SECTION 19(6) MAY BE PREFERRED IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE VACANT SLOTS BY APPELLANT, AFTER DUE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DELAY BEFORE (SIC) AND NECESSARY COMMUNICATION GAP SHOULD BE AVOIDED FOR APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AS FAA TOO WORKING FOR QUASI- JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF THE DECISION- MAKING.

Virtually the RTI Act is preferred by the applicants and volunteers for the use of charter of public accountability and the required efficiency in administration , list by way and virtue of which the use and exercise of section 19(6) is very important in the decision-making at the levels of first appellate authority, however the applicants used their identity before the SIC by way of complaint and non -compliance and try their levels best for the action of penalty for such enforced delay and dereliction of duty, where as now a days the SIC and CIC taking no cognisance of the delay and repeating their orders in favor of the information related to the applicants with short notice for the delivery of required information. Keeping in view the situation and position explained above it is necessary for the RTI activists and volunteers to follow practical regime of section 19(6) and continue for the action required to obtain the information on the captioned subject, even thought complaints may also be registered before the office in the present circumstances of the work and conduct of SIC sitting idle without the designated institution of the office and the Appellate authority failing to pass an order on the Complaint within the prescribe period and definitely the appellant may never be satisfied with the work done by the FAA and the correspondence described under section 19(6) is only an alternative for the procedural compliance by Appellant where in the FAA should come to conclusion for passing an order directing the public information officer to give such information to the appellant or the FAA himself may give information to the appellant while disposing of the appeal. In the first case, the appellant authority should ensure that the information ordered by him to be supplied is supplied to the appellant immediately. It would however, be better, if the appellant authority chooses the second course of action and he himself furnishes the information along with the order passed by him in the matter. In such cases, if the public information officer doesn't implement the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take action against the public information officer and said competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the provision of the RTI act, 2005 (based on G.I of DoP&T memo number 10/23/2007/IR dated 9-7-2007:-- Er Fateh Chand Guleria, Director RTI welfare Association registered number HPCD, 3552 , Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh phone number 9459334377