IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
SHEEL NAGU, ANAND PATHAK, JJ.
Shailendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 293 of 2021
Decided On : 11-02-2021
Public Interest Litigation - Alleged Public Cause of Misdemeanour - Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 - Section 32, Rules 7 & 8 - Grievance Redressal Mechanism - Ombudsman - Statutory Remedy
Fact of the Case:
The public interest litigation raised concerns about the alleged misdemeanour by the Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Rural, Tahsil Lahar, District Bhind, in implementing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (2005 Act) and embezzlement of public money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had a statutory remedy available to raise grievances before the Ombudsman and the State Government, and therefore declined interference, allowing the petitioner to avail the said remedy. The court also directed the petitioner to make representations before the State Government if no Ombudsman was appointed and functional in Bhind district.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged non-implementation or faulty implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, and the embezzlement of public money by the Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the existence of a statutory remedy for raising grievances before the Ombudsman and the State Government, as provided under Section 32 of the 2005 Act and Rules 7 & 8 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (Appointment, Powers and Duties of the Ombudsman) Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2013.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to make representations before the Ombudsman or the State Government, with a requirement for the authorities to decide on the representations expeditiously, preferably within 30 days.
JUDGMENT :
Anand Pathak, J.
1. This public interest litigation under Section (Sic Article) 226 of the Constitution of India raises alleged public cause of misdemeanour, on the part of respondents No. 4 and 5 who happen to be Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Rural, Tahsil Lahar, District Bhind, while implementing scheme under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for brevity 2005 Act), thereby depriving labourers of their legitimate rights as guaranteed under the Act/Rules and they have allegedly embezzled public money and caused embezzlement.
2. After having heard learned counsel for rival parties on admission and perused the material placed on record it is obvious that for raising grievance against non-implementation or faulty implementation of the said Scheme, in-house remedy before Ombudsman appointed in every district and thereafter before the State Govt. is stipulated u/S. Sec. 32 of 2005 Act & u/Rs. 7 & 8 of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (Appointment, Powers and Duties of the Ombudsman) Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2013 (for brevity 2013 Rules).
2.1. For ready reference and convenience, Section 32 of 2005 Act and Rules 7 & 8 of 2013 Rules are reproduced below:-
(1) The State Government may, by notification, and subject to the condition of previous publication, and consistent with this Act and the rules made by the Central Government, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the terms and conditions upon which eligibility for unemployment allowance may be determined under subsection (2) of section 7;
(b) the procedure for payment of unemployment allowance under sub-section (6) of section 7;
(c) the terms and conditions subject to which the Chairperson and members of the State Council may be appointed, and the time, place and procedure of the meetings (including the quorum at such meetings) of their appointment to the State Council, under subsection (2) of section 12;
(d) the grievance redressal mechanism at the Block level and the District level and the procedure to be followed in such matter under section 19;
(e) the manner in which and the conditions and limitations subject to which the State Fund shall be utilised under sub-section (2) of section 21;
(f) the authority who may administer and the manner in which he may hold the State Fund under sub-section (3) of section 21;
(g) the manner of maintaining books of account of employment of labourers and the expenditure under subsection (2) of section 23;
(h) the arrangements required for proper execution of Schemes under sub-section (3) of section 23;
(i) the form and manner in which the accounts of the Scheme shall be maintained under sub-section (2) of section 24;
(j) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed or in respect of which provision is to be made by the State Government by rules."
"Rule 7. Subjects of the grievances.-A grievance pertaining to any one or more of the following subjects alleging deficiency in the implementation of the Scheme may be filed with the Ombudsman:-
(i) The Gram Sabha;
(ii) Registration of households and issue of job cards;
(iii) Custody of job cards;
(iv) Demand for work;
(v) Issue of dated acknowledgment against submission of application for work;
(vi) Payment of wages;
(vii) Payment of unemployment allowance;
(viii) Discrimination on the basis of gender;
(ix) Work-site facilities;
(x) Measurement of work;
(xi) Quality of work;
(xii) Use of machines;
(xiii) Engagement of contractors;
(xiv) Operation of accounts in the bank or post offices;
(xv) Registration and disposal of grievances;
(xvi) Verification of muster rolls;
(xvii) Inspection of documents;
(xviii) Use of funds;
(xix) Release of funds;
(xx) Social audit;
(xxi) Maintenance of record.
Rule 8. Procedure of filing of grievance and
The existence of a statutory remedy for grievance redressal before the Ombudsman and the State Government under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 was the central legal ....
The Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to impose disciplinary actions under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.
The termination lacked evidence of misconduct and was based on penal clauses in the agreement. The Ombudsman's report suggested action against other parties involved in irregularities, indicating the....
The Ombudsman appointed under the MGNREGA does not have disciplinary powers over Mates and cannot impose penalties under the Act.
Point of law : Statutory authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a c....
The recovery sought from the petitioner must be in accordance with the recommendations and preceded by a show cause notice, and the statutory appeal remedy may not be available in certain cases.
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.