Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (the 'RPSC' for short) has challenged the order dated 14.10.2010, passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan Information Commission, Rajasthan Information Commission, Jaipur under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the RTI Act' for short) in appeal No. 649/2010, whereby the petitioner RPSC has been directed to supply all information as required by the respondent non-petitioner Pooja Meena ('the Non-petitioner' for short). 2. Learned counsel for the RPSC submits that in so far as the non-petitioner seeks photo copies of answer sheets written by her in the RAS Examination, 2007, in the subjects General Knowledge, Political Science, Philosophy, in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H. Satya ( AIR 2011 SC 3336 ), the RPSC will allow the non-petitioner to inspect her answer sheets in the aforesaid papers of RAS Examination 2007. 3. Counsel submits that the marks obtained by the non-petitioner in various papers were directly loaded on the computer by scanning the answer sheets of the non-petitioner as in the case of other candidates and no separate sheet was maintained by the RPSC. As such no document as sought in this regard can be provided to the non-petitioner. It is submitted that the third requirement of the non-petitioner in the application under RTI Act effectively was that her answer sheets be rechecked and re-evaluated. It is submitted that there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets of the candidate in RAS examination, 2007, and hence no relief in this regard could be granted to the non-petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the manner of applying the scaling formula to raw marks obtained by a candidate can not be covered under the provisions of RTI Act, as it is not covered by the term "information". It is further submitted that as far as the scaling formula applied in the RAS Examination 2007 is concerned, all requisite information is available on the web-site, and the non-petitioner can avail such information from the web-site. 5. It is further submitted that as far as the scaling formula applied in the RAS Examination 2007 is concerned, all requisite information is available on the web-site, and the non-petitioner can avail such information from the web-site. 5. It is further submitted that a huge number of candidates wrote the Political Science paper of RAS Examination 2007, and it would be an unwarranted drain on the resources of the RPSC to provide such information relating to the raw marks and corresponding scaled marks of all candidates who wrote the RAS Examination 2007. 6. Counsel for the RPSC has further submitted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 2005, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Counsel would then submits that the non-petitioner could not be supplied as of a right marks of third parties i.e. marks obtained by other candidates in the RAS Examination 2007 in the subject of Political Science or otherwise, as such information has no relationship to any public activity or interest. 7. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that in the event the RPSC were to allow the non-petitioner inspection of her answer sheets of RAS Examination 2007, i.e. General Knowledge, Political Science, and Philosophy, the non-petitioner would be ready and willing to inspect the same on a mutually convenient date and time. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition. 9. Counsel for the RPSC has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011, decided on 9.8.2011), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even though the right to information is a cherished right and intended to be a formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens of fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability, yet the obligation of a public authority to supply information to a citizen is not limit less and even apart from Section 8, 10 and 11 of Act of 2005 has to be reasonably construed. It has been held that Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption, but information other than that enumerated in Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act cannot be subjected to indiscriminate and impractical demands for disclosure unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption as this would be counter productive and it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has therefore cautioned against the RTI Act being misused or abused, and it becoming a tool to obstruct national development and integration or to destroy efficient governance, peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizen. 11. To the valued observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court would respectfully add that the provisions of RTI Act cannot used as a tool to give vent to the frustration and dissatisfaction of a citizen as in the present case without anything more. The present case relates to RAS Examination 2007, which have long been concluded and appointments made there under. A dissatisfied candidate who is disbelieving in the process of a constitutional body, ought not be allowed to continue pursuing the RPSC and seek information which can affect the efficient working and discharge of its constitutional obligations without any corresponding benefit or relationship to any public interest or activity. The impugned order dated 14.10.2010 is a mechanical order and does not disclose a careful consideration of the matter before the Chief Information Commissioner. 12. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 14.10.2010 is set aside, except to the extent of the non-petitioner being allowed to inspect on December 15, 2011 her answer sheets of RAS Examination 2007, in the subjects of General Knowledge, Political Science, and Philosophy. 13. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of. 14. Stay application and Misc. application also stand disposed of.