Comments and suggestions on the Right to Services Bill presented to the Legislature.

One major flaw in the bill is that there are three levels of appeals;- the First appellate authority,

Second appellate authority and the State Right to Service Commission. Neither RTI nor the judicial system of India, have three levels of appeals. This is absolutely unnecessary and will lead to prolonging of matters in a very simple matter. There should not be more than two levels of appeals.

The amount of penalties suggested is too low since it is pegged to 500 to 5000 rupees.

This should be raised to atleast 1000 to 20000 rupees to be a deterrent.

There should be a provision for compensation being given to the applicant in case of harassment.

There should be provision of a deemed designated officer, who may be responsible and identified by the designated officer.

The services should not be a separate list and they should be the ones listed in the citizen charter and the stipulated time should also be the one promised in the citizen charter.

If Act 21 of 2006 and a better version of this bill are implemented, Maharashtra can look forward to an era of good governance through citizen empowerment.

Changes suggested:

Section 1 (3) It shall come into force within 60 days of the passing of the Bill2

Section 2 (m) ‘public services’ means such services as are mentioned in the citizen charter of the public authority4

Section 2 (p) “Stipulated time limit” means the maximum time as notified under section 3 mentioned in the citizens charter within which the notified services have to be provided by the Designated Officer

Section 3 (1) Delete and substitute All public authorities required to provide services mentioned in the schedule shall nominate one or more designated officers in all its offices which are required to provide services to eligible persons. If no designated officer has been nominated, the head of the office will be deemed to be the designated officer.7

Section 4 (2) . If technical or financial feasibility does not exist the designated officer shall inform the eligible person within one week.8 Should be added.

Section 5 (1) Stipulated time should start when the application reaches the office of the designated officer.

Section 5 (2) The word sanction should be removed. Otherwise sanctioning of service without providing it, will be deemed to be compliance with the law.

Section 8 (1) . If no first appellate authority has been appointed the Joint Secretary of the concerned department shall be the first appellate authority.11 Should be added

Section 9 (1) Should also cover cases where application is not taken by designated officer.

Section 10 (1) (b) . When deciding such a second appeal where the designated officer has not complied with the order of the first appellate authority, the second appellate authority shall impose a penalty on him17. Should be added.

Section 11 should include : The appellate authority shall send an order imposing penalty to the ‘accounts officer’ of the said public authority, who shall deduct the penalty from the salary of the

officer 19

(c) If the designated officer contends that the delay was on account of some other officer he shall disclose this to the first appellate authority during the hearing who shall be deemed designated officer. The deemed designated officer shall attend the hearing with the designated officer. If the first appellate authority accepts the contention that the deemed designated officer is responsible.

Section 16 (1) (h) should be added: Recommend improving the citizen charter and its provisions

Section 20 (2) should be deleted, since it sounds like an apology for asking designated officers to perform as per the law.

Section 28 (1) The ules must be made within 30 days of the assent by the governor.