Judgment 1. Since common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. 2. In all the writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same. He had asked for information from various Public Information Officers. The information sought for relate to the records pertaining to the Estates in the entire Theni and Dindigul Districts, relating to the pre-independence period as well as post-independence period. Without specifying the particular record, the petitioner has asked for information relating to the registers maintained under the Estates Land Act, 1908 and Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948, Pimash Registers, names and other details of the Estate holders and some more details. The petitioner also submitted applications to the appellate authority, namely, the State Information Commissioner, the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent passed the impugned orders, wherein, he has stated as under: “The petitioner is informed that as per the RTI Act, information should not be asked excessively which will affect the regular function of the Public Authority. He is directed to ask for information to the minimum extent.” Challenging these orders, the petitioner is before this Court with these writ petitions. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of these writ proceedings, the Public Information Officer had informed the petitioner that he was prepared to furnish the information, provided a sum of Rs.65,000/- is paid, as charges. They would further submit that therefore the Public Information Officer should furnish the details. 5. But, the learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission would submit that as per Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought, unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. 6. Then, the learned counsel for the Commission would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 37 and 38 held as follows: “37. 6. Then, the learned counsel for the Commission would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 37 and 38 held as follows: “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable took in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as 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. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties. Conclusion. 38. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties. Conclusion. 38. In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court directing the examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books is affirmed, subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which 'information' should be furnished. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.” 7. The learned counsel for the State Information Commission would, therefore, submit that the petitioner has sought for information relating to all the records for several decades, which is impossible to be furnished to the petitioner. 8. I have considered the above submissions. 9. The object of the Right to Information Act is salutary and the same serves the avowed object of transparency in public offices. At the same time, the said Act should not be allowed to be abused or misused by any unscrupulous parties. For example, suppose an information relating to several decades, running to several pages, is sought for, the Public Information Officer may have to depute several persons to collect those particulars and then to count the pages and calculate the fee to be paid by the party concerned. All these exercises should be done at the cost of Rs.10/-paid by the applicant. After that, the applicant should be informed by the Public Information Officer to pay the required amount. For example, suppose the Public Information Officer directs the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, the applicant may not pay the amount, in which case the entire exercise done in collecting the information, running to several pages, relating to several decades, would be a wasteful exercise. Assuming that the applicant is prepared to pay the money thereafter, the entire office machinery should be focused only in preparing the copies of the documents and furnishing the same to the applicant, leaving behind the regular work the office. Assuming that the applicant is prepared to pay the money thereafter, the entire office machinery should be focused only in preparing the copies of the documents and furnishing the same to the applicant, leaving behind the regular work the office. By only taking all these into account, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the request is made in respect of indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the Right to Information Act for disclosure of all and sundry information unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption, it 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. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused. 10. In the case on hand, undoubtedly, the information asked for by the petitioner in all the writ petitions relate to several decades, running to several thousands of pages. If the official machinery is to be diverted to collect those information and to furnish the same to the petitioner, certainly, it will have adverse effect in the regular administration of the pubic office. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the 1st respondent, namely the State Information Commissioner, was right in rejecting the request of the petitioner. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders challenged in any of these writ petitions. 11. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.