ORDER : The instant order be read in continuation of our motion Bench order dated 10.1.2017. 2. On 10.1.2017, the enormity of the issue was effectively presented before the Court in the aide memoire filed by Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, assisting us in the capacity of amicus curiae. The issue in hand involves the disbursement of public funds. According to one estimate before the Court, the Central Government's grants are approximately Rs.4,756 Crores to Non-Government Organisations (NGO's) and Voluntary Organisations (VO's) during financial years 2002-03 to 2008-09. In addition to the above, State grants during the same period to NGO's and VO's were approximately of Rs.1,897 crores. This depiction indicates annual grants of approximately Rs.950 crores (by the Central Government as also by the State Governments), to NGO's/VO's. 3. Keeping in mind the enormity of the amount involved and having found, that there was a regulatory measure contemplated under the General Financial Rules, 2005, it was felt that the public funds disbursed need to be properly audited, in consonance with the above Rules. 4. It is therefore, that a suggestion was made by this Court on 10.1.2017 to the Union of India, to frame guidelines/rules for being implemented, for accreditation and allied measures before finances are extended to NGO's/VO's. It was suggested, that guidelines/rules should also be framed, for the manner in which accounts are to be maintained by NGO's/VO's, and eventually for laying down the manner of auditing the utilization of the disbursed grants. The eventual purpose sought to be achieved by the motion Bench order dated 10.1.2017, was to formulate a procedure to initiate action, for recovering disbursed grants in cases involving defalcation/misappropriation by NGO'S and VO's including the initiation of civil action for recovery, and criminal action for penal consequences, when called for. 5. During the course of hearing today, Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel representing the Union of India, handed over to us, a communication dated 13.4.2017, whereby proposed guidelines/rules framed by the Government of India (in the Ministry of Rural Development) were sent to 76 different ministries/departments for information. The necessity for forwarding the guidelines/ rules to the different ministries/departments, was obviously with the intent to obtain the views of all the ministries/departments, before the finalisation of the guidelines. 6. The necessity for forwarding the guidelines/ rules to the different ministries/departments, was obviously with the intent to obtain the views of all the ministries/departments, before the finalisation of the guidelines. 6. Independently of the above communication, we have perused an Office Memorandum dated 18.4.2017, of the Union Government in the Ministry of Rural Development depicting the framework of the exercise being carried out by the Government of India. This is apparent from the position expressed in its opening paragraph, which is reproduced hereunder : "The undersigned is directed to say that in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 10.1.2017 on WP(Crl.)No.172/2011 filed by Shri Manohar Lal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Others, this Ministry has framed guidelines for accreditation of Voluntary Organisations/Non Government Organisations which inter-alia prescribes institutional arrangements for accreditation of VOs/NGOs, registration of VOs/NGOs, application, review, sanction and fund release for projects, monitoring, accounting of audit of VOs/NGOs etc. A copy of the Guidelines is enclosed." 7. The proposed guidelines/rules have also been placed on the record of this case, along with an affidavit dated 31.3.2017, filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 - the Union of India (impleaded through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development). The suggestions sought to be given effect to, in the proposed guidelines/rules, can be deciphered from the copy of the guidelines. 8. As already noticed herein above, insofar as the present proceedings are concerned, the Union of India has been impleaded through the Ministry of Rural Development. The disbursement of public funds to NGO's and VO's by the Department of Rural Development is effectuated through the Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART). CAPART is a disbursing agency under one of the ministries/departments of the Union Government, out of the 76 ministries/departments referred to above. Hence, it is necessary to highlight, that CAPART is responsible for disbursal of a miniscule amount of the public funds, which are provided to NGO's and VO's by the Union Government through its ministries and departments. 9. In its separate affidavit filed before this Court, CAPART has adopted inter alia the following position : "4. Hence, it is necessary to highlight, that CAPART is responsible for disbursal of a miniscule amount of the public funds, which are provided to NGO's and VO's by the Union Government through its ministries and departments. 9. In its separate affidavit filed before this Court, CAPART has adopted inter alia the following position : "4. That after Your Lordships directions, the respondent No.5 started examining all old files of financial assistance ever since the inception of CAPART with reference to the GFR 2005 and also with reference to the future course of action for initiating civil and criminal proceedings against the defaulting organisations. 5. That as a result of the said exercise and examination the respondent No.5 has taken the following actions :- (a) Conducting Of Audit In Terms Of Rule 211 of General Financial Rules 2005 In this regard, it is submitted that there is no organisation which received financial assistance of Rs.1 crore or more in a single financial year. However, there were 13 VOs which received financial assistance of Rs.25 lacs or more since July 2005. These organisations come within the purview of CAG Audit in terms of Rule 211(2)(a) of GFR Rules 2005 and therefore respondent No.5 CAPART has written letter in respect of these VOs to Smt. Seema Chaudhary, Sr.Audit Officer (Special, Audit) vide communication dated 23.3.2017 requesting for audit of the 13 VOs (Copy of Letter dated 23.3.17 enclosing list of 13 VOs is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-C) (pages: 11-13) (b) That a total of 618 releases were made since July 2005 which are covered under General Financial Rule 211(3) of GFR 2005 out of which UCs and audited statements in respect of 298 releases have been received and no further action is required against them. Further, letters have been written to the Organisations in respect of 85 releases for submission of audited statements/UCs. It is respectfully submitted that for remaining 235 releases the files are being processed for further action. Further, letters have been written to the Organisations in respect of 85 releases for submission of audited statements/UCs. It is respectfully submitted that for remaining 235 releases the files are being processed for further action. (Copy of list of 298 releases in respect of which UCs and audited statements have been received is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-D)(Pages : 14-29) (Copy of list in respect of 85 releases along with letters sent for submission of UCs and audited statements is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-E)(Pages : 30-175) (c) That in terms of the guidelines of CAPART for financial assistance, a total of 718 voluntary organisations were black listed for different following reasons respectively : (i) Non submission of documents in prescribed formats; (ii) Non submission of clarification sought from the concerned VOs (iii) Apprehended Mis-utilization of funds reported to CAPART through complaints of through monitors' reported (iv) In addition, there are some cases where though sanction was issued but releases were not made due to their back listing by other govt. agencies or for any other sufficient reason. That out of aforesaid 718 VOs 15 VOs have been delisted from the category of Black Listed after receiving appropriate approval from the competent authority as submitted their satisfactory compliance report. The respondent No.5 CAPART has written to District Collector/Superintendent of Police for initiating recovery proceedings and for registering criminal cases against the concerned VOs in respect of 159 organisations and for the remaining organisations the examination of remaining files is under way and suitable action will be taken in compliance of Your Lordship directions based on this exercise. Since the files are quite old, the process is taking a little longer time. (Copy of list of 15 VOs delisted from the BLA category is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-F) (Copy of list of black listed organisations along with letters sent to District Collector/Supdt. of Police for initiation of recovery/criminal proceedings are attached herewith and marked as Annexure-G) (Pages : 193-505) (copy of list of black listed VOs available on record at present is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-H)(506-547) 6. of Police for initiation of recovery/criminal proceedings are attached herewith and marked as Annexure-G) (Pages : 193-505) (copy of list of black listed VOs available on record at present is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-H)(506-547) 6. That the deponent respectfully submits that since the financial assistance which was earlier being given by respondent No.5 CAPART was scattered all over India and CAPART was having only 9 regional offices with limited staff, it had always been difficult for respondent No.5 to initiate meaningful civil and criminal action against the defaulting VOs. However, CAPART had been trying to monitor the implementation of the project and utilization of the amount through its institutional empanelled monitors. Through the process of periodic monitoring, CAPART had been able to stop release of remaining funds in respect of defaulting organisations. It is further submitted that the amount which is suspected to have been misutilized by blacklisted VOs is estimated to be Rs.7.14 Crores and respondent No.5 is committed to take all possible legal action against defaulting VOs for the recovery of the said amount in compliance of Your Lordships directions." 10. A perusal of the position adopted by CAPART before this Court reveals, that 718 NGO's/VO's were black-listed. However, 15 of those originally black-listed, were removed from the said list, after receipt of details indicating compliance. It is also apparent from the factual position indicated above, that the process of initiating criminal action has also been commenced. The position expressed in the compliance affidavit filed by CAPART has a revealing feature of significance, insofar as the present controversy is concerned, since it clearly depicts, that the facilities and infrastructure available with it, are insufficient to take any meaningful action, in respect of the finances disbursed to NGO's and VO's. At the cost of repetition, it may be emphasised, that the position placed on record by CAPART does not portray the entire factual position in relation to the disbursal of funds to NGO's/VO's by the Union Government since CAPART is only a disbursing agency representing the Ministry of Rural Development, whereas 76 different ministries/departments are indicated in the list of Ministries which disburse funds to NGO's/VO's. The enormity of the issue which has emerged before this Court, has resulted in the passing of the instant order. 11. 11. It is necessary to record, that on the earlier occasion, when we had passed a detailed order on 10.1.2017, the magnitude of the funds involved in the task contemplated was perhaps not brought to the attention of the court. We have highlighted herein above, by extracting the opening paragraph of the Office Memorandum dated 18.4.2017, the different aspects which will need to be regulated. The guidelines which are being prepared by the Government of India, at our asking, may not truly and effectively redress the entire process requiring regulation, commencing from accreditation and encompassing the manner of utilization of the funds, and their eventual audit. We would, therefore, like the Government of India to examine and consider, the desirability of giving a statutory status to the entire process. The instant suggestion has been made by us, keeping in mind entry 76 of the Union List and entries 1 & 2 of the Concurrent List, which could also be read with entry 97 of the Union List to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. These entries would enable the central legislature to provide regulatory measures, including the consequences (civil as well as criminal) flowing out of misutilization of funds by NGO's/VO's. If the Government of India desires to extend statutory status to the entire process, the statute would not only provide enforceable consequences, but could also envisage such civil and criminal action, as may be considered proper by the legislature. 12. List again for further consideration on 12.7.2017. Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel representing the Union of India, shall obtain instructions in the matter, and provide the necessary inputs to this Court, on the next date of hearing, namely, whether the Government of India would like to regulate the issue in hand, by finalising guidelines or would rather regulate the process through legislation. 13. Needless to mention, that this order should not be treated as any restraint on the on-going steps being taken by the disbursing agencies, including the initiation of civil and criminal action against the defaulting parties (depicted in the compliance affidavit filed by Respondent No.5-CAPART). The District Magistrates/Senior Superintendents of Police shall render all necessary assistance, as may be called for.