Judgment on NREGA Irregularities and Corruption in MGNREGA

               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