The petitioners in these writ petitions are principals of private aided colleges in the State. The issue involved in all these writ petitions is common and therefore these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The issue involved is as to whether aided private colleges would come within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("the Act" for short).

3. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the aided private colleges are not authorities coming within the purview of the definition of "public authority" under section 2(h) of the Act. They would submit that going by the scheme of the Act, the object behind the Act is to uphold the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. According to them, since a fundamental right can be enforced only against the Government, governmental agencies or instrumentalities of the Government, the Act can be enforced only against such authorities. In short, they would contend that the term, "public authority" would take in only Government and those instrumentalities of State which would come within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

4. The petitioners would further submit that although there is some control by and financial aid from the Government to these aided private colleges, the same would not amount to deep and pervasive control and substantial financing by the Government, without which these aided private colleges would not answer the definition of "public authority" under the Act. They also particularly refer to the preamble to the Act in their attempt to show that the Act is primarily intended for protection of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and that the same is intended to be applicable to Governments and their instrumentalities alone who alone are accountable to the governed as stated in the preamble. Since those colleges are not accountable to the governed, they cannot be saddled with the liability to comply with the provisions of Act, is the submission made. In the above circumstances, the petitioners seek to quash the directions issued to the colleges to comply with the provisions of the Act by appointing Information Officers as stipulated in the Act and to declare that such colleges are not public authorities as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act, as also to restrain the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Act against such colleges.

5. The Government, State Information Commission and the University who are the respondents in the writ petitions stoutly oppose the contentions and prayers of the petitioners. All of them would contend that aided private colleges in the State are substantially controlled and financed by the Government, and fully controlled by the Universities. Therefore, they come squarely within the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h)(d) of the Act. According to them, the scope of the definition of "public authority" is much wider than that of "State" as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. They also rely on the very same preamble to show that the applicability of the Act is not confined to Government and instrumentalities of Government alone, but all authorities which exercise public functions. They would submit that apart from providing of land and buildings and appointment of staff and teachers, all other facts of the management of the colleges are strictly controlled by the Government and the Universities and hence they are bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government as provided in the definition of "public authority" under the Act.

6. The petitioners rely on the decision of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujub reported in AIR 1981 SC 487, which is one of the earliest authorities on the question as to the interpretation of the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and would submit that only those institutions