VINEET KUMAR AGNIHOTRI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to this Court's order dated 21.3.2012 an affidavit of Sachhidanand Dubey, District Magistrate Farrukhabad has been filed. He has admitted that Commissioner, Kanpur Division Kanpur passed order on 30.9.2009 and thereafter matter was remanded to the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order but no order thereafter was passed by any District Magistrates though since thereafter Smt. K. Dhanlaxmi, Smt. Ministi S. and Sri Rigjiyan Samfil have held the office of District Magistrate and from 24.9.2011 the deponent namely Sachhidanad Dubey himself is holding the office. In paras 3 and 4 of his affidavit he has said that record of the matter was not produced by concerned ministerial staff of the District Magistrate and for this negligence he has found Patal Sahayak Sri Ateek Ahmad, Sri Bakarul Hasan and Sri Lalaram responsible. An adverse entry has already been awarded to Sri Ateek Ahmad and Sri Bakarul Hasan and Sri Lalaram, Arms Clerk besides award of adverse entry has been transferred from the said posting. With respect to delay in submitting police report, he has said that a letter has already been sent to Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh and Etawah on 9.4.2012 for taking appropriate action against responsible police official (s). The aforesaid affidavit itself clearly shows that inaction on the part of respondents was wholly unjustified, illegal and arbitrary and respondents were totally responsible for the same. Virtually unjustified and illegal action on the part of respondent No. 3 is admitted. It is also evident from the record that respondent No. 3 has taken the aforesaid inaction and apathy on the part of subordinate ministerial staff to be a casual negligence for which minor action has been taken. It is nothing but an eye wash. In fact the authorities' approach shows that pendency of anything for several months or years make no difference to them. They treat it their right and privilege not to discharge statutory duties and functions for any length of time, without having any accountability or responsibility to the sovereign, namely the people of this country. The laxity on the part of respondent No. 3 is obvious and evident. When an official like a District Magistrate chose to remain inactive showing apathy to his statutory function, a common man feels extremely helpless. It also gives an impression as if the concerned statutory authority is keeping the matter pending for reasons other than bona fide. He is trying to encourage corrupt activities or corruption itself. This is a kind or facet of corruption. Making observations on various facets of corruption, this Court in Mithilesh Kumari v. State of U.P. andothers, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45893 of 2008 decided on 18.11.2010 said in paras 52 to 55 of the judgment as under: -

(2.) The system recognises the office and the incumbents coming and going cannot claim immunity for their inaction. Whether 'A' was holding the office or 'B', makes no difference since what has suffered in this case is the trust and confidence of common man in the system. When he applied, following the procedure prescribed in the statute, had the confidence that within a reasonable manner and time his matter would be considered and a final decision would be taken by the appropriate authority. His confidence got shattered repeatedly. Earlier when for a petty reason his application was rejected as if the licencing authority was searching out something, whether substantial or not, just to reject application. Again when this approach of District Magistrate was disapproved by higher authority namely the Commissioner in appeal, the licencing authority maintained silence and kept the thing unattended. This later attitude of respondent No. 3, if not resulted in a complete loss, but, then must have shaken severely the confidence of common person in the system. Holding a high office, the respondent No. 2 owe a duty and obligation to keep the aspiration and confidence of a common man in the system intact and unshaken for the reason that after centuries's fight for freedom, the people of this country got independence and gave to themselves a Constitution in the hope that the system in their own Constitution would wipe out their tears but even after more than six decades, the system is functioning unchanged, as if still these authorities are king and common man is a downtrodden tiny Indian having no voice or existence at all. This is really unfortunate that for these petty matters and due to sheer inaction, apathy and carelessness of not attending the statutory function by respondent No. 2, the petitioner had to involve himself in a litigation which could have been avoided saving precious time of this Court also. Having said so, I come back to the merit. Since in the meantime it is stated that petitioner's application has already been decided by respondent No. 3 by order dated 12.3.2012 in this regard no further action is required but for the harassment and illegal action on the part of respondent forcing upon the petitioner, present writ petition, I dispose of this writ petition with cost of Rs. 25,000/- against respondent No. 3 which shall be paid within two months failing which it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.