cum-Estate Officer-Il­

eum General Secretary, HUDA, Gymkhana Clu b, Sector-29, Gurgaon for necessary

action. Aggrieved with no response from the respondent SPIO, he fi led first appeal

with the FAA o/o Administrator, HUDA, Sector-14, Gurgaon on 16.05.2012. Failing to

get a response, t he appellant filed second appeal .with the Commission vide letter

dated 15.06.2012 alleging that no information has been provided to him. He prayed

that respondents be directed to furnish the information sought and he be suitably

compensated . He also prayed for initiation of penal action and recom mending

disciplinary action against the respondent SPIO in accordance with the provisions of

section 20 of RTI Act, 2005.

13. The case was fixed for hearing on 21.12.2012. Before proceeding in the matter,

the Commission decided to attach the case with Appeal Case No. 3850 Of 2012

wherein the matter regarding applicability of Right to Information Act, 2005 on the

Gymkhana Clubs has been assigned to a larger bench for adjudication, vide orders

.. dated 4.1.2013. The case was adjourned to 15.1.2013. The respondents have not

filed their comments and no rejoinder has been received from the appellant.

Appea'l CaseNo. 3135 of 2012

14. Sh.Sudesh Mohan Sharma fi led another RTI application dated 27.3.2012,

addressed to the SPIO o/o Divisional Commissioner, Civil Lines, Gurgaon and sought

information on six points regarding income, expenditure, bank balances and

investment in the fixed deposits of the HUDA Gymkhana.Ciub, Sector-29, Gurgaon for

the year 2010-11 and other related information as mentioned in the application. The

RTI application was transferred under sect1on 6 (3) to the SPIO-cum-Manager, HUDA,

Gymkhana Club, Sector-29, Gurgaon vide letter dated 03.04.2012. Dissatisfied with

no response from the respondent SPIO, the appellant fil ed first appea l with the FAA

ojo Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon on 30.04.2012. Getting no response from the

}v-.. ..

FAA, he filed second appeal with the Commission vide letter dated 16.6.2012 alleging

that no information has been provided to him. He prayed that respondents be directed

to furnish the information sought and he be suitably compensated. He also prayed for

initiation of penal action and recommending disciplinary action against tre respondent

SPIO in accordance with the provistons of section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.

15. The case was fixed for hea ring on 21.12.2012. Before proceeding in the matter,

the Commission decided to attach the case with Appea l Case No. 3850 Of 2012

wherein the matter regarding applicability of Right to Information Act, 2005 on the

Gymkhana Clubs has been assigned to a larger bench for adjudicption, vide orders

dated 4.1.2013. The case •yvas adjourned to 15.1.2013. No Comments have been

received from the respondents.

' 16. The three members bench of the Commission heard the above mentioned cases

on 15.01.2013. Following were present:-l

(1) Sh.Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate for Dr.Sandeep Kumar Gupta, the

appellant.

(2) Sh. Ba lbir Singh, SPIO-cum-Deputy Superintendent, o/o Estate Officer,

HUDA, Hisar .

. (3) Sh.Ravinder Sin.gh, Manager, Gym}<hana Club, Hisar.

(4) Sh .Nitin Yadav,. Manager, HUDA Gymkh'""na Club, Sector-4, Gurgaon on

behalf of respondent SPIO.

(5) Sh.Ram Singh, Manager, HUDA Gymkhana Club, Sector-29, Gurgaon on

behalf of respondent SPIO.

17. Sh.Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellant present in Appeal Case Nos.

3850 an~ 3851 of 2012, submits that the Gymkhana Club, Hisar is not a privately

owned club, but is a HUDA owned club situated on the HUDA land. He further submits

that building of the club has also been constructed by HUDA out of thetr own funds and

management of the club is also carried out by the officers of HUDA. The land and

construction cost coupled with the income tax exemptions, which the club gets,

tantamount to substantial' financing by the appropriate government. For his

submissions, he relies upon Appeal Case No. 376 of 2011 filed by Dr Anil Pundhir vs

SPIO-cum-Deputy Commissioner/President, Gymkhanc: Cl ub, Jagadhan, Yamunanagar,

):v--

the then Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana has held that

HUDA is 'public authority' and judgement already passed by the Hon'ble State

Information Commission, Panjab on 16.10.2009 vide which it -has held that Jalandhar

Gymkhana Club is a public authority. Thus, he contends that Gymkhana Club, Hisar

falls within ambit of section 2 (h) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. He prays that respondent

SPIO be directed to furnish the information to the appellant sought vide his RTI

application dated 24.2.2012. He also prays for initiation of ,penal action against the It

respondent SPIO and compensation for the appellant.

18. Sh.Balbir Singh, the respondent SPIO-cum-Deputy Superintendent o/o Estate

Officer, HUDA, Hisar is present and submits that the land on which the Gymkhana Club is , . I

situated belongs to HUDA and .the club premises have also been constructed by 'HUDA. I

He also submits that Government Officers are exercising contro l over the Gymkhana - ~~~

Clubs in ex-officio c,c;tpacity and he is of the view that the Gymkhana Club, Hisar falls

under purview of the Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Inr this regard, he hands over . I

copy of HUDA, Panchkula letter dated 31.3.2008. It is taken on record.

19. Sh.Ravinder Singh, Manager, Gymkhana Club, Hisar is present and submits that

Hon'ble Commission has already decided the matter, vide its orders 'dated 25.10.2007,

18.11.2009 and 5.4.2011 that RTI Act does not apply to Gymkhana Clubs in the HUDA

sectors and they are not public authority in terms of section 2 (h) of the Act.

20. Sh.Nitin Yadav, Manager, HUDA, Gymkhano Club, Sector-4, Gurgaon,

.. representative of the respondent SPIO is present in Appeal Case No. 4196 of 2012 and

submits that the Gymkhana Club, Sector-4, Gurgaon is not a public authority as defined

under section 2 (h) of the Act. It is a registered society under the Firms and Societies

Act, 1860. He further submits that Managing Committee consists of some non official

members also and it is wrong to contend that only government officials are Managing

Committee members of the club. The government officials are associated with

management of the club in ex-officio capacity. The Society has neither been constituted

under the Constitution of India nor by a law made by the Parliament or the State , Legislature or by any notification issued by the appropriate government. He also submits

that the club is neither financed by the government nor controlled by it. The day to day

functioning of the club is managed by funds raised through membership fee or the .. subscription. He further submits that allotment of the land and construction thereon has

been done by the HUDA. He also subm1ts that Gymkhana Club, Sector-4, Gurgaon is not

getting Income Tax concession under the Income Tax Act. He prays that appeal filed by

the appellant be fi led. For his submissions, he relies on the judgements already passed

by various courts or the State Information Commissions holdmg that Sbciety registered

under the prov1s1ons of the Societ ies Act is not a public authori y, i.e. High Court of

Mumba i at Nagpur in W.P. No. 5666 of 2007, decided or 13.' .2009, Dr.Panjabrao

•.- Deshmukh, Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs. SIC, Nagpur, 'I

Madhya Pradesh High Court W.P. 2987·of 2006, decided on 23.3.2007, Saira Bano vs.

Bittlal Balu Godekar and others and Karnataka High Court, decided on 29.2.2008, W P.

c No. 2928 of 2008, S.S. Angadi vs. SIC Bangalore and another.

21. Sh.Ram Singh, Manager, H_UDA Gymkhana Club, Sector-29, Gurgaon ,

representative of the respondent SP~O-present in Appeal Case Nos. 3125 and 3135 of

2012 -does no t, p~t forth any arguments rega rding applicability of the RTI Act, 2005 on

the Gymkhana Club, Sector-29, Gurgaon and submits tha t in response to appellant's

RTI application dated 09.04.2012 and 27.03.2012, complete information has been

furnished to him vide letters dated 4.6.2012 and 5.5.2012 and 11.01.2013 and no

information is pending with the Public authority. He further. submits that since

furnishing of the information1 nothing has been heard from the appellant. He submits a

photocopy of the informatlon furnished to the appellant for perusal of the

Commission. It is taken on record. He prays that the case be filed.

DECISIONS AND REASQNS

22. Having heard arguments of the respondents, their representatives and • I

repr~sentative of the appellant put forth during the hearing, documents available on the

case files and submitted by the respondents and representative of the appellant have

been perused . The citations quoted in support of their submissions have also been

considered to arrive at a conclusion. The question before this Comm1ssion is whether the

HUDA Gymkhana Clubs are publ ic authority under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Therefore, it becomes imperative to discuss its scope and ambit 1n defining a public

\

"" 10 -

for the sake of corven1ence, the provisions of clause (h) of Section 2 of the

RTI Act, 2005 is reproduced below:-

(h) "publ ic authority" means any authori ty or body or institution of self

government established or const ituted -

(a) by or under the Constitution ;

(b) by any oth er law mad e by Parliament;

(c) by any other law made by State Le(J islature;

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government;

and includes any -

(i) Body pwned, controlled or substan.tially financkd;

(ii) Non· government organisation substantially financed;

direct ly or- indirectly by funds provided bY. vf_the appropriate

government;

23. In v1ew of submissions of ·the respondents, their representatives and

representative of the appellant and available record, it emerges that Gymkhana Clubs

are not constituted by or under the Constitut ion or by any qtlier law made by the

Parliament or by any other law made by the State Legislature. In this view of the matter,

the Gymkhana Clubs cannot be said to be public authority under sub clauses (a), (b) &

(c) of clause (h) of section 2 of the Act. The only question remains whether these can be

said to be covered under sub clause (d) of clause (h) i.e. whether they can be said to be

a body owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the

appropriate Government. In their submissions, Sh.Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate for '

Dr.Sandecp Ku mar Gupta, the appellant and Sh.Balbir Singh, the respondent SPIO-cum-

Deputy Su penntcndent o/o Executive Officer, HUDA, Hlsar have stated that Gymkhana

Club, H1sar 1s a HUDA owned club, constructed by HUDA with their own funds on HUDA

land and. is controlled by the Government Officers. Hence, th.ey plead that Gymkhana

Club, H1sar is a public authority. While on the other ha:id, Sh.Ravinder Singh, Manager,

GymKhana Club, H1sar and Sh. Nitin Yadav, Manager, Gymkhana Club, Sector-4,

Gurgaon, have submitted that these clubs are registered under the Societies Act, 1860

and are Independent entities which are neither financed nor funded by the government

for the•r day to day running or maintenance . Hence, they contend that these clubs are

not pub 1c aulhorily. Sh.Ram Singh, Genera l Manager, HUDA, Gymkhana Club, Sector-

;V-1 11

~ 11 ~

29, Gurgaon has submitted that requisite mformation sought by the appellant has been

furnished, implying that club is a public authority.

24. A perusal of the records reveals that the land fe-r the Gymkhana Clubs has been

given by HUDA, free of cost and premises of the clubs have also been constructed by

HUDA with their own funds. It has also been observed that Gymkhana Clubs are

managed and controlled by the Government Officials. It needs to be emphasised that

this Commission can declare an entity to be a Public authority under section 2 (h) of the

RTI Act! 2005 if it is satisfied that it is owned, con~rolled and directly or indirectly

financed by the Central or the State Government.

25. , The Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, vide letter dated -· 31.3.2008 has issued· a uniform policy for registration of constitution of club and . . Mer119.r~ndum of Association of Gymkhana Clubs. Perusal of contents of this letter reveals

that .. Chairman and all members of the Board of PC'ltrons are Government Officials

Similarly, all members of the Managing Committee, except the four non official

members, are Government Officials. In addition, Chief. Administrator, HUDA is President

of the Gymkhana Clubs located at Pa.nchkula, the Cdmmissioners of the Division i.e.

Commissioner Ambala, Gurgaon, Hisar and Rohtak are Presidents of the Gymkhana

Clubs at Ambala, Gurgaon, Hisar and Rohtak respectively, Zonal Administrators are

Presidents of the Clubs wherever they are posted and ·at rest of the places Deputy

Commissioners are Presidents of the clubs and the Estate Officer in all cases are the ex­

officio Gen~ral Secretaries of the Gymkhana Clubs, sic:nifying the exercise of control of

the government officials in terms of sub clause (d) (i) 1;'{ clause (h) of section (2) of the

RTI Act, 2005.

26. 'In view of the above discussion, it clearly emergt-!S that huge pieces of land upon

which the Gymkhana Clubs are situated belong to the State Government. Apart from

providing the land, free of cost, the government has also incurred expenditure on

construction of these clubs. This militates strongly against these clubs being purely

private bodies. In addition, the respondent clubs arf; found to be registered bodies

established, controlled and managed by officers of th:: s_tate government in their ex­

officio capacity. They are also found to have been substantially financed indirectly by

HUDA, an authority set up by the State Government by providing infrastructure to them.

The RTI Act does not define 'substantial financing'. The expression 'substantial financing'

has to be interpreted in the context of a specific case. Considering t he fact that huge

chunks of land have been allotted to the Gymkhana Clubs in the heart of the cities, free

of cost and considering the fact that huge amount of money has been spent by t he

Government of Haryana in constructing buildings of these clubs and providing the

inf rastructure, in our opinion, amounts to indirect substantial financing by the State

Government.

27. In view of the foregoing, we are of1 the considered v iew that the HUDA Gymkhana

Clubs are Public Authorities within the m~aning of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 20.05.

Accordingly, the requisite information shall be provided to the appellants/complainants.

~ These orders shall be applicable to all Gymkhana Clubs in the state of Haryana. ' .

28. In view of the above stated facts, Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula is hereby

f directed to appoint SPIOs and the FAA tor HUDA Gymkhana Clubs within four weeks of

receipt of t hese orders. After such appointment, the respective SPIO will decide the

'Impugned RTI applications as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant shall

have the liberty to file first and second appeals as per ::;ection 19 of the RTI Act, if he is

dissatisfied with the decisions of SPIO/FAA, as the case may be.

Order reserved and pronounced today dat~d 26th July, 2013. To be· communicated.

(Sajkgti}' (Prahla R?.i l\1eena) State Information Commissioner, Haryana,

State Infonnation Commissioner, Haryana,

Chandigarh Chandigarla

(Maj Gen (Reid) Jagbir Singh~du, A VSM) State Information Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh

\