- (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: - 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. Learned Standing Counsel at this stage pointed out that the present District Magistrate has come very recently and he has joined at District Farrukhabad only on 24.9.2011. Prior thereto, when the order was passed by the Commissioner, Smt. K. Dhanlaxmi, Smt. Ministi S. and Sri Rigjiyan Samfil have held the office of District Magistrate. He further stated that the present District Magistrate cannot be said to be at fault solely.
(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.;