Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) PURSUANT to this Court's order dated 2.11.2011, Sri Sandeep Salunke, Secretary, Home, is present and has also filed personal affidavit.
(2.) A perusal thereof shows that though this Court passed a judgment as long back on 3.4.2006, directing State Government to consider and dispose of petitioner's application moved for renewal of firearm licence (subject matter of writ petition) within a period of two months from the date a certified copy is served, no decision was taken by State Government and the matter remained in cold storage upto 2009. Thereafter when petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act seeking status of his application and the compliance of this Court's order, he was informed by Under Secretary and Public Information Officer, U.P. Government, Home Department by letter dated 17.12.2009 that District Magistrate is being directed to take appropriate decision in the matter in compliance of Court's order dated 03.4.2006. The District Magistrate thereafter sent the matter back to Government by letter dated 28.6.2010 stating that this Court had directed State Government to pass appropriate order and thereafter nothing was done at the level of State Government. In the personal affidavit filed by present Home Secretary Sri Salunke, he only said that he had directed District Magistrate concerned to inform about the officers responsible for disobedience of Court's order.
(3.) THIS letter is clearly a sheer eye wash for the reason that this Court issued a mandamus to the State Government to take a decision. No attempt was made by respondent No.1 to seek correction/modification/amendment in the Court's order dated 3.4.2006 and apparently the said order was passed in presence of learned Standing Counsel representing the State Government. Even if State Government was of the view that appropriate order could have been passed by District Magistrate, it could have directed District Magistrate to take appropriate decision well in time but on its part it kept the matter unattended for more than three years and it is only when the petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act, a formal letter dated 17.12.2009 was issued informing the petitioner that District Magistrate is being directed to take an appropriate decision with endorsement directing District Magistrate to do so and State Government thereafter sit tight as if its responsibility is over. The District Magistrate in its turn sent the matter back to the State Government but then again nothing was done on the part of respondent No.1 till this Court required Home Secretary to appear before this Court and explain the lapse/laches/inaction in the matter.;