JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner has come to this Court in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a simple complaint of inaction on the part of District Magistrate, Farrukhabad regarding non-compliance of the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by Commissioner, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur in an appeal filed under Section 18 of Arms Act against the District Magistrate’s order dated 12.8.2010 whereby petitioner’s fire-arm licence was cancelled. The Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside District Magistrate’s order and sent record back to District Magistrate for necessary action. The complaint of petitioner is that despite appellate order passed by Commissioner, the District Magistrate has not released/restored fire-arm licence No. 1472/94 and Rifle No. 3850. 2. Learned Standing Counsel initially sought time to seek instructions, why and under what authority the District Magistrate is keeping the matter pending and not considering restoration of fire-arm licence and release of weapon to the petitioner. Despite time having been granted on 9.8.2011 respondents failed to provide any instructions to learned Standing Counsel. 3. On 16.8.2011 when the matter was taken up again, learned Standing Counsel expressed his inability stating that despite information given to District Magistrate, he has not received any instructions. Consequently this Court directed respondent No. 2 to appear before this Court on 24.8.2011 and explain why Commissioner’s order dated 6.4.2011 has not been complied with and in what circumstances he is sitting over the matter for such a long time. 4. Pursuant thereto an application supported with an affidavit of Sri Mohan Singh, Tehsildar Sadar, District Farrukhabad was filed before this Court on 24.8.2011 stating that District Magistrate, Sri Rigziyan Samphil received telephonic message from Standing Counsel on 16.8.2011 and on the same day passed an order restoring petitioner’s fire-arm licence and weapon. A copy of the order dated 16.8.2011 was appended as Annexure-CA-1 to the affidavit. 5. A perusal of the order shows that Commissioner’s order dated 6.4.2011 was received in the office of District Magistrate on 4.5.2011 but due to an accident met causing fracture in leg, Sri Samphil, the District Magistrate could not comply with Commissioner’s order and it remain pending for more than three and half months. Annexure-CA-2 to the affidavit shows that pursuant to District Magistrate’s order dated 16.8.2011 In-charge Kotwali, Farrukhabad relased firearm licence and weapon to petitioner on 23.8.2011. Annexure-CA-2 to the affidavit shows that pursuant to District Magistrate’s order dated 16.8.2011 In-charge Kotwali, Farrukhabad relased firearm licence and weapon to petitioner on 23.8.2011. The affidavit also appended two documents showing a report lodged at Police Station Behta Gokul, District Hardoi reporting accident met on 20.4.2011 and a discharge ticket of Gandhi Memorial & Associated Hospitals, Lucknow, Department of Orthopaedic showing fracture on District Magistrate’s leg and treatment administered to him. Paras 10 and 11 of the affidavit says that Sri Rigziyan Samphil, District Magistrate was advised for bed rest and thus though bedridden, he was discharging duties of the office of District Magistrate from his Camp Office/residence Headquarter, Farrukhabad. He had no information/notice of Commissioner’s order till 16.8.2011 when he got the information through learned Standing Counsel and thereafter passed immediately appropriate order. 6. The affidavit was conspicuously silent on long delay and total inaction for the last three and half months. Considering the fact that a District Magistrate is required to discharge multifarious functions under different statutes, besides everyday observance of law and order situation in the entire district the Court enquired from learned Standing Counsel, if a person holding the office of District Magistrate is so unwell that he is confined to bed, then how statutory and other functions for three and half months were being carried out or the District Farrukhabad was reeling under a non-functional District Head and whether the Government was conscious of this situation in District Farrukhabad. The Standing Counsel was not in a position to make any comment on this aspect and seeks further time whereupon the matter was adjourned to 1.9.2011. 7. On the next date, i.e., 1.9.2011, Sri Rigziyan Samphil, District Magistrate, Farrukhabad himself appeared before this Court placing entire blame of delay upon non placing record including the order of Commissioner before him by the Reader posted in his office who is personally impleaded as respondent No. 4 in this case. Sri Samphil also admitted that even after three and half months from the date of accident, he had not recovered since the fractured bone had not jointed properly due to some medical complication and as late as on 25.8.2011 when he was re-checked by the Doctors, he was advised bed rest for further two months. Sri Samphil also admitted that even after three and half months from the date of accident, he had not recovered since the fractured bone had not jointed properly due to some medical complication and as late as on 25.8.2011 when he was re-checked by the Doctors, he was advised bed rest for further two months. In para 14 of the counter-affidavit he said, besides other: “It is due to the fact that the answering respondent was not having proper health and his moveability was totally confined and he has to take support on the wheel-chair/Baisakhi. The doctors have advised for bed-rest for further two months. In this situation the deponent could discharge his duties only from the Camp Office and could not take speedy steps for disposal of the cases.” 8. He admits that due to his illness he was not able to dispose of matters expeditiously. Referring to corrective measures he has taken, it is stated that a show-cause notice has been issued to respondent No. 4 on 26.8.2011 and he assured to complete proceedings against respondent No. 4 expeditiously. 9. At this stage, Sri Madhvendra Mishra, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 seeks time to file reply since the responsibility of delay was placed on the shoulder of respondent No. 4. The matter was further adjourned. 10. On the next date, a short affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 sworn by one Mohan Singh, Tehsildar Sadar, District Farrukhabad placing on record that after receiving reply from respondent No. 4 an advere entry has been awarded to him on 29.8.2011. He further said that a number of other irregularities were also noticed in the functioning of respondent No. 4 hence vide order dated 4.9.2011 he was placed under suspension and Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar was made Inquiry Officer. He further said that respondent No. 4 as well as the Arms Clerk both have been transferred from their concerned seats by order dated 3.9.2011. 11. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 sworn by Sri Sobaran Singh, respondent No. 4 himself. He has said that the record of petitioner, after receiving order of Commissioner, was repeatedly sent to District Magistrate’s Camp Office at his residence but since he was not sitting properly/regularly in his office, the file was returned every time. 4 and 5 sworn by Sri Sobaran Singh, respondent No. 4 himself. He has said that the record of petitioner, after receiving order of Commissioner, was repeatedly sent to District Magistrate’s Camp Office at his residence but since he was not sitting properly/regularly in his office, the file was returned every time. The District Magistrate was working only on four days in a week, namely, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday out of which two days he used to look after criminal matters and rest two civil matters. Since the present District Magistrate was not performing his work properly, he did not pass any order on the file and has wrongly blamed other officials of his office though there is no negligence on the part of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. He further made serious allegations against District Magistrate in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit, which read as under: “7. That it is also relevant to submit here that the present District Magistrate join the said post at District Farrukhabad on 27.2.2011 and from such date till 1.9.2011 he only two days present in his office and also not meet to Public Time and not join to Tehsil Divas. 8. That the present District Magistrate neither gone in Tehsil Diwas nor in the Thana Diwas and the file sent by the answering respondents from 20.4.2011 to continue to his office which proceeding was also mention in the sheet. Photocopy of mention sheet is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA 1. 9. That the contents of para No. 24 of the writ petition are partly denied and in reply it is submitted that the answering respondents are complied with the order of this Hon’ble Court by sending the file in time to time before the present District Magistrate but due to not sitting in his office the file always returned back and the O.S.D./Type Babu of the District Magistrate has demanded the illegal gratification from the answering respondents for further proceedings.” 12. Since the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 made allegations against co-respondent, namely, respondent No. 2, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri C.S. Singh sought further time to reply such averments made in counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The matter was adjourned accordingly. 13. Since the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 made allegations against co-respondent, namely, respondent No. 2, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri C.S. Singh sought further time to reply such averments made in counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The matter was adjourned accordingly. 13. The affidavit of respondent No. 2 now filed apparently deny allegations made against him by his subordinate officials. 14. It is not necessary for this Court to go into these rival allegations and to find out who is correct and who is not. What appears to be almost admitted by all the respondents is that the order of superior authority though passed in favour of the petitioner; remained on file for quite a length of time without any sense of accountability on the part of district administrative authority regarding its statutory obligations. In this system of inaction and apathy, people from lower to highest echelon of hierarchy participated with equal zeal and have tried to compete with each other to excel. This is really an unfortunate situation where the Government officials find pleasure in harassing the helpless individual by making him to run from pillar to post day after day being fearless of any consequential, preventive or deterrent action against such defiance. The interesting aspect in this case is that the District Head admittedly met a serious accident as long back as on 20.4.2011, was incapable to attend his office for months together but the State Government did not find any expediency to see how entire district shall be looked after for administrative and other functions where the District Head was not capable of moving and is confined to bed. He was virtually functioning only symbolically from his residence and thereby attempted to justify non proceeding on medical leave, what to say of leave. The situation really reflects on the extraordinary but unknown creamy attraction attached with the office of District Magistrate for which an officer once posted, normally do not take chance of leaving the office even for a few days though he is not capable to attend office. One is more interested to ensure quid pro quo return attached with the office. The situation really reflects on the extraordinary but unknown creamy attraction attached with the office of District Magistrate for which an officer once posted, normally do not take chance of leaving the office even for a few days though he is not capable to attend office. One is more interested to ensure quid pro quo return attached with the office. Despite repeated query, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not give any explanation otherwise to answer why such an important office remain occupied by a person who was bedridden and admittedly unable to attend his office and normal duties what to talk of visits of different places for administrative and other functions in District Farrukhabad comprising of several Tehsils. The silence, inaction and lack of response to appellate order passed by Commissioner for three and half months remain unexplained on the part of respondents. The record shows that though the petitioner alone has gathered the guts to approach this Court against such inaction of respondent No. 2 but the similar situation continued in respect to many others. 15. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Ministry of Home is also one of the party but it has chosen not to place any response in this matter. 16. The last affidavit sworn on 16.10.2011 of respondent No. 2 mentions this much that at the time of filing the said affidavit he was transferred from District Farrukhabad. These facts demonstrate grim scenario in which the districts are being administered in the State. 17. Everyday almost a dozen or more writ petitions are being received by this Court complaining about total inaction on the part of District Magistrates, almost in all the districts of State of Uttar Pradesh. The fire-arm applications remain unattended for months and years together and no worthwhile explanation has been forthcoming for such inaction. It is not unworthy to mention that applications owe their status to statute and District Magistrates are under statutory obligation to pass order on such applications in one or the other way, within a reasonable time. The pendency of several months and years, it appears, do not cause any concern to the State but unnecessarily burden this Court which is already reeling under an extraordinary large number of pending cases for which also the State Authorities are primarily responsible. The pendency of several months and years, it appears, do not cause any concern to the State but unnecessarily burden this Court which is already reeling under an extraordinary large number of pending cases for which also the State Authorities are primarily responsible. Most of the cases are where the action of State’s authorities whether taken correctly or not, is under judicial review, but the majority constitute of such cases where the poor citizen is aggrieved and tortured due to inaction on the part of authorities concerned. The statute provide wide powers upon the District and Divisional Heads but they are not capable to cope up with the work, may be deliberately, or due to heavy work load but that cannot be an explanation for the continued sufferance of people and this how it reflects to an added burden on this Court in the shape of writ petitions seeking mandamus commanding officials of Government to discharge their statutory duty and obligations within a reasonable and specified time. The time taken by such matters could have been better utilised for other substantial work but the cumulative effect of all this has loaded the judiciary also with an extraordinary pendency. The reflection of inaction on the part of State authorities in effect is causing serious dent on the otherwise useful efficacy of judiciary. The situation demands an immediate appropriate corrective measure on the part of administration. Unfortunately this Court feels that priorities of Government find no place for the above urgent action and consideration. 18. Having said so, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this case since relief sought by petitioner does not survive any further. His fire-arm licence and weapon has already been restored and released by respondents. But for unexplained and unreasonable inaction on the part of respondent No. 2, I find it appropriate to award a cost of Rs. 5000/- to petitioner, which at the first instance shall be paid by respondent No. 1 with further liberty to recover the same from official concerned who is found responsible for such unexplained undue delay, after making such inquiry as permissible in law. 19. So far as cross allegations between respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and 5 are concerned, I leave the matter to be enquired into by Chief Secretary, U.P. Government who shall take appropriate action against erring official(s) in accordance with law. 20. 19. So far as cross allegations between respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and 5 are concerned, I leave the matter to be enquired into by Chief Secretary, U.P. Government who shall take appropriate action against erring official(s) in accordance with law. 20. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to Chief Secretary, U.P. Government by Registrar General forthwith for communication and compliance. 21. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions/ observations. ——————