Constitution of the Maharashtra State Commission for Right to Services
Under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Right to Public Services Act, 2015, the State Government constitutes the Maharashtra State Commission for Right to Services through a notification in the Official Gazette, comprising a State Chief Commissioner with jurisdiction over Mumbai City and Suburban Districts and one State Commissioner for each Revenue Division excluding those areas. The Chief Commissioner and Commissioners are appointed by the Governor based on recommendations from a committee chaired by the Chief Minister, which includes the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly or the leader of the largest opposition group if none is recognized, and a nominated Cabinet Minister. Qualifications require members to be eminent persons in public life with extensive administrative experience in government or public authorities, while disqualifying those who are Members of Parliament or State Legislature, hold offices of profit, are connected to political parties, or engage in business or professions. They hold office for a term of five years or until age 65, whichever comes first, without eligibility for re-appointment, and must subscribe to an oath or affirmation before the Governor prior to assuming duties. Removal by the Governor is possible on grounds such as insolvency, conviction for moral turpitude, engagement in external employment, infirmity, or prejudicial financial interests, but only after an inquiry referenced to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and based on their recommendation. Salaries and service conditions for the Chief Commissioner align with those of the State Chief Information Commissioner, while Commissioners receive equivalents to the Chief Secretary, with provisions for staff support provided by the government.
Functioning of the Maharashtra State Commission for Right to Services
The Commission’s operations are under the general superintendence, direction, and management of the Chief Commissioner, who is assisted by the Commissioners in exercising all necessary powers and performing acts on behalf of the Commission as per Section 13(4). Members can resign by submitting a written notice to the Governor, and their service conditions, including salaries and allowances, cannot be adversely varied post-appointment. The government provides the Commission with required officers and employees, whose salaries and conditions are prescribed, ensuring administrative support for its activities. Functioning involves handling appeals against Second Appellate Authority orders within 60 days of receipt, disposing of them within 90 days after providing hearings to all parties under Section 18. The Commission prepares an annual report post-financial year on its operations and the evaluation of public service delivery by authorities, which the government presents to the State Legislature. Until fully constituted, the Commission’s powers and functions may be entrusted to Divisional Commissioners or other government officers for interim implementation.
Powers of the Maharashtra State Commission for Right to Services
As outlined in Section 16(1), the Commission holds broad powers to ensure the Act’s implementation, including taking suo motu notice of service delivery failures, conducting office inspections related to Designated Officers and Appellate Authorities, and recommending departmental inquiries or procedural changes for transparent and efficient public services. It can impose, vary, or cancel penalties on Designated Officers or First Appellate Authorities during appeals, and order refunds of penalties already paid, while also recommending steps to enhance service delivery by Public Authorities. In inquiries, the Commission exercises powers equivalent to a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, such as summoning witnesses, enforcing evidence on oath, discovering documents, receiving affidavits, requisitioning public records, and issuing commissions for examinations. The State Government must consider the Commission’s recommendations on inquiries, procedural changes, or efficiency improvements and inform it of actions taken within 30 days or an agreed period under Section 17. Additionally, the Commission monitors overall service delivery and can suggest broader systemic improvements to promote accountability and timeliness in public administration. These powers are designed to provide final oversight, with the Commission’s decisions being conclusive within the Act’s framework, barring external judicial interventions except through constitutional remedies.
Defaulting Officer under the Maharashtra Right to Public Services Act, 2015
MRPS Act does not formally define or use the term “Defaulting Officer” as a specific legal category or defined term in its provisions, such as in Section 2 on definitions. Instead, the Act refers to officers who fail or default in their duties, primarily the Designated Officer, defined in Section 2(e) as “an officer who is required to provide public services to the eligible person”, as the main entity held accountable for defaults like delays in service delivery, improper rejections, or non-compliance with appellate directions. In common usage, secondary sources, government websites, and explanatory materials, such as departmental portals or commission reports, often describe such a Designated Officer or occasionally a First Appellate Authority as a “defaulting officer” when they fail to provide notified public services within the stipulated time limit without sufficient and reasonable cause. This informal term highlights the officer responsible for the lapse, triggering penalties, recovery, and potential disciplinary actions to enforce accountability and timely service delivery.
Consequences for the Defaulting Officer i.e. Primarily Designated Officer
Under Section 10(1), if the First Appellate Authority finds that the Designated Officer has failed to provide the public service without sufficient and reasonable cause, a monetary penalty ranging from a minimum of ₹500 to a maximum of ₹5,000 or such revised amount notified by the State Government is imposed. The Second Appellate Authority can confirm or vary this penalty under Section 10(1)(b), while the State Commission can further impose, vary, or cancel penalties during appeals under Section 18. A reasonable opportunity of hearing must be provided to the officer before any penalty is levied, aligning with principles of natural justice. For repeated failures, where the Designated Officer commits defaults in 10% or more of total eligible cases received in a year, as explained in Section 20(3), the officer is deemed a “repeated defaulter,” leading to additional administrative actions by the head of the Public Authority after a show-cause notice and hearing.
Recovery and Disciplinary Actions
Section 11 governs recovery. The penalty amount is communicated in writing, and the officer must pay it within 30 days; failure to do so results in direct recovery from the officer’s salary by the Competent Authority i.e. defined in Section 2(c) as the Disciplinary Authority or Controlling Officer. This salary deduction mechanism ensures prompt enforcement without needing separate legal proceedings. For repeated defaults or persistent non-compliance, Section 12 requires the Competent Authority, upon intimation from the Second Appellate Authority or Commission, to issue a show-cause notice within 15 days, allowing the officer to respond within another 15 days. If the explanation is unsatisfactory, appropriate disciplinary proceedings are initiated under the applicable Conduct and Discipline Rules, supplemental to the Act as per Section 22. The head of the Public Authority can also take administrative action against repeated defaulters under Section 20(3), following natural justice principles.
Overall Purpose and Scope
These provisions target the Designated Officer as the primary “defaulting” entity to promote efficiency, transparency, and deterrence against delays or negligence in public service delivery. While the First Appellate Authority can face penalties under Section 10(2) for repeated failures or protecting erring officers, the focus remains on the Designated Officer as the frontline provider. The Act’s framework ensures that defaults lead to financial, disciplinary, and administrative consequences, ultimately strengthening citizen rights to timely services without granting blanket immunity to officials. In practice, this accountability mechanism has been highlighted in various government and commission documents as key to reducing corruption and inefficiency in Maharashtra’s public administration.
References:
1. The Maharashtra Right To Public Service Act, 2015
2. The Maharashtra Right To Public Service Rules, 2015
3. “Standard Operating Procedure for issue of licenses/permits, payment of dues under Ease of Doing Business initiative” Government of Maharashtra Urban Development Department. Government Resolution No:- Sankeerna-2019/Pra. Kra. 180/Navi-20 Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 Date: 14 August, 2019.
4. “Maharashtra Right to Public Services Act, 2015”, Public Works Department, available at: https://pwd.maharashtra.gov.in/rts/, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
5. “Recovery / waiver of the wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants.” Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training
6. “Frequently Asked Questions On Maharashtra Right Tо Public Services Act, 2015 And Maharashtra Right To Public Services Rules, 2016”, Compiled By: Shri. Annasaheb D. Chavan.
7. “Right to Public Services Act, 2015”, Shivraj Borade, available at: https://shivrajborade.wordpress.com/2022/08/29/right-to-public-services-act2015/, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
8. “Right To Service” Directorate of Municipal Administration, available at: https://mahadma.maharashtra.gov.in/en/rts, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
9. “RTS Act-2015, By Manu Kumar Srivastava , IAS (Retd.) (Chief Commissioner for Right to Service)” Mahaseva News Channel on YouTube, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRg1DO9N90g, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
10. “A Difficult Law to Implement: The Right to Public Services Act, 2015”, Shailesh Gandhi, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, No. 43 (OCTOBER 24, 2015)
11. “This Act empowers citizens to demand notified services as a matter of right”, Geetanjali Meenhas, Governance Now, Dt. 8.8.2024, available at: https://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/this-act-empowers-citizens-to-demand-notified-services-as-a-matter-of-right, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
12. “State government to ensure recovery of fines from errant PIOs”, Prasad Joshi, The Times of India, Dt. 16.2.2015, available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/state-government-to-ensure-recovery-of-fines-from-errant-pios/articleshow/46257149.cms, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
13. “Right To Service In India”, Kuljit Singh, 8(1) DLR (2016), available at: https://www.dehradunlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/7-Right-to-service-in-India.pdf, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
14. “A Review of the Right to Time-bound Delivery of Public Services in India”, Santulan Chaubey, Kritika Mathur, and Dinesh Taneja, Sage Journal, Volume 71, Issue 4, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00195561251397539?download=true, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
15. “The Maharashtra State Commission for Right to Public Services: First Annual Report: 2017-18” Office of State Chief Commissioner for Right to Public Service.
16. “How Maharashtra trying to popularise Right to Services Act, brainchild of CM Fadnavis” Pooja Bhatia, The Print, Dt. 15.5.2025, available at: https://theprint.in/india/governance/how-maharashtra-trying-to-popularise-right-to-services-act-brainchild-of-cm-fadnavis/2626859/, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
17. “Maharashtra Drags Its Feet on the Right to Services Act while Karnataka Surges Ahead” Vinita Deshmukh, Moneylife, Dt. 10.11.2021, available at: https://www.moneylife.in/article/maharashtra-drags-its-feet-on-the-right-to-services-act-while-karnataka-surges-ahead/65566.html, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
18. “Fifteen Suggested Legal Reforms for Maharashtra: Briefing Book for 2021” Vidhi Maharashtra, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.
19. “10 years after RTS Act, 43% of Maha govt services missing from digital portal” Nisha Nambar, Times of India, Dt. 26.4.2025, available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/10-years-after-rts-act-43-of-maha-govt-services-missing-from-digital-portal/articleshow/120629084.cms, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
20. “Is the proposed Maharashtra Guarantee of Public Services Bill toothless?” Vinita Deshmukh, Moneylie, Dt. 16.2.2015, available at: https://www.moneylife.in/article/is-the-proposed-maharashtra-guarantee-of-public-services-bill-toothless/40496.html, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
21. ‘Maharashtra Right to Services Bill vague, ineffective’, Omar Rashid, The Hindu, Dt. 11.2.2015, available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/maharashtra-right-to-services-bill-vague-ineffective/article6883185.ece, Last Visited on 13.2.2026.
Thanks for reading this part of the article series. Please bookmark this site for legal knowledge in simple and to know your rights. Share this article. Comment your opinion on the Right to Public Service in the comment box below.