GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE SEPARATE COURTS FOR RTI AND RTS IN VIEW TO HAVE TIMELY ACTION IN THE SPEAKING ORDER NOTICED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

What is lost and what is obtained by way of Right to information and too by way of the Right to public service guarantee Act is required to be verified by the key members and senior professional RTI activists and volunteers as well as the Resource persons doing practice of the empowerment delivered under RTI and RTS act adjudication by the Constitution of India, in this behalf. The work and conduct of the RTI and RTS is a procedural compliance of the duty and responsibility for the RTI applicants however one must follow charter of the given schedule for said compliance for the observations failing which it is difficult to challenge the delay and dereliction of duty and demand accuracy and timely action under the law code manual prefixed by the Act ibid. As such every RTI activist is responsible to verify the previous experience and expectations from the public authorities, denied to accept for the conclusive reports preferred under section 18 to 20 of the Constitution of India and related to the courts concern and commitments made by the RTI and the RTS act adjudication for which necessary complaints must be furnished before the Honourable High Courts as well as the department of administrative reforms organisation too responsible to take cognisance of the demand under public utilities, for which the SIC must have appropriate vision and report before the competent authority however SIC taking no cognisance of the such complaints and the RTI activists and volunteers facing delay in deciding the cases even misleading informations are supplied to the applicants which is highly objectionable matter of suspect. Unnecessary objections of the SIC carry no meanings in the terms of free and fair justice to the public demanding informations for the welfare of individuals as well as the society and circle. It is principle duty of the SIC to follow order of FAA and act accordingly on the captioned subject matter deliberation required to be notices in the interest of public welfare instead of unnecessary objections, which shows the efficiency of the SIC working for the good governance and not for the unnecessary delay in deciding the cases for which every public authority is responsible to provide information to the applicants till Appeal and complaints are pending before the FAA or the SIC, as the case may be. High Courts are also responsible to issue short speaking orders of the such cases preferred by the applicants and volunteers in the interest of accuracy, timely action and the completeness as well as correctness of the RTI and the RTS act adjudication, as some categories of the society and circle getting free of cost deliveries of the informations and there is no reason to unnecessary create the objections. At the same time every High Court may be allowed to provide separate hearings on the captioned subject of the RTI and the RTS act adjudication and issue time bound decision to the applicants demanding their finding on the issue and matter raised before the public information officer however compelled to approach the High Court level of a costly institution for justice even the government corridor assuring for the free and fair justice to the applicants and volunteers.