Report on Right to Service Act, 2015 Maharashtra Implementation

Cover:

This report is prepared by the Law Interns of Public Concern for Government Trust (PCGT) under the
close guidance of Shri Julio Rebeiro, retired Indian Police Officer and Civil Servant who is a founder
trustee of PCGT and Mr. D. S. Ranga Rao, former officer of Intelligence Bureau and retired civil
servant and present RTI Activist at PCGT. The report is prepared on basis of field visit conducted by
the interns at various government offices to monitor the implementation of Right to Service Act with
the approval of the RTS Chief Commissioner Mr. Swadheen Kshatriya.

The sole purpose of the RTS act is to provide services to the citizens by the State Government in a
transparent, efficient and time bound manner so as to curb corruption practices by delinquent
public officers.

Need to check the implementation of RTS Act was felt by many activist and citizens of Maharashtra
as even after this laudable Act being enacted, the true purpose of the act is not being served due to
many unrevealed reasons. Hence, the interns conducted a brief and informative study by visiting the
State’s Government Offices to find out these reasons and ways to tackle the obstacles for failure in
the implementation of the Act and draw recommendations to make reforms and amendments in the
concerned Act.

List of Interns responsible for conducting the field study and report:

Bhuvnesh Saini – Tata Institute of Social Sciences – Pursuing LL.M in Access to Justice

Avneesh Bharti – Tata Institute of Social Sciences – Pursuing LL.M in Access to Justice

Salmanul Fasil – Tata Institute of Social Sciences – Pursuing LL.M in Access to Justice

Vidhi Maniar – Jitendra Chauhan College of Law – Pursuing 2nd Year LL.B (3 Years Course)

Kanchi Trivedi – Jitendra Chauhan College of Law – Pursuing 2nd Year LL.B (3 Years Course)

Apoorva Jain – Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur – Pursuing 2nd Year LL.B (3 Years Course)

Purvi Shrivastava- Government Law College – Pursuing 2nd Year LL.B (5 Years Course)

The details of each Visit is enclosed separately for the better perusal of the examiner.
Serial No. Name of the Office Location Date of Visit
1 RTS Commissioner’s office Nariman 10th September, 2018
Point
2 D-Ward BMC Office Grant 11th September, 2018
Road
3 Office of District Collector of Old 14th September, 2018
Bombay City Custom
House,
Fort
4 Visit of Maha Online Official to PCGT 17th September, 2018
PCGT
5 Maharashtra Housing and Area Bandra 21st September, 2018
Development Authority (MHADA)
6 Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) Bandra 21st September, 2018

7 Office of District Collector, Mumbai Bandra 24th September, 2018

Suburban
8 Tehsildar Office Andheri 24th September, 2018
Observations at BMC Office, D-Ward

1. Display of Information as stipulated under section 3(2) of Right to Service Act, 2015 of
Maharashtra
 Notice Board regarding Number of Services being notified and offered to public including
name of the service, stipulated time, stipulated fees, name of designated officer, name of the
first and second appellate authorities not adequately displayed.
 No Display of Aaple Sarkar Information for online application.
 Notice Board was displayed outside the office only in Marathi language under the name of
RTS Act, 2015.
 Only 4 services were displayed with incomplete information as regards to stipulated form and
fee.
 Notice Board was not updated till date regarding services offered and some were removed
due to construction as told by official.

2. Knowledge of Right to Service Act, 2015 of Maharashtra amongst the Government Officials
 They have very little knowledge about the Act.
 Confusion between RTS and RTI Act.
 No clarity about the designated officers and appellate authorities.
 According to an official, circular regarding notified services under RTS Act was received but
no guidelines regarding implementation was given.
 No knowledge of Aaple Sarkar portal.
 No Knowledge about RTS App.

3. Awareness amongst general public regarding RTS Act.

 No Knowledge of the act.
 No knowledge of Aaple Sarkar portal.
 No knowledge of RTS App.

Conclusion: The staff at the D-Ward office are not very people friendly and does not give appropriate
information to the applicants regarding documents to be attached with their application. Also some
of the applicants were asked to wait for their documents beyond the stipulated period of time
mentioned under the act.

Recommendations:

 Officials needs to be trained freshly about the Right to Service Act to clear the confusion
between RTS and RTI
 Awareness needs to be created amongst officials and staff regarding Aaple Sarkar
 New Boards displaying accurate information about the services being provided as under
section 3(2) of the RTS Act.
Observation at District Collector Office Bombay City, Fort

1. Display of Information as stipulated under section 3(2) of Right to Service Act, 2015 of
Maharashtra.
 Notice Board regarding Number of Services being notified and offered to public including
name of the service, stipulated time, stipulated fees, name of designated officer, name of the
first and second appellate authorities was displayed
 Notice Board was displayed outside the office only in Marathi language under the name of
RTS Act, 2015.
 14 services were displayed with incomplete information as regards to stipulated form and
fee.
 Information regarding online process of application through Aaple Sarkar portal was
displayed on notice boards.
 Information regarding SETU Seva Kendra with address was also displayed.

2. Knowledge of Right to Service Act, 2015 of Maharashtra amongst the Government Officials
 The officials have knowledge of the Act although not in detail.
 Confusion between RTS and RTI Act was also found amongst the officials.
 There was clarity about the designated officers and appellate authorities.
 Lack of knowledge of Aaple Sarkar and RTS online Portal.

3. Awareness amongst general public regarding RTS Act.

 No Knowledge of the act.
 No knowledge of Aaple Sarkar and RTS Online although the notice regarding the same was
displayed.
 Only one window to accept all applications because of which there was a lot of chaos
amongst the public due to long waiting hours.

Conclusion: The officials co-operated with the interns as Mr. Julio Rebeiro Sir had already intimated
them about the interns visit to their office. The copies of statistics for the online application received
since year 2015 up till year 2019 of ABCD ward of Mumbai District was given with the copy of 2
written reason for rejection of an application which lead us to understand that written reasons are
given to the applicant only at the collector’s office and not in the ward offices.

One of the important observations made was even after the display of notice about online portals
and list of Aaple Sarkar Seva Kendra outside Setu Office, citizens don’t care to read and opt for
offline process due to which they face issues.

Recommendations:

 Awareness needs to be created amongst officials and staff regarding Aaple Sarkar.
 As there is a lot of waiting in the que, there can be a setup of one more window so that the
applicants can be diverted.
 Every official is burdened with many duties apart from the designated duty so provisions can
be made for more staff for timely disposal of duties.
 As told to us by one of the designated officers, the the peak season for receiving a lot of
applications for services under RTS i.e. June-September during which the college admissions
are in process for which an extra window can be arranged to receive manual applications.
 Observations at Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority

1. Display of Information as stipulated under section 3(2) of Right to Service Act, 2015 of
Maharashtra.
 Notice Board regarding Number of Services being notified and offered to public including
name of the service, stipulated time, stipulated fees, name of designated officer, name of
the first and second appellate authorities had been displayed but not under the name of
RTS and only in Marathi language
 Currently 11 services are notified but are being provided through Mitra Pranali (MHADA’s
initiative for transparent and responsive action).
 No information regarding online process of application through Aaple Sarkar portal or
through RTS app was displayed on notice boards.
 There was no mention of Right to Service anywhere in the office.

2. Knowledge of Right to Service Act, 2015 of Maharashtra amongst the Government Officials

 Public Relation Officer was well aware with the RTS Act but MHADA was providing services
through Mitra Pranali (MHADA’s initiative for transparent and responsive action).
 They were following the procedure laid down by RTS Act but not under the name of Right
to Service.

3. Awareness amongst general public regarding RTS Act.

 No Knowledge of the act.

 No knowledge of Aaple Sarkar portal.
 No knowledge of RTS App.
 As the work was thoroughly done through Mitra Pranali, hence, citizens were having
knowledge regarding the same.

Conclusion: MHADA solely functions through Mitra Pranali where there is no mention of RTS Act and
associated online Portals. Applicants were having satisfying experience at Mitra Pranali centre.

Recommendations:

 There should be a mention of RTS and Aaple Sarkar even if they are functioning through
different portals to bring as RTS is one of the most important rights of the citizens.
 All the information regarding the certificates are mentioned under the Right to
Information Act rather than Right to Services Act so the notice boards needs to be
updated.
Observation at Slum Rehabilitation Authority

1. Display of Information as stipulated under section 3(2) of Right to Service Act, 2015 of
Maharashtra.

 Notice Board with all information was displayed outside the office only in Marathi language
but not under the name of RTS Act, 2015.
 Currently 3 services are notified on board.
 No information regarding online process of application through Aaple Sarkar portal or
through RTS app was displayed on notice boards.

2. Knowledge of Right to Service Act, 2015 of Maharashtra amongst the Government Officials

 We went to see PRO of the office as he was on leave, we had a conversation with clerk who
had very little knowledge regarding RTS Act and we were not given permission to meet any
other official.

3. Awareness amongst general public regarding RTS Act.

 No Knowledge of the act.

 No knowledge of Aaple Sarkar portal.
 No knowledge of RTS App.
Observations at Office of District Collector, Mumbai Suburban (Bandra)

1. Display of Information as stipulated under section 3(2) of Right to Service Act, 2015 of
Maharashtra
 No Notice Board was displayed outside the office under the name of RTS Act, 2015.
 No information regarding online process of application through Aaple Sarkar portal or
through RTS app was displayed on notice boards.

2. Knowledge of Right to Service Act, 2015 of Maharashtra amongst the Government Officials
 They have very little knowledge about the Act.
 No clarity about the designated officers and appellate authorities.
 No Knowledge about RTS App.

3. Awareness amongst general public regarding RTS Act.

 No Knowledge of the act.
 No knowledge of Aaple Sarkar portal.
 No knowledge of RTS App.
Observation at Tehsildar Office, Andheri

1. Display of Information as stipulated under section 3(2) of Right to Service Act, 2015 of
Maharashtra.

 The display board had all the details as per the Act.
 The board was in Marathi language only.
 Currently 10 services displayed on the board along with the required documents.
 No Board has been displayed for Aaple Sarkar and RTS Online services

2. Knowledge of Right to Service Act, 2015 of Maharashtra amongst the Government Officials

 The Tehsildar was busy in a meeting hence we addressed our questions and queries to a
clerk who was helpful but due to work load he did not provide much details.
 Confusion between RTS and RTI Act.
 According to the official, there are no complaints regarding the delivery of services.
 No Knowledge about RTS App.
 No online process for applications, only offline method available.

3. Awareness amongst general public regarding RTS Act.

 No Knowledge of the Act.

 No knowledge of Aaple Sarkar portal.
 No knowledge of RTS App.
Standard points to be checked in every public office

 Determination of Public Services- There is no common consensus among officials that what
can come under service and in what manner and who is competent to determine any act or
rendering as public services. Although section 2(m) talks about public services but does not
give any definition and furthermore under section 3 public authorities get more discretion to
decide any service as public service in the name of notification.
 Determination of Eligible Person – There is no comprehensive definition of “eligible
person”. Although section 2(g) says that a person who is eligible for obtaining services but
again there is confusion that a person who is citizen of India and resident of Maharashtra
and fulfils some requirements by any public authority as declared in notification is eligible.
Here the question arises a person who is resident of Maharashtra and citizen of India but
does not fulfill some requirements as declared in notification whether he/ she is ineligible
for getting any service and whether public authorities have such power or discretion to
declare that.
 Matters Incidental or Connected with Public Services- What kind of matters or rendering of
something to eligible person may be incidental or connected with public services, the Act
does not clarify or give any definition. Perhaps, no notification on the part of public
authority declares any matter as incidental or connected with public services. Here, again
public authorities have discretion to decide through the notification.
 Public Authorities (As Whole or Head or Subordinates) - During our visit to different
Government Offices, It came to conclusion that officials are confused despite of section 2 (l)
which defines the term ‘public authority’ in terms of notification as well as governance and
self reliance under this Act.
There should be a clear guideline and declaration on the part of Government as well as
public authorities like list of Government Organizations as well as NGOs owned or controlled
or financed by the Government as provided under section 2(l) of this Act.
 Process of Designation of Officers - There is no criteria to designate officers. It is on public
authority issuing notification to designate officers as per section 3 of this Act. There should
be fixed guideline and criteria to designate officers and to promote those officers
transparently, efficiently delivering services to people in time bound manners.
 Other Statutory Bodies and Non-Statutory Bodies – There should be clear guideline on
notification of services under these bodies. It should be made available along with the Act.
 Process of Notification(any guidelines for a time period) – Notification of services as
provided under section 3 gives much discretion to public authorities notifying services
regarding inclusion of services in notification and decide time period stipulated for providing
services. Nothing is clear that what time public authorities will will take to give services.
That’s why they are notifying services selectively and stipulating time which is convenient to
them or their departments.
 Display of Services(Manually or By Electronic Medium) – Public authorities are supposed to
display each and every service outside of each office delivering services but authorities are
not aware of it as well as avoiding display. There is no independent portal for this Act. All
authorities have their own mechanism to deliver services online. There should be only one
portal for entire state of Maharashtra and one mechanism for manual application. In
Present, Aaple Sarkar, RTS App, MCGM and BMC have its own online portal and App.
 Acknowledgment of application and UID No. – Manual applications are not being provided
UID No.
 Recording of Reason and Communication By Designated Officer – In case of rejection of
application reason is being recorded under this Act but in case of delay no communication is
being done by Designated Officers to applicant if any requirement is not fulfilled by applicant
at the time of making application. There is no provision in the Act to mandate for recording
of this reason.
 Promotion of ICT and Training by Govt.
 Penalties and Repeated Offenders
 Appeal(First, Second and Third)
 Constitution of Commission and Facilities Available to it.
 Culture of Service Delivery
 False and Frivolous Information from Applicant
 Compliance of RTS Commission’ s Order to notify all services