Right to Information - better implementation

RTI ACT which is talk of country at this juncture wherein 360 degree turn about is seemed in terms of dominance of bureaucratic over citizen, & you made such training session very interesting alluring all participants to remain active whole heartedly.
I would also like to share certain issues immerged while training session as pointed out to you during session it self, but due to time constraint we could not debate at length for your kind perusal & through discussion with your fellow faculties to as pointed by you for clarification to facilitate better implementation of the act.
Fee:- Against provision under rules to receive by o9nly three modes, i.e. cash, NJS & Pay order if received as per discussion by the way of court fee, revenue stamp or postal order or money order may create certain problem of misuse of the stamps in multiple use or embezzlement or misappropriation of fund in case of MO Or postal order in the absence of full proof system.
Right to apply:-
As discussed under section 3 of the act citizens have been given right to seek info but under section 6 of the act right to apply is there to person & not only citizen.
Because citizen is restricted term compared to person. For which I would like to draw your kind attention towards section 2(31) of the income tax act. Thus under RTI act never provides to verify citizenship status.
SIC judgments:-
We had elaborate discussion on various important judgments with good spirit. Principle of resjudicata is applying to the Judgments of SIC but it does not automatically amend the act because in similar situation in other case it may very, earlier judgment may be superseded or reversed or may be upheld or confirmed. Under the circumstances it becomes inevitable to reduce quasi judicial process to amend the act on experience & observation to apply uniformly.
Application without Fee:-
Under rule 3 & form b of the rules even without fee application also we are supposed not only to accept but also to enroll under the act. & if within reasonable period applicant fails to pay accordingly application may be disposed off considering even preamble & spirit & provision of the act.
Appeal Fee:-
Under Rule 5 it is pretty clear that every application---
& also under section 6 (1) of the act also application is to be accompanied with the fee. Under the circumstances why there should not be appeal fee?
Personal Information:-
One of the issue discussed was the details of property furnished by employee is to be treated as personal information.
As per the provision of the act under section 8 (j) when any info given in confidence--- is to be treated as such. Also when under section 23 of the act official secrets act it self has been scrapped up to the extent & considering spirit of the preamble of transparency & containing corruption why this sham should be there?
PIO at lower level & multiple DAA:-
As you are aware act provides for transparency along with accountability under the circumstances if lower rank officials or employees will be designated as PIO & there immediate officer as DAA multiple DAA will be there in the same public authority. This may not fulfill the very purpose of act of accountability as aggrieved person from lower level are compelled to resort to RTI & the same will be PIO how & up to what extent justice can be expected from them?
Also if multiple DAA will be there in the same public authority consistency & uniformity may not be maintained. For similar kind of matter varied decisions may be there in the same P.A. This will create more hassle. Even from the aspect of getting justice from SIC to P.A. this may be obstructive.
As under section 2 of the I.T. Act 1961 public authority is person & can resort to SIC in complicated cases.
Communication:-
This is very important factor in deciding cause of action.
When PIO is dispatching letter to pay further fee to the applicant by post UPC if applicant is not receiving or receiving late & later claim to provide fee or on the same ground if resorting to appeal prima facie appeal may be admitted thus period of communication should be from the date to dispatch to postal authority & not actually received by the applicant. Even if referred the contract act 1872 section 4 of communication support this claim.