India, Maharashtra, vijay kumbhar, News, Governance, RTI, Transparency, Civic Issues, Real Estate

Friday, February 13, 2015

Analysis of proposed draft of Maharashtra Guarantee of Public Services Bill

Government of Maharashtra has put proposed draft of MaharashtraGuarantee of Public Services Bill (MGPS), 2015 for public consultation. This was dream and first announcement made by chief minister Devendra fadnavis. He had appointed senior officers committee to prepare draft of this bill. On background of failure of Prevention of delay in discharge of official duties act (PDDODA) and Citizen Charter (CC) there were many expectations form this committee. However committee has failed to deliver a good and effective draft. Not only that, it has removed that was good in PDDODA and CC.


The committee mostly revolved around following points

1.         Quantum and nature of services that are to provided
2.         fixing responsibility of delay
3          Under todays circumstances it is just not possible to guarantee service for all the activities enlisted therein. Therefore either citizen charter should not be taken as base for this act or a revised citizen charter will have to be prepared.
4.         Appeal mechanism:
5.         Extend of penalty
6.         Use of IT:
7.         Dedicated machinery
8.         Quality check mechanism
10.       Cost of service
11.       Award and other implications

Let us discuss this proposed draft on background of above points and experience of hurdles in implementation of RTI act.

As per Section 2 (c)of MGPS ,“Designated  Officer”  means  an  officer  who  is  required to provide citizen related service

There is no clarity if the services  are outsourced  who will be designated officer ?

Section 2 (d) of MGPS  is about definition “eligible person” , “eligible person” means and includes a legal person desirous of using the service provided by a Public Authority for its own benefit

What do they mean by “own benefit” ? Will they not provide the service if one seeks it for its children, spouse or family members?

In section 2  (j) they have defined term “public authority” ,“Public Authority” means,-

(a)        any Department or authorities of the Government;

(b)        any organization or authority or body or institution or a local authority, established or constituted,-
(i)         by or under the Constitution of India, in the State;

(ii)        by any other law made by the State Legislature;

(iii)       by notification issued by the Government;

(c)        and includes,-

(i)         any body including a Government Company or a authority owned, controlled or substantially financed; or

(ii)        any non-Governmental organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by the State Government.

This definition is taken from Right to information act. But that is not sufficient because bureaucracy already thinks that system has already been overloaded. They are also speaking of dedicated machinery, outsourcing and outside funding for providing the services. In this case term NGOs  or private institution “ substantially financed , directly or indirectly by state government may harass applicants as it is doing in case of RTI act. Instead small definition “ public authority means any organization may it public , semi public or private that provides services notified under this act” may help more.

According to section 3 of MPGS The Government shall, within a period of three months from the date of commencement of this Act, and thereafter from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, notify the services, Designated Officers and stipulated time limits within which such services shall be rendered under this Act in respect of every Public Authority under each Department.

This is none other than delaying tact. Bureaucracy is playing it since last many years. The first circular on this topic i.e  for providing time bound public services was introduced On 8th march 2000  since thenbureaucracy is fooling citizens and their representatives in assembly. Then Prevention of delay in discharge of official duties act was introduced in 2006 but it took almost seven years to introduce its rules. According to this act and rules citizen charters were prepared in 2013. But they never introduced a one window system to accept application under this act and hence PDDODA and citizen charters became useless.

Bureaucracy has already wasted 3 months on preparing such a toothless draft and has taken it back to square one of this process. CM on 30th November 2014 had announced that draft will be ready within a month but committee took almost three months and most important thing is, already in present citizen charter the stipulated time limit and designated officer’s names have already been given. Then why they need more time to notify services? Those can be notified with the act and rules it self.

Next point is section 4 (2) of this bill says “Subject to technical and financial feasibility, every Designated Officer of the Public Authority shall provide the notified services specified in the notification to the eligible person, within the stipulated time.”

This is very dangerous clause it removes the possibility of receiving any service in time and gives one more tool in hands od designated officers to avoid work. We experience that in Right To Information act also. Using this tool they have not complied with section 4( i.e proactive disclosure) of RTI in last almost ten years.

Section 8 (2) of this bill says The Government or the concerned Public Authority shall appoint by notification an officer who is superior in rank to the First Appellate Authority to hear and decide the appeal filed by an eligible person against the order of the First Appellate Authority and the application if any filed by the eligible person directly to the said Authority.

This is very bad provision: If service is not rendered within a given time, the applicant is supposed to file 1st and 2nd appeal. But if that process is kept within the same hierarchy again same nexus will sabotage the purpose. It will also put extra load on   machinery. Second appellate authority should be independent

Section 10 (1)(a)  of this bill says Where the First Appellate Authority is of the  opinion that the Designated Officer has failed to provide notified service without sufficient and reasonable cause, then he shall impose a penalty subject to such maximum amount as may be specified by the State Government from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette:

This is the trick to kill the act before its inception. If penalty provision is not made in the act itself, babus will time and again try to minimize or remove it completely by mere notifications. And what is not provided in the act cannot be added or changed by mere notifications. Some people feel that monitory penalty may have disastrous effect on the morale of the staff and   provision of it may become counterproductive. If that is the case then monitory penalty can be changed to jail term.

Section 12 of this bill says The Designated Officer or First Appellate Authority aggrieved by any order of Second Appellate Authority in respect of imposing of penalty may make an application for revision to such officer as may be nominated by the State Government within the period of sixty days from the date of such order, who shall dispose of the application according to the procedure as may be prescribed

This is something that is beyond imagination. This person will be super power full and super savior for the defaulter designated officers and first appellate authorities. This provision will be more dangerous in case of 2nd appellate being independent one. It appears from this clause that senior bureaucracy is in mood of establishing its separate kingdom.

Section    15.   (1) of this bill says  The defaults on the part of Designated Officer to deliver notified services within stipulated time limit shall not be counted towards misconduct as the purpose and the aim is to sensitize the Designated Officers towards the aspirations of the eligible persons and to use information technology and adopt e-governance culture to deliver the notified services to the eligible persons within stipulated time.

Every attempt is being made to defend designated officers. In section 15 (2) only administrative action has been provided.

Section15  (4) of this bill says  To encourage and enhance the efficiency of the Designated Officer, it shall be lawful for the head of the Public Authority to recommend cash incentive of such amount as may be notified by the Government in favour of a Designated Officer against whom no default is reported in a year and officers who are delivering services before the stipulated time limit.

There should be incentive for good work. but the amount of such cash incentive should also be in act itself. It should not be kept open to be modified by senior authorities by notifications


In this entire bill there is no provision of compensation or any other relief to the applicant.

Related Story


Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis


RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.


RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist

Phone – 9923299199
Email – kvijay14@gmail.com
Website – http://surajya.org