Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. These writ petitions are filed challenging an order of the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board, hereinafter referred to as the "MDB", designating Executive Officers/ Managers/ Trustees/ Chairmen/ Madathipathis/ Managing Trustees/ Presidents/ Secretaries or any other authority, of whatever designation, carrying out the administration of temples which fall under the jurisdiction of the MDB as State Public Information Officers under section 5(1) of the Right To Information Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the "RTI Act". Also impugned in one of the writ petitions, is an appellate decision rendered under the provisions of the RTI Act, repelling the contentions of one of the petitioners, who stood relegated to that authority by an order of this Court.

2. The petitioners are different Devaswoms/ Hereditary Trustees/ Trustees/ Executive Officers of different Devaswoms which administer different temples to which the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the "HR & CE Act", apply. They contend that they do not fall within the expression "public authority" under the RTI Act and therefore they do not have any obligation to act in terms of the provisions of that Act. The impugned order is criticized as issued without jurisdiction or authority of law and one that impinges the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India. The said order is impeached as amounting to unauthorized fetter on the powers of the hereditary trustee and one affecting the right to administer the religious institution in accordance with the customary beliefs. The petitioners point out that Hereditary Trustees, Trustees and Executive Officers of different Devaswoms are not servants in the employment of the MDB or the HR & CE Department. They plead that the impugned order proceeds on the erroneous premise and basis that the temple office is an administrative unit of the MDB. It is contended that the RTI Act does not apply to Devaswoms represented by the petitioners and such Devaswoms are not public authorities within the purview of the RTI Act. It is specifically contended that no such Devaswom is a body owned, controlled or financed, directly or indirectly, by the appropriate Government. It is pointed out that in many temples, the administration is regulated by schemes framed as enjoined by law and carries no element of "public authority" as defined in the RTI Act. Making specific reference to section 91 of the HR & CE Act, it is contended that the said provision by itself is abundant material to show that the Devaswoms are not public authorities for the purpose of the RTI Act. Petitioners impeach the impugned order as unconstitutional, void, inoperative and unenforceable.

3. The Commissioner of MDB has filed counter affidavits pointing out that in terms of the provisions of the HR & CE Act, the trustees are bound to administer the trust and its affairs, funds and properties in accordance with the terms of the trust, usage of the institution and all lawful directions as may be issued by the competent authority. On that premise, it is contended that certain registers are to be maintained in terms of the provisions of section 25 of the HR & CE Act, as regards salaries, allowances and perquisites. It is contended that under section 18 of the HR & CE Act, the Commissioner has the power to examine the regularity, legality and propriety of any act or omission of the trustees in respect of the administration of the temple and the Commissioner is authorized to annul, reverse or modify any decision, or remit any matter for consideration. Reference is made to section 20 of the HR & CE Act to state that the Commissioner has the power of superintendence and control over the religious institutions and such power includes the power to pass any order for ensuring that the funds and properties of a temple are duly appropriat