LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has dismissed a plea of the Lahore Gymkhana Club (LGC) against a decision of the Punjab Information Commission (PIC), which directed the club to furnish details sought by citizens under the law of transparency and the right to information.

Advocate Abdullah Malik and others sought information, includingdetails ofthe landleased out to the club by the provincial government and the records of the donors. Af ter the club`s denial, the applicants approached the PIC, which, after hearing from the parties, also ordered the club to furnish the requisite details.

Club`s counsel Barrister Rafey Zeeshan argued that according to section 6 of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013 (PTRI Act), the PIC can only pass a direction for the disclosure of information against a `public body` as defined under section 2(h) of PTRI Actwhereas, the petitioner (the club), being a public limited company, did not fall within the scope of a `public body`.

On behalf of the PIC, Punjab Assistant Advocate General Barrister Tayyab Jan argued that the government was `substantially financing` the petitioner or club and, therefore, the same falls within the scope of Section 2(h)(iv) of the PTRI Act.

Advocate Azhar Siddique, on behalf of the applicants, also opposed the petition, saying Article 19-A of the Constitution envisaged every citizen of the country becoming independent of the power centre and having access to information in all matters of public importance.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad noted that the lease deed signed on June 12, 1996, reRects that the land measuring 1,030 kanals, one marla and 80 feet situated in mauza Mian Mir on Upper Mall, Lahore, had been granted to the petitioner/ club on a lease for 50 years from 2000 to 2050 merely against a token rent of Rs5,000 per annum.

The judge observed that the land exists in one of the most premium and expensive areas of Lahore. He noted that the PIC roughly assessed the value ofthe lease land as more than Rs15 billion, which was not denied by the petitioner/club before the court.

The sports grounds, including a golf course and other facilities being provided by the petitioner to its members, exist on the land that is granted by the Punjab government to the petitioner almost free of charge.

Justice Ahmad observed that the leased land forms part of the resources of the state, and the grantofleasehold rights to the land worth billions of rupees almost free of cost by the government is an enormous benefit to the recipient/ club.

The judge said the accommodation by the government of providing a large piece of land situated at Upper Mall to the petitioner at a rate of Rs5,000 per annum cannot be even described as a rate at all.

`The land in question that otherwise has rental value, having no comparison with what is being fetched from the petitioner, clearly amounts to financial assistance by the government,` the judge added in his detailed verdict released on Friday.

The judge observed that the impugned order passed by the PIC did not suffer from illegality.