Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by the President, Kerala Malsya Thozhilali Congress, Cherthala alleging diversion and misutilisation of most of the Tsunami Rehabilitation funds of more than Rs.1400 crores granted by the Central Government specifically for the purpose of rehabilitation of Tsunami victims and for undertaking rehabilitation works in Tsunami affected areas. The petitioner has raised a specific contention that in spite of identifying certain rural roads in the coastal area at Alappuzha for reconstruction under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Scheme and even though the Planning Commission approved the same, nothing is done to improve the roads. Since the total amount allotted by the Central Government was as much as 1441.75 crores, we called for a detailed statement of application of funds by the State Government for the purposes for which funds were released by the Central Government. Even though details of the projects executed and the utilisation of the entire funds were called for, the statement filed mainly shows only department-wise allocation of the funds to various authorities and Districts for Tsunami rehabilitation work. It is seen from the report that massive funds are allotted to almost every Department for purposes unrelated to Tsunami rehabilitation which can be only rehabilitation of the victims or for development of Tsunami affected areas. Tsunami affected only the coastal belt of Kerala mainly from Quilon to Edavanakkadu in Ernakulam District covering only three Districts. However, it is seen that funds are allotted to each and every Department and to every District, including to Co- operative Department to write off debts of Societies which have become bankrupt. While the case of the petitioner is that the allocation and appropriation of funds were completely defeating the purposes for which funds were sanctioned by the Central Government, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State Government submits that guidelines of Central Government and Planning Commission have been followed and appropriations were made with their consent. However, the statement filed by the Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the Central Government does not support this fully. The Central Government not only confirms allotment and release of Rs.1441.75 crores under different heads, they have clearly stated that the funds were given specifically for rehabilitation of Tsunami victims and utilisation of the same for undertaking rehabilitation works in the Tsunami affected areas. The Central Government not only confirms allotment and release of Rs.1441.75 crores under different heads, they have clearly stated that the funds were given specifically for rehabilitation of Tsunami victims and utilisation of the same for undertaking rehabilitation works in the Tsunami affected areas. It is not clear from the statement as to whether there is any auditing or supervision by the Central Government or by Planning Commission as to whether funds were utilised for the purposes for which it is granted. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the details produced before us, we are prima facie satisfied that there is diversion of massive funds for purposes other than anything relating to Tsunami affected people or areas. As already stated, Tsunami affected people and areas are mainly in three coastal Districts of Quilon, Alappuzha and Ernakulam and if as much as above Rs.1440 crores were spent there would have been remarkable improvement by way of housing for the people living in the mouth of the sea, restoration of damaged roads, drinking water facility, schooling and all such other facilities. We do not think anybody going to the coastal areas of these Districts can see anything different from the immediate post Tsunami conditions. So much so, what we could understand is that Tsunami was only an occasion for the State Government to collect massive funds from the Central Government for utilisation for purposes of their choice mostly unrelated to Tsunami. We do not think the position is different even when the Government gets flood relief or drought relief. However, there is no scope for detailed scrutiny and judicial review in this matter by this Court because it is essentially a matter concerning administration and it is for the central agencies to make the state account for the application of the funds for the specific purposes for which those were granted. 3. We find force in the contention of the petitioner that whatever be the diversion of funds for other purposes, there is no escape for the State Government but to raise funds for repairing and restoration of affected roads and for providing housing to the Tsunami affected people, who are still living in deplorable conditions in the coastal area. 3. We find force in the contention of the petitioner that whatever be the diversion of funds for other purposes, there is no escape for the State Government but to raise funds for repairing and restoration of affected roads and for providing housing to the Tsunami affected people, who are still living in deplorable conditions in the coastal area. One way of permanently saving the people living in the beaches is to rehabilitate them in interior coastal areas in multi storied buildings to protect them from devastation from the ravages of the sea in future, and to ensure their proximity to the sea to carry on their traditional profession of fishing but without worry for Tsunamies in the future. 4. These are certainly matters which the policy making authorities in the Government should take note of. However, we feel that the Government is certainly accountable to the Tsunami affected people for the utilisation of funds because they and their areas were the beneficiaries of the funds granted by the Central Government. The only solution we find is to direct the Comptroller and Auditor General to conduct auditing of the work done and to make his recommendations about the application and misapplication of funds, for appropriate action by the authorities concerned. If funds are diverted, nothing bars the CAG to suggest to the State Government to recoup the funds and carry out relief works, which were supposed to be carried out with the funds originally granted by the Central Government. There will be a specific direction to the State Government to address the problem of the road restoration work suggested by the petitioner, which is already taken up by the Government, whether it be under the rehabilitation scheme or otherwise. Asst. Solicitor General will forward a copy of the judgment to the CAG, who is impleaded as an additional respondent on petitioner's request. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.