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
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/kvijay14
Twitter - https://twitter.com/Vijaykumbhar62
Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/kvijay14
