ORDER :— This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Shri Sanwaliaji Mandir Mandal, Mandafiya, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, assailing order dated 02.05.2013 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan Information Commission, Jaipur, and order dated 24.02.2012 passed by the Departmental Appellate Authority-cum-Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur. 2. Respondent No. 3 Kaluram Gurjar submitted an application on 02.12.2011 under the Right to Information Act to the Chief Executive Officer, Sanwaliaji Mandir Mandal, Mandafiya, whereby he demanded certain in formations regarding proceedings of the Board meeting of the trust and also the agenda of the meeting. The Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner-trust sent a letter to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, on 06.01.2012, seeking guidance whether such information can be provided to respondent No. 3 especially when the petitioner-trust is religious institution and no budget is allotted to it by the Central Government or the State Government, and whether information with regard to the employees working with the petitioner-trust can be provided and if so under which provision of Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992, and whether in view of special enactment Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992, Shri Sanwaliaji Mandir Trust is covered by Right to Information Act. 3. Ultimately, the petitioner-trust maintained that Shri Sanwaliaji Mandir Trust is not covered under the Right to Information Act, 2005, therefore, the information sought by the respondent No. 3 could not be provided to him. The respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal there against before the Appellate Authority-cum-Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur. Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner-trust before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, by order dated 24.02.2012, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3, directing the petitioner-trust to provide the information as mentioned in the application dated 02.12.2011. When the respondent No. 3 did not get the information as per appellate order dated 24.02.2012, he filed appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner alleging that despite direction of the appellate authority, the required information has not been supplied to him. The Chief Information Commissioner has, by impugned judgment dated 02.05.2013, allowed the appeal. Hence this writ petition by the petitioner-trust. 4. Shri Prahlad Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner-trust, has argued that the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, who is the appellate authority, has failed to appreciate that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Chief Information Commissioner has, by impugned judgment dated 02.05.2013, allowed the appeal. Hence this writ petition by the petitioner-trust. 4. Shri Prahlad Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner-trust, has argued that the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, who is the appellate authority, has failed to appreciate that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The order dated 24.02.2012 passed by the appellate authority was without jurisdiction. Similarly, the respondent No.1 ' “ the Chief Information Commissioner has ignored this aspect of the matter that the Chief Executive officer of the petitioner-trust does not fall within the purview of ' public authority' as provided by Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He is a functionary under the Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992. His duties have been prescribed in Sections 20 and 21 of Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992. Even the Chief Executive Officer does not come in the purview of ' public authority'. As per Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner-trust is not bound to supply information under Section 21(3) of Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992. The petitioner-trust is an autonomous body. Neither it is funded by nor does it receive any aid from the Central Government or the State Government in any manner whatsoever. Since the petitioner-trust is not covered by the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, no one has right to get information of its activities. 5. Examination of the provisions of Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992, reveals that the petitioner-trust has been constituted under Section 5 of the Act, which provides that administration, management and governance of the temple and all its endowments including all offerings shall hereafter be vest in the Board constituted under the Act. Section 6 of Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992, provides for composition of the Board, which includes the President, the Collector of Chittorgarh district, the Devsthan Commissioner, Chief Executive Officer and seven other members. Section 17 has enumerated the duties of the Board. Section 20 provides for appointment of Chief Executive Officer and Section 21 provides for powers and duties of the Chief Executive Officer. 6. Question that arises for determination is whether the petitioner-trust can be allowed to contend that it is not covered by the Right to Information Act? Section 17 has enumerated the duties of the Board. Section 20 provides for appointment of Chief Executive Officer and Section 21 provides for powers and duties of the Chief Executive Officer. 6. Question that arises for determination is whether the petitioner-trust can be allowed to contend that it is not covered by the Right to Information Act? Broad plank of challenge to the impugned orders is pivoted on the plea that petitioner-trust is not a public authority. One has therefore to look at the definition of 'public authority' to decide this question, which has been given in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, according to which, 'public authority' means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted ' “ (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government. Indisputably, the petitioner-trust is a body constituted under law made by the State Legislature, namely, Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992, it has to be thus held as ' public authority' in the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 7. Indisputably, the petitioner-trust is a body constituted under law made by the State Legislature, namely, Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992, it has to be thus held as ' public authority' in the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 7. The matter can be examined from another perspective as to whether the information, which the respondent No. 3 has sought, falls in any of the clauses of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which provides for exemption from disclosure of certain/specific kind of informations, namely, (a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; (b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; (c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (f) information received in confidence from foreign Government; (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement of security purposes; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; and (i) Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. 8. What the Chief Information Commissioner has directed in the present case is that the petitioner-trust should provide to respondent No. 3 the copy of agenda of the Board meeting dated 01.12.2013, copy of resolution passed by the Board in the said meeting and copy of the proceedings registered of that day. None of these informations is covered by any of the exception clauses referred to above. 9. The Information Commission has examined the matter thoroughly and has upheld the order passed by the appellate authority. None of these informations is covered by any of the exception clauses referred to above. 9. The Information Commission has examined the matter thoroughly and has upheld the order passed by the appellate authority. This court, on analysis of the impugned order, does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Information Commission. Neither the desired information can be said to fall in any of the aforesaid exception clauses, nor can the petitioner trust claim to be not a public authority in the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 10. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed summarily. Stay application is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.