CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066 Tel : +91-11-26717355 Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2015/001194 Appellant: Mr. Raj Kumar Singh R/o. 752, Civil Lines, Janpad-Fatehpur-212601, U.P. Respondent: Central Public Information Officer P.M. Office, South Block New Delhi-110011 Date of Hearing: 09.08.2016 Dated of Decision: 09.08.2016 ORDER Facts: 1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 01.07.2014 seeking information on 4 points regarding the Income Tax Return filed by the Union Ministers and their family members of concerned parties who were in power from 1989 till 15th Lok Sabha, list of movable and immovable assets of Union Ministers which they filled in their nomination form, etc. 2. The CPIO responded on 10.07.2014. The appellant filed first appeal on 07.08.2014 with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 11.09.2014. The appellant filed second appeal on 29.01.2015 before the Commission on the ground that complete information should be provided. Hearing: 3. The respondent was personally present in the hearing. The appellant was absent. 4. The respondent referred to the CPIO's reply dated 10.07.2014 and stated that the information sought by the appellant is of huge & voluminous nature which if compiled would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. 5. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant is too wide and non- specific. In this context, the respondent had referred one decision of the Commission in its reply vide decision No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000310 titled as Anil Kumar Mittal Vs. Miranda House. 6. The respondent stated that vide order dated 11.09.2014, the FAA had also upheld the decision of CPIO while referring the decision of the Commission bearing No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001560 dated 18.06.2012 titled as Salim Khan Vs. Central Public Information Officer, PMO, in which it is held that, ªthe impression that the Prime Minister of India and his office should know about everything under the sun and manage to produce the information on the requisition of the information seeker. Unfortunately, this is a wrong impression. Information is held by various public authorities and must be sought from the appropriate public authority as per the provisions of the RTI Act.º Discussion/ observation: 7. The Commission observed that the information sought in the present case is far too wide. Understandably, there is no central database available anywhere in the Govt. containing such information and, therefore, the CPIO concerned had responded to the appellant expressing his inability to provide the information. The information seeker has also a responsibility under the RTI Act. He has to very carefully identify the exact information he needs and address his request to the appropriate Public Authority. 8. The Commission further observed that seeking omnibus information stretching over a long period of time on a variety of subjects from a single Public Authority would not yield any result even if it happens to be the Prime Minister's office. 9. The action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with RTI application is satisfactory. Decision: 10. The appellant is advised to be more specific in future while seeking information. 11. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost. (Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar.