HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66401 of 2011
Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- I.K. Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide this matter under the Rules of the Court at this stage.
2. This is a simple case of real inaction and apathy on the part of District Magistrate by not only failing to discharge his statutory function within a reasonable time but also ignoring the order passed by superior authority and keeping the matter pending for years together.
3. The factual matrix given rise to the dispute is quite short and simple. The petitioner applied for grant of firearm licence on 20.10.2008. It is said that police report submitted was in his favour but the licencing authority namely District Magistrate Moradabad alleging that there was some difference in date of birth mentioned in the application form and affidavit, rejected the application by order dated 30.5.2009. The petitioner preferred Appeal No.92/08-09 under Section 18 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1959") before the Commissioner, Moradabad Division Moradabad which was allowed by order dated 24.5.2010. The Commissioner held that if there was any confusion regarding date of birth, the District Magistrate could have required the applicant to clarify the same but on that count the application itself ought not have been rejected. The Appellate Authority accordingly set aside the order dated 30.5.2009 of District Magistrate, Moradabad and directed him to pass a fresh order by considering petitioner's application on merits. The matter was remanded to the District Magistrate accordingly.
4. After this order of appellate authority, the District Magistrate kept silence over the matter and sitting tight did not pass any further order at all. The petitioner in the circumstances having waited for almost one and a half years but of no result has come to this Court in the present writ petition seeking a mandamus commanding respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate order on his application.
5. This Court when entertained the writ petition on 21.11.2011 required learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to why District Magistrate has not passed any order on petitioner's application and is keeping the matter pending despite the fact that Commissioner passed appellate order on 24.5.2010 and has remanded the matter to respondent No.2 with a direction to pass a fresh order.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court a letter dated 21.11.2011 sent by District Magistrate, Moradabad addressed to the learned Standing Counsel stating that the petitioner has submitted letter for reconsideration only on 12.11.2010 which was received in his office by registered post on 26.3.2011. The proceedings were initiated to take decision on his aforesaid letter by seeking a report from Senior Superintendent of Police/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad and the matter is pending. In the meantime, by State Government's notification dated 28.9.2011, a new District Bhimnagar was created hence entire record has been forwarded to the newly created District Bhimnagar. A photocopy of this letter with the consent of learned Standing Counsel is kept on record and shall constitute part of the record of this writ petition.
7. A perusal of this letter shows that it says not even a single word as to why no action was taken by District Magistrate after Commissioner's order dated 24.5.2010 and why it remained pending without any further action at all for almost one year. It says that by order dated 16.6.2011, police report has been sought but thereafter also nothing has been said. Moreover, the alleged new district Bhimnagar was constituted on 28.9.2011, but till date record of present matter has not been forwarded to the District Magistrate of newly constituted district and has remained with respondent No.2.
8. 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 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 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: -
"52. In general the well accepted meaning of corruption is the act of corrupting or of impairing integrity, virtue, or moral principle; the state of being corrupted or debased; lost of purity or integrity; depravity; wickedness; impurity; bribery. It further says, "the act of changing or of being changed, for the worse; departure from what is pure, simple, or correct; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain."
53. Though in a civilised society, corruption has always been viewed with particular distaste to be condemned and criticised by everybody but still one loves to engage himself in it if finds opportunity, ordinarily, since it is difficult to resist temptation. It is often, a kind, parallel to the word 'bribery', meaning whereof in the context of the politicians or bureaucrats, induced to become corrupt. The Greek Philosopher Plato, in 4th Century BC said, "in the Republic that only politicians who gain no personal advantage from the policies they pursued would be fit to govern. This is recognised also in the aphorism that those who want to hold power are most likely those least fit to do so." While giving speech before the House of Lords William Pitt in the later half of 18th Century said, "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it." Lord Acton in his letter addressed to Bishop Creighton is now one of the famous quotation, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
54. Corruption is a term known to all of us. Precise meaning is illegal, immoral or unauthorized act done in due course of employment but literally it means "inducement (as of a public official) by improper means (as bribery) to violate duty (as by committing a felony)." It is an specially pernicious form of discrimination. Apparently its purpose is to seek favourable, privileged treatment from those who are in authority. No one would indulge in corruption at all if those who are in authority, discharge their service by treating all equally.
55. We can look into it from another angle. Corruption also violates human rights. It discriminates against the poor by denying them access to public services and preventing from exercising their political rights on account of their incapability of indulging in corruption, of course on account of poverty and other similar related factors. Corruption is, therefore, divisive and makes a significant contribution to social inequality and conflict. It undermines respect for authority and increases cynicism. It discourages participation of individuals in civilised society and elevates self interest as a guide to conduct. In social terms we can say that corruption develops a range bound field of behaviour, attitude and beliefs. Corruption is antithesis of good governance and democratic politics. It is said, that when corruption is pervasive, it permeates every aspect of people's lives. It can affect the air they breathe, the water they drink and the food they eat. If we go further, we can give some terminology also to different shades of corruption like, financial corruption, cultural corruption, moral corruption, idealogical corruption etc. The fact remains that from whatever angle we look into it, the ultimate result borne out is that, and the real impact of corruption is, the poor suffers most, the poverty groves darker, and rich become richer. "
9. Learned Standing Counsel at this stage pointed out that the present District Magistrate has come very recently namely he has joined at District Moradabad on 16.7.2011. Prior thereto, in May, 2010, when the order was passed by the Commissioner, Sri Raj Shekhar was the District Magistrate who held office from 27.2.2010 to 14.7.2011. He further stated that the present District Magistrate cannot be said to be at fault solely.
10. 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 within a reasonable time. His confidence got shattered repeatedly. Earlier when for a petty reason his application was rejected as if the licencing authority was finding 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.2, 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.
11. It is in these circumstances the writ petition, in my view, deserve to succeed. It is accordingly allowed. The respondent No.2 and/or the District Magistrate of newly created district i.e. District Bhimnagar, within whose jurisdiction petitioner's application as alleged would fall shall pass order on the petitioner's application for firearm licence submitted on 20.10.2008 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs.25,000/- against both the respondents.
12. However, the cost at the first instance shall be paid by the respondent No.1 but it shall have liberty to recover the same from concerned official(s) holding the office of respondent No.2 responsible for incurring such liability by the State. It is, however, made clear that this liberty to recover the amount shall precede by such disciplinary enquiry as permissible in law.
Order Date :- 23.11.2011
KA
Copy of the judgement is also attached as attachment below with this post.
Another judgement related to Arms Act 1959 can be read at https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Allahabad-high-court-says-rkba-part-of-article-21-44153.asp
