Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (1) TMI 1958 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:

1. Misappropriation of funds under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in seven districts of Uttar Pradesh.
2. Request for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged misappropriation.
3. Role of State and Central Government in addressing corruption under MGNREGA.
4. Statutory provisions of MGNREGA and their implementation.
5. The effectiveness of the Economic Offences Wing in investigating the alleged corruption.
6. Measures to prevent corruption and ensure proper utilization of MGNREGA funds.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Misappropriation of Funds:
The judgment addresses the misappropriation of funds allocated under MGNREGA in seven districts of Uttar Pradesh, namely Balrampur, Gonda, Mahoba, Sonbhadra, Sant Kabir Nagar, Mirzapur, and Kushinagar, during the years 2007 to 2010. The material on record reveals startling facts about the collusive misappropriation of funds by elected representatives and higher bureaucracy. The report by the State Quality Monitor (SQM) and letters from the Minister of Rural Development highlight the extent of corruption, including fictitious payments and misuse of funds.

2. Request for CBI Probe:
The petitioner, a media personnel, sought a mandamus for a CBI investigation into the alleged corruption. The judgment notes that the State Government did not effectively rebut the need for a CBI inquiry. The Minister of Rural Development had requested a CBI probe due to the blatant abuse of power and misappropriation of funds, but the State Government did not act on this request.

3. Role of State and Central Government:
The judgment criticizes both the State and Central Governments for their inaction. The State Government failed to comply with the Central Government's request for a CBI investigation and did not stop the release of funds despite evidence of corruption. The Central Government, despite having the power under Section 27(2) of the MGNREGA Act, did not initiate a CBI probe, keeping the matter pending under the guise of needing State concurrence.

4. Statutory Provisions and Implementation:
The judgment discusses the statutory framework of MGNREGA, highlighting the responsibilities of the Central and State Governments, Panchayats, and local communities in implementing the Scheme. Sections 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, and 28 of the Act are examined, emphasizing the need for a grievance redressal mechanism and the power of the Central Government to direct investigations and stop funds if misappropriation is detected.

5. Effectiveness of Economic Offences Wing:
The investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) is deemed unsatisfactory, as it was still at an initial stage in several districts, and many involved in the corruption had not been arrested. The judgment suggests possible collusion between investigating agencies and those involved in the misappropriation.

6. Measures to Prevent Corruption:
The judgment calls for the establishment of a multi-member State Quality Monitor at the State and District levels to oversee fund utilization under MGNREGA. It suggests that the Central Government should provide effective measures to supervise the Scheme's implementation, including empowering the CBI with necessary infrastructure to monitor government funds regularly.

Conclusion:
The court allows the writ petition, directing the CBI to investigate the misappropriation of funds in the seven districts and conduct a preliminary enquiry in other districts. The State Government is instructed to assist the CBI, and a multi-member State Quality Monitor is recommended to supervise fund utilization. The judgment emphasizes the need for prompt and effective action to curb corruption and ensure the proper implementation of MGNREGA.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates