IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.645 OF 2007
Centre for Environment & Food Security ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
ORDER
The framers of the Constitution, in the Preamble to the
Constitution, guaranteed to secure its citizens justice, social,
economic and political as well as equality of status and opportunity
but the `right to employment' was not incorporated in Part III of the
Constitution as a Fundamental Right. By judicial pronouncements,
the courts expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and included various facets of life as rights protected under the
said Article despite the fact that they had not been incorporated by
specific language in Part III by the framers of the Constitution.
Judgments of this Court in the cases of Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation [(1985) 3 SCC 545] and Narendra Kumar
2
Chandla v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 460] expanded the scope
of Article 21 and held that `right to livelihood' is integral part of the
`right to life'. Taking cognizance of the stark reality that majority of the
Indian population (about 76%) is residing in rural areas and
unemployment was the greatest challenge before any State or the
Central Government, the Parliament decided to enact a law to
provide rural employment to restricted persons as stated in such law.
This resulted in enactment of the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short, `the Act'). As per the preamble of the
Act, it was an enactment to provide for enhancement of livelihood
security of households in the rural areas of the country by providing at
least hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every
financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to
do unskilled manual work and for matters connected therewith and
incidental thereto. Even the object and reasons of this enactment
demonstrate that objective of the legislation is to enhance the
livelihood security of the poor households in rural areas and the
Government including the State Government was required to prepare
a scheme to give effect to the guarantee proposed under the
legislation. Another paramount feature of the Act was that if an
3
eligible applicant is not provided work as per the provisions of this
legislation within the prescribed time limit, it will be obligatory on the
part of the State Government to pay unemployment allowance at the
prescribed rate. This Act was to extend to whole of India and was to
come into force on such date as the Central Government by
notification in the official Gazette may appoint. This Act was later
amended by Amending Act 46 of 2009 (w.e.f. October 2, 2009) and
titled as `Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act, 2005'.
A Constitution Bench of this court in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], while dealing with
the question that the persons appointed under the provisions of the
Act would be entitled to regular appointment, rejected the claim of the
Respondents for regularisation and made certain significant
observations which read as under :
"51. The argument that the right to life
protected by Article 21 of the Constitution
would include the right to employment cannot
also be accepted at this juncture. The law is
dynamic and our Constitution is a living
document. May be at some future point of
time, the right to employment can also be
brought in under the concept of right to life or
even included as a fundamental right. The
new statute is perhaps a beginning. As things
now stand, the acceptance of such a plea at
4
the instance of the employees before us
would lead to the consequence of depriving a
large number of other aspirants of an
opportunity to compete for the post or
employment. Their right to employment, if it is
a part of right to life, would stand denuded by
the preferring of those who have got in
casually or those who have come through the
backdoor. The obligation cast on the State
under Article 39(a) of the Constitution is to
ensure that all citizens equally have the right
to adequate means of livelihood. It will be
more consistent with that policy if the courts
recognise that an appointment to a post in
government service or in the service of its
instrumentalities, can only be by way of a
proper selection in the manner recognised by
the relevant legislation in the context of the
relevant provisions of the Constitution. In the
name of individualising justice, it is also not
possible to shut our eyes to the constitutional
scheme and the right of the numerous as
against the few who are before the court. The
directive principles of State policy have also to
be reconciled with the rights available to the
citizen under Part III of the Constitution and
the obligation of the State to one and all and
not to a particular group of citizens. We,
therefore, overrule the argument based on
Article 21 of the Constitution."
Thus, in the present petition, this Court has to examine the
relief claimed within the provisions of the Act and the principles of law
stated by the Court in the referred judgments.
The present writ petition had been instituted by Centre for
Environment and Food Security for issuance of appropriate directions
to the respondents (Union of India and all the States were impleaded
5
as respondents) for formation of appropriate schemes and proper
utilization of funds allocated for the said purpose and to achieve the
object of the Act. The petitioners claimed to have carried out a
survey, copy of which is annexed as `Annexure-A' to the Writ Petition
showing that neither the schemes framed under the provisions of the
Act nor the provisions of the Act are being properly implemented. The
funds allocated are also not being properly utilized. In fact, the
allegation is that the funds are being siphoned by corrupt officials and
officers, thereby, denying lakhs of poor people their fundamental right
to livelihood. It was, thus, prayed that the Court should issue
appropriate directions to ensure proper and equitable functioning of
the Act and the scheme envisaged thereunder. Further, they prayed
that social audit of all activities undertaken and executed under the
auspices of the Act and the schemes made therein should be
conducted properly and the information in this regard should be
posted on the website. The Court should also formulate some
guidelines for paying the workers their wages in a bid to reduce the
exchange of cash to a minimum and to ensure that transfer of funds
to the workers is through a safe and easily traceable route. Besides
praying for some other reliefs, prayer is also made to order CBI probe
6
or thorough inquiry by a special commission of inquiry appointed by
the Court in the scam brought out in the said survey, particularly, with
reference to Orissa.
Before, we proceed to examine the response of the
respondents and consequential directions that the Court should pass,
it will be necessary to examine some of the relevant provisions of the
Act. The Act mandates that the Central Council and State Councils
should be constituted in terms of Sections 10(1) and 12 of the Act.
Chapters II and III deal with guarantee of employment in rural areas,
employment guarantee schemes and unemployment allowances.
Section 3(1) casts an obligation upon the State Government to
provide to every household, whose adult members volunteer to do
unskilled manual work, employment for not less than one hundred
days of such work in a financial year in accordance with the scheme
made under the Act in such rural area in the State as may be notified
by the Central Government. Section 3(4) further requires that the
Central Government or the State Government may within the limits of
its economic capacity and development, make provisions for securing
work to every adult member of a household under a Scheme for any
period beyond the period guaranteed under sub-section (1), as may
7
be expedient. In terms of Section 4, every State Government shall,
within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, by
notification, make a scheme for complying with the provisions of
Section 3. Proviso to this Section requires that until any scheme is
notified by the State Government, the Annual Action Plan or
Perspective Plan for the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojna (SGRY)
or the National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP) shall be deemed
to be the action plan for the scheme. It is obligatory on the part of the
State to provide in the scheme the minimum features specified in
Schedule I. Section 6 carves out an exception to the provisions of
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Central Government has
been empowered to specify, by notification, the wages different than
that Act which shall not be at a rate less than Rs.60/- per day.
Section 7 is another important provision of the Act which requires that
where an applicant is not given employment within 15 days of the
receipt of his application seeking employment, he shall be entitled to
receive daily unemployment allowance. This allowance shall cease
on attainment of the conditions stated in Section 7(3). Under Section
8(1), obligation is placed on the Programme Officer that if he is not in
a position to disburse the unemployment allowance, in time or at all,
8
for any reason beyond his control, he is required to report the matter
to District Programme Coordinator and to even display the same on
the notice boards. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has opted not to
leave the matter at that stage but have made a provision where the
State Government, under Section 8(3), is required to take all
measures to make the payment of unemployment allowance to the
concerned household as expeditiously as possible. Section 9
declares the circumstances where a person would be disentitled to
receive unemployment allowance in certain cases. They are very
restricted circumstances like where he does not accept the
employment provided, does not report for work within fifteen days of
being notified by the Programme Officer and continuously remains
absent from work without obtaining a permission from the concerned
implementing agency for a period of more than one week or remains
absent for a total period of more than one week in any month. Thus,
the scheme of the Act clearly contemplates a statutory obligation
upon the State and the concerned departments to ensure due
compliance of the scheme framed and, in absence thereof, to ensure
that the provisions of the Act are adhered to. The object of the Act is
clear that the Legislature, in unequivocal terms, has expressed its
9
intent to ensure employment and payment of allowances to the
respective household and the exception is primarily founded on the
unwillingness of the recipient to work.
The functions of the Central Council have been spelt out in
Section 11 while that of the State Councils in Section 12(3). It is a
statutory obligation on these Councils to advice the Government on
all matters concerning the scheme and its implementation in the State
including promotion of widest possible dissemination of information
about the scheme made under this Act, establishment of central
evaluation and monitoring system etc. In other words, this whole
machinery has been set up to ensure smooth and effective
implementation of the provisions of the Act. Besides constituting
these Councils which are expected to function at higher lever, the
Legislature has required constitution of bodies and functionaries at
the grass root level, i.e. District, intermediary and Gram Panchayat
level. In terms of Section 17, the Gram Sabha shall monitor the
execution of the work within the Gram Panchayat and there shall be
regular social audit of all the projects under the scheme. In terms of
Section 19, the State Government is required to make rules and
determine appropriate grievance redressal mechanisms at the Block
10
and the District levels for dealing with any complaint by any person in
respect of implementation of the scheme. Chapter-V requires
establishment of National and State employment Guarantee Funds
and Audit. In other words, these funds are to be created for ensuring
the effective implementation of the schemes. Under Section 20(2),
the Central Government can credit, by way of grants or loans, such
sums of money as the Central Government may consider necessary
to the National Fund which will be utilized in such manner and subject
to conditions, as may be provided by that Government. The intention
of the Legislature is that it wants the provisions of the Act to be
enforced and fix responsibility on the persons causing impediments in
its execution. Those who act contrary to the provisions of the Act are
liable to conviction and fine under Section 25 which may extend to
Rs.1000/-. The Central Government is further empowered to issued
directions under Section 27 of the Act for effective implementation of
the provisions of the Act and has powers to examine any complaint
regarding issue or improper utilization of funds granted under this Act
in respect of any scheme and to take remedial measures and even to
stop release of funds to the scheme in such condition. The
provisions of this Act have been given precedence and shall prevail
11
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for
the time being in force or even in any instrument having effect by
virtue of such law.
The legislative scheme of the Act clearly places the `right to
livelihood' at a higher pedestal than a mere legal right. Conjunct
reading of the afore referred provisions of the Act demonstrates that
the legislature desired to provide minimum one hundred days of
employment to one person in the family to ensure that the members
of the family do not starve and are able to make their ends meet with
reference to the bare minimum requirements for existence. The Act
provides constitution of fora and functionaries right from the higher
levels in the Central and State Governments to the grass-root levels
at Block and Panchayat. The powers of the Central Government are
very wide. They have to ensure that there is proper utilisation of
funds allocated and in the event of any misappropriation or siphoning
of such funds the Central or the State Governments shall not only to
examine such complaints but is commanded by law to stop the
financing to such scheme and take remedial measures immediately.
Where persons are found contravening the law they are required to
be punished in accordance with law. Central and State Governments
12
have been vested with wide powers only with the purpose to ensure
that the schemes under the Act are implemented appropriately,
effectively and the money in the form of allowances reaches the
poorest strata of the society. The ones, irrespective of their stature
in the hierarchy of the Government, who are obstructing the
implementation of the law needs to be dealt with and punished as per
the provisions of the Act.
As already noticed, in the report of the survey conducted by the
petitioner, reference to various States has been made with respect to
malfunctioning and improper implementation of the schemes framed
under the provisions of the Act. Since State of Orissa is accused of
maximum violations and complete non-adherence to the law, for the
present, we are dealing only with the State of Orissa as a defaulting
State while leaving the others. The allegations relate to siphoning of
funds, non-framing of guidelines and improper declaration and
implementation of the schemes in that State. Instead of referring to
the allegations in greater detail it will be appropriate for us to refer to
the relevant portions of `Annexure-A' to the Writ Petition which reads
as under:
13
"You may have heard about the
loopholes and irregularities in implementation
of the National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act (NREGA), the biggest anti-poverty
scheme in the history of India. The State of
Orissa, however, does not have any loopholes
or irregularities in the implementation of this
high-profile rural job scheme. In a random
survey conducted in 100 villages of Orissa's 6
districts, we found only blackholes and serious
irregularities as the only regular thing in all
these villages. Our calculations suggest that
about 75 per cent of the NREGA funds spent
in Orissa have being siphoned and pocketed
by the government officials and this loot has
been very participatory and organized.
This survey was conducted during May-
June 2007 by Delhi-based Centre for
Environment and Food Security (CEFS) to
access and evaluate the performance of
National Rural Employment Guarantee
Scheme (NREGS) in the state of Orissa. The
survey was carried out in 100 villages spread
over six districts of KBK (Kalahandi-Bolangir-
Koraput) region, namely; Bolangir, Nuapada,
Kalahandi, Koraput, Nabarangpur and
Rayagada.
The findings of CEFS survey are
shocking, scandalous and outrageous. The
Rural Employment Gurantee Scheme in
Orissa has been virtually hijacked by officials
responsible for the implementation of this
scheme. Our survey findings have revealed
that there is participatory loot, plunder and
pillage in Orissa's rural job scheme. There is
open loot of taxpayers' money, there is
plunder of poors' right to guaranteed wage
employment for 100 days and there is pillage
14
of every single norm of democratic
governance and administrative accountability.
It is shocking to note that we could not
find a single case where entries in the job
cards are correct and match with the actual
number of workdays physically verified with
the villagers. Out of the 100 sample villages
covered for this survey, 18 villages have not
received any job card, 37 villages have not
received any job under NREGS even after 16
months of launch of the scheme, 11 villages
have received neither job cards nor any job,
Job cards of 23 villages were lying with VLWs
(Village Level Worker) and JEs (Junior
Engineer) for more than 6-8 months against
the will of card holders.
In 25 villages, only half, one third or
partial wage payments were made. In 20
villages, we found scandalous difference in
the number of workdays recorded in the job
cards and the number of actual workdays
given to the workers. There are 3 villages
where no wage payments have been made
even after 4-8 months of the works done. We
found 6 villages in Kashipur block of
Rayagada district where NREGS work was
being done without any job cards being issued
to the villagers.
As per the NREGA implementation
Status Report for the Financial Year 2006-07
(http://nrega.nic.in/state/nregampr.asp), the
total number of job cards issued in Orissa was
2593194. Orissa was able to provide 7.99
crore persondays of employment to 13,94,169
households spread over 19 districts of the
state. In other words, 13,94,169 families have
got an average of 57 days of wage
employment. This includes 3.93 crore
15
persondays of employment provided to
Adivasis (STs) and 1.89 crore persondays of
employment provided to Dalits (SCs). Orissa
also claims that 1,54,118/families in the state
completed 100 days of wage employment
during 2006-07. But, our experience in 100
villages of Orissa suggests that all these
claims are bogus and manufactured only in
official records in order to siphon NREGS
funds.
Our back of the envelope calculations
suggests that less than 2 crore persondays of
employment has been provided on the ground
and more than 6 crore persondays of
employment has been provided only in the
pages of false job cards and fabricated muster
rolls. We could not find a single family in the
100 sample villages who had actually got 100
days of wage employment. We found very
few families who had got 40-60 days of wage
employment. The rest of the families, if at all
they have got any employment, it is mostly
between 5 to 21 days. However, online job
cards of most of these households have false
and fabricated job and wage entries for 108
days, 104 days, 102 days, 100 days, 96 days,
90 days, 84 days, 72 days, 65 days, 60 days,
52 days and so on. This is the way Orissa
Government has "successfully" spent Rs.733/-
crore and provided about 8 crore persondays
of employment.
Our back of the envelope calculations
suggest that out of Rs.733 crore spent in
Orissa during 2006-7, more than 500 crore
has been siphoned and pocketed by the
government officials of executing agencies. In
other words, less than 25 per cent of the
NREGS funds have reached the targeted
16
population and more than 75 per cent have
been eaten up by sarkari babus. There are
thousands of villages in Orissa where more
than 80-90 per cent of NREGS funds have
been misappropriated by the executing
officials.
According to the Government of Orissa,
each of the needy households in 19 districts of
the state was given on an average 57 days of
wage employment under NREGA during
2006-7. Our calculations suggest that only
about 5 days of average employment ahs
been given to the needy families in the 19
districts of Orissa where NREGA was
implemented during 2006-7. How have we
arrived at the figure of 5 days of average
employment? It is very simple."
The State of Orissa has filed two different reply affidavits. First
affidavit was filed on 10th July, 2009 while the second on 29th April,
2010. In these affidavits, the averments made in the said survey
report and the Writ Petition has been denied and it is averred that the
schemes are appropriately being implemented. It is stated that it is
not correct to say that 25% of the person-days have been provided
and 75% of the person-days are only shown in paper is not at all
correct, in view of the involvement of Palli Sabha, Gram Sabha, G.P.,
Block and Zilla Parishad as well as the district administration
including Collectors. Further by creating 799 lakhs of person-days
assets have been created like tanks, roads, plantations, forestry etc.
17
The allegation with regard to partial wage payment, discrepancy in
the number of working days recorded in the job cards vis-`-vis the
number of actual work days provided to the workers and further
averment with respect to Kasipur block, Raygara district regarding
execution of NREGS work without issuing any job-card are stated to
be false. It is, however admitted that for the year 2006-07 a sum of
Rs. 890 crores was allocated and Rs. 733 crores has been utilized. It
is denied that any amount thereof was misappropriated. In the latter
affidavit attempt has been made to show as to how the suggestions
made by the petitioner in their affidavits in relation to social audit,
transparency and grievance redressal and unemployment allowances
are to be dealt with. Regarding issuance of guidelines for proper
implementation of the schemes it was stated that once the
operational guidelines framed by the Central Government are made
mandatory, which are to be implemented by the State Government, it
would tell upon the federal character of the country and the State
Government should have no scope to improve upon the
implementation apparatus by infusing some innovations during
execution.
18
Affidavits have been filed by the Union of India on three
different occasions. Union of India claims to have notified the wage
rate in relation to different States and that rate has now been revised
to Rs. 100/- for the States who have approached the Ministry of Rural
Development for revision of the same. According to Central
Government it has been meeting the cost of implementing the Act
since its enactment. For strengthening the professional support for
transparency and accountability, the limit of administrative expenses
has been enhanced from 4% to 6% in March, 2009. Funds released
to the State Governments approximately constitute about 70% as
wage component and 30% as material component. In the year 2009-
10 Central release accounted for Rs. 33,506 crores out of total
available fund of Rs. 49,529 crores. It is stated that the provisions of
the Act are being implemented. In the latest affidavit it is averred that
amendments have already been made to Schedule I to the Act with
regard to social audit to strengthen transparency and accountability.
Instructions are stated to have been issued to the State Government
for better implementation of the schemes and efforts are also being
made to integrate the Management Information System (MIS) with
the Post Office so that the amounts can be directly credited into the
19
Post Office accounts. In another affidavit reference has been made to
various provisions of the Act and all that is sought to be reflected
therein, is that schemes are operating properly and matters were also
discussed in the meetings of the Chief Secretaries and Cabinet
Secretaries on 12th April 2008. It is interesting to note that in
Annexure R-1 to this affidavit it has been stated that newspaper
reports appearing in the Business Standard featuring allegation made
by the petitioner NGO were obtained and it was noticed that these
were allegations of very serious nature. The matter was taken up
with the Chief Secretary of Government of Orissa to constitute a High
Level Fact Finding Committee. Director General, National Institute of
Rural Development, Hyderabad was to take up evaluation of
implementation performance of the schemes. A preliminary report
was received from the State Government which contemplated further
enquiry at different levels. Some reports were received and the State
Government was requested to support its findings by facts and
figures. The inquiry report of Fact Finding Committee was forwarded
by the State Government on 28th October, 2007 and on 7th December,
2007 the State Government was reminded to indicate issue by issue
investigation done which should reflect the status on each issue
20
specifically. The Fact Finding Team's report received from the field
was submitted to the State Government but was probably incomplete.
This affidavit was filed in July, 2008 but no details have been
furnished as to what transpired during the period 2007-08.
It is clear from the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of
Orissa as well as Union of India that the allegations of the petitioner
are not without any basis. Extent of their correctness may be a
question to be examined separately but the manner in which the
affidavits have been filed on behalf of the concerned State as well as
the Union of India do not, statistically, deny the allegations as no
figures to the contrary have been provided. The inquiry committee
which had been appointed for quite some time has failed to submit
any final report to the competent authority. The interim report which
has been submitted with respect to the `action taken' by the Union of
India is again a matter which has been left to imagination of all
concerned. It is nowhere stated in these affidavits that whether, even
a single officer/official, till today, has been found to be guilty of
contravening the provisions of the Act or causing impediments in
effective implementation of the schemes. This petition itself has been
pending since the year 2007 and the records are available to the
21
respective respondents, still no efforts have been made by the
concerned authorities to place on record any reports to show that the
averments made by the petitioner NGO in the Writ Petition, and
particularly `Annexure-A' to the same, are absolutely incorrect.
To us, from the record available, it appears that all is not well in
the State of Orissa with regard to implementation of the schemes
framed under the provisions of the Act. In the affidavit filed on behalf
of the Union of India as well as the States, the allegations in regard to
irregularities, diversion of funds, improper maintenance of records
and non-implementation of schemes have been vaguely denied
without providing any specific data based explanation in response
thereto. The enquiries which were initiated years back have not
culminated into any final orders or issuance of directions in regard to
proper implementation of the schemes. This clearly shows default on
the part of the Union of India as well as the States in discharging their
statutory obligation of achieving the public purpose that is sought to
be achieved under the provisions of the Act. There seems to be
serious irregularities in the effective implementation of such schemes.
A statutory obligation under the provisions of the Act, i.e. right to
livelihood which has also been declared by the courts as an integral
22
part of Article 21 of the Constitution is being frustrated by the very
functionaries who are responsible for proper and effective
implementation of the Act.
To add to all this, we also need to notice that nobody even
appeared on behalf of State of Orissa, before the Court on 13th
December, 2010, when the case was taken up for hearing. Union of
India claims to be releasing funds to the State of Orissa for
purposeful implementation of the schemes but has miserably failed to
exercise its supervisory and investigative powers including the power
to issue directions under different provisions of the Act. From the
affidavit filed, it is clear that there is no record to substantiate proper
utilization of the released funds and whether or not they have been
distributed as per the schemes or even have been diverted towards
other expenses of the State. It is expected of the Union of India to
create proper check and balances by issuance of directions, framing
of rules and issuing guidelines so that there is no contravention of the
statutory provisions and the laudable legislative purpose is not
defeated by inactions and/or improper actions. Be it the State
Government or the Union of India, accountability, transparency and
effective implementation of the statutory scheme are the established
23
canons which would govern their action. To implement the legislative
intent is the primary duty of all concerned.
In view of the above, we are constrained to observe that the
Union of India as well as the State of Orissa, prima facie, have filed to
effectively and purposefully implement the provisions of the Act. This
has resulted in the deprivation of the entitled class from getting
employment and receiving the allowances due to them in terms of the
statutory guarantees available to them under the Act.
Thus, we are compelled to issue the following directions for
strict compliance by the concerned authorities :
1. The compliance report shall be filed in the form of affidavit
which shall be sworn by the Additional Secretary, in-charge for
compliance of the provisions of the Act in the Ministry of Rural
Development, Government of India, New Delhi and the Chief
Secretary, State of Orissa within three weeks from today.
2. The instances and figures referred to in the survey report
submitted by the petitioner shall be specifically dealt with in that
affidavit.
24
3. The affidavit should be filed positively within the stipulated time
directed in this order and further we call upon both the Union of
India and the State Government to show cause as to why there
should not be a direction to the CBI to investigate this matter in
accordance with law.
We also issue the direction that affidavits to be filed by the
respective authorities shall, inter alia, but specifically answer the
following points :
(a) What is the extent of funds released by the Union of India to the
State of Orissa for implementation of the schemes under the
provisions of the Act for each of the year between 2006 to
2010?
(b) To what extent and for what projects, the released funds have
been utilized? Whether state of Orissa has given to the Central
Government the requisite certificate of utilization?
(c) Findings to be recorded whether any amount earmarked for any
of the schemes under NREGA has been diverted to any other
Head of Account including revenue account by State of Orissa.
25
(d) How many applicants, of how many households, have been
actually employed and have been paid allowances under the
provisions of the Act?
(e) The figures in terms of the above directions shall be provided
for the period from 2006 to 2010.
(f) Whether any social audit of the projects under the Gram Sabha
has been conducted in terms of Section 17(2)? If yes, its
detailed findings for the above mentioned period.
(g) Whether all the authorities/officers/officials, from the higher
levels in the Central Government or State Governments to the
grass-root levels at District, intermediary and Panchayats, to
ensure effective implementation of the schemes under the Act
have been appointed? If no, reasons therefor.
(h) Whether the Union of India or the State Government, in
consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India
or otherwise, have conducted any general audit of accounts of
the schemes at any level in terms of Section 24 of the Act? If
the answer is in the affirmative, then details thereof, particularly,
26
the objections, if any, raised by the Auditors; if the answer is in
the negative, then reasons therefor.
(i) Whether the Central Government has issued any directions
concerning utilization of funds under NREGA while disbursing
the amounts to State of Orissa? Whether these have been
complied with by State of Orissa?
(j) Whether the Central Government has received any complaints
about working of the schemes, utilization of funds, providing of
employment and payment of allowances under the provisions of
the Act? If so, what action has been taken in terms of Section
27(2) of the Act? It should be stated with complete statistics
and data.
(k) Whether the Union of India or the State of Orissa have, till date,
found even a single official/functionary guilty of contravention in
terms of Section 25 of the Act and whether any complaint has
been filed in any Court of competent jurisdiction? If so, the
result thereof.
(l) The contents and the background of the complaints received
and referred in `Annexure-R1' to the affidavit filed by the Union
27
of India should be stated precisely. Why the enquiry reports as
referred to in `Annexure-R1' to the Affidavit of the Union of India
of July 2008, no final reports have been prepared and
submitted before this Court till date. Further, it shall also be
stated as to why the findings of the interim reports referred in
the said affidavit have not been placed before this Court. A
complete summary thereof shall be annexed to the Affidavit.
Stand over for four weeks.
.............................................CJI.
(S.H. Kapadia)
................................................J.
(K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan)
................................................J.
(Swatanter Kumar)
New Delhi;
December 16, 2010
