4. To initiate action w/s 20 of RTI Act 2005 as well as section 166 of IPC against the concerned staff responsible for delay. 5. That a personal hearing be afforded to the appellant u/s 19(5) of RTI Act and in the interest of natural justice in the event the PIO opts to justify and/ or prove the willful denial of information to the appellant, 6. That a copy of comments/ reply (of parawise written submission Jof PIO, if any, to this First Appeal be provided to the appellant well in advance of the hearing date, 7. Moreover as per RTI act 2005 section &(j) itself itis written that “Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”, hence this First Appeal is being made r/w (read with) CIC Judgement: cic/Cc/c/2015/000316-8)-Final, (in his own case )Arjun Ghose vs CPIO & ITO, Ward 50(1) [attached as Annexure-3) and CIC decision: cic/is/A/2010/001044-Ds dated 24.03.2011 (Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs 0/0 Addl.Commissioner Of it) [attached as Annexure-4] (Other Major GROUNDS for the appeal (citations}are as follows:- BECAUSE, Smt Sirsha Sircar D/o(Daughter of ) Shri Prasanta Sircar admitted an expenditure of Rs.40 lakhs by her parents in her own handwriting as per the FIR Copy (attached as annexure-S)and as per statements recorded in the chargesheet (attached as Annexure-6) presented by police(|.0-Biswalit Sarkar) , ll three :Prasanta Sircar, Sirsha Sircar and Moumita sircar have admitted to have given these costly items stating that the total items worth of 40 lakhs were given. Shri Prasanta Sircar may have taken a bribe or collected Rs.40 lakhs from undisclosed sources, because of such kind of people our country is facing money loss in present case survey u/s 133A(S) is required by income Tax. + Since total expenditure of Rs 40 lakhs has been claimed by in-laws, so itis a natural curiosity that what was the source of fund .if you disclose it then doubt of black money will be removed from my mind and this way the information will fulfil the objective of RTI to check the corruption as said by Hon'ble justice Shri Pradeep Kant in the recent judgement under Writ Petition No. 3262 (MB) of 2008,Public Information OfficerVs. State Information Commission, U.P. and others(attached as annexure-7), “...Qlut Constitution establishes a democratic republic. Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning......The purpose and object of the act is ‘ot only to provide information but to keep a check on corruption, and for that matter confers a right upon the citizens to have the necessary information, 2. BECAUSE Mr Prasanta Sircar(Businessman) , Sirsha Sircar and Moumita Sircar(Housewife) may have taken bribe or collected income from undisclosed sources and evaded tax as they have claimed 40 lakhs spent in marriage and because of such kind of people our country is facing Money Loss in present case survey u/s 133A(5) for marriage expenditure is required by Income Tax Officer.(In the chargesheet it has