IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. H. Kapadia, CJI.,K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Centre for Environment and Food Security
Versus.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Writ Petition (C) No. 645 of 2007
Decided On: 12.05.2011
.
ORDER
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the Petitioner before this Court for issuance of appropriate directions to the Respondents to ensure proper implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short the 'Act') and the schemes framed there under. The Act was enacted to ensure 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. The authorities appointed under the Act are responsible to ensure proper utilization of the funds released by Union of India for implementation of the schemes framed under the provisions of the Act. The Central Government issued guidelines, viz., NREGA Operational Guidelines in 2008 for proper implementation. Petitioner has prayed before us that proper investigation is required to be conducted into cases of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, schemes framed there under and the guidelines issued by the Central Government to prevent diversion of funds specifically allocated for implementation of the schemes framed under the Act. The petition has been pending before this Court for considerable time and certain orders/directions have been issued by the Court from time to time. The Central Government as well as various State Governments had filed certain compliance affidavits with respect to the orders/directions issued by this Court. However, it was felt by this Court that all was not well with the functioning of the various State Governments as well as the Centre for achieving the objectives of the Act. Observing discrepancies in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, this Court, on 16th December, 2010, passed a detailed order. In the said order, it was noticed that it was in the interest of justice and in larger public interest that this Court should issue appropriate directions to ensure proper and equitable functioning of the Act and the schemes framed there under. After noticing in some detail various acts and omissions resulting into disobedience of the statutory mandate and patent lacuna in implementation of the schemes, like disbursement of money to the unemployed, proper registration and utilization of the funds by the concerned authorities working under the provisions of the Act, special reference was made to the failure on the part of the State of Orissa in implementing the scheme and various provisions of the Act. The concerned authorities under the State Governments and even in the Central Government have failed to discharge their statutory duties under the provisions of the Act on one hand and on the other they have also violated the orders/directions of this Court. This compelled the Court to pass the following directions on 16th December, 2010:
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.
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.