AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal submitted that there are umpteen number of examples of bungling of Central Government''s funds allotted to the State Government under the ''Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme'' as they have been improperly utilized, or say, swindled away by the local politicians but despite it being in the knowledge of Central Government as well as State Government, no effective remedial steps have been taken to contain the bungling or pilfering of the funds nor has the State Government proceeded to prosecute the beneficiaries of such scams.
Ms. Jaiswal also referred to para 15 of the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court reported in Centre for Environment and Food Security Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .
The said paragraph on reproduction would read as under:
Wide powers of investigation are vested in CBI under the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Another provision which has a significant bearing on the matters before us is Section 27 (2) of the Act. This provision specifically states that the Central Government may, on receipt of any complaint regarding the issue of improper utilization of funds granted under this Act in respect of any scheme, if prmia facie satisfied that there is a case, cause an investigation into the complaint by any agency designated by it. Thus, the Central Government has full power to refer the matter to CBI for investigation in regard to the complaints received by it. The State Government has enquired into complaints received and even engaged NIRD to conduct social audits and submit its report to the State Government. The Central Government is even vested with the power, in such cases, to stop release of the funds to the scheme and institute appropriate remedial measures for its proper implementation. Thus, it will be useful for the authorities concerned in the Central Government to ponder over the entire matter and propose such directions or measures which the State Government should take in order to prevent recurrence of the events that have taken place in a number of States and particularly in the State of Orissa.
Ms. Jaiswal also took us through a letter addressed by a Central Cabinet Minister to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh about complaints of large scale bungling of funds which is essentially based on the State Quality Monitor''s report, wherein the Minister has also asked for the concurrence of State Government for assigning the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation. However, we fail to understand as to why the Central Government would require the concurrence of State Government if it has the powers and discretion to direct investigation u/s 27 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (For short ''the Act of 2005'') which is obvious from paragraph 15 of the judgment in the matter of Centre for Environment and Food Security (supra). Thus, we grant two weeks'' time to learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Sri I.H. Farooqi to inform about the stand of the Central Government on the next date of hearing on affidavit of the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
List the matter on 14.3.2012.