Appeal under section 19 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

To The Appellate Authorit!,

"hri #ogendra "ingh, $irector %eneral,
$IR&'T(RAT& %&)&RA* (+ ,I%I*A)'&,
'-"T(." / '&)TRA* &0'I"&, 1&A$2-ART&R" (++I'&,
Ist +loor, "amrat 1otel, 3autil!a .arg, 'hana4!apuri,
)e5 $elhi 6 110 021. 7hone 01182911 5:22

(1) +ull name of the Appellant
.r. Ra;esh ,ishnudas $ara4

(2) Address
'<o. =histle>lo5ers India, ?, ,arsha, )orth "outh Road )o.5, ,ile 7arle (=), .um>ai 6
@00 059.

(A) 7articulars of the 'entral 7u>lic Information (fficer ('7I()
"h. '. ". 7rasad, Addl. $irector %eneral ,igilance,
Ist +loor, "amrat 1otel, 3autil!a .arg, 'hana4!apuri,
)e5 $elhi8110 021, 7hone 011829115:25

(@) $ate of receipt of the order appealed against 22nd "eptem>er, 2009
(if order passed)

(5) *ast date for filing the appeal 22nd (cto>er, 2009

(9) The grounds for appeal

The '7I( has denied information under sections ?(1)(e) and ?(1)(;) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The su>;ect matter of information is B Relating to details of immoCa>le / moCa>le assets
of persons specified.D

It is a fundamental right of the citiEens of India to find out 5hether the emplo!ees of a
goCt. department are corrupt or not . India has >een ran4ed as the 5orst performer >!
Transparenc! International on its glo>al Fri>e 7a!ers IndeG, 5hich is >ased on the
propensit! of companies from the 5orldDs A0 leading eGporting countries in >ri>ing
a>road. 7lease refer the lin4
http<<555.transparenc!.org<ne5sHroom<inHfocus<>piH2009Ipr for the full report.

'ustoms / 'entral &Gcise is an important dept. entrusted 5ith the tas4 of collecting
reCenue / preCenting reCenue loss. The high leCel of corruption preCailing in the
'ustoms / 'entral &Gcise department is eCident from the note5orth! no. of Bunder cloudD
/ Bagreed listD officers in sensitiCe postings. This sho5s that the 'ustoms / 'entral
&Gcise dept. has failed to 4eep a chec4 on corruption. 1aCing understood this fact, it
>ecomes important to 4no5 5hether the assets declared or possessed >! the staff of
this dept., are proportionate to their 4no5n sources of income or not.

The &lection 'ommission of India has mandated disclosure of details of moCa>le /
immoCa>le assets >! each candidate see4ing election to 7arliament or a state
legislature. 7lease refer page nos. 12 / 1A, 5hich are part of the @8page AnneGure (page
nos.11 to 1@) in the lin4
http<<555.eci.goC.in<&lectoral*a5s<(rders)otifications<(rderHAssestsHAffidaCits.pdfIse
archJK22disclosureK20ofK20assetsK22 5hich is the mandated format for disclosure.

An eGample of one such disclosure, 5hich is a part of the affidaCit filed for the %eneral
&lections 6 200@, made >! "mt. "onia %andhi, .7 from Rae Fareli, appears on page
nos. 2 / A in the lin4 http<<archiCe.eci.goC.in<%&200@HAffidaCits<-ttar
K207radesh<AffidaCits<19<"oniaK20%andhi<"%.html

+urther, the 3arnata4a Information 'ommission (3I') Cide its order dated 21st #ul!,
2009 has directed the respondent to ma4e aCaila>le the assets and lia>ilities
declarations to the complainant. A cop! of the said order is attached here5ith for !our
read! reference.

It is ampl! clear from the a>oCe facts / arguments that the '7I(Ds denial of information,
under sections ?(1)(e) and ?(1)(;) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not tena>le. The pu>lic interest
oCerride preCails for such a disclosure, >ecause disclosure of assets creates a
disincentiCe for corruption >! creating fear of eGposure. This is the sole reason 5h! the
departmentDs conduct rule mandates disclosure of assets >! its emplo!ees. "ince the
department itself, usuall!, does not haCe the time to chec4 / Cerif! the declarations of its
emplo!ees, this tas4 can >e ta4en up >! the citiEens of India. The pu>lic has a right to
4no5 5hether the pu>lic serCants are 5or4ing honestl! or not.

The '7I( has thus failed to appl! his mind correctl!.

Lou are therefore reMuested to direct the '7I( to immediatel! furnish the reMuired
information.


7lace .um>ai

$ate 12<10<2009 "ignature of
Appellant

&nclosures

1) 'op! of m! RTI Application dated 1@th August, 2009
2) 'op! of '7I(Ds letter dated 29th August, 2009.
A) 'op! of '7I(Ds repl! dated 19th "eptem>er, 2009.
@) 'op! of 3I'Ds order dated 21st #ul!, 2009
7.". 1ard cop! of this Appeal along5ith the enclosures alread! sent >! "peed 7ost
toda!.
c.c. 'hairman 6 'F&' 6 =ith a reMuest to pass this on to the addressee, since m!
preCious e8mail to this addressee had >ouncedN and an additional reMuest to ensure that
e8mail I$s of all the important posts are listed on the 5e>site,