ORDER : MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. This writ petition has been filed by the Public Information Officer of this court, aggrieved by the twin orders passed by the Central Information Commission/ second respondent dated 24.10.2016, directing the petitioner to deal with various RTI Applications filed by the first respondent separately, keeping in view the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), while calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why action should not be taken against him for contravening the provisions of the Act. Through the impugned orders, the second respondent disposed of ten complaints and four appeals filed by the first respondent herein. 2. We have heard Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Bharathi, party-in-person and Mr.Sudhirkumar, learned Special Panel Counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the entire material on record. 3. Before dealing with the matter on merits, we deem it appropriate to refer to some of the orders passed by this court as well as the State Information Commission on an earlier occasion at the instance of the first respondent herein. A learned Single Judge of this court, in W.P.No.16504 of 2014, by an order dated 19.12.2022, has been pleased to take note of 108 cases/ appeals filed by the first respondent seeking information from various authorities, including this court, during the year 2012 alone, and observed as under:- “7.The conduct of the petitioner is demonstrated from his own applications filed under the Act. It is nothing but abuse of process of law and particular statute, which was enacted for achieving transparency with regard to administration. Thousands of questions raised by the citizens taking undue advantage of the Act will result in hanging the system and efficient administration. It will disproportionately divert the manpower of the administration from discharging the normal duties of their office. Such attempt shall not be encouraged even though the Act provides for no limitations. 8.Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. This is a fit case for imposing heavy costs. However, considering the petitioner's plight, this Court restrain itself from doing so. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” The above order demonstrates the conduct of the first respondent. The first respondent allowed the above order dated 19.12.2022 to become final. 4. 8.Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. This is a fit case for imposing heavy costs. However, considering the petitioner's plight, this Court restrain itself from doing so. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” The above order demonstrates the conduct of the first respondent. The first respondent allowed the above order dated 19.12.2022 to become final. 4. In yet another writ petition, vide W.P.No.26781 of 2013 dated 17.09.2014, a learned Division Bench of this court dealt with the matter arising out of the RTI applications submitted by the first respondent herein. The first respondent herein was the second respondent in the said writ petition. The relevant paragraph from the said order reads as under:- “28. In fact, the first respondent-Commission itself has deprecated the practice of the second respondent herein in overloading the Registry of this Court by making several queries or complaints one after another and following the same under the RTI Act. Having found that the action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest, the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.” 5. It is necessary to take note of certain observations made by the Central Information Commission in its order dated 23.01.2013, which reads as under:- “We would like to end this with a word of caution to the Appellant/ Complainant. He has every right to seek legitimate information. In the process, he must not derail the working of the public authority by flooding it with numerous RTI applications. By his own admission during the hearing, he had sent bundles of RTI applications on various dates. 53 of these have landed up in the CIC by way of complaints and second appeals. No single citizen can have a monopoly over the public authorities, be it the Madras High Court, as in this case, or the CIC. By his own admission during the hearing, he had sent bundles of RTI applications on various dates. 53 of these have landed up in the CIC by way of complaints and second appeals. No single citizen can have a monopoly over the public authorities, be it the Madras High Court, as in this case, or the CIC. The Right To Information (RTI) Act seeks to establish a practical regime for providing information to the citizens, as evident in the preamble of the Act. The disclosure of information must be commensurate and in conformity with the smooth functioning of the public authorities. This particular case shows how a single individual can overload a public authority and divert its resources rather disproportionately while seeking information. It is understandable that the Appellant/Complainant may have a lot of grievance against the Madras High Court. Sending numerous complaints and representations about these grievances and then following those with RTI applications cannot be the way to redress such grievances. The concern expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the CBSE case is very relevant to remember. The Apex Court had said that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of the time and resources of any public authority because that would be against the larger public interest. Even in the pursuit of information, brevity is the soul of wit; a few RTI applications seeking very pertinent and specific information can reveal more than several dozen of repetitive petitioning. On receipt of the statement on the complaints from the CPIO, as directed above, we will finally decide on the 47 complaints. As far as the 6 second appeals are concerned, those are disposed of as above." Having taken note of the conduct of the first respondent, as observed by this court as well as the Central Information Commission, now we proceed to examine the case on hand. 6. As already noted above, the subject matter of the present writ petition is in respect of 14 applications made by the first respondent under the Act, right from 31.10.2011 to 30.12.2015. 7. For better appreciation, the date of the application, the information sought, and the relevant Appeal/ complaint number are extracted herein in a tabular form as under:- 8. 6. As already noted above, the subject matter of the present writ petition is in respect of 14 applications made by the first respondent under the Act, right from 31.10.2011 to 30.12.2015. 7. For better appreciation, the date of the application, the information sought, and the relevant Appeal/ complaint number are extracted herein in a tabular form as under:- 8. All the above applications were considered by the petitioner herein and a reply was furnished on 17.08.2016, and the content of the said reply reads as under:- “With reference to your petitions and appeals cited, you are informed that the information sought in all these are personal information touching upon the relationship between the employer and employee and hence in view of the reasons made in the Head Note to Para 53 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20485/2012, dated 17.04.2013, (The Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. K.Elango and another (2013 WLR 413)), these information cannot be furnished under the RTI Act. You are further informed that there is no element of public interest or public activity in any of the information sought.” 9. Having been aggrieved by the same, the first respondent herein carried the matter to the second respondent by filing different appeals/ complaints, and the same were disposed of by the second respondent by passing the impugned orders dated 24.10.2016. A perusal of the impugned orders would disclose that the second respondent Commission has taken note of each of the RTI application made by the first respondent and the information sought therein, complaint/ appeal-wise, and observed that the response of the Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPIO’) is not on record. It is also observed that the response of the First Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FAA’) is also not on record. The same is the observation for each and every complaint/ appeal filed by the first respondent. 10. Having observed as above, the learned Commission proceeded to conclude as under:- “28. The Commission observed that the complainant has filed First Appeals in the matters and has also pursued for getting information on his RTI requests from the respondent. In view of this, the abovementioned complaints may be treated as second appeals. 29. 10. Having observed as above, the learned Commission proceeded to conclude as under:- “28. The Commission observed that the complainant has filed First Appeals in the matters and has also pursued for getting information on his RTI requests from the respondent. In view of this, the abovementioned complaints may be treated as second appeals. 29. The Commission further observed that there is a delay on the part of the respondent in replying to the RTI applications of the complainant as per the RTI Act, 2005. 30. The Commission while going through the reply of the respondent dated 17.08.2016, has noted that the respondent has not clarified that how the plea of 'personal information' applies on abovementioned RTI applications of the complainant. 31. The Commission further observed that the information sought by the complainant in his abovementioned RTI applications is different and a separate reply to each RTI application should be given to the complainant.” 11. Having concluded above, the second respondent directed the petitioner to deal with the RTI applications made by the first respondent separately, keeping in view the provisions of the Act, within 15 days from the date of order, and also directed the petitioner to show-cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken for contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is the same in respect of the second impugned order dated 24.10.2016 also. 12. From the above, it is evident that the second respondent Commission has taken note of the reply dated 17.08.2016 furnished by the petitioner to the first respondent herein, but failed to take note of the substance of the said reply. A perusal of the said reply dated 17.08.2016 makes it clear that the stand of the petitioner herein is by placing reliance on a decision of a learned Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.20485 of 2012 dated 17.04.2013 in the case of “ Registrar General, Madras High Court -vs- K.Elango and another ” reported in (2013) 2 CWC 56. But, the second respondent Commission, without even taken note of the said decision or the contents of the reply of the petitioner herein, proceeded to observe that the information sought by the first respondent in the subject RTI applications is different and a separate reply to each RTI application should be given by the petitioner. 13. But, the second respondent Commission, without even taken note of the said decision or the contents of the reply of the petitioner herein, proceeded to observe that the information sought by the first respondent in the subject RTI applications is different and a separate reply to each RTI application should be given by the petitioner. 13. The learned Commission failed to examine whether the information sought by the petitioner under various applications referred to above is the one exempted under Section 2(j) of the Act or not. When separate RTI applications were responded by the petitioner contending that the information sought by the first respondent would fall under exemption clause contained under Section 2(j) of the Act, unless the Commission comes to the conclusion that the information sought by the first respondent does not fall under the said provision, namely Section 2(j) of the Act, any order passed directing for re- examination of the said applications is totally erroneous and suffers from sheer non-application of mind. 14. Further, the observations of the Central Information Commission in both the impugned orders are cryptic in nature, and non-application of mind is apparent on the face of the impugned orders. When the first respondent has gone in an appeal before the second respondent, it is for the first respondent to place the entire material before the second respondent for proper appreciation of the matter. As seen from the impugned orders, the second respondent observed that neither the reply furnished by the CPIO nor the reply of the FAA are not available on record. If that be the case, the second respondent ought to have directed the first respondent to place the entire material before it before proceeding to examine the appeals/ complaints made by the first respondent herein. Further, the second respondent, having observed that the reply of the CPIO is not available on record, surprisingly considered the very same reply dated 17.08.2016 for arriving at its conclusion on the appeals/ complaints filed by the first respondent herein. This itself shows the non-application of mind by the second respondent Commission. 15. Be that as it may, a cursory look at the information sought by the first respondent under various applications, as already noted above, would disclose that the information sought by the first respondent is of frivolous in nature. This itself shows the non-application of mind by the second respondent Commission. 15. Be that as it may, a cursory look at the information sought by the first respondent under various applications, as already noted above, would disclose that the information sought by the first respondent is of frivolous in nature. For instance, under the application dated 30.12.2015, the information sought by the first respondent is as under:- ‘ 1. Number of writ petitions, criminal original petitions, criminal revision petitions, writ appeals filed for the years 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015. 2. Number of writ petitions, criminal original petitions, criminal revision petitions, writ appeals disposed as on date which are filed in the years 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015. 3. Number of final orders issued in/ on writ petitions, criminal original petitions, criminal revision petitions, writ appeals as on date which are filed in the years 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015. 4. Number of miscellaneous petitions filed under writ petitions, criminal original petitions, criminal revision petitions, writ appeals for the years 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015. 5. Number of miscellaneous petitions disposed which are filed under writ petitions, criminal original petitions, criminal revision petitions, writ appeals for the years 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015. 6. Number of interim orders issued on the miscellaneous petitions filed along with or in writ petitions, criminal original petitions, criminal revision petitions, writ appeals for the years 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015. 7. Kindly provide me the number of interim orders and final orders issued by the each Hon'ble Judges of Madras High Court individually or as member of bench for the years 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015." 16. From the above information sought by the petitioner, one can make out the frivolous nature of information that is being sought by the first respondent herein. Not only the information sought under the application dated 30.12.2015, but the information sought under various other applications also is frivolous in nature and pertaining to the internal administration of this court. 17. From the above information sought by the petitioner, one can make out the frivolous nature of information that is being sought by the first respondent herein. Not only the information sought under the application dated 30.12.2015, but the information sought under various other applications also is frivolous in nature and pertaining to the internal administration of this court. 17. From the conduct of the first respondent, which has already been taken note of by a learned Division Bench of this Court, and the manner in which the first respondent has been pursuing applications under the Act, we are constrained to arrive at the conclusion that the first respondent is abusing the provisions of the Act as well as the process of law before this Court, thereby wasting valuable judicial time. In the light of the above, the cryptic impugned orders passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, they are hereby quashed. 18. Inspite of the learned Division Bench of this court as well as the Central Information Commission making serious observations on the conduct of the first respondent, the first respondent, unabatedly continued the same conduct, causing every hindrance to the authorities under the Act in discharging their obligations under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where exemplary costs should be imposed on the first respondent for being responsible for wasting valuable judicial time of this court. However, keeping in view the age of the first respondent, who is now aged about 74 years, we refrain from imposing any costs for the time being. In case if the first respondent continues to make any such frivolous applications under the provisions of the Act or initiate any legal proceedings thereon, the same would be viewed seriously and appropriate action would be taken against him. The first respondent is cautioned in this regard. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.