The court also asked the Attorney General to file a detailed affidavit on MNREGA scheme dealing with aspects like delay in payment of wages, interest and compensation, reduction in mandays, functioning of central employment gaurantee council, social audit and the report of task force.
said that despite the flexibility provided for in the Act for appointing an independent commission or designating any other commission to function as state food commission, the requirement of the statute has to be met.
"It is not as if some other body can be described as a State Food Commission even though the members of that body do not meet the requirement of Section 16 of the Act," the court had said.
The court also asked the Attorney General to file a detailed affidavit on MNREGA scheme dealing with aspects like delay in payment of wages, interest and compensation, reduction in mandays, functioning of central employment gaurantee council, social audit and the report of task force.
It said that the court would also like to know from the Chief Secretaries who have been summoned about the implementation of mid-day meal scheme in drought affected areas of their states.
The court posted the matter for further hearing on April 26.
The apex court had on December 1 last year rejected the contention of the Attorney General that a political party or its wing cannot file a PIL being an interested party.
It had said that Swaraj India and not Swaraj Abhiyan has filed an application before the Election Commission of India for regsitration which was pending. So it termed the Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi's contention "premature" as on date.
The bench had also observed that it did not want politics to shift to courts and said that since the issue of registration of 'Swaraj India' as a political party was pending before the Election Commission, it would wait for the poll panel's decision in the matter.
Earlier, the court had asked the Centre to release all outstanding and necessary funds under MNREGA scheme to states and directed it to pay compensation for delayed wages to the farmers in drought-hit areas.
The PIL has alleged that parts of 12 states-- Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Odisha, Jharkhand, Bihar, Haryana and Chhattisgarh -- were hit by drought and the authorities were not providing adequate relief.
The petitioners had claimed before the court that directions issued by it in the matter were not complied with by the states.
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}