SOME OF THE INFORMATIONS ARE LYING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, HOWEVER PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS NEVER TRY FOR PREPARATION OF THE SUCH REPORTS, AND THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY EXCEPT TO APPEAL.

While working on the captioned subject matter deliberation related to the RTI and the RTS act adjudication, it is necessary to make your plan for the required information and do not clutter mental exercise with other back ups as such concentration of mind, energy and time needs to be united for the said plan of information which is lying in the public domain however public authority is considering the issue and matter in the negative plan to object the information against delivery , even easy to collect the information from the public domain however applicant is not known about the facts of admitted facts of the case file with in the departmental row responsible for the reply to applicant under law code manual. Under these conditions and circumstances if the public information officer does not agree with the view points raised by the applicant there is no further way out except to approach the First Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate authority it is necessary to prove the accuracy of words and the shortcomings observed from the reply given by the public information officer by meaningful relativity with the information sought and denied by the office.As such people often say "words lie and actions speak the truth", however it is necessary to satisfy the Appellate authority by way of argument in addition to the written comments and meaningful connectivity with the law code manual prefixed by the history of case file. Even your questions are valid for consideration as denied by the public information officer but the first appellate authority would never access to plan help for the applicant but would make similar comments on the captioned subject which is lying in the public domain however required to be made certain reply with information asked by the applicant and for which there reply is very common that no questionnaire type informations could be given to the applicant even though, very much responsible go protect the fundamental rights of the applicant. As such the information asked from the public authority must have some solution and argument, so that difference of opinion between the public information officer and applicant must be resolved within the meanings of the law code manual and a positive way out for suggestive measures, definitely it is for the FAA and SIC or CIC to have some way out for the such informations, which are lying within the public domain but public authorities are reluctant to describe the information and applicant is bound to listen the argument and learn from them, even the provision of training on the right to information Act for officials.