This commission maintains that the disclosure of the requested information will not adversely impact on the “protection of their life, home, family and Honour” of “respectable members of the Islamabad Club including advocates of the Supreme Court and High Court as well as officers of NAB, FIA and PAS as well as its employees” as maintained by the Respondent.
This commission holds that names, designations and departments/professions of the members of Islamabad Club cannot be withheld on the ground of privacy as they are beneficiaries of subsidies provided by the government.
This commission determines that the individuals who got membership of Islamabad Club should be seen as beneficiaries of public funds. The club provides facilities to its members on highly subsidized rates because of the land provided by the government on highly subsidized rates and far below the market value. As such, all members of Islamabad Club are beneficiaries of public funds.
This commission maintains that Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act, 2017 requires particulars about the recipients of any concession, permit, license or authorization granted by the public body” to be proactively published through the web sites of public bodies.
This commission maintains that the Respondent, Islamabad Club is legally bound to proactively publish on its web site under Section 5 of the Act, 2017 requested information pertaining to Islamabad Club Membership Regulations, rules providing remedy of Appeal/Representation/Review against refusal of application for membership, revenue and tax related details and membership criteria/complete procedure for grant/refusal of membership for all categories.