INDRAS KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to this Court's order dated 2.4.2012, Sri Sanjay Kumar, District Magistrate, Gorakhpur is present. He has also filed an affidavit stating that after this Court's order dated 2.4.2012 immediate steps were taken and the recovery certificate dated 5.2.2011 was executed and the amount was realized and deposited in the Court of District Judge/ M.A.C.T., Gorakhpur on 4.4.2012 i.e. within two days after this Court's order dated 2.4.2012. In the entire affidavit, there is not even a whisper about lapse in execution of recovery certificate issued on 5.2.2011 as to what was done by respondent no. 2 for executing the aforesaid recovery certificate for the last almost 14 months. The laxity, inaction and arbitrariness on the part of respondent no. 2 is apparent.

(2.) 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.2 is obvious and evident. When an official like a District Magistrate chose to remain inactive showing apathy to his statutory functions, 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 Vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45893 of 2008 decided on 18.11.2010 said in paras 52 to 55 of the judgment as under:

(3.) The respondents being "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers are public functionaries. In our Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large. The respondents have the support of entire machinery and various powers of statute. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the exercise of power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility of Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain arbitrary and arrogant, unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries.